Many of you may know that I spent a few years in the Boston area. And no, this isn’t about baseball, though I can say – it is hard being a Fan of the Pinstripes in Red Sox Nation. Clearly, though, I survived.

No, this is about some of the legal cases that have Martha Coakley’s name on them. Recently, Bronwyn’s Harbor made mention of one case, the Fells Acres Case, with which I am very familiar. Why? Because I knew Cheryl LaFave and her mother, Violet Amirault. They, along with their brother, were falsely accused of child abuse at the daycare center they ran. They are now all out of prison. John Stossel did an investigative report for ABC News on the Fells Acres case, and the imprisonment of the Amirault family (h/t to Brownyn’s Harbor):

Three lives were destroyed by false allegations – three. People, GOOD people, who never deserved the horrible stigma that became attached to them. And Martha Coakley was hellbent on keeping Gerald Amirault in prison, even after the glaring lack of evidence, and the glaring coercion of testimony from the children.

There was another big case with which Coakley was connected (h/t to Nazareth Priest for this article). That was the “Pedophile Priest” case,t he second in a three-part series of “Martha’s Greatest Hits: The Things The Democrats Would Like You To Forget About Martha Coakley.” Click HERE for Part Three.

Back to the case at hand. This one is a doozy:

The “Pedophile Priest” Case, 1995-2002: Coakley cut secret deal in 1995 that allowed Father Geoghan to molest again.

Martha Coakley is running for the U.S. Senate in part on her track record of keeping children safe from predators. The actual facts, however, are somewhat at odds with her campaign biography.

One of the most notorious cases of homosexual child abuse in the “pedophile priests” scandal that rocked the American Catholic Church in general and the Archdiocese of Boston in particular over the past twenty years involved Father John Geoghan, who came to symbolize the cancer in the church.

Here’s a brief introduction to the late, defrocked Father Geoghan by Denise Noe in Crime Magazine. Be sure to read the whole story, then come back.

The unofficial poster boy for priest pedophilia was a Boston priest named Father John Geoghan. He became a symbol for everything the church had done wrong in handling this problem when, on Jan. 6, 2002, The Boston Globe broke the story about how Boston’s archbishop, Cardinal Bernard Law, had moved the abusive Geoghan from parish to parish over the years. The article also discussed the $10 million dollar settlement the church had already made with families of his victims. After the article ran, an embarrassed Law apologized – and turned over to law enforcement the names of dozens of Boston priests who had been similarly accused.

The Geoghan scandal rocked Boston, and eventually resulted in Cardinal Law’s removal as Archbishop. In part to shield him from possible prosecution, the late Pope John Paul II summoned Law to Rome, where he was ensconced as the Archpriest of the historic Basilica of St. Mary Major, and replaced him in Boston with Archbishop Sean O’Malley.

And what was Ms. Coakley’s role in all this? At first, she was applauded for her role in the successful prosecution of Father Geoghan in 2002. But then it was discovered that she had plea-bargained away molestation charges against him in 1995, letting him off with probation in a deal that was kept secret from the public.

What?

One possible explanation for her actions is that she had lost a high-profile case against a priest in suburban Woburn, Father Paul Manning; Manning’s parishioners reportedly cheered when he was acquitted of molesting an 11-year-old altar boy at his 1994 trial.

Still, as David Clohessy, national director of the Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests, noted at the time: “Charging Geoghan with something and exposing him publicly might well have brought forward victims, witnesses, whistle-blowers, and evidence that could have resulted in a conviction and a tougher sentence.’’

Sigh. I don’t even know what to say about this. But here is what Martha Coakley has to say in defending this decision:

Wow. I am no attorney, but I have worked with and for attorneys. I cannot imagine them not pursuing every lead they could in a case. I cannot imagine them pushing to get the records from the Roman Catholic Diocese, even if they were freakin’ deacons in the church. Holy smokes.

The article continues:

And here’s the Boston Globe story, recounting the whole sordid mess:

When Martha Coakley was the Middlesex district attorney, her office prosecuted the Rev. John J. Geoghan based on an allegation that he squeezed the buttocks of a 10-year-old boy a single time at a public swimming pool. The highly publicized 2002 conviction won Coakley widespread praise for bringing the first successful criminal case against the widely accused pedophile, a priest many had called “Father Jack.’’

But seven years earlier, Coakley, then the head of the Middlesex child abuse unit, had Geoghan in her sights and took a dramatically different approach. Back then, three grade-school brothers told investigators that Geoghan had inappropriately touched them during numerous visits to their Waltham home, and had made lewd telephone calls to them. Rather than prosecute, Coakley agreed to grant Geoghan a year of probation in a closed-door proceeding that received no media attention at all.

Because of the deal, Geoghan faced no formal charges and no criminal record.

In sanctioning the 1995 probation agreement, Coakley, now the front-runner in a special election for the United States Senate, never pressed the Boston Archdiocese for any prior complaints against Geoghan.

That’s one way to make a name for yourself: let a pedophile off the hook privately so that he can molest more children, and then make a big, public conviction to take credit for your amazing work keeping children safe from……the pedophile priest you secretly let go seven years earlier.

And as for Father Geoghan, he was strangled and killed by a fellow inmate in February, 2004.

That is quite a sordid tale indeed. I encourage you to read the other two parts of this series (I’ll give you a hint about Part Three – it has to do with unreported assets). It is eye opening.

Now, I know some people are surprised I am not supporting the woman in this case (though since I live in SC, I don’t exactly have a vote – oh wait, maybe if I worked for ACORN I could…Ahem.). And I did like Coakley when I first heard about her. I was excited at the prospect of a woman taking over Teddy’s seat, an irony considering his way with women. But, as Scott Brown has reminded us, it isn’t Teddy’s Seat:

As I have stated all along, it is the RECORD of the candidates that needs to be considered. The decisions Coakley made as Attorney General are indicative of the decisions she will make as a US Senator, and those DO affect all of us. This is exactly for what I was calling during the 2008 Primary Season – look at the records of the candidates, and vote for the one who stands above.

That means, when the Massachusetts Democrats send out a four page mailer with the claim that Scott Brown wants to turn away ALL rape victims from hospitals, they sure as hell better be able to back that up with his RECORD. This is to what they are referring:

Brown is a state senator, and in 2005 he filed an amendment that would have allowed workers at religious hospitals or with firmly held religious beliefs to avoid giving emergency contraception to rape victims. The amendment failed, and Brown voted in favor of a bill allowing the contraception. He also voted to override a veto issued by his fellow Republican, then-Gov. Mitt Romney.

This is casting aspersions plain and simple. Stick to the facts, stick to the records, let the people decide based on that. Don’t take (yet another)page out of the Obama playbook a la the “Harry and Louise” ads. If the party believes she is the best candidate, they shouldn’t have to resort to flat-out lies about her opponent’s record.

So we need more women in Congress? Hells yeah. But that doesn’t mean we should want any woman, regardless of her record or the (stupid) things she says. In this particular case, Scott Brown appears to be the better candidate. He is pro-choice, a lieutenant colonel (30 years) in the National Guard JAG Corps, and supports civil unions for LGB people, like (too) many Democrats. As far as I can tell, Brown knows Curt Schilling is NOT a Yankees fan, so there’s that…

The people will decide who will fill the people’s seat. Until then, it is sure to be an interesting ride.

So, with all the hot water many Democrats are in now, aided by the new book, Game Change, no doubt the fundraising calls will get more and more insistent. They have to overcome not just what was in the book, but stories like this from the Washington Post, “Sen. Reid and son, Cory, Each Considered A Burden For The Other’s Campaign In Nevada.” Or how about this one, “Obama’s Approval Rating Dips To A New Low“? Then there’s this one, “Scott Brown Swearing-in Would Be Stalled To Pass Healthcare Reform“. And that is merely the beginning of the problems for the Democratic National Party.

By the way, one thing about this book, and that is the attacks (what else is new) on the Clintons, both of them. Tuesday morning, I just happened to turn on the news and there was Laura Ingraham, of all people, on. She was asked about what this book said regarding the Clintons, and – I cannot believe I am about to reference her – she said something along the lines of (this is not a precise quote, and I haven’t been able to get a link yet, but will supply it if it comes available), “Bill Clinton said he didn’t think Obama had the experience to be president, and Hillary did, especially after Arkansas, the White House, etc. Why is that a surprise?” Uh, yeah. No kidding. She added that she bet Hillary’s approval numbers were higher than Obama’s, which we do know is accurate. And of course, the Big Dawg was right on target, too, wasn’t he?? She continued to say that nothing in the book about the Clintons was that big of a surprise, which makes me wonder why there are articles like this one around, “The End OF The Clinton Machine.” Are these writers just HOPING so, and if that is the case, why? As Hillary always said, “what didn’t they like, the peace, or the prosperity?” Uh yeah.

Therein lies the end of the digression.

So, those headlines above, especially the last one (wanting to change the rules again)? That pretty much says it all about Obama taking his Chicago Politics to a national level. Oh, yippee.

Consequently, the combination of this being an election year, the rapid decline of approval for Obama AND the Congress, suggests to me we will be getting lots of fundraising calls, especially those of us who have given money in the past.

Just yesterday, I received a phone call from Emily’s List that went something like this:

Okay, maybe not QUITE that extreme, but I have had some very insistent thugs on the other end of DNC and DNC-affiliated organizations arguing with me about why I should give them any more money. This woman argued with me, too. Um, MY money, and I can give it to whomever I wish. If you start DEMANDING it, guess how much you’re gonna get from me? Nada, zip, zilch, nothing, big donut hole, zero dollars.

After two years of essentially the same response from me, “I don’t give money to liars, cheats, thieves, misogynists, and homophobe,” I feel I need new material. So I am turning to you for some pithy responses to the demands for money from the DNC.

Let’s hear it! What pithy retorts can I give these people?

But what is not being focused on in this book, at least so far, is how clearly it asserts the fix was in AGAINST Hillary Clinton. In each piece thus far, there has been something about the DNC not wanting Hillary Clinton to be the nominee, or the senators with clout secretly backing Obama. In the NY Magazine article, “Saint Elizabeth and the Ego Monster,” there are passages like this:

Edwards never expected to be the third wheel in 2008. The race was going to be Hillary versus him. That was how he saw it from the start. She would be the front-runner, of course. But as sure as night follows day, there would be an alternative, an anti-Hillary, and he would be it.

The Democratic Establishment agreed that there would be—and certainly should be—a viable challenger to Clinton. The party’s pooh-bahs on Capitol Hill were privately terrified about the prospect of Hillary rolling to the nomination. They feared that she was too polarizing to win, that she would drag down House and Senate candidates in red and purple states; and they worried, too, about Bill’s putative affairs (emphasis mine). But while the Clintons themselves regarded Edwards as Hillary’s most formidable rival, there existed a deep wariness about the North Carolinian among his fellow Democrats. In the Senate, in particular, Edwards was regarded almost universally by his former colleagues as a callow, shallow phony. Quietly, the Establishment began a quest to find a different alternative, eventually settling on the unlikely horse that was Obama—with Harry Reid personally, and secretly, urging the Illinois senator to run against Clinton.

So much for the people choosing our nominee, right? I just love that the “pooh-bahs” decided that Hilary was too polarizing. THEY created this hype, along with the Republicans during Bill’s tenure, and with the MSM. But the people who listened to her, who read her policies, who saw how she worked, knew she was exactly who we wanted to run for president

This isn’t the only example out of this book. There is also the claim by the book’s authors that Chuck Schumer secretly supported Obama, though he publicly claimed to support Hillary Clinton. Needless to say, Schumer’s people claim this isn’t true, but again, even taking what the authors wrote with a grain of sand, this doesn’t sound good. The book goes on to claim Schumer encouraged a “get tough” policy against Clinton, and enlisted another senator to support Obama, presumably in his stead:

The book reports that in the summer of 2007, Schumer and others wanted Team Obama to get tougher on Clinton.

At one point, the authors contend, Schumer felt “Obama needed to take a two-by-four to Hillary,” the book says.

Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill was tapped as the messenger from the worried senators to the Obama campaign.

She denies feeling any such pressure.

“It wasn’t like he [Schumer] came to me and said, ‘Be for Barack Obama – I gotta be for Hillary,’” McCaskill told the Daily News Saturday. “He never, ever said a word to me that would give the kind of impression [this book seems] to be giving. He was never giving advice to the campaign on how to undermine her.”

What a bunch of back-stabbing conniving Brutus’ these senators are. And the DNC, too, if you ask me.

The glaring fallacy with the logic of the DNC and its minions are the number are Republicans who crossed over for Hillary Clinton. Former dyed-in-the-wool Republicans becoming caucus captains for Hillary in Texas, for example (an example relayed to me by the person who crossed over). All of the post voting showed Hillary Clinton got the majority of Democratic votes AND a large number of Republican votes. Yet the DNC in its infinite “wisdom” decided Hillary Clinton could NOT be the nominee, and worked their asses off to break every rule necessary to make that so.

No doubt, there will be more to this book after it is released this week, but there are some glaring omissions mentioned thus far. Ben Smith noted that Obama was pretty much the same throughout the campaign, thus most of these revelations are about the Clintons, the Edwards, et al. But as one commenter noted:

Where are the stories of how the campaign handled Jerimah (sic) Wright?

Where are the stories about how they had to put a muzzle on Michelle Obama?

Where are the stories about ’sweetie’ and calling his grandmother a ‘typical white person’?

And who did Obama think he picked when he picked Joe Biden? He must be stupid if he is surprised by how he has acted!

The secret to Obama winning was the media and frankly Mark Halprin doesn’t want to blow that gig.

No kidding. Don’t forget the “Obama and Biden Can’t Stand Each Other” part of this book referenced above, which is sure not getting much play by the MSM:

The relationship between Barack Obama and Joe Biden grew so strained during the 2008 campaign, according to a new book, that the two rarely spoke and aides not only kept Biden off internal conference calls but refused to even tell him they existed.

Instead, a separate campaign call was regularly scheduled between the then-Delaware senator and two of Obama’s top campaign aides – “so that they could keep a tight rein on him,” write journalists Mark Halperin and John Heilemann in “Game Change,” a long-awaited account of the 2008 campaign.

Uh, yeah. So, the bottom line as far as I can tell from this book so far is this: the Democratic Party committed massive fraud in 2008, costing voters millions of dollars in campaign donations to candidates they had already determined were not going to get the nomination. That is fraud, pure and simple. Not only did I give donations (in the beginning to John Edwards), but I gave a LOT to Hillary Clinton.

If the DNC knew they were never going to let her get the nomination no matter how she performed, no matter how many people voted for her, no matter WHAT, that, to me, is fraud. And they damn well better be held accountable for that, don’t you think?

As I stare at the keyboard, the progress is slow.

Possibly because I have no words to describe my shock and dismay at the way women voted against their own self interest and rewarded a party that trashed the rights and reputations of two strong women. They came out in big numbers to, once again, reward the Democratic Party for treating them as second class citizens. GLBT voters in many instances did the same thing.

The Democratic Party offered women nothing this year except a threat – vote for us or Roe v. Wade will be overturned. And by the way, as blogger Texas Hill Country pointed out, it was Democrats that voted down GLBT rights in 4 states this year.

Hillary Clinton was for years demonized and painted as “divisive and polarizing” so effectively that the electorate was poisoned against her—until they actually met her up close and personal, or watched her on the campaign trail passionately fighting for her policies and candidacy.

They then realized these labels were just so much media hogwash. The same vilification and gutting was done to Sarah Palin, and from the looks of it, people are buying the bogus media spin. Whatever the respective politics of these two ladies, the “diva” moniker that has now been attached to Palin is no more true that the “polarizing” slur that had been leveled against Hillary for many years.

Congratulations, people, you’ve allowed yourselves to be manipulated once again.

Surely the election was less an up or down vote on Senator Obama than a referendum on George Bush, the Iraq war and the tyrannical rule of the neo-cons. The economic meltdown also got blamed on Bush, while the truth is there is plenty of blame to go around and the Democrats must bear great responsibility for fighting against any regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Moreover, we proved once and for all that the media and big money picks our presidents. This year, we proved that our votes mean a little less. We are more than happy to be told which path to follow. And logic be damned.

But I cannot put all the blame on those who made the error in judgment of choosing Barack Obama, either in the primaries or in the general election. We are faced with two wars abroad and economic turmoil at home. Americans are struggling to make ends meet and do not necesarilly have the time to get out a spoon and a magic decoder ring and dig around on the internet to suss out the truth of a story that the media has deigned to withhold from them. The American people, all of them, of every party, demographic and strata, deserved a lot better than the press gave them. The end result was planned a long time ago. I just wish someone had sent us the memo. It would have saved all of us a lot of time, money and effort.

While I was truly very moved on behalf of the African American community in celebrating this historic moment, I wish I could be happier about the methods Obama and his campaign manager, David Axelrod, employed to get here. As much as I long for justice in this regard, those cries will probably fall on deaf ears. The media and the DNC have created a protective coating around Barack Obama the likes of which I have never seen.

I was absolutely wrong in thinking he could not win and my fatal error in judgment was thinking the press would only vilify a woman; but since they had always had a good relationship with Senator McCain, I truly believed the general election would at least allow some vetting and a little more balance in press favorability toward both candidates. How wrong I was. The media helped sling the mud at Senator McCain, an honorable man, while clearing the brush away from Obama’s path to continue his clear road to the White House. Almost a billion dollars in dough didn’t hurt either.

Those who thought Bush was previously made of Teflon will find he looks like a pin cushion compared to Obama. And I hope that the media is happy about the Frankenstein they have created. It will be very interesting to see if the press, after the initial luster wears off, will make any attempts to do their job, or will once again, as they did with President Bush, provide cover and not realistically examine the policies and actions of an Obama Presidency.

In the New Hampshire Union Leader, Thomas Sowell, the Rose and Milton Friedman senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, posted the editorial, “A Lack of Substance:”

…Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign. Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of “change” are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries — and failed repeatedly in other countries. Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That’s been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their takeoff into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of “change.”

Putting restrictions on international trade to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Smoot-Hawley tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to “spread the wealth around,” as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being “a small country,” as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counterattack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy — and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn’t have nuclear weapons to back up that threat — yet.
…
What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions — none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.

Look, I don’t think we should start running around with our hair on fire. And whether one subscribes to Mr. Sowell’s foreign policy doomsday scenario regarding Iran isn’t even the point. But surely, whether the threat is as dire a picture as he paints or not, clearly there is one. And Joe Biden’s dangerous prediction that Obama will be tested in the first six months of his presidency is not one we wish to see come true.

I am all in favor of diplomacy first, but one needs to use the right combination of carrots and sticks. Diplomacy is certainly more effective if foreign leaders believe they are actually dealing with an American leader possessed of a spine of steel. I know Hillary’s got one. I know McCain’s got one. Obama. No. I’m just not seeing it.

President Sarkozy of France has referred to Obama’s foreign policy ideas and acumen as “hopelessly naïve.” The new Russian President Medvedev is sort of throwing down the gauntlet indicating that if America wants better relations with Russia, we are going to have to reach out and pucker up. Clearly this is not an indicator they think they are dealing with strong American leadership.

The fact that the stock market plunged nearly 500 points after Election Day is also not an indicator of confidence in America’s choice. Oh, well. Logic be damned.

In the NH Union Leader, a commenter left the following in response to Mr. Sowell’s editorial:

C’mon people, let’s give Obama a chance to prove we non kool-ade drinkers wrong. Look, nobody is more disappointed this morning than I, but, it is customary to give a new President a “honeymoon” period at the start of his first term. Let’s try to honor that custom.

The strange bedfellows responsible for Obamas victory may want to savor the honeymoon, as the marriage promises to be a very rocky union. I, for one, refuse to play the role of abused spouse in this forced marriage. There are many ways around an oppressive government, and if Obama plans on over-reaching, I promise to use each and every one of them.

Let’s hope Obama’s administration doesn’t seize the mantle of “the worst Presidency in US history”. I’m confident the socialist spin machine will be able to place any Obama mis-step at the feet of George W. Bush. Hell, they still, on occasion, blame Reagan.

We appear to be living the ancient Chinese curse:
“May you live in interesting times.”

I wonder if Rev. (not so) Wright will be at the Inauguration?
Interesting, indeed!

G*d Damn America? No, no, no, God Bless America!

— Michael Paradis, Manchester

Barack Obama will now be our President and I am doing my best to open my heart and lend support, not for his sake, because I still do not trust him, but for the sake of our country, which is in trouble. And we all need to pull together to get through the difficult situation in which we now find ourselves. I am hoping these sobering realities encourage President-Elect Obama to grow quickly into a new pair of shoes and hit the books. The winning is done. The posturing is done. Speeches are done. Now the real work begins.

I have watched in horror and amazement as deeds, gaffes, falsehoods and gross errors in judgment that would have taken down any other politician just slide from Obama like Teflon, much like George Bush. Bush’s problem is not that he’s a Republican. It is that he is a petty, arrogant bully who thinks he is anointed by God, much like Barack Obama.

I believe Obama’s supporters are voting for a carefully crafted narrative; a symbol rather than a man. Symbols don’t govern. Men do. Women do. A symbol is nothing if there is no substance behind it. Here is my closing argument that he is “words, just words” and the substance of Barack Obama is as thin as tissue paper.

Campaign manager David Axelrod had to find a way to propel an affable but rather wishy-washy, under-achieving legislator from Illinois with only a couple of years in the Senate under his belt past a host of far more accomplished candidates. Therefore ‘experience’ became a dirty word.

With Senator Obama’s silvery speeches, his slick, evasive way around all direct questions and no policy decisions one could pin on him, he was able to move close to the front of the field. But he could not get past his biggest obstacle: the brilliant Joan of Arc in a pantsuit, Hillary Clinton. All eight guys sharing the debate stage piled on, including Obama, but still, she came out on top with her preparedness and smarts. So the narrative had to be amended. Not only is experience a dirty word, “Clinton” had to become a dirty word as well.

We were reminded of Republicans hunting Bill Clinton endlessly in the 90’s and told that we didn’t want to support political dynasties, i.e., Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Well, Hillary is Bill’s wife, so technically, she’s a Rodham. No dynasty there, but no matter. So first “experience” became a dirty word and “Clinton” became a dirty word, too.

After seven years of George Bush, Democrats, starved to retake the presidency, were sick and tired of partisan bickering and infighting. Whether people loved the Clintons or not, some were afraid that perhaps the Clinton name meant that the “hunt” would start all over again so they were willing to buy Axelrod’s first narrative in order to escape the second.

And then the third narrative was born: Barack Obama is post-racial, post-partisan and stands apart from inside-the-beltway politics. He will cut through the gristle and build consensus because he has no enemies and is not set in his ways like some old pol.

Axelrod then had to create a fourth narrative: Barack as rock star. He needed to draw the eye in order to bypass the Clintons’ rock star status within the Democratic Party and to distract the American public from the most important reason not to vote for him: he didn’t know what he was doing and had a paper-thin resume.

Hence we got the super-sized rallies, the soaring speeches, the ‘fainting,’ people screaming “I love you, Barack” from the throngs in the audience. We now know that many of his enormous rallies had freebie giveaways – rock concerts and the like. But that was a well kept secret, like the rest of this well-crafted stage farce. So the mystique of Obama was born.

The Democrats’ antipathy toward the Iraq war also helped to birth the fifth Obama narrative – Obama as the anti-war candidate, because of a speech he allegedly gave in the ultra liberal Hyde Park district of Illinois in 2002, at no political cost to himself. He was the man of “good judgment” for his war opposition. Not that he had the power to vote on any such a thing at the time. If he did, surely he would have found a way to do as he had always done in the State Senate when challenged by a politically risky vote: vote “present” as he did there 130 times.

But then, an all too compliant media started to get the collective tingle up their leg. Whether this was out of fear of being called racist if they didn’t ‘treat the black guy nicely’, or just their obsession with taking Hillary down or both, I don’t know. But they willfully decided not to do their jobs. He received no vetting whatsoever.

Still, Hillary Clinton had a formidable lead in the polls and was winning the majority of primaries before Super Tuesday (including Michigan and Florida), so he needed a new narrative to blunt her momentum and I’m sure everyone remembers what that was. It was born after Hillary’s unexpected win in New Hampshire and solidified with the South Carolina primary in January – ‘Bill Clinton is a racist and Hillary is insensitive to the plight of the African American community.’

When the campaign started, Obama was ‘bi-racial.’ That wasn’t working for him so well, so he became ‘African American.’ Another new narrative – is that number six? I am beginning to lose count.

Axelrod knew that Obama’s exotic background and dispassionate, professorial demeanor was not connecting well with the black community. Therefore, he had to drive a wedge between the Clintons and the AA community who were so fond of them. Professor Sean Wilentz published a brilliant article in the New Republic called “Race Man” detailing exactly how this was done. Again, the media played an important role here because they gave carte blanche to any nonsense that came out of Obama’s mouth, or that of his surrogates. This narrative of Hillary and her supporters as racist, low-information “Archie Bunkers” grew legs, although it had no basis in fact.

Even the clueless Senators John Kerry and the bloviating Joe Biden told us we had to vote for Obama because he is black. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it is just as racist to vote for someone based on the color of their skin as it is not to. So I guess narrative three (post-racial, post-partisan) was discarded.

Then, against the will of most of the mainstream media in March and April, word of Obama’s malignant associations started to bleed out: the now convicted criminal Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers and more. Another new narrative was born: the “I didn’t know” or the “it was boneheaded” narrative: a convenient way for Obama to avoid taking personal responsibility for any of his past actions or associations. Good judgment, you say?

Sometimes I think Senator Obama gets up in the morning, walks to the mirror, smiles at it and challenges himself to see how many dissembling statements he can make to the press without getting called on them. I think it must be a game to him, otherwise, how could he dare to be so cavalier with the truth before the American people.

I’m not going to detail his lies about these close associations, or his involvement with ACORN, nor am I going to detail his reneging on his important policy promises like FISA, NAFTA, Iraq, Israel, don’t ask don’t tell, women’s rights, gun control, Bush’s faith based initiatives and so on. All of these are egregious breaks in faith and trust not only with his supporters but with the entire party. Worse still were the press and DNC elite riding shotgun for him at every turn helping him to steal the Democratic nomination through caucus fraud, blocking re-votes and illegitimately being awarded delegates he did not actually earn. Let’s leave that aside for the moment, too.

To me, the worst break in faith was his reneging on public financing, for one very simple reason: his entire candidacy was built on the notion that the American people needed a new way of doing business in Washington. That lobbyists, special interest groups or billionaires cannot buy the Presidency.

So far, he has spent nearly a billion dollars trying to buy the Presidency.

Much of this money has come to him from questionable – and untraceable – donations on the internet. He just spent millions blanketing five networks with a thirty minute infomercial; this after spending six million for his faux-Greek column event at Invesco Field bullying all into submission at the Convention; this after his Barack-apolooza celebrity European Tour, trying to overwhelm the multitudes, foreign and domestic, into believing he is the President without him actually having done anything to earn the title.

He has said that he rejects lobbyists but the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac scandal have revealed that aside from his ardent supporter, Senator Chris Dodd, head of the Senate Banking Committee, Senator Obama has received more lobbying money from them than anyone. A new way of doing business?

Pollsters are cooking the numbers shamelessly in Obama’s favor. Until this last week, where we finally had the likes of CNN’s John King admitting to the ridiculously biased media coverage, it was a veritable love fest for Barack and a sandstorm for Hillary Clinton and John McCain. Had Obama kept his word to accept public financing, as John McCain did, and just campaigned on the issues, as McCain has worked to do – do you think Obama would still be in this contest at all?

These are his fighting tools: Experience is a dirty word. Clinton is a dirty word. I take lobbying money but I pretend I don’t and no one calls me on it. I change my tune daily on different networks and no one bothers to compare my false statements. I am not bi-racial, I am black. I insult the white grandmother who raised me by labeling her a “typical white person.” I insult people who don’t vote for me by calling them “bitter voters who cling to God and guns.” The Clintons and their supporters are racists. Everyone who says anything bad about me must be racist. If the press does not write glowing reports about me, I kick them off my plane, although they have paid good money to be there. “I didn’t know” (about Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Pfleger, my aunt living illegally and in squalor in Boston). Everything you find wrong with me or my campaign I either didn’t know about or it was ‘boneheaded.’

This is a new, cleaner way of doing business in Washington? What is cleaner about trying to overwhelm everyone else out of the race before the American people notice that your policies won’t hold water, and that you won’t hold any position long enough to stand against the changing wind. Obama promised hope and change. He, like George Bush, proclaimed himself a great ‘uniter,’ yet he has rapidly emerged as the most divisive figure in politics. How ironic that he, and the media, tried to paint Hillary as ‘divisive and polarizing’ when he and his supporters are responsible for more hateful vitriol than I have yet seen. Friends and couples are actually breaking up over supporting or not supporting this man.

His careless ‘let’s throw money at the problem’ attitude is horrid, particularly in such difficult economic times.

Obama and Biden deriding the “Joe the Plumbers” of this world belies not only their rhetoric but basic Democratic principles. Further it shows Obama to be an elitist, out of touch with the needs and concerns of average Americans. He postulates on “spreading the wealth around” from the safety of his Chicago mansion, and says it is “selfish” not to do so, while he and his wife, millionaires, give relatively little to charity, and his ‘favorite aunt’ in allowed to contribute $260 to his campaign yet lives illegally and in squalor in Boston. Oh, he “didn’t know.”

More do as I say, not as I do. That is the most damning and devastating part of his candidacy. It was always built on a lie built upon yet another bunch of lies.

How can anyone run on their “good judgment,” yet say “I didn’t know” to breaking revelations at every turn and be given a pass? How can we trust such a man ‘to know’ enough to take care of us when he doesn’t know enough to take care of himself or his own? Or willfully turns a blind eye to crooked and divisive behavior?

A grossly inexperienced, under-qualified man is poised to take the most difficult job in the world at one of the most challenging times in our recent history. And the entire narrative the svengali Axelrod and the media have crafted for him is built on nothing but smoke and mirrors. Hope and change indeed.

Contrary to his image, he is nothing more than an old style politician, an opportunist borne of the Chicago Daley machine, a man who has worked to buy the presidency and changes his policy positions as one would change their socks. After the Joe the Plumber debacle, the myth of Mr. Hope and Change has been debunked. What was initially appealing about his candidacy no longer exists. What is left?

I can find no good reason to vote for him.

I certainly hope the American people will come to the same conclusion this Tuesday.

I don’t exactly know why pollsters have been giving Obama special treatment for the first time in the history of Presidential polling. But then again, Obama gets special treatment from everybody. It’s time to stop shielding this manchild.

Here is Gallup on Likely Voters, which for some “odd” reason fails to make their headlines. Likely voters are the people who are likely to actually show up at the polls.

The “traditional” likely voter model, which Gallup has employed for past elections, factors in prior voting behavior as well as current voting intention. This has generally shown a closer contest, reflecting the fact that Republicans have typically been more likely to vote than Democrats in previous elections. Today’s results show Obama with a two-point advantage over McCain using this likely voter model, 49% to 47%, this is within the poll’s margin of error. — Frank Newport

Cut the crap Gallup. Start putting the real polls up front instead of the Obama-Specials. We have enough skunks protecting The One in this election already.

Barack Obama is not the “map changer” CNN and all the discredited Democratic blogs claimed he would be; he is a supercilious underachiever who promises to color the entire nation red, not blue. He is tied with McCain in Minnesota and Pennsylvania; he is trailing McCain in Ohio AND MICHIGAN; he is CLINGING to a lead in New Jersey; and women in New York state are abandoning the Democratic ticket, thereby catapulting McCain-Palin within striking distance of Obama-Biden in a state Gore and Kerry won by 25 and 17 points respectively: portentous numbers, these, but the Democratic Party refused to listen when we warned them about this during the primary season. Democrats, I guess, want to lose. Indeed, they seem to enjoy it.

So now Obama must invest precious and finite resources in states such as New Jersey and New York. And instead of campaigning in Arkansas, Nevada, Florida or Louisiana, he will hold events in Minnesota, a state that should be solidly Democratic in the current political climate. He may even have to campaign in New York now that McCain is within five points of the underperforming Obama. A Democratic strategist quoted in the New York Post article I cite above summarizes this state of affairs succinctly. I quote:

“If it winds up being tight in New York, that means McCain wins the election nationally,” said a prominent Democrat familiar with some of the polling data.

I hope Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile and all the venal bloggers and operatives who manufactured support for Obama online are satisfied. For once McCain wins, and he will win, it will be time for real Democrats who enjoy winning elections to reform OUR presently defunct Party apparatus from within and from without. We have worked too hard for this Party to allow them to squander opportunity after opportunity in order to satisfy the warped desires of a small band of elitist mediocrities who again and again take those of us who comprise the Democratic base for granted.

Dear MoveOn member,

Yesterday was John McCain’s 72nd birthday. If elected, he’d be the oldest president ever inaugurated. And after months of slamming Barack Obama for ‘inexperience,’ here’s who John McCain has chosen to be one heartbeat away from the presidency: a right-wing religious conservative with no foreign policy experience, who until recently was mayor of a town of 9,000 people.

Huh?

Who is Sarah Palin? Here’s some basic background:

She was elected Alaska’s governor a little over a year and a half ago. Her previous office was mayor of Wasilla, a small town outside Anchorage. She has no foreign policy experience.

1 Palin is strongly anti-choice, opposing abortion even in the case of rape or incest.

2 She supported right-wing extremist Pat Buchanan for president in 2000.

3 Palin thinks creationism should be taught in public schools.

4 She’s doesn’t think humans are the cause of climate change.

5 She’s solidly in line with John McCain’s ‘Big Oil first’ energy policy. She’s pushed hard for more oil drilling and says renewables won’t be ready for years. She also sued the Bush administration for listing polar bears as an endangered species—she was worried it would interfere with more oil drilling in Alaska.

6 How closely did John McCain vet this choice? He met Sarah Palin once at a meeting. They spoke a second time, last Sunday, when he called her about being vice-president. Then he offered her the position.

7 This is information the American people need to see. Please take a moment to forward this email to your friends and family.

We also asked Alaska MoveOn members what the rest of us should know about their governor. The response was striking. Here’s a sample:

She is really just a mayor from a small town outside Anchorage who has been a governor for only 1.5 years, and has ZERO national and international experience. I shudder to think that she could be the person taking that 3AM call on the White House hotline, and the one who could potentially be charged with leading the US in the volatile international scene that exists today. —Rose M., Fairbanks, AK

She is VERY, VERY conservative, and far from perfect. She’s a hunter and fisherwoman, but votes against the environment again and again. She ran on ethics reform, but is currently under investigation for several charges involving hiring and firing of state officials. She has NO experience beyond Alaska. —Christine B., Denali Park, AK

As an Alaskan and a feminist, I am beyond words at this announcement. Palin is not a feminist, and she is not the reformer she claims to be. —Karen L., Anchorage, AK

Alaskans, collectively, are just as stunned as the rest of the nation. She is doing well running our State, but is totally inexperienced on the national level, and very much unequipped to run the nation, if it came to that. She is as far right as one can get, which has already been communicated on the news. In our office of thirty employees (dems, republicans, and nonpartisans), not one person feels she is ready for the V.P. position.—Sherry C., Anchorage, AK

She’s vehemently anti-choice and doesn’t care about protecting our natural resources, even though she has worked as a fisherman. McCain chose her to pick up the Hillary voters, but Palin is no Hillary. —Marina L., Juneau, AK

I think she’s far too inexperienced to be in this position. I’m all for a woman in the White House, but not one who hasn’t done anything to deserve it. There are far many other women who have worked their way up and have much more experience that would have been better choices. This is a patronizing decision on John McCain’s part- and insulting to females everywhere that he would assume he’ll get our vote by putting ‘A Woman’ in that position.—Jennifer M., Anchorage, AK

So Governor Palin is a staunch anti-choice religious conservative. She’s a global warming denier who shares John McCain’s commitment to Big Oil. And she’s dramatically inexperienced.

In picking Sarah Palin, John McCain has made the religious right very happy. And he’s made a very dangerous decision for our country.

In the next few days, many Americans will be wondering what McCain’s vice-presidential choice means. Please pass this information along to your friends and family.

Thanks for all you do.

–Ilyse, Noah, Justin, Karin and the rest of the team

Sources:

1. ‘Sarah Palin,’ Wikipedia, Accessed August 29, 2008

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Palin

2. ‘McCain Selects Anti-Choice Sarah Palin as Running Mate,’ NARAL Pro-Choice America, August 29, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17515&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=1

3. ‘Sarah Palin, Buchananite,’ The Nation, August 29, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17736&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=2

4. ”Creation science’ enters the race,’ Anchorage Daily News, October 27, 2006

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17737&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=3

5. ‘Palin buys climate denial PR spin—ignores science,’ Huffington Post, August 29, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17517&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=4

6. ‘McCain VP Pick Completes Shift to Bush Energy Policy,’ Sierra Club, August 29, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17518&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=5

‘Choice of Palin Promises Failed Energy Policies of the Past,’ League of Conservation Voters, August 29, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17519&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=6

‘Protecting polar bears gets in way of drilling for oil, says governor,’ The Times of London, May 23, 2008

http://www.moveon.org/r?r=17520&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=7

7 ‘McCain met Palin once before yesterday,’ MSNBC, August 29, 2008
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=21119&id=13661-2822249-AbjgAax&t=8

“Huh?” is right. They are using OPINIONS from their members as if they are FACTS!!! They are using WIKIPEDIA as a primary source, the same place Progressives have been LAMBASTING as an unreliable source. I guess it is only unreliable when it comes to OBAMA, but not Palin, or Clinton, or anyone else who dares defy The One!

Anyway – the point of this email is clearly to demean and diminish Palin’s accomplishments, which are FAR more numerous than Obama’s. And to, once again, demean people who bitterly cling to their guns and religion. Holy freakin’ cow – are they really that moronic, TONE DEAF, that they did not hear the brouhaha of Democrats being insulted that OBAMA demeaned them for their guns and religion??

Now, I should say, I don’t own a gun, never have. I don’t like them. They scare me. And, even though I’m a minister, I hardly “cling” to my religion. A tree, maybe (as in treehugger – get it?!), but religion? Nope. Still. But still. I respect the right of people in the United States to be responsible gun owners, and worship in a manner that works for them.

So what if Sarah Palin hunts? LOTS of people hunt, and do it to put food on their table. So what if she goes to a fairly conservative church? It surely cannot be any worse than OBAMA’S church is! Her minister may be a “fire-and-brimstone” kind of guy, a theology with which I disagree wholeheartedly, but it is her RIGHT to believe in that kind of theology!

For Move On to claim that she is anti-environment is just flat out wrong. She was saying just the other night on CNBC that care for the environment is important to her, and that they are looking at alternative sources of energy, like geothermal and wind. She also said something I had not thought about much (except in terms of Iraq when the oil fields were burning), and that is given that Alaska sits on massive oil and natural gas fields, the technology is such that they can leave a much smaller footprint than in the past. AND, that there is much more care taken toward both human and environmental rights than the other countries from which we currently get our oil. I have to admit, that was kind of a good point, though I REALLY don’t want them destroying ANWR. Really, really don’t. But it was an interesting point in terms of how much attention we pay to how the oil we now get is processed, and how the workers/environment are treated. I’d say it’s pretty low (the attention, that is), but that’s just me. Anyway, if you want to hear her for yourself, here’s the link to the CNBC video.

Now, I’m not trying to be a huge apologist for Sarah Palin. Not at all. But I am pretty sick and tired of these Obama supporters throwing out whatever trash they can think of and see what sticks to people without basis, and distort their records as a result. And I should say, the three people from whom I got this are all well-educated people who should KNOW better. At the very LEAST, they should check out some of these facts for themselves (one of the people was my sister – she also sent me a thing about Palin being opposed to gay marriage. What Palin said, and it is at her website, is that the people of Alaska voted against it in 1998, and she has to abide by their wishes. But, since the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional, she has to abide by the Supreme Court decision. I reminded my sister that OBAMA is opposed to gay marriage himself.)

This was my response to the people who sent this tripe to me:

Just so you know, Palin has as much experience being governor as Tim Kaine does, and no one questioned HIS level of experience when he was on Obama’s short list. Moreover, McCain IS experienced, unlike Obama, and HE is at the top of the ticket, not the other way around. That makes a big difference. Obama has never managed ANYTHING, and has very few legislative acccomplishments of his own. He couldn’t even be bothered to hold ONE meeting of the European Affairs Subcommittee, of which he was chair. The one that oversees Afghanistan. And NATO. Oh, I guess he kinda managed something with his buddy, Billy Ayers – the Annenberg Challenge. Oh wait – that’s the one in which they mismanaged $110 million.

In other words I think OBAMA is a dangerous choice. IMHO, that is.

Did I go over the top in my response? I don’t think so. Like I said, I am sick and tired of these people holding EVERYONE else to a much higher standard than they do Obama. The sheer hypocrisy of it is staggering. ESPECIALLY since they are comparing the top of the ticket – Obama – to the bottom of the ticket – Palin! And do they REALLY want to bring up the whole religion thing?? Really?? Don’t they think that just opens the door WIDE for those Jeremiah Wright videos to surface again?? Sheesh.

Enough of that – Gustav is making landfall as I type. McCain did the honorable thing, and suspended the convention except for the actual business part, which had to be done. I may not agree with his politics, but he does seem to actually care about people, and was willing to give up the big hoopla. I daresay, I cannot see Obama doing that at ALL. Especially not after having his Temple built! Couldn’t let THAT go to waste, could he? Anyway, I tip my hat to McCain for doing the RIGHT thing at the RIGHT time. That speaks volumes about his character.

I long for the day when the Democratic Party has its character and honor restored. I can only hope that will happen sooner rather than later. Now would be best, but I’ll take 2012…

* This video by GeekLove spells it out pretty nicely:

But here’s the thing: the popular vote winner, the one who “would be on anyone’s short list,” according to Obama – just not HIS, apparently, as she was not vetted (then again, Obamarosa hasn’t been either). Huh. I guess he wasn’t all that “sincere” after all.

Add to that the incredibly petty, childish, vindictive, flat out punkish move to release this information at 3:00 a.m.. 3:00 a.m., get it?? As in a 3:00 a.m. phone call?? Yeah. That’s the way to bring the Hillary supporters into the fold, Mr. Hopey Changey Unity Unicorn Man. Never mind those of us with any sense of decency. It is just plain bad form to drive a knife into the back of the one who bested you in votes. Just sayin’.

Read the rest ->

The choice alone, as many have pointed out already, demonstrates Obama’s GLARING weakness – experience. By him picking Biden (ugh), he is saying loud and clear that he does not have enough experience. Heck – BIDEN said he didn’t have enough experience (see this piece at No Quarter).

Funny, that is exactly what the poll done in the South said, too, in this article:
McCain Leads Big In South
Voters say honesty, experience, shared values important

Yep. The voters in the South seem to be taken more with experience, perceived honesty, and demonstrated leadership than “just words.” I’ll let the article speak for itself:

COLUMBIA — Republican U.S. Sen. John McCain enjoys a 16-point lead — 51 percent to 35 percent — among Southern voters over rival Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama, a new poll by Winthrop University and ETV shows.

And, the further into the South you go, the larger McCain’s lead grows, the poll of likely voters in 11 Southern states shows.

Likely voters in the Deep South — those in Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and South Carolina — preferred McCain by a 25-point margin, 56 percent to 31 percent.

Southern voters said what they want most in a president is honesty, experience and shared values. Southern voters rated McCain ahead of Obama in each of those categories.

McCain’s strongest support comes from white working-class Southerners — who favor him by a 34-point margin — and white evangelicals — who favor the Arizonan by 54 percentage points.

The poll, which was conducted Aug. 1-17, has a margin of error of (plus or minus) 2.97 percentage points.

While political pundits have made much of Obama and Democrats trying to win over a Southern state or two from the Republicans in November, the Winthrop/ETV poll shows that will prove difficult.

“It’s about keeping John McCain from sweeping the South. That’s the key,” said Scott Huffmon, associate professor of political science at Winthrop and director of the Winthrop/ETV Poll.

Rather than attempting to contest the presidential race across the South, a wiser strategy for Obama would be to concentrate on the closely contested Southern states, Huffmon said. “You cannot fight a regional battle anymore.”

Individual state-by-state polls have shown Obama within striking distance of McCain in Virginia, North Carolina, Florida and Georgia.

Those states account for 70 votes that are up for grabs. The 11 Southern states in this poll will award 161 electoral votes, and 270 electoral votes are needed to win the presidency.

On the issues, McCain trumped Obama nearly across the board in the poll.

The economy easily was the most important issue to Southern voters in the upcoming presidential election. McCain bested Obama on which candidate would handle energy and gas prices better, and who would do the better job on taxes.

McCain also far out-distanced Obama on who would do a better job of handling the Iraq war and terrorism.

None of that surprised Jeanette Smith of Chapin, S.C., who described McCain as honest and decisive, strong on national security and unlikely to be manipulated by a foreign government.

“The economy and national security are neck and neck for me,” said Smith, a 54-year-old bookkeeper and mother of four. “In fact, I’m not even sure they are separate issues.”

On illegal immigration, sometimes an Achilles’ heel for McCain, and moral values, the four-term senior senator from Arizona again stood taller with Southern voters than Obama.

“Illegal immigration needs to be controlled,” said 76-year-old Evelyn Perry of Fort Mill, S.C., who was among those surveyed. “I just haven’t really understood what (McCain’s position) is on that — but it needs to be controlled.”

Even without those specifics, Perry said she trusts McCain more. “Overall, I just think McCain understands better.”

However, in a glimmer of hope for the Democratic nominee-to-be, more likely Southern voters polled said Obama “understands the problems Americans face in their daily lives” better than McCain does.

However, Deep South and working-class white voters disagreed, saying McCain understands them best.

“Senator Obama has a great deal of work to do if he plans to turn the Southern states in his favor,” said Adolphus Belk Jr., who helped design the poll and teaches political science and African-American Studies at Winthrop.

Belk said Obama has to do a better job at defining himself for voters, moving beyond simply being a new face on the national stage. Obama also has to overcome religious and ethnic misinformation that continues to plague his candidacy, Belk said.

That’s no short order in the South, either, said Obama supporter John Hines Jr. of Effingham, S.C.. “For older Americans, I think color is still an issue,” said the 53-year-old paper maker.

Of those polled, 86 percent said race would not be an important factor in how they choose to vote.

However, a quarter of all likely Southern voters surveyed said that if a candidate had a Muslim parent, it would impact their votes. Obama, who is a Christian, had a Muslim father.

Huh – imagine that. RACE is not that big of a factor down here in the South, despite the numerous attempts to paint us all as racist yahoos. No, not racist, just not willing to back the least qualified candidate ever to grace the national stage. IMHO, that is. Now, if CLINTON was in this mix, I think this story would be completely different. Again, not race, but having TWO qualified candidates from which to choose. (Again, I will say that I am not pro-McCain. I am pro-DEMOCRACY, and that is something the DNC has showed very little of of late.)

The Comments at this article were very interesting too. One said he’d vote for Spongebob before Obama. Others made fun of Obama for talking about McCain’s houses when Obama pulled in $4 mil this year. Uh, yeah. Like I said, people in glass houses…And this was before the BIden choice.

So, once again, picking Biden just shows up Obama’s weaknesses. I don’t think having a Vice President who has the experience is enough. Especially when the inexperienced guy is running against the experienced guy. Huh. I guess the only way to solve this little dilemma is for the Conventioneers to pick the candidate who could actually win against McCain. That’s not Obama. Just sayin’.

* Great thanks to “Jeremiah” and asimon for coming up with this name. There was another great comment last night. “Jill L” said she was hoping for Daniel Akaka, then the bumper sticker would be “Obamakaka”! What clever folks at No Quarter!!

On August 19, Julie Foudy, only one of the most awesome women of all time – and a HIGHLY successful soccer player who also fought HARD against the Republicans attempts to dismiss Title IX, had an intense “human interest” story. It was about a young Afghan woman named Mehmoba Ahdyar. She is a runner, and the only woman on the Afghanistan Olympics team (she is a runner). What was particularly intense were the reports of what she has to go through to train, particularly the threats and the taunts.

Take a look at the video (I have to say, it was informative to me to hear what they think of Karzai).

But then there was a twist a month before the Olympics. She disappeared. No one had a clue where she was. They had to pull in another athlete, Robina Muqimyar, also a track runner, to replace her. Muqimyar had retired from running, so this came as quite a surprise to her. She came in last.

But what became of Andyar? Well, the video below reveals it all. There is a bit of duplication between the two, but not much, so bear with it:

So now we know. She defected. Why? Because to be a young woman in Afghanistan now, one with dreams and hopes that other young women around the world are encouraged to pursue, means threats against her, and her family. It means the police showing up at the door. It means her family being taken to jail because she is accused of being a “prostitute.”

What a mess. What a mess to which we have contributed, and which we have neglected. If only our Congress had some kind of oversight committee for Afghanistan and NATO to help it push forward, and to help push back the Taliban, to…What? What did you say? That Congress DOES have that kind of committee? Well, what the hell has it done lately? Nothing? NOTHING?? Why not? Why would a committee that had oversight over a country in which we are at WAR not done anything? Because the chairman has been busy running for president?? You have got to be kidding me!! Not ONE meeting? Huh.

Now, I gotta tell you, that if HILLARY had been chair of that committee, they would have met a gazillion times by now. She would know who BOTH of these women athletes were, and would have helped them get the training they needed, the PROTECTION they needed. She would have gotten more of our soldiers there to do the job they were sent to do. And she would have gotten some schools built. Oh, you know she would have.

And so, here is one last video for you. It is Hillary Clinton talking about her trip to Iraq and Afghanistan (side note – pay attention to where she said she went when she was over there. Oh, you’ll know – trust me!). And just imagine that THIS person is the one who becomes president, not the one who cannot be bothered to chair one single damn committee meeting on European and NATO Affairs, to provide absolutely NO oversight to a country in which we have our TROOPS.

Here’s Hillary Clinton, the one who will actually HELP women like Andyar and Muqimyar, and who was prescient about Afghanistan:

And once again, SuperDs, I remind you – there is still time. Just because Obama was selected the Presumptuous Nominee does not mean you have to go along with it. Stand up for democracy, stand up for what is right, stand UP for the person who can actually WIN the White House, and who is dedicated to the country’s citizens. You know that is Hillary Clinton, not Mr. “That’s above my pay grade and I will ask my wife and grandmother what I should do when I am faced with a difficult decision” Obama. This is no time to worry about pride. This is the time to worry about the COUNTRY. We have serious problems – Iraq; Pakistan, even more now since Musharraf stepped down; Georgia and Russia…This is the time for serious leadership, and that is NOT Obama. It IS Hillary Clinton. She is the one the people want to take care of these situations, and bring our country forward. SHE is the One for whom we have been waiting. Do your jobs – vote your CONSCIENCE, not your bank balance. Stand up. Stand UP.

“I’m going to cast my ballot for her, and then the moment I cast my vote, I’m going to continue to enthusiastically support Sen. Obama. It’s going to be a good release for all of us.”

He said this in his interview with the PolitikerPA:

Gov. Ed Rendell, in an interview with PolitickerPA.com today, lauded the resolution reached last week that will allow Clinton’s name to be placed in nomination, before U.S. Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) ultimately accepts the party’s presidential nomination.

“I think Sen. Obama was extremely generous, and I think it’s good not because it will display any disunity, but because it honors the hard work of so many people who supported Sen. Clinton,” said Rendell, who was one of Clinton’s most visible and vociferous campaigners during the run-up to the state’s April primary. “Many of the Pennsylvania delegates worked their heart out for Sen. Clinton, and they’re excited to cast a vote for her. From my vantage point, that will be closure for them.

Rendell thinks it will be closure for Hillary’s supporters. The only way it will be closure for Hillary supporters is if she is the nominee. Hillary is still the best choice for the Democratic Party.

It is a little too late for Obama to try to woo us over. We are reminded each day that Donna Brazile said there is a new Democratic base and most of us aren’t welcome. Then Obama tells Hillary supporters to just “get over it”.

Thanks Governor Rendell but your promise to vote for Hillary in the Roll Call just isn’t enough.

Governor Rendell, remind the Super Delegates Obama has some real issues, issues that could result in defeat for the Democratic Party in November. Here is the worrisome list of issues (by no means inclusive) that elected delegates and SDs should consider before voting for Obama, False FEC filings, Votes in the IL Senate on the live birth measure, Illegal contributions received from the three brothers in the Gaza Strip, then there is the issue of his birth certificate (a petition drive is underway) to demand the FEC insist that Obama release a certified copy of his birth certificate, continued association with ACORN, a company with a history of voter fraud and misuse of taxpayer money and finally there are his poll numbers, tied with McCain for the third time in two weeks.

See you in Denver!

Oh, wait – not every single question – there was at least one when you showed your truly narcissistic, superficial side. Wanna guess which one? That’s right – about his moral failure was in drinking and doing drugs as a teenager (a TEENAGER – nothing since then!!! Wow, he really IS Obush!!), a direct result of his mother being a poor sharecropper who didn’t have a row to hoe—-oh, wait – that’s not the right meme. No, his mother was a poor, single mother with no resources whatsoever who reared him all by her lonesome living hand to mouth his entire life until he somehow, someway, through his own sheer grit and determination, got into an Ivy League University. The rest, as they say, is history. Hey, wait – he prevaricated there, TOO!! A twofer! Woohoo! In this case, I think it is safe to call that a fairy tale. But never mind – all politicians embellish just a little right? RIGHT? That’s all it was, not flat-out lying!!! Oh, sure. Ahem.

Let us put to rest the Obama (false) charge that McCain cheated, and heard Obama’s “conversation” with Rev. Rick Warren. Warren HIMSELF said McCain was sequestered away, and could not hear anything. Freakin’ enough on that crapola, Andrea (Mitchell, NBC shill for Obama – see link at “cheated” above). Unless Obama has a teleprompter in front of him with a speech written by his 20-something white speechwriter (I am not kidding – CHECK it out for yourself), he does not know WHAT he thinks or for what he stands. Whatever YOU are for, so is he, until the next person comes along and supports the exact opposite. And that is McCain’s fault HOW, exactly?? Because he actually DOES know what he thinks and for what he stands (and no, this is NOT an endorsement of McCain – just making a point here)? Yeah, what a JERK!!! No WONDER Obama did so poorly! Harrumph!!

Never mind that in this Forum, ONCE AGAIN, Obama was throwing people under the bus (fleet) left and right. How about the issue of when a fetus is viable? Obama passed on that one in a heartbeat, with his “that’s above my pay grade” comment. Because there is no WAY he could have anticipated THAT question coming from a minister. In his church. In a “forum” designed to question the candidates. Heckfire, who could have seen THAT question coming???? NARAL? Planned Parenthood?? Got anything to say NOW???

Or how about throwing gay marriage under the bus – again. I mean, really – in a state that sanctions gay marriage, on the same evening that two of America’s most famous lesbians are getting married, he denigrates it, but magnanimously suggests he would be willing to extend civil rights to us. Why thank ya so MUCH, Senator Obama, but they are not YOURS to CONFER (read a whole bunch of expletives right about there).

Oh, but wait – Obama does have SOMEONE who thinks that he did a SWELL job at this event on Sat. night. Yes, Sally Quinn of the Washington Post, in her piece, “Worlds Apart,” essentially claimed that while she wants to live in McCain’s world, that she thought Obama did a good job. And it wasn’t a debate, dammit! She actually said, “There was not a winner or a loser.” Um, yeah, Sally, there really was. And it was McCain. The one who reminded you of your father in your recurring dream of him flying in with a winged horse’s body to save you from an earthquake (I am NOT making this up, people – I swear, she really SAID this! Click on the link – you’ll see!!!!). He was the winner because he was able to talk coherently, succinctly, and knowledgeably. Obama? Not so much. And so what did he do? Attacked McCain as soon as it was over. Gee – who could have seen THAT coming??

Well I can tell you someone who could have seen all of this coming, the attack on McCain as soon as the cameras were off of their big hug. Oh, yes – the person who has seen him for who he is – the sorest loser on the face of the planet. Hell, I have seen athletes in the Olympics who have trained for years and years and YEARS handle defeat with a TON more grace than Obama can even imagine. Yes, that would be Hilary Clinton. Here she is speaking to her supporters after a debate in which she, once again, schooled Obama:

Yes, no doubt she could have warned McCain, as this article shows, Clinton: Obama Going Negative After Bad Debate:

Her explanation for Obama’s recent negativity? A poor performance in last week’s debate. “It’s no wonder that my opponent has been so negative these last few days of the campaign. Because I think you saw a big difference between us,” she said. “It’s really a choice of leadership: I’m offering leadership you can count on. You know where I stand.”

Well, there is no doubt about that. She said what she meant, and meant what she said:

“While my opponent says one thing and his campaign does another, you can count on me to tell you where I stand, and you can count on me to tell you very specifically the solutions that I offer for America,” she said.

While the final quote has to do with a Clinton ad that was about to come out, I think the content sums up the issues surrounding Obama PERFECTLY:

At the same time, the Clinton campaign announced a brand new :30 second ad in PA making the same argument. “He couldn’t answer tough questions in the debate. So Barack Obama is making false charges against Hillary’s health care plan,” says the narrator. “There are more and more questions about Barack Obama. Instead of attacking, maybe he should answer them.

(Italics mine.) Amen. Couldn’t have said it better myself. Yes, maybe he SHOULD answer the questions about him (passport? birth certificate??? Citizenship????), and actually tell the TRUTH for once. Now THAT would be a Change (not sure I could believe it though, but hey – I’m willing to give it a shot!). Frankly, we deserve nothing less!

Uhoh. My cat just told me that it’s not good to come together like that. He slapped me silly with his paw, and told me:

“You dope. The blue line is supposed to go UP! And the red line is supposed to go DOWN! Just how dumb are you?!?!?!? Read the damn text at the PEW Center!”

I guess I haven’t taught my cat very well. He’s just like those cats at Uppity’s hangout.

Anyway, here’s what Pew says:

With less than two weeks to go before the start of the presidential nominating conventions, Barack Obama’s lead over John McCain has disappeared. Pew’s latest survey finds 46% of registered voters saying they favor or lean to the putative Democratic candidate, while 43% back his likely Republican rival. In late June, Obama held a comfortable 48%-to-40% margin over McCain, which narrowed in mid-July to 47% to 42%.

Two factors appear to be at play in shifting voter sentiment. First, McCain is garnering more support from his base – including Republicans and white evangelical Protestants – than he was in June, and he also has steadily gained backing from white working class voters over this period. Secondly and more generally, the Arizona senator has made gains on his leadership image. An even greater percentage of voters than in June now see McCain as the candidate who would use the best judgment in a crisis, and an increasing percentage see him as the candidate who can get things done.

Conversely, Obama has made little progress in increasing his support among core Democrats since June – currently 83% favor him compared with 87% of Republicans who back McCain. The likely Democratic nominee is still getting relatively modest support from Hillary Clinton’s former supporters: 72% of them support Obama, compared with the 88% support level that McCain receives from backers of his formal GOP rivals. Obama’s strong points with voters are in being seen as the candidate with new ideas and as someone who connects well with ordinary people. …

:::::

** texasdarlin.wordpress.com

From my blog, Uppity Woman (It drives Barky nuts.)

In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned candidate like Hillary Clinton. But long-suffering liberals convinced their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and thereby they probably will get neither.

— The author, Victor Davis Hanson, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal and the 2008 Bradley Prize.

You can’t say that we didn’t ceaselessly WARN the party that this would happen. You, me, Larry Johnson, and many other brave bloggers. Why the party allowed the hard left — the “authoritarian leftists” — to have its way is beyond me. Most of them are very unreliable Democrats anyway. If their preferred candidate, for ANY position, isn’t nominated, they stew and grouse, preferring to stay in a snit and allow the Republican opponent to win. In 2004, I personally watched as the hard left’s preferred candidate lost the Washington state gubernatorial Democratic primary to Chris Gregoire. (He WAS a fine candidate, but he lost. That’s life.) The hard left did NOTHING to aid her general election campaign. What happened as a result? She won, by just over 100 votes and only following weeks and weeks of recounts. For the hard left, it’s “my way or the highway.” Now she’s in a tough reelection bid against the same Republican who is backed by a huge number of highly motivated Republicans still fueled by bitterness over the outcome they are certain was illegally won. Do you think the left will come to her aid this year? I seriously doubt it, even though she has pandered to them by endorsing Obama (a huge mistake she will rue when the GOP runs ad after ad showing her on stage with Obama).

SUPERDELEGATES: It is not too late to change course!

Read all of Hanson’s article: “Hillary’s Growing Shadow.”

The subtitle?

The Left convinced Democrats to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and now they have neither