Click here to view the embedded video.

The Daily Caller also emphasized these aspects of the ad:

[snip] Obama won the primary in a landslide. He easily won the 2004 election against a weak GOP opponent, after his main GOP rival quit the race when a Democratic-appointed judge unsealed damaging divorce testimony.

The 2004 video also showcases several recurring features of Obama’s speeches — his use of the passive tense to glide past controversial issues, his passive-aggressive portrayal of himself as the reasonable moderate among extremists, and his promises of benefits without costs.
[...]

He cites his attendance at Trinity United Church of Christ without mentioning the controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

[...]

He uses the passive tense to mention his 1996 race for a state Senate seat. That passive-voice phrase — “seven years ago, this opportunity came up to serve in the General Assembly in Illinois” — avoids any mention of the sharp-elbowed tactics that he used to snatch the seat from a veteran, female African-American Democratic incumbent.

[...]

“If there is an Arab American somewhere getting rounded up by [Attorney General] John Ashcroft, without benefit of an attorney or due process, that threatens my civil liberties even if I am not an immigrant,” he declares, three years after the 9/11 attacks. Ashcroft was not “rounding up” Arab immigrants in 2004, but was actually resisting efforts by police agencies to expand surveillance. (Click here to read the rest.)

Oh, what a walk down Memory Lane this provoked, including some of the underhanded tactics Obama’s camp employed in addition to what was mentioned above. And as the article notes, Obama enthusiastically mentioned his active participation in his church. Yep, good ol’ TUCC with that paragon of Christian virtue, Rev. Jeremiah Wright. As a reminder, here’s a bit more on TUCC and Wright:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Note that his “US-KKK-of-A” speech was in 2003, the year before this ad came out. Oh, and yes, he has retired now, to his million dollar mansion in a “white suburb.” Uh, yeah. And of course, it just reminds us of how many of Obama’s associates like Rezko, Father Fleger, Auchi, Khalidi, Meeks, et al., were allowed to slip on by our “esteemed” media…

I urge you to read the rest of the article to make sure you catch all of he nuances of Obama’s 2004 ad compared to his rhetoric today. It is mighty interesting.

And since it is Sunday, I have to leave you with something fun to bring a smile to your faces. This clip is from Jimmy Kimmel, getting parents to play a bit of a trick on their children post Halloween:

Click here to view the embedded video.

Hilarious!

This is an Open Thread. Have a great day, everyone.

It made me mad. It is just more of the media’s continued unfounded, politically motivated, assault on Sarah Palin. They have attacked her mercilessly for three years, and now claim, after the constant harassment, that she has “darker tendencies”? Are you kidding me with this circular logic crapola??

And so, I was compelled to write this letter to the editor of the Post and Courier. I have no illusions they will actually publish it:

I read Molly Ball’s article on Gov. Palin. The emails requested back in 2008 from sites such as Mother Jones are proving to be a bit of a disappointment to all those who wanted to get dirt on the former governor. Turns out that she was – gasp – hardworking, warm, engaging, and dedicated to her state. Shocking!

But here’s the thing – to qualify Palin now as exhibiting her “darker tendencies” is disingenuous at best. The only reason these emails are even available was the desire to take down this qualified woman 3 years ago by the media when they filed their FOIA requests. They have hounded her, and her family, on a daily basis, flat out making crap up (like that she, personally, shot wolves from the air, which your newspaper has already dispelled). They have accused her husband of incest, claimed her baby was not her own, used despicable language to attack her, and her family, sent numerous reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on her, and AP reporters to “factcheck” her book. And now, Ms. Ball is claiming that Palin is a divisive figure. If she is, it is only because the media has MADE her a divisive figure.

Even more, why has the media never spent anywhere NEAR this much time investigating Barack Obama? He claimed he had no records, not even a datebook, of his time as an IL Senator. How is that even possible?? The media failed miserably in ferreting out why the two front runners for the IL US Senate seat both, mysteriously, had their SEALED divorce records unsealed just a few short months before the election, forcing them both to drop out, allowing Obama, once again, to run basically unopposed as he did when he ran for office the first time (he got everyone else thrown off the ballot – look it up).

Where has the media been in looking at his connections to Khalid Rashidi, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, Kwame Kilpatrick, Louis Farrakhan, and Jeremiah Wright? They could not be bothered to research the presidential candidate, or his methods for becoming the candidate, much less his associates, any one of whom would have brought down any other candidate. (How many people know about the rampant caucus fraud perpetrated by the Obama camp? There were complaints made to the DNC by a number of people, including Hillary Clinton, but the DNC turned a blind eye. Even worse, they took lawfully cast and certified votes for Hillary Clinton and GAVE them to Obama. That was the day this Yellow Dog Dem became an Independent.)

But to the VP candidate from Alaska the media managed to devote all kinds of resources. Lo, and behold – there is nothing there. Of course, that doesn’t stop Ms. Ball from making gratuitous, unfounded, slights against Palin, thus demonstrating her very clear bias even as she was tasked with acknowledging there was nothing there.

This isn’t journalism, this is tabloid writing. And you put it on the front page.

While I am at it, I would like to highlight something else from these emails that was in my local paper – and listen up all of you who made this salacious claim – SARAH PALIN DID NOT SHOOT WOLVES FROM THE AIR, AND WAS OPPOSED TO IT. Got it? Seriously. Oh, and the emails highlighted how much of a conservationist she really is. I bet that will stick in some folk’s craw…

Good grief.

Clearly, despite there being nothing there to attack Palin over, these rags will continue to make the kinds of gratuitous smears Ms. Ball did. They just cannot stand that this woman is exactly who she said she is and has demonstrated herself to be. I guess in the face of Obama’s failures, this must really get to them, so they have redoubled their efforts to go after her, not him. Pathetic. Be big enough people to admit you were duped, you were snookered, you were fooled, and you were wrong. Give it a shot.

And now, for our musical moment to take a break from this continued media folly, I leave you with this:

Listen to the video in its entirety because Matthews describes further how VERY near he was to where that bomb went off. And Ayers (of course, this was not discussed today) is a free man solely because his attorneys managed to prove the FBI improperly conducted wiretaps. (I have MUCH MORE TO SAY about this below, and ask you to read along and then share YOUR reactions and add your own knowledge and your own impressions of what occurred, shamefully, on MSNBC.)

I can only imagine what Concerned Mother would have to say about this travesty.

It is unconscionable to me that we and the MSM constantly RAGE about O.J. Simpson, who murdered two people, but not reject Barack Obama, a presidential candidate, now president-elect, who has associated freely and over a long time with a man who could have killed dozens and dozens of people.

On his remarkable radio show a few weeks ago, Nocturnal Warrior made a brilliant point about PEBO’s selection of numerous former Clinton White House and cabinet members. Warrior said that PEBO has to select such people because he has almost no FRIENDS or LONGTIME ASSOCIATES to appoint to any serious jobs in his administration. This is a situation that has NEVER occurred in the history of the presidency of the United States. Heretofore, every U.S. president has had a rich collection of friends, associates, and allies from whom he could select many qualified for high-ranking administration positions. But not Barack Obama. You faithful readers of No Quarter know of many of Obama’s real longtime associates: Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, Father Michael Pfleger, William Ayers, Allison and Cullen Davis, Penny Pritzker, Bernardine Dohrn, and on and on, only a very, very few of them suited for any respectable position at any level in an administration. (I’ve clicked several Categories to provide you with a list.) And now, this week, we learn more about other Obama longtime associates like Rod Bagojevich and his wife.

William Ayers’ Crimes, and Additional Perspective History

The SOLE reason no one died is because Ayers et al. were piss-poor bomb makers. What is the sentence range these days for an attempt to commit murder? And don’t forget all the other bombs that nearly killed many others. Including the judge, his wife, and his children — while they slept — simply because that judge was doing his job: Handling the trial of a Black Panther. I’m not generally in favor of the death penalty, but Ayers’ and the Weather Underground’s attempts, repeatedly, to kill as many people as possible in the Capitol, the Pentagon, police stations, and a judge’s home are the works of people so dangerous that those people should never be freed, and may be eligible to be charged with a capital offense.

Ayers has famously said, “Free as a bird, guilty as hell, ain’t America great.” (From Larry Johnson’s must-read article, “A Statement by a Retired FBI Agent Re William Ayers.”)

Dear readers, please understand this: All that, to Matthews, is just some history. It has some import to Matthews, given that he might have been blown up himself, but apparently not much since the conversation flows easily and reasonably amicably, and Matthews, at the end of the interview, gladly flogs Ayers’ book. THEN, after this interview, Matthews has his panel on. Matthews asks Joan Walsh, Salon‘s editor, why Ayers — who appeared today to be “confessional” in his tone — didn’t do that during the campaign. Ms. Walsh LAUGHS with a SMIRK on her face, and says, “I think he wanted to stay out of it entirely, and not dignify what the McCain campaign and others were doing.”

Thank you, Ms. Walsh. We now know who the real criminals are. Shame on you, John McCain. Shame on you, Sarah Palin.

Ms. Walsh, please share your opinions with John Murtagh. Well, of course. That’s unfair. You don’t know who John Murtagh is.

Uppity Woman can tell you, in her story, “When This Man Was 9 Years Old, Ayers Bombed His Home.”

If I may, I will contrast the actions of William Ayers and the rest of the sociopathic members of the Weather Underground to the actions of a man who — unless you’re my age and you closely followed anti-war activities during the Vietnam War — you’ve probably NEVER heard of, and will not hear of in the MSM.

After all, he didn’t make bombs. He didn’t befriend a future president and excite the easily excitable rightwing. He simply did the hard work of truly changing history and he paid the price that true, albeit boring, heroes do, in anonymity.

His name is David Harris.

He was the resident counselor in the boys’ dormitory across the street from my girls’ dorm. Many of us sat at his feet as he modestly told us his stories about traveling to the South in summers past to try to help black people get the right to vote. He also shared with us the music he’d learned about in the South — the blues. He told us about Muddy Waters and more. We were entranced. With him, with his stories and the very REAL danger he was in during those summers when white racists wanted to kill him and every white college kid who dared to fight for blacks’ right to vote.

He ran for student body president and I worked on his campaign. He ran on the sole condition that, if elected, he would not serve. He won in a landslide. And did not serve.

Then his draft number came up. (My memory is vague these days, but I believe he tried all the normal routes available back then, such as conscientious objector status, and so on. All of those routes failed.)

So he went to prison. Leavenworth. About seven years ago, I did a search on him, curious what his life had been like. I discovered that he had written a book about his time in Leavenworth, along with his then-wife Joan Baez. I bought the book, and read it. It was a heart-wrenching account. I had no idea that being an inmate in Leavenworth was such a horrific, maddening, insane experience.

It is a simple story, really.

He refused to fight for a war he did not believe was right.

The U.S. government tried him and sentenced him to prison.

He served roughly three years, as I recall.

You may disagree with his decision, but he decided to take the punishment like a man.

He had a father who, as I remember it, was an attorney in Fresno, California. His father surely had some means, but not enough to prevent his son from going to prison.

Bill Ayers had a father who was Chairman of Commonwealth Edison and a mover/shaker in Chicago politics, the arts and education. His father had the means to hire a cadre of attorneys who successfully prevented his son from spending a single day in prison.

David Harris did not build bombs.

He tried to help blacks in the South get to vote, at great risk to his own life.

He helped educate and watched over younger students attending the university, which was often a tedious task, listening to those 18-year-olds’ angst and fear and uncertainty and their various problems with and anxieties about their classes.

He helped the students with the difficult reading for the required freshman class, The History of Western Civilization, because he had read all of those works, including all of Plato, Socrates, and more, and he could — and did — explain those works to those anxious students. He spoke with them patiently and kindly and always very softly.

He was a hulk of a man with broad thick shoulders and a large angular head and a blond mustache but he was, as they say, a gentle giant.

He did not teach the younger students to build bombs or burn down buildings.

He taught the students about giving black people the right to vote and about the blues and about philosophy and about literature and about political thinking and about peaceful protest and about Martin Luther King and Gandhi.

He marched and sang folk songs with his wife, who bore their son.

What a dull man.

Doubtless, Chris Matthews will never invite David Harris for a feature interview.

If only he’d built bombs and then buddied up with a future president, he’d be a sought-after guest.

At least he has an entry in Wikipedia.

:::::::::::

Via Google News results:

Matthews to Ayers: ‘I Agitate My Way, You Agitate Your Way‘ – NewsBusters

Chris Matthews invited on Bill Ayers on Wednesday night’s “Hardball,” and actually confronted him about his bombing of Capitol Hill during his days as a member of the ’60s terrorist group Weather Underground, as the former Capitol Hill police officer emotionally observed: “I was a Capitol policeman at the time, so I was one of the guys that could have been killed obviously at the time you put that, your guys put that bomb in there. So I have a little personal interest. It wasn’t just vandalism. To me it was life-threatening to the guys I worked with. And there were some pretty good guys working there.”

However Matthews, who paradoxically may not even be alive to conduct this interview today if the Weather Underground’s bombs were more devastating, devoted most of the interview tossing softballs Ayers’ way, as the two often agreed with each other on Barack Obama and Iraq policy as the “Hardball” host pointed out they only really differed on how to spread their points of view: “Well, Mr. Ayers, with all due respect, you agitate your way, I agitate my way.

Matthews, who back in October dismissed Sarah Palin’s mention of Ayers, as “the politics of distraction,” began the interview by setting up Ayers to play down any association he had with Obama: …

READ ALL: Matthews to Ayers: ‘I Agitate My Way, You Agitate Your Way‘ — NewsBusters

AND READ MORE of NoQuarter’s treasure trove of materials on the bombings conducted by William Ayers.

This was the best laugh I had all day, until one of the creative readers at No Quarter, Obama Is A Fraud, posted this:

Please join us for this historical Inaugural Celebration for President Barrack Hussein Obama. It will be a day of great events for all!

Midnight – Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez drink champagne toast to their brother in communism Comrade Obama. Burning of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and fireworks display. Long live the US of Hussein!

It’s an Open Thread – how was YOUR day?

The relationship between the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate Barack Obama and Bill Ayers, the founder and leader of the now defunct terrorist organization Weather Underground, is deeper and closer than currently understood, according to an individual who has had a senior role in the Obama candidacy. Ayers has had direct contact with the candidate.

The Weather Underground was responsible for a series of bombings during the 1970s that caused extensive property damage. [Only two bomb's failures (at the front of the home and under the gas tank of the family car) kept an entire family from dying as they slept, reports John Murtagh, then the 9-year-old son of the judge whose family WU wanted to kill. See Uppity Woman's story, "When This Man Was 9 Years Old, Ayers Bombed His Home." - Ed.]

Prairie Fire, published in 1974, is described as Ayers’ communist manifesto.

Dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan isn’t radical chic or a youthful indulgence. Dedicating a book to Sirhan Sirhan is tantamount to denying the Holocaust, embracing the screeds of the Aryan Brotherhood, and joining the ranks of those whose celebrated the attacks against America on 9/11.

Equating Sirhan Sirhan with Harriet Tubman and John Brown is stupidity. Bobby Kennedy worked on behalf of the poor and the unrepresented; Sirhan is a killer.

Sirhan Sirhan is a Palestinian sympathizer who murdered Bobby Kennedy because of Kennedy’s pro-Israel position. On the 40th anniversary of the assassination, ABC News reported:

Sirhan claimed he killed Kennedy because he was angry over Kennedy’s support for Israel. Sirhan was born in Jerusalem to Arab Christian parents who had moved to America when Sirhan was 12. The assassination occurred on the first anniversary of the Six Day War in which Israel had humiliated the combined armies of its Arab neighbors.

Yet another red flag about Obama, and this one should send alarms to the Jewish supporters of Obama.

Obama and Ayers, friends and collaborators; Obama endorsed Ayers’ book, Ayers dedicated his book to Sirhan Sirhan, an anti-Israeli terrorist and murderer of Bobby Kennedy.

Rashid Khalidi: Obama’s friend, anti-Israeli pro-PLO activist. The LA Times allegedly has a video of a dinner party in which Obama is toasting Khalidi, with Bill Ayers in attendance.

Sirhan Sirhan, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Barack Obama

Obama has surrounded himself with violent and hateful anti-American activists, and he lies about that fact. Obama knows Ayers is a liability, but he also knows that he can’t alienate the anti-American Left. Larry Johnson writes:

As we have noted repeatedly at NoQuarter, Barack Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers probably started when Barack was at Columbia University in the late 1980s. That’s why Bill Ayers then turns to Barack Obama and gets him named to head the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers established. That’s why Barack felt so comfortable kicking off his political campaign for the State legislature in Bill Ayers’ living room.

Obama’s friend dedicated his book to the murderer of Bobby Kennedy, his preacher claimed 9/11 was God’s retribution, Obama told Rick Warren that the U.S. could be evil, Ayers bombed the Pentagon, Pfleger said that Hillary Clinton believed she had “white entitlement,” Obama called his ailing grandmother a “typical white person,” and Wright said the U.S had manufactured AIDS to kill African Americans.

The Democratic Party has been infected by an alliance of radical demagogues, the corrupt Chicago machine and the anti-American Left.

Bobby Kennedy:

After funeral services in New York, RFK’s funeral train carried his body to Washington where he was to be buried near his brother. Along the way, on both sides of tracks, Americans of every color and background saluted this great man who brought the disenfranchised together.

See also American Girl in Italy’s post

Medusa contributed to this post.

Just when you had wished you had indeed heard the last of Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, it turns out they are publishing a new manifesto described in brief on Amazon.com.

What makes the book blurb – this one apparently not written by their long time, umm, colleague, co-education policy wonk, fellow intellectual and, yes, neighbor Barack Obama – worrisome is that it links what Ayers and Dohrn say is America’s continuing sin, racism and “white supremacy,” with their views on war. 

In other words just as Barack Obama moves to the White House, these two destructive figures out of the past are about to advocate an entire new world view for America built around their curious race-centric obsession. Presumably this will be an opportunity to peddle, one more time, their Third Worldist clap trap which mandates that “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” 

This narrow and dangerous thinking is what led Ayers, Dohrn and others in their camp to embrace figures like Castro, Ortega, and Chavez even as they trample all over the civil rights of their citizens in order to maintain their authoritarian hold on power.  

[Editor's note: See Uppity Woman's October 28th article here, "RBO: Team Cuba” — Ayers, Dohrn, just “two political activists” from Obama’s neighborhood, visited Cuba in September 2008.]

But wait, there’s more! Hell has indeed frozen over. AP writer, Calvin Woodward, posted a story last night: Obama’s prime-time ad skips over budget realities. This from Associated Press? With board members and huge Obama supporters Murdoch and Zell? This is the same news organization that constantly touts “the One” and falsely reported that Hillary had conceded the morning of the last two primaries – when voters were just going to the polls. AP disses Obama? Are pigs flying? Pigs with lipstick?

Breathe, Ani. Breathe.

Let’s take these in order. First Senator McCain uses the sense of humor he displayed in his brilliant performance at the recent Al Smith dinner:

“Now, tonight, we can all look forward to my opponent’s performance in a television infomercial. It used to be that only rain or some other act of God could delay the World Series, but I guess the network execs figured an Obama infomercial was close enough. As with other infomercials, he’s got a few things he wants to sell you: He’s offering government-run health care … an energy plan guaranteed to work without drilling … and an automatic wealth spreader that folds neatly and fits under any bed.”

Nice. You go, John. He’s got lots more to say, but we’ll get to that later on.

AP’s Mr. Woodward then dissects the Spin vs. the Facts of Obama’s multi million dollar advertisement to the American people tonight:

WASHINGTON (AP) – Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was less than upfront in his half-hour commercial Wednesday night about the costs of his programs and the crushing budget pressures he would face in office.

No kidding….

Obama’s assertion that “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond” the expense of his promises is accepted only by his partisans. His vow to save money by “eliminating programs that don’t work” masks his failure throughout the campaign to specify what those programs are—beyond the withdrawal of troops from Iraq.

Here is Mr. Woodward’s analysis:

THE SPIN: “That’s why my health care plan includes improving information technology, requires coverage for preventive care and pre-existing conditions and lowers health care costs for the typical family by $2,500 a year.”

THE FACTS: His plan does not lower premiums by $2,500, or any set amount. Obama hopes that by spending $50 billion over five years on electronic medical records and by improving access to proven disease management programs, among other steps, consumers will end up saving money. He uses an optimistic analysis to suggest cost reductions in national health care spending could amount to the equivalent of $2,500 for a family of four. Many economists are skeptical those savings can be achieved, but even if they are, it’s not a certainty that every dollar would be passed on to consumers in the form of lower premiums.

THE SPIN: “I also believe every American has a right to affordable health care.”

THE FACTS: That belief should not be confused with a guarantee of health coverage for all. He makes no such promise. Obama hinted as much in the ad when he said about the problem of the uninsured: “I want to start doing something about it.” He would mandate coverage for children but not adults. His program is aimed at making insurance more affordable by offering the choice of government-subsidized coverage similar to that in a plan for federal employees and other steps, including requiring larger employers to share costs of insuring workers.

THE SPIN: “I’ve offered spending cuts above and beyond their cost.”

THE FACTS: Independent analysts say both Obama and Republican John McCain would deepen the deficit. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimates Obama’s policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years—and that analysis accepts the savings he claims from spending cuts. The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, whose other findings have been quoted approvingly by the Obama campaign, says: “Both John McCain and Barack Obama have proposed tax plans that would substantially increase the national debt over the next 10 years.” The analysis goes on to say: “Neither candidate’s plan would significantly increase economic growth unless offset by spending cuts or tax increases that the campaigns have not specified.”

THE SPIN: “Here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year. Give businesses a tax credit for every new employee that they hire right here in the U.S. over the next two years and eliminate tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. Help homeowners who are making a good faith effort to pay their mortgages, by freezing foreclosures for 90 days. And just like after 9-11, we’ll provide low-cost loans to help small businesses pay their workers and keep their doors open. ”

THE FACTS: His proposals—the tax cuts, the low-cost loans, the $15 billion a year he promises for alternative energy, and more—cost money, and the country could be facing a record $1 trillion deficit next year. Indeed, Obama recently acknowledged—although not in his commercial—that: “The next president will have to scale back his agenda and some of his proposals.”

Furthermore, Biden has confessed to us that now the number for couples receiving a tax cut are not those earning below 250K, or 200K, but 150K – wonder how much more he’ll revise that number down before January – let’s hope we don’t have to find out. And at a recent fundraiser in Pennsylvania, Obama remarked that changes to health care and education might have to be put on hold because of, uh, us not having any money.

But I guess it’s OK for Obama to spend a billion dollars on his campaign only to be able to get to a neck-and-neck race in this “no lose year for Democrats,” even with 90% of the media heretofore in the tank for him.

Fear not. John McCain takes up the baton and really goes to town reminding voters of the character of his opponent vis-a-vis this very issue:

“When you’re watching this gauzy, feel-good commercial, just remember that it was paid for with broken promises. Senator Obama signed a piece of paper committing to public financing of his campaign. Twice he looked the American people in the eye and said he would sit down with me before he abandoned public financing. He didn’t mean a word of it. When it was in his interest to break his promise, he tossed it aside like it didn’t mean a thing. He is the first candidate since Watergate to abandon the public financing system, and his campaign is now being flooded with hundreds of millions of dollars in undisclosed and questionable donations. His campaign has directly profited from his broken promise and because of that, the American people have to ask: what does the broken promise behind tonight’s infomercial say about the value of his other commitments?”

It says plenty, Senator McCain. Wow. Now that’s what I call the straight-talk express.

“That is what concerns small business owners and people all over this country. Senator Obama’s word doesn’t appear to mean that much. When he tells America tonight that’s he’s going to cut taxes for the middle class, people wonder if he’ll keep his word because his record is supporting higher taxes on working families. He voted 94 times for tax increases or against tax cuts. When he tells America tonight he’s going to cut spending, people wonder if he’ll keep his word because his record is one of supporting higher spending.”

“Whether it’s Joe the Plumber in Ohio, or Andrew the Plumber and Sandra the sign-maker here in Florida, we can’t even afford the tax hikes Senator Obama admits to. His tax increases are exactly the wrong approach in an economic slowdown.”

It certainly looks like Senator Obama’s chickens are finally coming home to roost. Yesterday, a former employee of an ACORN affiliate testified in a Pennsylvania court of law as to ACORN soliciting donations for its organization by using Obama campaign donor lists:

McCain campaign manager, Rick Davis, made this statement:

“Today’s testimony by a former employee of an ACORN affiliate proves Barack Obama is guilty of lying to the American people about his relationship with ACORN. At the last presidential debate, in front of sixty million people, Barack Obama said his campaign was not involved’ with ACORN. We now know that Barack Obama’s campaign was working hand-in-glove with an organization reportedly under investigation by the F.B.I. and in more than a dozen states. In addition to funneling $832,000 to ACORN for get-out-the- vote efforts, the Obama campaign and ACORN have been sharing donor lists, encouraging maxed-out Obama donors to contribute to this unethical organization.”

Drip. Drip. Drip.

And as if that weren’t enough, on FOX news tonight, McCain Slams LA Times for Double Standard in Withholding Obama-Khalidi Tape:

John McCain slammed The Los Angeles Times Wednesday for refusing to release a videotape that the newspaper’s editors say shows Barack Obama praising a Chicago professor [Rashid Khalidi] who served as a spokesman for the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was a U.S.-designated terror group.

John McCain says he’s sure The Los Angeles Times would be quick to produce a tape that purported to show him or his running mate at a neo-Nazi event, so he can’t understand why it won’t show Barack Obama in the company of a former PLO mouthpiece.

“Apparently this is a tape with a dinner that Mr. Ayers … was at, and also … one of the leading spokespersons for the PLO. Now, why that should not be made public is beyond me,” McCain told La Kalle radio.

“I guarantee you, if there was a tape with me and Sarah Palin and some neo-Nazi or one of those, you think that that tape wouldn’t be made public? Of course, Americans need to know, particularly about Ayers, and also about the PLO. So hopefully there will be enough pressure on the L.A. Times that it’ll come out, but its really unfortunate that we have to go through this,” McCain continued.

Governor Palin, too, had come choice words for the LA Times, certainly in Obama’s back pocket from the beginning:

“If there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in cow-towing, then the LA Times, you’re winning,” she said.

Palin said she wants to know how Obama responded to derogatory comments said about Israel and America’s support for its ally during the party.

“Israel was described there as the perpetrator of terrorism instead of the victim. What we don’t know …is how Barack Obama responded to these slurs on a country that he now professes to support, and the reason is the newspaper that has the tape, The Los Angeles Times, refuses to release it,” she said. “It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that.”

All in all today, point McCain/Palin.

But truly, the best review of tonight’s informercial came courtesy of a poster on NoQ. Thanks much, CJ. This made my night. Be sure to pass this one around:

“Caught the show, too, with a house full of my son’s friends, late twenties, early thirties. These guys got up and did the hopey dopey. Pretty funny.

You put your paycheck in, you take your paycheck out, you put your paycheck in and you shake it all about. You do the hopey dopey and you pay the other guy, that’s what’s all about.

You put your service hours in, you take your service hours out, you put your service hours in and you shake em all about. You do the hopey dopey and you work yourself to the ground, that’s what it’s all about.

That’s a sample, it went on and on. I guess there are no BO supporters in this house here in Calif.”

Nice to know some people have not taken leave of their senses. I’ll gratefully take them wherever I can find them.

To everyone who stood up and spoke the truth today, thank you.

“He is not one of my advisers. He’s not one of my foreign policy people,” Obama said at a campaign event in May. “He is a respected scholar, although he vehemently disagrees with a lot of Israel’s policy.”

That is not true. In fact, Obama and Khalidi were close friends and their families frequently ate together and shared intimate moments. Michelle, for example, attended a wedding limited largely to family at the Khalidis.

“Khalidi was a frequent dinner guest at the Obama’s home and at his farewell dinner in 2003 Obama joined the unrepentant terrorist William Ayers in giving testimonials on Khalidi’s role in the community.” Based on an article Peter Wallsten wrote in April, someone finally put two and two together, and we now know that the Times is actually sitting on the video that they used to write this article.

So…why would the Times write this piece, then endorse Obama, and then put this tape in a *lockbox*? Perhaps this was a preemptive article, trying to sugar coat the ties between Obama and Khalidi, in case jouranlists actually ever did their job, and really looked into the story. Or perhaps Peter Wallsten was doing his job, and trying to expose this relationship. So, if his article is so accurate, why are they hiding the tape? hmmm

But it is weird that the Times wrote a story about this, and are now claiming they can’t release the tape, because they are protecting the source of the tape. I figure the tape either has to be really bad for Obama, and they were writing a fluff preemptive piece in case the tape ever came out. Or, the writer is now being pressured by the paper to cover it up (since they endorsed him, and all).

Either way, I don’t see how NOT releasing the tape is protecting a source. If someone gave them the tape, they can be protected by not revealing their name. But is covering up the content of the tape protecting a source? (“here mr. newspaper man, watch this tape, and write an article about it, but don’t ever show the tape”?? why?)

So, that begs the question: who would have given the writer the tape? It doesn’t make sense that someone opposed to Obama would have done it, and then insist that the tape not be released. They would want the tape out, no? So, is it someone pro-Obama who gave the tape to LA Times, so they could do a *CYA* piece for Obama, and they made the paper promise they would never release it, because it is baaaaaaad for Obama? The *source* gave the tape to Wallsten, and he was allowed to write an article about it. So, why the big secret on the content of the tape? However, the writer does make some rather potentially dangerous observations in the article. :OS

Based on my deductive reasoning (haha), it would seem to me that the LA Times is, pure and simple, covering this up for Obama. I don’t believe they are covering for any source. I think they are just in *puppy love* with Obama, and they won’t do anything to harm *that one*. I think the writer wrote his piece, and now he is pressured to stay quiet from the paper.

That makes the most sense to me… Oh hell I don’t know! I can’t figure it out. haha

All I know is Obama lied about the extent of their relationship, which is a pattern with him. And the tape should be released. SHOW ME THE MONEY!

Here is the original article, with some snipits below.

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”

…

Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering “from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel” and to renounce violence.

…

Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”

The use of such language to describe Israel’s policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel’s defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said’s keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.

Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama’s specific criticisms.

Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.

Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.

…

While teaching at the University of Chicago, Khalidi and his wife lived in the Hyde Park neighborhood near the Obamas. The families became friends and dinner companions.

In 2000, the Khalidis held a fundraiser for Obama’s unsuccessful congressional bid. The next year, a social service group whose board was headed by Mona Khalidi received a $40,000 grant from a local charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, when Obama served on the fund’s board of directors.

At Khalidi’s going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. “You will not have a better senator under any circumstances,” Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Check out these articles about Tape Gate, from FOX and LA Times.

Tonight Senator Obama starred in his own prime time special, about Senator Obama. Is it me or is Obama passé? I find his voice — artificially deep to project gravitas — to be just as grating as George W. Bush’s faux-Texas accent.

Obama the brand is wearing thin. He has his own hand sign, his own temple, music videos, Dish Channel, a fake presidential seal, coffee mugs, t-shirts, etc. But still Obama the man comes across as a caricature of his own creation. And whether we want to be or not, we’re witnesses to his ego-trip. So stale is Obama’s image, it’s reported that even the youth may not be showing up for The One. Obama fatigue is setting in.

Like George W. Bush, another megalomanic with whom he shares many personality traits, Obama is thin-skinned, irritable, paranoid, and in constant need of having his ego stroked. Bush made his chief of staff, Andy Card, greet him every morning with an obsequious, “Thank you for the privilege of serving today.” Would a President Obama command a hand salute and a recitation of passages from his bizzare “race” speech? I am not being facetious.

Obama knows well that the false image he’s projected to the public could crumble at any moment, exposing the man who has accomplished nothing. Both Richard Nixon and George W. Bush forced the nation to ride along on their exhausting megalomania-fueled train wrecks of ego-feed and self-destruction. Can the nation afford another president who sees himself as anointed?

Obama could possibly make a perfect candidate for Donald Trumps’ “The Apprentice,” but I doubt Trump would hire him. Instead this election feels like the reality show, “The Surreal Life,” with Obama in the mansion along with his sordid friends: Ayers, Wright, Khalidi and Rezko. The media force-feeds the nation this junk food. Just think, we could be listening to Hillary talk about the intricacies of health care or something else intellectually nutritious. Instead, it’s more Obama drama.

Early in the primaries, President Clinton told Charlie Rose that picking Obama would be a “risk” and suggested that nominating Obama would be like nominating a “a gifted television commentator.” How right you are, Mr. President. Although “gifted” appears to have been an overstatement.

From Politico: (Ben Smith)

John McCain’s campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.

The Times described the going-away party for former University of Chicago professor, and Obama friend, Rashid Khalidi, in a story in April. The story reported that Palestinians thought they might have a friend in Obama because of his friendships in that community, despite the fact that his positions have never been particularly pro-Palestinian.

“A major news organization is intentionally suppressing information that could provide a clearer link between Barack Obama and Rashid Khalidi,” said McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb, citing Obama’s friendship with Khalidi, who is now a professor at Columbia University.

….snip…

Critics have suggested that the Times is witholding the video for political reasons, but there are other possibilities: competitive reasons, or simply out of tradition. In the mechanics of reporting, there’s another possibility as well. The video may have been given to the paper on the condition it not be released, or releasing it could compromise its source.

But the Times hasn’t explained the move, and the McCain campaign is turning up the heat on a story that, whether or not the tape is released, is a reminder that some of Obama’s Hyde Park friends stand well to the left of his stated positions.

Barack Obama paid ACORN more than $800,000 via one of their hundreds of subsidiaries operating out of the same address. The purpose: To “Get Out The Vote”. He trained early little ACORNS when they were just little nuts in Chicago–and denies it with his typical pathological liar dexterity.

Fannie Mae was the biggest fraud perpetrated upon America’s economy by the worst of criminals–members of congress,

Fannie Mae’s former CEO walked off with $90 million dollars as a reward for cooking their books and bringing down America,

Barack Obama has collected money from the brothers who live at a Hamas Compound and didn’t bother reporting it to the FEC,

AIG went on yet another trip on taxpayer money–this time to hunt partridge in England,

Nobody cares that Barack Obama is lying about his relationship with a domestic terrorist who still hates America and cannot wait to get his talons even further in the Subversion of America’s education.

Nobody notices that several additional members of the former Weather Underground are working hard to get Barack Obama elected.

Even more ironic, the Ohio Secretary of State needs the Supreme Court to tell her to do her job and allow the counties in Ohio to check several hundred thousand ACORN voter registrations to see if any of them is actually legitimate.

So who are they skewering? Why, Joe the Plumber of Course! A Wrench to the head for him! He questioned The One.

The Breaking News is that Joe isn’t a licensed plumber. And he was obviously a Plant! Obama showed up in Joe’s neighbhorhood and started talking to everybody while they Worshipped, and this guy Joe found out he was going to be there so he obviously moved into a house there really fast so he could pretend to be a resident and could be a plant! Yeah! That’s it…….

So Joe asked him a question like he wasn’t supposed to. He was just supposed to worship. Only it wasn’t a question The One wanted to hear.

And he’s a Republican, which I am assuming they regard as some kind of disease or something. I mean, inquiring minds want to know, Barack. Are you only planning to be President of the left wing of the left wing of the Democratic Party, Communists, Marxists, ex-terrorists and deadbeats? Or do you plan on getting rid of everybody else? You know, people who actually pay taxes and things? Just wondering.

After all, this Joe The Plumber thing is critical stuff! No sense of covering something trivial, like say, Obama’s Old Friend and political fixer Tony Rezko, the shameful slum lord who bilked the taxpayers out of millions to “restore” buildings as living quarters for the poor–but instead turned off the heat and allowed family pets in the form of rats–while Barack Obama looked the other way.

Why bother worrying about Obama’s connections to Rashid Khalidi, former PLO member. when you can check into Joe The Plumber and hit him with his own basin wrench for disturbing The One’s reverie?

Why bother looking into why an Iraqi prison escapee with a mansion in Chicago would contribute to Barack Obama’s campaign when you can tell the world that Joe The Plumber isn’t licensed yet?

All that other stuff is just plain trivial. What’s important is, Joe The Plumber. Why? Well because, it’s not nice to question The One Joe!!!! You made him look foolish, man. That can be downright hazardous.

Deflect. Re-route. Change the subject to something else. It’s what the Obama campaign is all about. Ask them about his terrorist buddies and hear an answer about the weather (scuse the pun). Mention ducks and hear about bears. Deflect, Deflect, Deflect. And if you can’t do that, just kill the messenger.

Congratulations Joe, you are the perfect example of what an Obama Presidency would be like. Complain, show doubt, ask a question, and plan to suffer for it. And get that American Dream crap right out of your head, Joe. That’s a Flusher under an Obama Administration. We need to all be the same, Joe. You know, you fail, I gotta fail too. It’s the Socialist Way, Comrade.

But don’t worry about taxes in the future fella! When they are done with you , you won’t be paying ANY taxes, because you won’t be working! The Secretary of State of your state will toot right along, complicit with voter fraud for The One, but you, Joe…..you are doomed, you bad boy you! You evil person! You don’t even make $250,000 a year, Joe! But don’t worry, you never will when they are done with you.

Now, I have a suggestion for you, Joe. I hear you work 10-12 hours a day. Why bother working so hard, Joe? What you can do if Barack Obama is President is just work enough to make sure you pay no taxes after your write-offs. Then sit and wait for the IRS to give you a check! What a deal, Joe! We’re all going to do it. It’s going to be the Great unAmerican Giveaway!

Get with it Comrade! And for goodness sakes, stop asking questions, will you? It annoys Comrade Obama and gets in the way of the Glorious Cause. That freedom and Democracy stuff is all over-rated anyways. That’s why millions upon millions of immigrants came here to get away from guys just like Barack Obama.

‘‘If you believed (Obama), I’d be receiving his tax cuts,’’ Wurzelbacher said. ‘‘But I don’t look at it that way. He’d still be hurting others.’’

Not as much as he’s gonna hurt YOU, Joe. Your question made The One gaffe. That’s a No-No. You’re toast, fella.

Meanwhile. off to the Re-education camp with you, Joe!

Obama has a friend or associate that is questionable.

Video or articles surface of Obama thanking them, supporting them, writing a blurb for their book, organizing events for them, campaigning for them, campaigning with them, playing poker with them, serving on boards with them, buying homes with them, dining with them, praising them, using them to prove his christian faith, or hiring them.

Obama then denies their tight relationship – brushes the association off as *a guy in the ‘hood*, claims they are someone who doesn’t advise him, minimizes the actual number of times he attended church, says he can’t vet his vetters, or flat out lies.

Obama THEN completely denies any knowledge of who they really are, denies ever knowing who they were, what they said, what they did, how corrupt they were, any fraud they were up to, and what they were preaching.

People – this isn’t a coincidence. One or two nefarious associations can be examined and written off. But there is a looooooooong list of people that Obama is close to – whether they be family members, business partners, friends or co-workers who are either radicals, criminals, racist, or anti-American.

This list, compiled by The Daily Antikos, is great, but forgot a few people/organizations (that I added at the end):

Jeremiah Wright – Obama’s Pastor for 20 years. Obama did not distance himself until it was political.

Father Pflager – Speaks at Obama’s former Church (only after embarrassment) and Obama gave him money & here they are in 2000.

Bill Ayers – Terrorist. Member of the Weather Underground. Killed Americans. Launched Obama’s Political Career.

Tony Rezko – bought land and sold it to Obama at a discount. Oh yeah, and he is a convicted felon.

Raila Odinga – Defeated in his bid for the Kenyan Presidency. Led Supporters in a Violent Uprising. Obama Campaigned for him in 2006. (at tax payer expense)

Khalid Abdullah Tariq Al-Mansour – I can’t even get started. This is Obama’s Political Grand-father, and his intentions do not seem to be too honorable.

Franklin Raines – Cooked the Books at Fannie Mae. Obama hired him as an advisor on Housing and Urban Affairs.

Frank Marshall David – Communist Obama Mentor.

Emil Jones, Jr. – Ugh… Just Read It.

Rev James Meeks – Spiritual Mentor

Rashid Khalidi – PLO Terrorist.

Here are a few more:

Larry Walsh is the Will County (IL) County Executive, good buddy, political confidante, and frequent poker player with Barack Obama. He is currently being investigated by the FBI.

Kwame Kilpatrick, former mayor of Detroit, convicted felon, has been charged with 10 felonies including perjury, obstruction of justice and assaulting a public safety officer. He will be sentenced October 28th. In June, Kwame Kilpatrick gave Barack Obama his endorsement as a Democratic Party Superdelegate.

Gov. Blagojevich, who is under investigation.

Marilyn Katz, a former member of the ’60′s anti-war group SDS, led protestors against the police outside the Democratic Convention in 1968. Protestors threw nails in the street to impede the police and clashed with police on this occasion and others. Katz has said of her activities that she wanted the U.S. to become a socialist paradise. She is a close friend of Barack Obama. Katz is a member of Obama’s national finance committee.

James Johnson, Former Fannie Mae executive who was vetting candidates for Obama for his VP but had to resign. Johnson is drawing fire over his jumbo home loans from Countrywide Financial, a major actor in the subprime mortgage mess, that may have been below market rates.

Louis Farrakhan, leader of the NOI. Obama helped to organize his Million Man March in ’95, and he is tight with Reverend Wright and Phleger.

Fannie Mae and Freddi Mac – Obama has recieved the most donations, second only to Dodd, from these companies, and also was thanked, in part with the Congressional Black Caucus, for *being like family* with Fannie and Freddi.

ACORN – Obama is the former Director of Illinois Project Vote, and they have been raided and charged for fraudulent voter registration practices. They are also linked to some of the above associations of Obama’s.

Michelle Obama. *First time in my adult life, I am proud of my country.* Nuff said.

How does someone hang out with that many people, who are, as I said, criminals, radicals, racists or just plain anti-American, and not share some of those characteristics?

And the best excuse Obama can ever come up with is *they aren’t the person I thought I knew* or *I never heard them say those things* or *I did not know they were a domestic terrorist when I was having my first fundraiser in their living room*.

Are we to believe that he truly didn’t know, that he is that uninformed, that naive, that, dare I say, stupid? Or is he just lying?

Why would someone who associates with all those people WANT to be President? And more importantly, why would anyone WANT him to be President?

I just don’t get it.

“This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who’s a professor of English in Chicago who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He’s not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was eight years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn’t make much sense…”

The very next day, the Obama campaign posted on its Web site under the title “Fact Check on Obama and Ayers” the following, each prefaced with “Reality” and backed up with one or media reports:

• Obama was eight years old when the Weathermen were active
• Ayers connection is “phony,” “tenuous,” “a stretch”
• Ayers comments were published on September 11; the interview occurred prior to publication
• Ayers is a tenured professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago and was a “respected adviser” to Mayor Daley on school reform.
• Charges against Ayers were dropped and he served no time

Obama continued his lies about Ayers when he appeared on Fox News Sunday, April 27. Barack repeated the claim that, “Mr. Ayres (sic) is a 60 plus year old individual who lives in my neighborhood…” (Fox News, April 27, 2008).

The campaign to persuade the public that Barack barely knew Ayers got a boost on August 21, 2008 from TruthFightsBack.com (John Kerry’s Web site for the Obama campaign). The site trumpeted, “Barack Obama Barely Knows William Ayers” and wrote that “The Republicans, desperate to smear Barack and try to build on their lies about his religion, insinuate that Barack Obama has a deep relationship with William Ayers. William Ayers was once a member of a radical group in the 1960s.” TruthFightsBack.com calls this lie “The Truth” under the title Barack Obama Barely Knows William Ayers:

“Barack Obama lived in the same area of Chicago as Ayers, and Ayers has been a politically active member of that community for years. Considering that, it’s actually remarkable how little the two have to do with each other. Early in Barack Obama’s career, he attended one reception in his honor at Ayers’s house. They also were separately asked by a charitable organization to serve on that organization’s board. And that’s it. There’s no friendship between the two, no relationship, no history of working together.”

The Obama team’s effort to cover up Barack’s ties to Ayers included an organized campaign to intimidate a Chicago radio station (WGN) that planned to interview Stanley Kurtz, who had succeeded in examining documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC). The campaign emailed an Obama Action Wire to its supporters encouraging them to call in to the show and use following talking points (as found on the report form for supporters to log their call):

• William Ayers was involved with the Weather Underground when Barack Obama was eight years old, and Barack has roundly condemned their actions.
• Last night on Fox News, Kurtz tried to radicalize an education reform program in Chicago called the Annenberg Challenge. The Challenge was funded by Republican Walter Annenberg, introduced by Mayor Daley and Republican Governor Jim Edgar, and one of its initiatives was even praised by John McCain.
• Kurtz claimed on Fox News that William Ayers recruited Obama to the Annenberg Challenge — a flat out lie. Ayers did not serve on the board of the Challenge, and he had nothing to do with Barack’s recruitment.

Lies, big lies, and damned lies. The Obama team offers a disingenuous blend of fact and fiction in trying to cover up the true relationship between Obama and Ayers. The devil is in the detials and details do matter:

Ayers is just a guy who lives in my neighborhood, a tenured professor, and adviser to the local mayor

Ayers does live in Barack’s neighborhood (or vice versa). In fact, Barack and Bill currently live about two blocks apart on Greenwood Avenue and 50^th Street. And before Barack’s “boneheaded” deal with convicted felon Rezko to purchase the Greenwood mansion, Obama lived about 1-1/4 miles from Bill. But the dismissive “just a guy who lives in my neighborhood” is a lie because Ayers was not just some fellow Barack bumped into at the corner market. They have a relationship that goes back nearly 20 years. Ayers was Barack’s friend, employer, colleague, and political supporter.

Ayers also is a tenured professor and multiple reports indicate he also is a buddy of Chicago’s Mayor Richard Daley. In fact, Mayor Daley has defended him during the campaign saying they’ve worked together, that Bill Ayers is a respected educator, and valued member of the Chicago community (Chicago Tribune, April 17, 2008).

It is unfair to say that Ayers’ actions 40 years ago when I was only eight should reflect upon me; anyway, charges against him where dropped and he did not serve any jail time. Plus, I’ve condemned the group’s actions

False. It is entirely fair to judge Barack by the people he surrounds himself with. Bill Ayer’s may have beat the terrorism charges but he has remained resolutely unrepentant about his actions. In 1981 David Horowitz quotes him bragging “Guilty as hell. Free as a bird. America is a great country.” In 2001 he is quoted saying “I don’t regret settings bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” (New York Times, September 11, 2001). Bill’s wife, Bernadine Dohrn went to jail rather than aid the government after the deadly Brinks armored car robbery. I like the comment at Hot Air (February 24, 2008) where See-Dubya expresses concern about Barack’s “…frightening tone-deafness toward terrorism, and a blithe ignorance of the evil and chaos these radicals represent.”

Any connection to Ayers is phony, tenuous, or a stretch. It is ridiculous to suggest any tie with Ayers

False. Everything discovered to date undeniably document that Barack Obama and Bill Ayers have personal, professional, and political ties that span nearly 20 years. Steve Diamond believes they likely first met in 1988 following Chicago’s teacher’s strike. Barack was hired into a Woods Fund sponsored position with Developing Communities Project that was a member of Bill Ayers’ Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCs) (Global Labor and Politics, June 7, 2008).

Consider as well:

• In November 20, 1997. Michelle Obama, then Associate Dean of Student Services and Director of the University of Chicago Community Service Center, organized and participated in a panel that included Barack and Bill, Should a child ever be called a “super predator?” at the University of Chicago. See also, Chicago Tribune.
• In 1997 Barack wrote a review of Bill’s book “A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court”. Chicago Tribune published a blurb from Obama about books he was reading. See also USA Today.
• April 19-20, 2002, Barack, Bill, and Bernadine participated in a conference and panel “Intellectuals: Who Needs Them?“. See also, Chicago Tribune.
• February 2005. Barack and Bill participated in a conference and dinner for Rashid Khalidi at Columbia wherein they offered testimonials to Khalidi. Mayor Daley also attended this hate-fest. (See The Sun and Campus Watch for some commentary. Khalidi subsequently lost his position at Columbia because of his comments, see New York Times.)

Ayers did not help launch my career

False. Back in 1995 after Barack Obama had returned to Chicago upon graduating from Harvard Law School, Bill Ayers hired the young Barack, then a third year associate at Davis, miner, Barnhill & Gallad. Together they spent upwards to $160 million dollars over the next seven years. As well, Bill and his wife Bernadine Dohrn feted him to the community as then-State Senator Palmer’s successor.

Early in Barack Obama’s career, he attended one reception in his honor at Ayers’ house

Not the whole truth. This was not a meet and greet reception. And Barack had more than one isolated sit down with Ayers and Dohrn. The Ayers/Dohrn home is where Barack Obama launched his campaign to oust then-State Senator Alice Palmer. This reception is reported in numerous articles including Ben Smith in Politico (February 22). Maria Warren writes about this gathering in her blog Musings & Migraines on January 27, 2005, “When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him–introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.” Ari Berman also reports in The Nation (May 1) that Bill hosted a fundraiser for Barack in 1996. (Possibly an error on Berman’s part as this might be the 1995 event since there is no other mention of a 1996 fundraiser.)

Ayers had nothing to do with my joining Annenberg Challenge. He did not recruit me, nor did he serve on its board

False. Bill Ayers founded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, secured the initial $50 million from Annenberg Challenge, and claims to have co-chaired the Collaborative it with Barack Obama. While there is nothing to explicitly prove that Bill recruited Barack, it is simply not credible to say that Bill Ayers had nothing to do with Barack Obama joining the organization.

I do not exchange ideas with Ayers

Really? Can you say the same thing about your communications director, David Axelrod? According to a source who attended the Democratic National convention in Denver, an old friend of Ayer’s bragged that Axelrod and Ayers are in regular contact and coordinating on how to respond to the claims about the Ayers/Obama relationship.

Ayers has not ‘officially’ endorsed me

Really? So he’s backing McCain? The issue is not who Ayers has endorsed. The issue remains–why did Barack hang out for so many years with a guy like Ayers. Endorsement or not, it is a question that matter.

Ayers has been a politically active member of that community for years

True. First, as a home-grown domestic terrorist, then since around 1987 as a community activist, organizer, and financier. As Lynn Sweet wrote in the Chicago Sun-Times (March 3), “Hyde Park welcomed William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn to the neighborhood after they resurfaced as local civic leaders following their years on the lam as members of the Weather Underground.” She notes Ben Smith observing in Politico (February 22), “While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.”

Considering that, it’s actually remarkable how little the two have to do with each other

Oh yeah?! Now this is where the lying really begins. As is increasingly clear, they worked together and shared the same circle of friends and families, same business associates, and same political associates.

They also were separately asked by a charitable organization to serve on that organization’s board

Not true. They were involved in at least three different “charitable” organizations. There was the Woods Fund of Chicago, which Barack joined 1993 and Bill Ayers joined in 1997. But what about the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which Ayers founded and worked on with Barack Obama from 1995 through 1999. While Barack chaired the Challenge, Bill co-chaired its Collaborative arm. This was actually three connected organizations: Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC, the Board), Chicago School Reform Collaborative (the Collaborative, and Consortium of Chicago Schools Research (CCSR).

And that’s it. There’s no friendship between the two…

Ben Smith in Politico (February 22) writes that Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician, told him that they were “friends”. At the time Smith dismissed this for lack of supporting information and the denial by Barack Obama. (I wonder if Smith has since reconsidered?). Mayor Daley now says they are friends. Even Bill Burton acknowledges that they were friends.

…no relationship

False. They have family, community, business, and political ties. The only tie they appear to not share regards religion.

…no history of working together

False. Why is the media so reluctant to explore the CAC relationship?

At the risk of being redundant, sometime in 1987 Bill and Bernadine returned home to Chicago, where both had family. Michelle likely already knew both through her Robinson family ties and then in her 1988 work at Sidley Austin, where Bernardine was also employed. It is likely that Barack at least knew of Bill Ayers because he was already involving himself among with the Ayers family and their players in the community. Bill Ayers operated in relative obscurity until February 2008 when his ties to Barack and Michelle Obama became a matter of discussion in Barack’s presidential aspirations.

As a community organizer in Chicago from 1985 to 1988 Barack Obama received funding from and worked with numerous groups, such as Developing Communities Project. Bill Ayers joined in this arena upon his return in 1987 through his own group, Alliance for Better Chicago Schools (ABCs). They both surely crossed paths as Ayer’s father, Tom, provided funding to Barack and Bill through Chicago United, a group of businessmen concerned about race and education issues in Chicago. Tom Ayers was once CEO of Commonwealth Edison (now Exelon) (Steve Diamond, Global Labor and Politics, June 18, 2008). Michelle, the Robinson daughter, continued her own involvement but details are murky at best. Barack Obama shows up again in Chicago after graduating from Harvard Law School, ends up at Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, and joins the Woods Fund board, 1993, as a freshly minted 32 year old law school graduate, where he remained through 2002 and continued association with until gaining a seat in the U.S. Senate. Bill Ayers formally joined the board in 1999 but had ties throughout the earlier years, including receiving funds from the group.

Anyway, in 1993 Bill began organizing the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Despite his unrepentant terrorist past he succeeded in securing nearly $50 million from Annenberg Challenge and immediately named Barack as his co-chair. Together over the next five years they spent at least $110 million for “radical” school reform in Chicago (Steve Diamond, Global Labor and Politics, June 18, 2008 and August 18, 2008). Then, or shortly afterward, the remains of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was handed over to Chicago Public Education Fund.

This was a small circle of people, families, and businesses. They were figuratively partners in crime, Chicago’s political mafia enriching themselves through their political position, through federal, local, and state funding, and through their positions and funds given from private organizations, especially, of immediately focus here, from the Woods Fund and Annenberg Challenge. It is likely that there are other organizations and people involved and this needs to be explored further. Stanley Kurtz, Steve Diamond, and others are now beginning to look into what Annenberg Challenge did with its more than $160 million in private and federal dollars.

But first, let’s get back to Barack, Bill, and Bernadine. Again, Michelle plays at least a bit role in this but to what extent is still unclear. Over the years Barack, Bill, Bernadine, and Michelle show up together, along with other Chicago figures that include Rev. Wright, Minister Farrakhan, Rev. Meeks, Rev. Pfleger, Sen. Jones, and many, many more. Throughout this Barack also had his early ties with friend, businessman, and political financier Tony Rezko and Rezko’s partners and associates. And finally, let’s also not forget organizations that received funding from Barack and Bill, such as:

• Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN)
• Arab American Action Network (AAAN) founded by husband and wife Rashid and Mona Khalidi.
• Maoist Mike Klonsky, another terrorist member of the Weatherman
• Children and Family Justice Center, Bernardine’s organization.
• Trinity Unity Church and Rev. Wright.

Finally, what role did Barack’s position as a sitting state senator play in all of this?

Summary

Fairly or not, Chicago has a long reputation as a corrupt political city. It is increasingly clear that Barack joined and became a willing partner in this corruption. The families, organizations, and businesses involved enriched themselves off of the private and public funds that Barack controlled. That Barack Obama lied and continues to lie about his relationship with Bill Ayers is a smokescreen and the tip-of-the-iceberg about the depth of his involvement in what are, or may be, corrupt practices among these people and their organizations.

A Bit of Background and Unresolved Items

As long as this post is, it is still embarrassingly incomplete. In writing this I have read every post at Larry Johnson’s NoQuarterUSA and Steve Diamond’s Global Labor and Politics blogs involving terrorist William Ayers. I also dug through scores of articles and posts at various media sites and blogs. While some matters are consistently reported, others vary significantly. I’m sure I’ve missed many salient points.

It is especially dramatic to read earlier compared to newer posts. Consider Ben Smith’s “Obama once visited ’60s radicals” from February 22, 2008. The title alone shows the naivety of Ben and everyone about the level of Obama’s involvement with Bill and Bernadine. That Obama let such false picture spread without correction, including then and now on his campaign Web sites, further reflects his clear intent to deceive voters.

Four unresolved items in an incomplete list of questions are:

• What is Michelle’s involvement in all of this?
• How did Barack’s role in the Illinois Senate affect or was a part of all of this?
• What are Barack’s other board and organization memberships?
• Where did the money go? E.g., to friends, family, personal and professional associates, and political cronies?

Suggested Readings

The body of evidence and discussion on the relationship among and between Barack and Michelle Obama, William Ayers, and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn is growing daily. As we get beyond the lies and begin to follow the money I recommend reading the following:

• Larry Johnson at his Web site NoQuarterUSA and as I have summarized here.
• Steve Diamond at Global Labor and Politics and as often published at NoQuarterUSA.
• Stanley Kurtz at National Review has made a start and it will be worth watching to see what he develops as he researches the Chicago Annenberg Challenge papers he’s now gained access to.
• Selected articles from multiple sources are summarized here.
• My posts at The Problem With Obama and The Independent View.

Matthew Weaver
Reprinted from It’s Not Just a Lie, It’s a Matter of Character

I have zero compassion for them. Anyone who supported Obama after March 2008 is clearly either a delusional Obama cultist or a head in the sand idiot. This one is on you.

You had better more experienced choices, say Senator Joe Biden. You had better more principled candidates who live their convictions, say Representative Dennis Kucinich. You had a reform-minded committed populist, say former Senator John Edwards. And then you had Hillary Clinton who despite some flaws encompassed all the best qualities of the aforementioned. You dug the Democratic Party’s grave, now wallow in it for all I care.

For months, countless voices of reason have pointed out time and again, Obama is an empty suit (the above cartoon is from March 2007 so don’t act surprise that Obama is devoid of substance). Obama is a fraud. He lacks experience. He has no relevant qualifications. He has no conviction other than his own political welfare.

His past behaviour is troublesome. He threw Alice Palmer and four others off the ballot. His rise through the labyrinth of Chicago politics took him down some worrisome alleys and forged alliances with a cast of characters include Louis Farrahkan, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, Antonin Rezko, Rashid Khalidi, William Ayers, and Bernardine Dohrn. Now he pals around with Donnie McClurkin, Father Michael Pfleger, and Jodie Evans.

For months committed liberals like Paul Krugman, in column after column, demonstrated how his proposals weren’t that progressive or even centrist. I’ve grown hoarse pointing out Obama’s lobbyist connections and his ties to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.

At every opportunity I get, I bring up the fact Senator Obama voted for the Bush-Cheney Energy Policy. The Washington Post called it “a piñata of perks for energy industries.” John McCain did not vote with his party. Hillary Clinton did not cross the aisle.

But you would not listen. You were mired in a speech that Obama gave in 2002. I hope that speech keeps you warm the next four years because that’s is the extent of his progressive record, a speech. His real record is far more centrist (that reach out across the aisle and ream someone kind of record), or perhaps corporatist is a better choice of words. Six billion dollars in subsidies to the oil & gas industry and $12 billion in subsidies to nuclear power industry.

One has to wonder if he photocopied his energy plan from Dick Cheney and Charles Grassley. His health care plan is a misnomer, it’s an insurance plan. The beneficiary is the insurance industry.

His votes in the Senate were more pro-Bush than Hillary’s, than Biden’s, than Dodd’s, than Edwards’. Progressive Punch ranked Obama the 42nd most progressive member of the Senate. There are 49 Democrats and one Socialist and one “Independent” in the Democratic Caucus. Forty-second out of 51. Funny how that is. Laughing yet?

Now, you are upset that he is backtracking. News flash: he says what he thinks will please his audience at the moment and then he does whatever he thinks will advance his career the most. And what a career it is. Zero legislative accomplishments. Zip. Name one. He has missed 42% of the votes in the Senate this year. Over the comparable period, Hillary missed 30%. That’s over a quarter more votes missed. Not trivial and by design. He and his handlers don’t want him to have a record to run on.

You think his vote on FISA was shocking. Really? He is the candidate of corporate interests, the candidate of the anti-Clinton Democratic establishment. You’re voting for Obama but getting Tom Dashcle. There’s a winner for you. You’re voting for Obama and getting Jesse Jackson, Jr. Another soulless Chicago politician. As a bonus, tack on Dick Durbin. But wait there’s more. Act now and we’ll throw in out-of-touch effete liberals– John Kerry and a gasbag to boot — Bill Richardson. But wait, there’s more you also get master advertising guru David Alexrod. Think of it as the DNC’s special gift to to you.

Obama is the designated one, the annointed one, but you satistified yourselves with silly speeches and satiated yourselves with empty platitudes galore. You went for the hip and the flash, a no-hit wonder who hasn’t even come to bat yet. He moves from one on deck circle to another never fully entering the game.

Instead you left the ace of the Democratic Party in the dugout. You fools. Stop your crying and either attempt to salvage the situation or prepare yourselves for a McCain Presidency which from my point of view is preferable to an Obama one. Better the devil that I know than the devil that I don’t. I know what to expect from McCain.

But how can I trust that shiftless soulless hypocrite who with each passing day changes yet another of his positions? It’s backtracking with Barack. So far he’s trampled on the Fourth Amendment, a women’s right to choose, the health care of all Americans and now the cornerstone of what brung him to the dance in the first place, that magical speech in 2002 that had to be re-recorded so it could be replayed again and again and use your opposition to a fruitless war as his springboard to power.

So it is with incredulity that I read this silliest of wanking posts by Ian Welsh on Firedoglake entitled “Turning Obama Into A Punchline: How Democrats Can Lose.” He was mockable from the start and his supporters perhaps even more.

I still can’t forget that kid in Ohio who thinks Obama is infallible. Papa Obama the First. News flash — Obama is a joke. He isn’t just a punchline, he is one of those clown punch bags. He may come back up but he just gets walloped down again. The funnier part is that it is largely self-inflicted so far. The GOP has yet to get its licks in.

His post and selected comments below the fold.

Once upon a time there was a candidate who was 17 points ahead of his foe. The election, it seemed, was his.

His name was Dukakis, and he lost that election to George Bush, Sr.

Or, more accurately, he lost it to Lee Atwater, Rove’s mentor. By the time Atwater got through with him, Dukakis wasn’t even a respected politician anymore, he was a punchline.

In 2000 Rove ran Bush as a “compassionate conservative” and smeared Gore as a liar, the man who’d “invented” the internet. The fact that Gore had never said that didn’t matter. In 2004 Kerry, an actual war hero, was smeared as a coward by the Swift Boat Veterans for “Truth” and by the time they got through with him, the man who’d taught Swift Boaters that the way to respond to an attack was to turn into it, was branded a coward, not a hero.

Republicans try and run elections based on “character” and when they manage it they generally win. When the election turns on something else, such as hope, the economy and health care in ‘92, they lose.

Today McCain promoted a new campaign manager, Steve Schmidt. Schmidt has been pushed, hard, by Karl Rove. He worked for the Governator’s reelection, and he also worked for Bush’s reelection in 04. Schmidt understands both parts of the Republican two-step — how to take away the scary parts of Republicanism, which he did for the Governator, who ran on a number of rather liberal policy plans; and how to destroy the opponent.

McCain isn’t going to win this election by playing nice. The natural momentum of the time favors Obama, because the Republican brand is badly damaged. The appointment of a Rovian disciple shows that the Republicans get this, and they’re ready to intensify their strategy.

Folks act as if negative campaigning doesn’t work, but this is a myth. It works, and it works well. All it is is reverse branding — branding your opponent for him. Schmidt will be looking for the opportunity to brand Obama as effete, weak and unprincipled. Obama’s actions of the past couple weeks, his “run to the center” in which he has suddenly realized he didn’t mean what he said in the primaries is playing into this narrative.

As with almost all Democrats Obama doesn’t seem to get that strength isn’t about what you vote for (national “security”), it’s about how you act. Stand strong on a principle and people will admire that even if they disagree with it. Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Now, certainly McCain has no principles to speak of, having thrown his few remaining scruples out the door over the last couple years to court the conservative base, as when he voted for torture.

But, as we all know, the media prefers Republicans on character issues. The Swift Boaters were liars, their lies were proved at the time, but they were never effectively rebutted by the press. In 2000 the press likewise repeatedly failed to call Bush out on his many lies, indeed Paul Krugman, who tried, was expressly forbidden to use the word “lie” by his editors.

So the McCain campaign is going to try and define Obama. Republicans defined Dukakis, they defined Gore, they defined Kerry. Only with Clinton did they fail. At the same time, I expect Schmidt to push the McCain maverick brand more seriously and start backing away from the right wing base on a couple of key issues. (Torture, for example, is a place where McCain appears to be attempting to claim he is different from Bush, despite his vote for it.)

Muddle the difference on some key stands, define your opponent, make the election about character and not about policy. Obama has made this easier. It can’t really be about health care since Obama is not for universal care, and it’s harder to make it about the economy after changing his position on NAFTA.

So what Obama’s got left is “I’m not George Bush. And I am change.” If he can define McCain as Bush, he can still win it. But remember, historically elections that have come down to being about character have favored Republicans. And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone, I hope he isn’t walking into a trap whereby in simply defining himself as “hope” and “change” and “not Bush” he’s leaning on some slender reeds, easily broken by the avalanche of mud soon to come his way.

Lee Atwater is dead, but the style of politics he perfected hasn’t changed.

And sometimes the more things change, the more they stay the same.

You’re deluding yourselves by thinking that McCain is defining Obama. Obama is doing it all on his own. Obama is defining himself with every word he utters on FISA, capital punishment, on Iraq, on abortion, on his own naivete. His own backtracking is blazing a fiery trail as if it were naplam.

His candidacy is, as we speak, failing to gain traction. So far his own saving grace has been that McCain too has failed to gain traction. It’s a comedy of errors or perhaps a Greek tragedy. Either way, there is plenty to mock but not much to laugh at.

But you will see McCain run as some cross between a Ford Republican and Reagan Republican. You are beginning that change now. McCain is taking energy policy, Obama is talking flag pins. And when Obama does try to talk policy, he ends up “revising” earlier statements. Not too clever this very junior Senator from Illinois. Obama is on his way being defined as well, let’s just say he is part Carter, part Dukakis and part Kerry and all Barack and not one iota of Clinton.

He is unelectable even before the 527s get started. Those will point to the Reverend Wright. How does he run from a twenty year association with Reverend Wright? The Wright of 1991 is no different than the Wright of 2001 or 2008. He’s the same man and the tapes are ready to go. Twenty years of Barack at Trinity ready to hit your television screens.

How does he run from William Ayers, an unrepentant terrrorist? How does he run from Jodie Evans, a wealthy divorcee who thinks it’s funny to sabotage Army recruiting centers?

How does he run from that Bush-Cheney Energy Policy vote? Or his countless oil and gas connections? He is in the uneviable position of being attacked from both the left and the right and some of the center to boot. He has his cult and his handlers. That may be all he has in the end. Don’t look now but Ralph Nader has been polling since June in the 4% to 6% range. If he gets up to 10%, he is in the debates.

Now for the plight of the Obama Crowd, a few select comments from Firedoglake:

I like your thinking. Maybe I’ll send a check to HRC and JE. Keep the options open.

Sending a cheque to JE is pointless. Sending a cheque to HRC is nice because we need to retire her debt but the real problem is the DNC. You need to act to stop the coronation in Denver. Talk to a PUMA.

Do’h! We cudda hadda John Edwards!

Yeah. But you let a stupid $400 haircut story in the media undo him.

I’ve given up on aristocrats, and I’ve quit donating as a general policy.

Though I will seriously consider giving funds to a good effort to primary any Blue Dog-type.

Yeah, well Clinton was the working class Democrat. So was Edwards. So was Kucinich. And Biden wasn’t bad either. Choices you had. Even as late as May.

And thereby hangs the tale. Because I expected integrity from Barack Obama. I expected at the very least that he would be a fierce defender of the Constitution. Remember the “taught constitutional law” meme? He had my loyalty (okay, trickle down loyalty from Gore and then Edwards) and he has some of my money. There will be no more money (he doesn’t need it — he can afford to cover Hillary’s losses) and the loyalty thing is in limbo. And I’m a staunch Dem.

This is not looking good.

You wouldn’t listen to reason. Anyone who would throw five people off the ballot, as he did in his first state senate race, cannot be expected to be a Defender of the Constitution, can he? Anyone who arranges to get pundits thrown off CNN because he didn’t like their coverage cannot exactly be called a civil libertarian, can he? Integrity? From Barack Obama? Based on what? The way he handled the Reverend Wright? The racist card he has played throughout this campaign? His misogynistic remarks? His complete disrespect fof the success of the Clinton Administration? And yet he praised Ronald Reagan? Integrity?

And as Obama decides to be all things to all people, and nothing to anyone.

Nail on the head. We have a winner, ladies and gentleman. I have been saying this since January. It was evident then and it has been parcel post part of his campaign throughout. Did you just wake up from a six month hibernation?

I wrote to the Obama camp that I will not donate to someone who does not fight for the Constitution of the United States of America. (FISA, supporting church charity.) Not that I think letters, e-mails, faxes or phone calls are having any impact on any of the Dems. I don’t see Pelosi/Reid/et al. taking any notice of their base, and I don’t see Obama wising up. I despair, but I think McCain will slip through. Sad for all of us.

Sad. Yeah, that’s the word. Sad. You’re despairing? Despair if he becomes President. That’s truly what must be avoided. When we have reached the point that John McCain is the sane choice, I am afraid despair is pointless. That line was crossed long ago.

FISA anyone?

Obama’s new rush to destroy the Separation of Church and State isn’t going to help much either. If there is a plausible challenge to him in 2012, he might be a one-termer. Historic, but a single.

He’s getting the 3P’s down…Pander, Prevaricate and Pirouette.

He’s your man, not mine. I have opposed him from day one and will continue to do so because he’s dangerous. Obama is nothing but duplicitous.

Be seen to flip like a weathervane and even if people wind up agreeing with you, they’ll despise you. Being strong, appearing strong, is about having principles, about taking a stand, not about talking tough.

Let’s see now, who had principles? What was her name? Experienced too. Tough as nails. Wouldn’t quit until the DNC told her to shut up and get on board. Now, what was her name again?

Obama wasn’t my first choice, but as the primary campaign progressed, he grew on me (mostly by treating the electorate as grown-ups instead of fearful children).

Now, I want a do-over. The FISA capitulation was bad enough, but now he’s walking back his commitment to get out of Iraq? What is wrong with him? Did someone kidnap David Plouffe and replace him with Mark Penn?

Treating the electorate as grown-ups? What, by telling fairy tales in the land of hope and change? By telling you that you were the ones you had been waiting for. That was shameless flattery. Also out of Lenin’s playbook.

Clinton treated you as an adult. Edwards treated you as an adult. Obama treated you as a toy, a piece of silly putty that he could mold into his own legion of toy soldiers marching onto Washington to defeat the evil lobbyists who form his very own shock troops. It’s like watching an episode of Star Wars.

You have been deceived. You have been lied to. Wake up and doing something about it.

What’s wrong with Obama? How long have you got? I have written volumes. So have others far more learned than I. But you preferred to believe that a speech by an Illinois State Senator mattered more than the hard work of US Senators who faced tough decisions or who actually realized that telling the American people we can just waltz out of Iraq and leave it in a vacuum would be to mislead them.

Senator Biden, who is likely the most knowledgeable US Senator on both sides of the aisle on Iraq, told us that Obama didn’t have a plan, he had a dream.

Senator Clinton had the endorsement of nearly 40 retired top members of the US Armed Forces, including two former Chief of Staffs because they knew she understood what it would take to do the groundwork so we can exit Iraq.

Ambassador Joe Wilson wrote op-ed after op-ed praising Clinton for her approach. In return, you vilified him. And he broke the goods on Cheney.

There are no words that can describe the utter disgust I feel towards many of Obama supporters. Those that engage in tactics that aim to suppress dissent by shutting down websites nefariously or spreading misinformation about the membership of PUMA are nothing but vile worms living off their own manure.

I have long recognized that my political views put me in a minority- and that no candidate will win by espousing what I believe- so I try to support the person who will do the least harm.

Well unless you are willing to consider Nader, you’re likely talking about McCain at this point as the person who will do the least damage. Obama can not be trusted and then he lacks all relevant experience and that in and of itself is eminently dangerous.

His comments on Jerusalem at AIPAC would have set off riots in the Middle East and put both American lives and interests across the globe in jeopardy had he been President at the time. Words matter. Nuance matters. Precision is important and now he’s puzzled by how the media reads his every word. Unless you want to be the Hugo Chavez of the United States who spouts like some uncontrollable geyser, words need to be measured. But Obama is such a panderer that off the cuff he will fly and into the abyss we will go.

All the people who are disappointed in Obama need to remember on thing – if you remember nothing else about him. He is a student of George Lakoff.

For those of you who don’t know what that means, it is simply, George Lakoff is a specialist in the cognitive science of linguistics. In English, he studies ’framing’ and how it works.

In the instance being worried about today (faith-based initiatives), everyone (including me) has heard this term over and over for the past 7 or so years, and have become very familiar with the Bush version of this. It is a failed policy whereby the Rethugs dismantle a government program that was doing an adequate job, in favor of some crony religious program that is marginal at best, and outright corrupt at its heart at worst.

Along with this, the Rethugs dismantled social safety net programs leaving these so-called faith-based organizations to pick up the entire load, something they were never qualified for, nor were capable of doing on the scale of need. So we hear the words – faith-based initiative – and immediately all this crap comes to mind. Along with the erosion in the line of separation between church and state.

Let me propose a ”Lakoff transformation”. First, listen to Obama’s speech. And I mean REALLY listen. Don’t just read the headlines, here or anywhere else because they all have as a subtext the Bush definition.

Second, let’s lose the descriptor – faith-based initiative. What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done. He is proposing that the government will keep its ongoing programs and work to make them better. And will work as a PARTNER with other organizations to help address needs that may be better suited to these particular organizations or for which these organizations may have a better track record of success. He proposes to LEARN from these organizations and figure out ways to help the government agency do a better job so that all persons needs are met. Yes, some of these organizations are religious – but the appropriate guidelines are in place – they just need oversight, accountability and enforcement, something that has also been completely missing under Bushco, and which Obama says he will make the Office in charge do its job.

I think that we are all too quick to dismiss and feel bad about Obama’s supposed policy direction changes, when they may not be that at all. Or they may be policy direction changes that are going in an entirely new direction than the one we are thinking about. Lakoff says this is the trouble with our language – we tend to develop a ’frame’ around a word or phrase when we first encounter it. That frame gets imprinted on our brains, and then we have to work really hard to actually think ”outside the frame” for a new and better context.

Next time you hear that Obama did XYZ using language that feels/seems bad – try this exercise. Replace the objectionable frame with another word that describes the action being taken – as I did using the word ’partnership’, and then look at the issue again. We may all be surprised – in a good way.

What Obama is proposing is a PARTNERSHIP between the government and private institutions to get a job done? What Obama is propsoing is a giveaway of taxpayer money to private institutions that proselytize. Government is in the business of assisting people in their lives. Churches are in the business of saving souls. The two are not complimentary. There is a Constitutional separation between Church and State. Your framing is blind acceptance of utter folly.

The kool-aid is strong in this one. Anyone who supports him now is blind to the dangers that Obama poses to civil liberties and human progress. And blind men are at their blindest when they suddenly think that they can see.

See you in 2012, if we get there.

__________

From my blog, By The Fault.