Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

I refer to Americans United, Karl Rove and MoveOn as idiots, as all of them are hopelessly misinformed.

Rove believes the coordinated effort of the White House to pressure moderate Democrats through various advocacy groups will backfire. He is partially correct, but his reasoning is flawed. I quote Rove:

Every White House is faced with finding ways to nudge Congress without antagonizing it. But this overt campaign could infuriate members who won’t appreciate being targeted by a president of their own party. They could react by becoming recalcitrant. Should that happen, team Obama will have to recalculate its efforts, especially as the public sours on big spending plans.

Members of Congress will not simply become “recalcitrant” as a result of their personal disdain for Obama’s tactics; they will become recalcitrant as a result of all the Republican support they will receive from their constituents. Hence why I believe MoveOn and Americans United are idiots: attempting to incite certain Democrats to pressure certain Democratic moderates, their efforts will simply alert Republicans who probably never supported these Democrats that their Senator or House Representative is indeed a moderate. And not only will this engender Republican support for the moderate Democrats in question; it will also compel the Republicans and Democrats who voted against Obama in certain states to oppose Obama’s budget in a more active and vigorous manner. Moderate Democrats in Congress will then have electoral justifications to oppose Obama, and Republicans, Independents and Democrats who oppose Obama will have a new political signifier around which they can mobilize.

Consider Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, two Senate Democrats who represent southern states. Mary Landrieu beat her Republican opponent John N. Kennedy by 6 points last cycle, warding off a Republican surge that delivered a 59-40 victory to John McCain. The reaction against Obama in Louisiana almost derailed her reelection efforts, but she managed to win by citing her centrism and independence. Not only has that centrism and independence been confirmed by the ads Democratic organizations are launching against her; the Republicans who opposed her will now support her out of sympathy. As a result, she will receive supportive telephone calls from Louisiana Republicans who will urge her to oppose Obama’s budget. Moreover, her approval ratings will increase, complicating liberal advocacy groups’ efforts to render her unelectable. And yes, many Democratic groups would be satisfied if Mary Landrieu lost a reelection. Some Democrats, in fact, believe she deserves no respect. But to the chagrin of these Democratic activists, their botched efforts to make her political life difficult will only garner her more support from the Republicans who would otherwise oppose her.

Blanche Lincoln will run for reelection in 2010, and the results of the 2008 Presidential election in Arkansas are certainly not in her favor. In fact, McCain clobbered Barack Obama by a margin of 20 points in Arkansas, a margin that would make any Democratic incumbent nervous. Republicans are targeting her for her potential support of Card Check, while some Democrats derisively characterize her as the Democrat of Wal-Mart. This is certainly a stressful position for a Democrat who hopes to cobble together the coalition required to win in 2010 in a state that rejects the current Democratic President to whom she will be tied. But now that liberal advocacy groups are airing advertisements and complaining about Lincoln on the telephone lines of Arkansans, Republicans will rally behind her, and they may even cast votes for her in 2010. Americans United and MoveOn think they are blackmailing Lincoln with the threat of political death, but they are in fact increasing her popularity in her state, thereby handing her justification to oppose Obama’s budget and agenda. Some actions have inadvertent consequences.

Rove is incorrect when he claims moderate Democrats will react personally to Obama’s efforts to manufacture grassroots opposition to their centrism, and MoveOn and Americans United are incorrect when they believe their Washington, DC, advocacy will yield results in Louisiana and Arkansas. All of them are idiots, as all of them are misinformed, and all their efforts are misguided. But at least Democrats who struggle to win south of the Mason-Dixon line will remain in office as a result of the idiocy of some groups’ version of advocacy. For similar to Bill and Hillary Clinton, these Democrats understand the predicaments and the paradoxes that sustain the Democratic Party in the South. Republicans and the operatives surrounding Obama, on the other hand, do not. Obama, after all, admires Reagan, and Reagan, to be sure, is anything but an expert on Democratic politics.

Breaking News! (6:10 a.m., 02/02/09): “Daschle ‘embarrassed’ over tax issues” (That makes it all better, right? Nothing to see here anymore, so let’s just move along now.)

[NOTE FROM LARRY JOHNSON (Feb. 1, 2009) -- Right on, Uppity. Lady, you read my mind. Rather than write a separate article I wanted to weigh in at the start. We cannot take Barack Obama seriously as a "candidate of change" when he winks and nods at the bullshit perpetuated by Washington insiders like Tom Daschle. Daschle may not have been a formally registered lobbyist, BUT BY GOD HE WAS A LOBBYIST! And a wealthy one at that. If it walks and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. He became a millionaire peddling his previous status as the majority leader of the Senate to folks in the health care industry.

Are we to believe that Tom Daschle is a moron? That he does not understand that when someone gives you a limo and a driver worth a $250,000 that it is income? That when someone gives you more than $80,000 in a year it is income you must report on your taxes? Yet he forgot? Sure Barack, you want change. Yet you are enabling the very thing people wanted to get rid of. And just like George Bush, your loyal followers don't give a shit and will excuse the inexcusable. If you were serious about fixing Washington you would pull Dashcle's nomination. It is now clear you are not serious. Just another politician playing the Washington game.]

Besides making a killing on ethanol and increasing world starvation, Tom Daschle is just one more tax thief. He’s perfect for the job!

“Yesterday I cheated this much!”

Taxes for thee, not me.

While more people in the world reach starvation levels due to a shortage of corn and the tripling of the cost of other grains, Corn King Tom Daschle has been ironically tapped to be the Secretary of “Health and Human Services”.

If that isn’t ironic unto itself, he is another thief who scurried to pay back taxes after a nomination tap. This is the same thief who, when he was in office, called corporations Benedict Arnold for not paying taxes.

The Senate Finance committee will meet Monday to review the tax records of former Sen. Tom Daschle, President Obama’s nominee for secretary of health and human services.

Oh make me laugh will you? We all know the worth of your Kabuki “reviews”.

You guys would confirm Dracula if Obama decided he wanted to put him in charge of the blood bank.

Why don’t you thieves just cut the crap and do a blanket approval of everybody so we don’t have to listen to your lying BS on TV for a week? That way, Tony Rezko could be put in charge of HUD from his jail cell.

You all make me sick. You have no ethics, no competence, no loyalty to America and no conscience. And you’re malicous in abuse of your power. You all belong in jail with room mates named Bubba.

According to a committee memo obtained Friday by CNN, the group’s concerns include the use of a limousine and driver that Daschle didn’t disclose on his income taxes and nonpayment of taxes on more than $80,000 he earned in consulting fees after leaving the senate.

Daschle also apparently once filed a tax form listing charitable donations to organizations that did not qualify for a deduction, according to the memo.

…snip…

Daschle, 61, of South Dakota, served in the Senate from 1987 to 2005 and served as Democratic leader from 1995 until after he was defeated in a re-election bid in 2004.

I always said that the people didn’t UnElect Tom Daschle for nothing. Now he’s going to be put in charge of that big huge black money hole known as Health Care. These cheaters and thieves always prefer appointments to slots where there are the best opportunities to stuff untraceable money in their pockets.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that Daschle brought the issues to the committee’s attention himself and that Obama is “confident” he will be confirmed.

So am I. Now why is that?

More Dick Cheney replacement$. Meet the new majority. Same as the old majority.

America, you are so pwned.

**Update: Total back taxes suddenly paid: $128,203.

It has been almost 6 months since I created my first cartoon, THIS cartoon, for No Quarter. I was campaiging hard for Hillary Clinton at the time, and it seemed clear that there was absolutely no way Obama could survive his razor-thin relevant experience, the fact that we still knew too little about him, and yet what we were beginning to learn about him and his scary friends was mighty disturbing. How could any of this not stick?

Over 40 No Quarter cartoons later, Hillary is out, Obama is in, and I am still asking the same question!

So I emailed my friend, a brilliant political strategist who occasionally blogs under the name of Sam Copeland. Here is his response:

1. Obama created a rule for the mainstream media to follow: If you attack him, you are a racist.

2. Obama created another rule: Attack him, and it is politics as usual.

3. Obama has used an effective persuasion technique called “forewarning.” If you forewarn voters that negative attacks are coming in an election and are ready for them, the impact of even truthful attacks is minimized. In other words, he told people a long time ago that they were going to be “bamboozled.”

4. McCain should have attacked earlier — just after the convention. The economic meltdown caused some people to swing to Obama and make a commitment. Once people make up their mind, even totally factual attacks are less effective.

5. McCain’s attacks have not been strong enough. The Ayers attack appeals to McCain’s base but is too complex for people who are only loosely following the campaign. Further, the Ayers appeal doesn’t attack strategy. Obama’s strategy is to look like he isn’t a politician. Thus, the best attacks would attack this strategy — Rezko and his waffling on votes. McCain would be better served by creating an ad that pieced together all of Obama’s conflicting statements on the war and ended with a tagline: Barack Obama — a politician that will say anything to get your vote.

6. Obama has an image that attracts followers with the infotainment networks — the Rock Star. And the media covers him as if he were a rock star and not a politician. This also protects him in a very interesting way. When he hangs out with bad friends, the impact is minimized. Why? It is sort of like when Brittany Spears is known to have some friends with questionable integrity–no big deal, that’s just what happens in show biz.

7. The GOP has told many lies in the past, and voters are rejecting their attacks as just more of the same. This is ironic. This time the Republicans are absolutely right, but no one believes them!

8. The economic conditions and state of the war are so bad that people want change and thus are prone to ignore any information (including factual material that clearly discredits Obama) that doesn’t give them change–even if they have no idea what that change will be, if any.

So, what do you think?

Joe Biden talks with Katie Couric on the campaign and Obama’s reprehensible ad making fun of John McCain for his inability to use a computer — despite the fact that McCain’s injuries from torture make it impossible for him to type:

CBS’ Katie Couric: “Are you disappointed with the tone of the campaign — the lipstick on the pig stuff and some of the ads? And you guys haven’t been completely guilt-free, making fun of John McCain’s inability to use a computer?”

Biden: “I thought that was terrible, by the way.”

Couric: “Why’d you do it then?”

Biden: “I didn’t know we did it, and if I’d had anything to do with it, we would have never done it. I don’t think Barack… you know, I just think that was…”

Couric: “Did Barack Obama approve that ad? He said he did, right?”

Biden: “I don’t think anything was intentional about that. They were trying to make another point.”

Here are excerpts from the conference call:

Luchy Secaira: “I was a very strong Hillary Clinton supporter because she had a set of principles, characteristics, and her stand on the issues along with a track record of fighting on behalf of families. That was very attractive to me.

“Well, we now know that the primaries are over. However, those qualities are not transferable. I do not believe that Senator Obama shares in those qualities. Therefore, my support and my vote is also non-transferable.

“I am supporting John McCain and Governor Palin because John McCain has spent his whole life standing up for his country. He has a record of fairness, compassion, responsibility, and giving back.

“Governor Palin is a woman of compassion and accomplishment in the mold of Senator Clinton. So I have chosen to put my country before my party and this is the ticket to support.

“They both care deeply about working families. They are reformers. They will go to Washington and they will remember who sent them there. So country before party, and that is why I’m supporting John McCain and Governor Sarah Palin. …

“And you know the Hispanic community knows John McCain. They know him. They know that he has a record. They know that has gone up against his own party on behalf of the Hispanic community.”

Miguel D. Lausell: “I decided, after searching my conscience, to back Senator McCain for many reasons. He is a man of great experience. He’s a sound man. He’s a man that you know what you’re getting when you vote for him.

“And the country is in very difficult situation and needs a man that can decide on difficult matters and has the experience and the soundness to help the struggle to get through these bad times.

“I cannot say the same about Senator Obama. We don’t know what we’re getting when we vote for him. He doesn’t really have the experience.”

Both Secaira and Lausell were asked about Obama’s recent ad linking McCain to Limbaugh. Here is that ad:

Secaira and Lausell responded to the ad, this is what they had to say:

Secaira: “There goes the new politics. I don’t see anything new about put-down politics. And once again, I want to reiterate that the Hispanic community has nothing to fear because they know John McCain.

“Again, he has fought against his own party on behalf of the Hispanic community and was an integral part in trying to bring forth comprehensive immigration reform. The Hispanic community knows John McCain in his home state, in New Mexico. They know what John McCain plans for. And I don’t believe that they will be easily fooled by this misleading and disgraceful ad.”

Lausell: “It’s a very low blow on the part of the Obama campaign because it’s completely untrue and completely relates Senator McCain to something he’s not related to.

“It denies, basically, the basic premise of all of his actions. And, frankly, if you have a candidate that is willing to go so low, what can you expect if you elect him to office?”

Towards the end of the call both had this to offer, Obama is the great divider, not the great uniter.

[...]

Negative campaigning

McCain goes negative and Obama does not — a pattern? No. It’s actually the opposite, according to a new study released today. The Wisconsin Advertising Project found that Obama went negative in 77 percent of his commercials last week while McCain’s were only 56 percent negative.

The director of the study, Ken Goldstein, said “advertising reflects reality” and that reality appears to suggest that Obama needed to fight back.

“It suggests that the Sarah Palin pick and the newfound aggressiveness by MCain got into Obama’s head a little bit,” Goldstein says. “He was under great pressure to show some spine, be aggressive, fire back.”

Here are more reports on the “ad wars” and the false perception Obama is spreading that McCain is more negative when, in fact, it’s Obama who’s airing the most negative ads:

From U.S. News & World Report:

Obama and McCain Flood Battleground States With $a5 Million in TV Ads
Much of their advertising budgets is dedicated to Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan
By Liz Halloran
Posted September 17, 2008

The Obama and McCain presidential campaigns, along with both political party organizations, have flooded the airways with more than $15 million in television advertising since the convention and, despite early predictions of an “expanded playing field,” the key states targeted look very much like the same battleground states of 2004, according to an analysis released today by the Wisconsin Advertising Project.

The project, directed by Ken Goldstein of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, found that the campaigns were dumping their biggest loads of TV advertising money into Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan.

GOP nominee John McCain has spent $7.8 million in television advertising since his convention early this month, including $4.5 million to air spots in 10 battleground states–with a heavy new focus in Florida.

Democratic nominee Barack Obama has spent almost the same–$7.77 million, with $3.56 million devoted to the 10 battleground states identified by the project.

The post-convention buys, says Goldstein, “give us the first insights into the campaigns’ assessments of where they think they are competitive as the fall campaign heats up. Advertising represents reality.”

The survey also found that 97 percent of Obama’s ads were sponsored by the candidate but that McCain, who accepted public financing for the general election campaign and is limited to $84 million in what he can spend, has run 57 percent of his ads in cooperation with the Republican National Committee. The RNC is playing a major role in funding McCain’s fall effort.

The survey also found that Obama has run a higher percentage of negative ads than McCain since the conventions closed—77 percent to 56 percent. All of the Obama ads that mentioned McCain pictured him with or mentioned President Bush. …

By now you’ve probably heard about the newest Obama ad – the one criticizing John McCain for not knowing how to use email.

Of course, John McCain can’t use a keyboard. The injuries he sustained as a POW that caused permanent damage to his arms prevent him from typing. But I have no doubt in this age of nearly instant communications he knows what an email is.

In an interview with the NYT wwwaaaaaayyyyyyy back on July 13, John McCain was asked about his ‘net use.

Read the rest ->

Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?

Mr. McCain: Brooke and Mark show me Drudge, obviously, everybody watches, for better or for worse, Drudge. Sometimes I look at Politico. Sometimes RealPolitics, sometimes.

(Mrs. McCain and Ms. Buchanan both interject: “Meagan’s blog!”)

Mr. McCain: Excuse me, Meagan’s blog. And we also look at the blogs from Michael and from you that may not be in the newspaper, that are just part of your blog.

Q: But do you go on line for yourself?

Mr. McCain: They go on for me. I am learning to get online myself, and I will have that down fairly soon, getting on myself. I don’t expect to be a great communicator, I don’t expect to set up my own blog, but I am becoming computer literate to the point where I can get the information that I need – including going to my daughter’s blog first, before anything else.

Q: Do you use a blackberry or email?

Mr. McCain: No

Mark Salter: He uses a BlackBerry, just ours.

Mr. McCain: I use the Blackberry, but I don’t e-mail, I’ve never felt the particular need to e-mail. I read e-mails all the time, but the communications that I have with my friends and staff are oral and done with my cell phone. I have the luxury of being in contact with them literally all the time. We now have a phone on the plane that is usable on the plane, so I just never really felt a need to do it. But I do – could I just say, really – I understand the impact of blogs on American politics today and political campaigns. I understand that. And I understand that something appears on one blog, can ricochet all around and get into the evening news, the front page of The New York Times. So, I do pay attention to the blogs. And I am not in any way unappreciative of the impact that they have on entire campaigns and world opinion.

Sounds to me like a person who is well aware of the ‘net, email, blogs and texting. He does have people to filter for him and so doesn’t spend quite the time I do on the computer. You know, he may be better off, I’ve got friends who refuse to use email anymore because of all the spam and the sheer volume of messages.

OK, so what do we have? Well, the Obama ad is in poor taste since McCain’s physical issues are entirely the result of his time serving his country. The ad also implies McCain is woefully out of touch on technology issues.

That’s demonstrably false, as the interview shows. McCain is well aware of what is out there even if he doesn’t manipulate the mouse himself. Does that mean McCain understands all aspects of technology? As if. Who does? I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the idea of a virtual machine, although I do get the whole nanotechnology thing.

Uh, anyone really understand Windows????

As far as this Obama ad goes, I think it’s the worst he’s done. It’s false and insulting to imply older people and those with injuries are “out of touch” if they can’t manipulate a keyboard. But the biggest indictment I can give is it is simply lame, lame, lame and weak.

Besides, how does Obama propose to understand the military, if he’s never fired an M16? How can he understand women if he’s never been to the gynecologist? How can he understand the “low information” voter if he’s never tipped a can of Bud while swigging some Jack Daniels?

Think that’s ridiculous? Well, so is the “never used email” ad.

Know what that orange place and the Huffypot had to say about this ad and its direct and implied lies?

crickets. . . .

Today, the Obama campaign launched a smart-alecky ad mocking John McCain’s age and inability to keep up with modern devices, such as using a computer. Why, John McCain doesn’t even know how to send an e-mail. Writes Mark Halperin for Time’s blog The Page, “In one of his two latest TV spots, the Land of Lincolner gets personal, saying McCain has admitted he doesn’t know how to use a computer or send an e-mail, doesn’t understand the economy.”

Here’s the problem: John McCain cannot send an e-mail, not because he hasn’t bothered to learn, but because he is physically unable to do so.

John McCain, because of the torture he endured as a prisoner of war, cannot use a computer keyboard. John McCain can’t even comb his own hair.

This ad, released by the Obama campaign today, and played numerous times on television, is utterly cruel, and should not only be pulled from the Obama Web site and Obama YouTube channel — where it is still displayed — but also require Obama to issue a profound apology:

Thanks to Ed Morrissey, we have the full back-story on this:

Earlier today, Barack Obama’s campaign released an ad attacking John McCain for not knowing how to send an e-mail. Their crack research team apparently never heard of Google or Lexis-Nexis, but Jonah Goldberg does. He discovers why McCain doesn’t use a keyboard — his torturers made sure he couldn’t. The Boston Globe reported it eight years ago:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain’s encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He’s an avid fan – Ted Williams is his hero – but he can’t raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

After Vietnam, McCain had Ann Lawrence, a physical therapist, help him regain flexibility in his leg, which had been frozen in an extended position by a shattered knee. It was the only way he could hope to resume his career as a Navy flier, but Lawrence said the treatment, taken twice a week for six months, was excruciatingly painful.

”He endured it, he wouldn’t settle for less,” said Lawrence, who rejoiced with McCain when he passed the Navy physical. ”I have never seen such toughness and resolve.”

Making fun of a war hero’s severe injuries — smooth move, Team O. Talk about computer illiteracy! Doesn’t anyone on the Obama campaign know what they’re doing? Didn’t it ever occur to them that a man who can’t raise his arms above his head might have a physical barrier to using a computer?

Thank you, Ed.

What a terrible error, Team Obama.

The sooner you issue a truly sincere apology, the better.

If you have the character to do so.

Frankly, I doubt you do.

In your world, Being O means never having to say you’re sorry. Or eat humble pie.

Your arrogance will be the ruin of you, Barack.

Not to mention the Democratic party.

::::

The one saving grace for Barack: The media will doubtless not cover this nearly to the extent it should.

If Hillary Clinton or Sarah Palin or John McCain had made such a cruel mistake, the TV news coverage would be relentless and condemning.

We shall see if the media do their job this time. I’m not holding my breath.

Dean had this to say, “Our party has been a no-majority party for a long time. The fact is that the Democratic Party is made up of lots of different people” and “If you look at folks of color, even women, they’re more successful in the Democratic Party than they are in the white — excuse me — in the Republican Party.”

And here are Dean’s words recorded for posterity’s sake:

Don’t worry about those angry Hillary supporters who say they’ll vote for McCain or stay home in November. History proves they’ll vote for Obama.

The article shows a photo of a Hillary’s supporter, a woman of course, crying and being comforted by another. But this melodramatic display of emotion, Shapiro suggests, is just bluffing. First, to continue the theme of a domestic spat, he compares us to nagging parents. Perhaps because that insult is too banal, he then compares us to George Bush:

As an empty threat, it ranks right up there with “Eat your spinach now or your mother and I won’t pay for college” or even George W. Bush’s taunting promise to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.” During the post-primary news lull, ardent Hillary Clinton supporters have managed to linger in the spotlight with their over-hyped warnings that they intend to sit on their hands or even bolt to John McCain if they are not wooed and won over by Barack Obama.

Yes, the sexism is there: we’re waiting to be wooed. And of course Clinton supporters are holding out because some people, women specifically, are fanning the flames of “feminist grievances. ” Here Shapiro perpetuates the Obama campaign’s sexist stereotyping of Hillary’s supporters by focusing on women, when in fact there are many men actively protesting Obama’s stolen nomination. But when the “Barack-and-Hillary show” goes on air, and the pundits wonder:

Was the joint appearance enough to win over the hardcore Hillary holdouts? The answer is an obvious “yes”…

Shapiro makes the same mistake as others outside the circle of Just Say No Deal PUMAs. He thinks that during the primary there was no “overriding issue…absolutely no ideological reason — beyond ruffled feelings” to keep Clinton supporters from voting for Obama. In fact, he says that the polling done today will not stand up in November:

For example, an ABC News/Washington Post Poll last week found that 24 percent of the Democrats who backed Clinton prefer McCain over Obama. But these numbers will certainly decline as base Democrats gravitate to their party’s nominee with increasing enthusiasm.

Citing studies that indicate that voters come back to the party even though their favorite candidate lost the nomination,” Shapiro seems to think that we will be convinced that Obama WON the nomination. We know that he did not win. This is no longer about Hillary, this is about the corruption of the Democratic leaders. Shapiro joins the ranks of Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, and the Obama-loving media who think we are simple-minded vacuous creatures who will ultimately follow them like sheep to the slaughter. He says:

A common theory is that disgruntled voters, troubled by the direction of their party, end up staying home in November. But with a record-smashing 36 million Democrats voting in the presidential primaries, this is not shaping up as a political year in which anyone will neglect to vote because, say, Whole Foods was having a sale on organic olive oil that day.

Again resorting to sexist stereotyping, Shapiro suggests that “the hardcore Hillary-types” will vote for Obama instead of shopping for olive oil. The media, and the Obama campaign, which of course includes the DNC, since they are now one and the same, are expecting us to develop collective amnesia.

We are going to forget all about Barky stealing the nomination, and insulting Hillary and her supporters. We’re going to forget the farce of the primary, that the decision to put Barky in place came before the first caucus cheating ever happened. We’re going to get over the misogyny and the sexism and the accusations of racism, and the elitism. We’re going to forget that many of us have received death threats from Barky’s insane followers, that our families have been threatened, and that we blog in full knowledge that we could be outed and viciously attacked at any time. We’re going to get over the fact that Barack Obama is an inexperienced, unqualified, two-faced, and a potentially dangerous politician with roots deep within the corrupt Chicago Machine.

Shapiro is certain that we’ll come around, though, even if we don’t know it yet. Well, maybe not those bitter, gun-toting, religious nuts–the blue-collar Dems, but those us who are “errant voters,” we will. In an analogy that is surely a Freudian slip, Shapiro claims that we will be guided by the lights of a roadside hotel, where cheap tricks are scored and whores are on the make, that is, the hijacked Democratic Party:

Party unity is never total — and there certainly are blue-collar Democrats who opted for Clinton in the primaries because she was a placeholder for their qualms about Obama. But for over-the-hill-with Hillary voters, passionate about the notion of a woman president or beguiled by all things Clinton, there will be no dramatic renunciation scene in their political future. Virtually all of them will be voting for Obama, whether they know it now or not. For a political party is a bit like Motel Six, where there is always a light on to guide errant voters home in the dark.

Talk about being in the dark….

I have spent the past six months actively supporting Hillary Clinton by setting up a network of bloggers to ensure that Senator Clinton’s positions were understood by the electorate. My family and I campaigned on her behalf in the primaries. I supported Hillary Clinton because of her experience, knowledge of the issues, and her practical approach and commitment to the bread-and-butter issues facing this country.

During the campaign, I have become increasingly alarmed by the refusal of the media to properly scrutinize Senator Obama’s actions and associations. I have also been appalled by the political maneuverings of the DNC to ensure that their chosen candidate was selected—including, just as one example, breaking their own rules to ensure that the two states that supported Hillary were stripped of their delegates even though five states broke the rules.

Lastly, I have been aghast at the vitriol and name-calling being spewed by Obama supporters against anyone who has an honest disagreement with them.

As documented throughout by the “attack timeline” formerly found on the HRC website—the Obama campaign employed a concerted strategy of constantly questioning the likability, honesty, experience, and integrity of Clinton. While the candidate portrayed himself as ‘above it all’—his campaign relentlessly faxed pages and pages of material designed to stoke the fires of false controversies.

I do not believe that Barack Obama would make a good president of the United States. Frankly, I think there is a minimum standard of accomplishment and experience we should expect from a candidate for the toughest job in the world. By any metric Obama falls short. Kirk Watson couldn’t name Senator Obama’s legislative accomplishments. I can– two bills: to promote democracy in the African Congo and to name a post office. Certainly, Senator Obama’s 130 “present” votes in the Illinois legislature when asked to take a stand on controversial issues do not inspire confidence.

Many of the people that supported Hillary Clinton have similar reservations about Senator Obama’s fitness to lead. Thus, on Saturday, I helped organize an informational meeting and teleconference with John McCain for supporters of Hillary Clinton who were trying to decide whether to support Barack Obama or John McCain.

Less than 48 hours later, I was attacked, called “deeply racist”, a “lunatic”, “rabid” and with “a history of jobs, statements, actions and practice that leave her very vulnerable to accusations that she is a ‘racist’”. One site even claimed: “keeping black people out of the party has been a lifelong ambition of hers.” The basis of the attack was a controversy involving my husband’s ancestor, Thomas Jefferson.

As many of you have probably heard, some descendants of Sally Hemings, a slave in the household of Thomas Jefferson, have claimed that they are descendants of Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings had three sons: Thomas Woodson, Madison Hemings, and Eston Hemings. Descendants of Thomas Woodson had their DNA tested 7 times—each time there was no match. Descendants of Madison Hemings declined to be tested. The white descendants of Eston Hemings had their DNA tested and were a match to a Jefferson, but the DNA tests could not determine if the Jefferson genes were from Thomas Jefferson or one of the 27 other Jefferson males that lived in the area at the time and visited frequently. Additionally, since Thomas Jefferson was 64 at the time of Eston’s birth and was suffering from prostate cancer, which often caused impotency, it is less likely that Eston was a son of Thomas Jefferson. A 2001 Scholars Commission of 13 prominent Jefferson historians (including the former chair of Harvard’s Department of Government), examined all the evidence for a year, and issued a 500-page report that concluded that the allegations of a relationship between Hemings and Thomas Jefferson were not true, and that was not enough evidence to determine Eston Hemings’ paternity.

During 2003, a member of the Jefferson family set up a Yahoo chat room for family members and Hemings descendants to discuss the issues. Unfortunately, discussions became strained and many individuals who disagreed that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings were barred from the site. Bloggers from both sides used assumed names to try to get information from the other side. When the moderator discovered me, a Washington Post reporter asked me if I was on the chat room under a pseudonym—and I—foolishly perhaps—answered honestly.

However, it was never a racial issue. Eston Hemings’ descendents (the only Hemings that applied) are, by any calculus, white. No doubt passions at the time were overheated, and honorable people can disagree. Part of the consideration was that as DNA typing becomes more sophisticated, a definitive analysis could prove the issue in the future.

This is the sum and total of the activities for which I have been vilified. I am a private citizen who has never held a position with either the Clinton or McCain campaign.

But, there is a curious double standard at work here.

Barack Obama, the presumptive nominee of our party and possible President of the United States participated in a racist church for twenty years. A church whose “Black Liberation Theology” is the apotheosis of hate. In one year alone, Senator Obama contributed $22,000 to support the church. He has allied himself with other racists: namely Rev. James Meeks and Father Pfleger.

The National Review reported that in a single year, Senator Obama appeared on the cover of the church magazine four times. Three of those times, Senator Obama shared the cover with Louis Farrakhan. How is this double standard rational?

I am a mother of two small children living in a diverse community who has seen my life turned upside down by half-truths and vicious attacks. Some have printed my address and phone number. I have been harassed and threatened.

But, as far as I can tell, that has been the Obama campaign’s strategy all along—to isolate, to discredit, to destroy. But, Clinton supporters have seen this game before. You will not frighten us anymore. Even when four of our member networks were disrupted by mysterious viruses—with barely 24-hour notice—we managed to turn out thousands of HRC supporters on a conference call with John McCain. Supporters that will not, under any circumstances vote for a “democratic” party that disenfranchised us—not because we are racists, or ‘closet republicans,’ but because we are Americans.

And that must have you very worried.

============

View the videos of my appearances on television:

“Paula Abeles on the Obama Thugs’ Attacks” – posted the evening of June 20, 2008

“Paula Abeles on Neil Cavuto Today” – posted the morning of June 20, 2008

Law 1 Never Outshine the Master
Always claiming to be the underdog!

Law 2 Never put too Much Trust in Friends, Learn how to use Enemies
Obama in his own books always claimed himself to be a loner!

Law 3 Conceal your Intentions
Never talking on specifics, just things like “Hope, Change and Dreams”

Law 4 Always Say Less than Necessary
As exibited in every debate when confronted from Rezko to Wright to Ayers!

Law 5 So Much Depends on Reputation – Guard it with your Life
Invoking passing legislation that never even made it to the Senate floor!

Law 6 Court Attention at all Cost
Advertise en-mass, stack audiences!

Law 7 Get others to do the Work for you, but Always Take the Credit
Every piece of legislation Obama has talked about as well as Obama’s claims during Community Organizing!

Law 8 Make other People come to you – use Bait if Necessary
From racial baiting to offering tickets to concerts to draw people from his opponent!

Law 9 Win through your Actions, Never through Argument
Constant accusations of opponents being negative and running negative campaigns while doing the same thing!

Law 10 Infection: Avoid the Unhappy and Unlucky
Not respond to Florida and Michigan disenfranchised situation!

Law 11 Learn to Keep People Dependent on You
The messiah message continually insinuated!

Law 12 Use Selective Honesty and Generosity to Disarm your Victim
Stating “Our campaign is based on honesty and positive, while my opponent is basing hers on fear and deceipt!”

Law 13 When Asking for Help, Appeal to People’s Self-Interest, Never to their Mercy or Gratitude
I am running for President for you, it is all about YOU!

Law 14 Pose as a Friend, Work as a Spy
Send surrogates to competitions, speaking engagements and ask loaded false questions!

Law 15 Crush your Enemy Totally
Attempting to do continually!

Law 16 Use Absence to Increase Respect and Honor
Denouncing Rev Wright and disregarding all the lies by continual pleads of not knowing!

Law 17 Keep Others in Suspended Terror: Cultivate an Air of Unpredictability
Rioting in Denver!

Law 18 Do Not Build Fortresses to Protect Yourself – Isolation is Dangerous
Errored and now in West Virginia!

Law 19 Know Who You’re Dealing with – Do Not Offend the Wrong Person
Attacking Bill Clinton instead of Hillary as the easier target especially when using the race card by surrogates!

Law 20 Do Not Commit to Anyone
Avoiding any actual policy discussions or denunciations!

Law 21 Play a Sucker to Catch a Sucker – Seem Dumber than your Mark
Every time done when confronted by an issue!

Law 22 Use the Surrender Tactic: Transform Weakness into Power
Speech on Race and denouncing Rev. Wright!

Law 23 Concentrate Your Forces
Caucuses and advertising and of late, planting people in polling stations!

Law 24 Play the Perfect Courtier
Same message always to the people of it is all about you, your aspirations!

Law 25 Re-Create Yourself
Done after Rev. Wright fiasco! Conceal middle name!

Law 26 Keep Your Hands Clean
Too many to list from Rezko to Ayers!

Law 27 Play on People’s Need to Believe to Create a Cultlike Following
Any explanation necissary?

Law 28 Enter Action with Boldness
Continual stumping of Change, Unity, Hope and Dreams without explanation!

Law 29 Plan All the Way to the End
Exhibited in announcing victory May 20th, before many things are resolved!

Law 30 Make your Accomplishments Seem Effortless
Continually appearing when discussing crossing the aisle on legislation!

Law 31 Control the Options: Get Others to Play with the Cards you Deal
From being negative to Race Card to now declaring victory May 20th!

Law 32 Play to People’s Fantasies
Change, Unity, Hope, words without substance!

Law 33 Discover Each Man’s Thumbscrew
Continually pressing Clinton’s honesty and negativity image created mostly by Obama!

Law 34 Be Royal in your Own Fashion: Act like a King to be treated like one
Take a look at any Obama picture floating around! Look at the Rezko mansion!

Law 35 Master the Art of Timing
For the most part, inject an issue against opponent when numbers are falling!

Law 36 Disdain Things you cannot have: Ignoring them is the best Revenge
Speech in San Francisco over bitter people when asked about inability to attract small town people!

Law 37 Create Compelling Spectacles
Oprah, Ted Kennedy on SOTU day and so on!

Law 38 Think as you like but Behave like others
Black in Black communities, white in white communities!

Law 39 Stir up Waters to Catch Fish
Politics of old or a Change in Washington!

Law 40 Despise the Free Lunch
No gas tax relief!

Law 41 Avoid Stepping into a Great Man’s Shoes
Praising Prior President’s, excluding Bill Clinton!

Law 42 Strike the Shepherd and the Sheep will Scatter
Attack Clinton with false advertising!

Law 43 Work on the Hearts and Minds of Others
Keep the message of running for President for YOU, the time has come for US!

Law 44 Disarm and Infuriate with the Mirror Effect
Association with Bill Ayers question retorted by Bill Clinton commuted 2 WU sentences! Circulate photograph of Rezko with the Clintons from a Moseley-Braun fundraiser in Chicago!

Law 45 Preach the Need for Change, but Never Reform too much at Once
The continual theme of Obama, who has done no reform to date!

Law 46 Never appear too Perfect
Continual statements by Obama of Michelle always reminding Obama of not being Perfect!

Law 47 Do not go Past the Mark you Aimed for; In Victory, Learn when to Stop
Motion in place for May 20th, to force issues and seek out the fear of rebellion by this action!

Law 48 Assume Formlessness
Never offering a comprehensive plan on policy and when rebuffed by Advisor, dismiss the Advisor!

Now that you can see the Obama campaign properly, an explaination:

So now you have seen the 48 Laws Obama has followed. It will surprise you to know that this set of Laws that are the discovery of American Socioligist, Professor and Writter Robert Greene in his book, The 48 Laws of Power, compiled from anecdotes from notable historical figures such as Talleyrand, Otto von Bismarck, Catherine the Great, Mao Zedong, Haile Selassie, Lola Montez, Saul Alinsky and various con artists in order to exemplify the 48 Laws.

Basic bottom line:

You are seeing before your eyes a political operation predicated on a set of Laws of Power and control that many nefarious leaders have used to form States whose functioning was a result of the ability of leaders to dupe the masses! As Greene states, it is all about ILLUSIONS! And who is the creator of these illusions? David Axelrod, Chief Strategist of the Obama Campaign, who has followed Greene’s text to the letter.

BAMBOOZLE! HOODWINK! OKIE-DOKE!

In other words, people, Obama and Axelrod have conned you and the Media by following rules that deceive you!

Videos produced by Flineo.

Bob Schieffer asked him about some recent missteps by President Clinton as he stumped for his wife on the campaign trail. What we heard this morning was the nice-guy version of David Axelrod. The cameras were running and pointed straight at him, so of course he was going to pretend he couldn’t possibly know what was in Bill’s head — or heart — when it came to the things he said on behalf of Hillary.

Here’s the transcript from what I could type out – take a look…

Schieffer: What do you think about it, Mr. Axelrod? Do you think any of this has been calculated or is he just making mistakes or…?

Axelrod: Well I can’t climb into President Clinton’s head and explain why he said some of the things he said - and some of them have been regrettable. But let me say this – his wife is running for President of the United States and he is working very, very hard to try and get her elected President and to some degree that’s understandable. And, uh, maybe some of these indiscrete remarks can be written off to the passion he feels about trying to get his wife elected president so, uh, I think it should be seen in that perspective.

I do think it’s important for everybody in the process whether they’re surrogates or the candidates themselves to be thoughtful about the things that they say because — words do have meaning and they can be disruptive and divisive and we don’t need that as a party and frankly we don’t need that as a country.

Here’s the video link; the segment starts at about 2:00: Face the Nation video.

Turn off the cameras — put Axelrod in his war room back in Chicago — and we get a totally different story.

Hmmm… thoughtful. Yeah – thoughtful as in the way his campaign’s gone out – of – its – way to paint Hillary and Bill as racists whenever it suits their purposes? That kind of thoughtful?

And they don’t just do it now and then — they make a point of turning up the noise to deafening levels in the lead-up to a primary in a state with a large African American population. It’s so deafening that it drowns out all common sense or any attempt to discuss things that might actually help voters – like jobs, fixing the economy and healthcare reform.

Some of you might recall a little memo put out by the Press Secretary in Obama’s South Carolina campaign back in January. Huffington Post posted that memo, where we see how it maps out their strategy in all its divisive and ugly glory. Take a look…

Subject: MUST READ: Key S.C. figure takes issue with Clintons

Clinton Supporter Andrew Cuomo, Referring To Obama, Said “You Can’t Shuck And Jive At A Press Conference.

snip

Clinton, Criticizing Obama For Promising “False Hope” Said That While MLK Jr. Spoke On Behalf Of Civil Rights, President Lyndon Johnson Was The One Who Got Legislation Passed: “It Took A President To Get It Done.”

snip

Clinton Introducer Said JFK Gave Hope, But Was Assassinated. Clinton introducer: “If you look back, some people have been comparing one of the other candidates to JFK and he was a wonderful leader, he gave us a lot of hope but he was assassinated and Lyndon Baines Johnson actually did all his work and got the republicans to pass all those measures.”

snip

Bill Clinton Implied Hillary Clinton Is Stronger Than Nelson Mandela. “I have been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years. [...] I go to Nelson Mandela’s birthday party every year and we’re still very close. [...] But if you said to me, ‘You’ve got one last job for your country but it’s hazardous and you may not get out with life and limb intact and you have to do it alone except I’ll let you take one other person, and I had to pick one person whom I knew who would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions [...] I would pick Hillary.’”

snip

Clinton’s NH Campaign Chair Raised The Youthful Drug Use Of Obama And Said It Would “Open The Door To Further Queries On The Matter.” Clinton’s Campaign Issued A Statement Distancing Themselves From Shaheen’s Comments And Shaheen Issued A Statement Saying That He “Deeply Regret[s] The Comments.”

snip< Donna Brazile Lashed Into Bill Clinton For Comparing Obama To A "Fairy Tale" And Said "It's An Insult...

snip

Amaya Smith
South Carolina Press Secretary
Obama for America

FOR THE RECORD: Here’s what Bill actually said when they attacked him over that fairy tale comment. It wasn’t about BO as a black American candidate — it was about his multiple stands on the Iraq war and the fact that the press and the media were giving him a free ride it all…

“It is wrong that Senator Obama got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year,” said Clinton, “and never got asked one time, not once, ‘Well, how could you say, that when you said in 2004 you didn’t know how you would have voted on the resolution? You said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war and you took that speech you’re now running on off your website in 2004 and there’s no difference in your voting record and Hillary’s ever since?’ Give me a break.

“This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen…”

He didn’t call Obama or his historic run for the presidency a fairy tale — he called the way the press were dealing with him with kid gloves a fairy tale and rightly so, dammit.

This memo was brought up by Russert in the debate in Las Vegas a few months back — Take a look…

RUSSERT: In terms of accountability, Senator Obama, Senator Clinton on Sunday told me that the Obama campaign had been pushing this storyline. And, true enough, your press secretary in South Carolina — four pages of alleged comments made by the Clinton people about the issue of race.

In hindsight, do you regret pushing this story?

OBAMA: Well, not only in hindsight, but going forward. I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff get overzealous. They start saying things that I would not say. And it is my responsibility to make sure that we’re setting a clear tone in our campaign, and I take that responsibility very seriously, which is why I spoke yesterday and sent a message in case people were not clear that what we want to do is make sure that we focus on the issues.

Now, there are going to be significant issues that we debate, and some serious differences that we have.

OBAMA: And I’m sure those will be on display today.

What I am absolutely convinced of is that everybody here is committed to racial equality — has been historically.

So if he took his responsibility to quash that sort of overzealousness back then — WHY are his friends still pushing the idea that Hillary and Bill are racists?

HMMMMM????

I guess some of them just haven’t gotten that memo yet, because months after the edict went out from on high, Rep. James Clyburn (D-SC & # 3 in the House leadership) claims that Hillary’s only staying in the race to scuttle BO’s chances at winning, to clear the way for herself in 2012. He had this to say recently…

“I heard something, the first time yesterday (in South Carolina), and I heard it on the (House) floor today, which is telling me there are African Americans who have reached the decision that the Clintons know that she can’t win this. But they’re hell-bound to make it impossible for Obama to win” in November, Clyburn told Reuters in an interview.

Clyburn has yet to endorse someone but I think we all know which side his bread is buttered on. He pulled this same kind of dishonest maneuver in the lead up to the primaries in his own state.

Craig Crawford had this to say recently…

Once again, a racial dispute over Bill Clinton’s words erupts in advance of a Deep South primary where African-American voters are crucial. And once again, Rep. James E. Clyburn, D-S.C., is at the forefront of attacks against his party’s former president.

Seizing upon Clinton’s assertion last week that Barack Obama’s camp “played the race card on me” in January before the South Carolina primary, Clyburn is leveraging his status as the highest-ranking black leader in Congress to stir the pot in advance of North Carolina’s May 6 primary.

Somebody remind me again… what states are coming up next? Indiana and… ?

David Axelrod is the biggest hypocrite going guys. For him to pretend he can’t or doesn’t want to get inside Bill’s head is the biggest load of bullshit anyone has ever tried to shovel in this campaign to date.

I think we all know what he’s said and done once the cameras were turned off. He’s made every effort to paint two good and decent Democrats as racists. It’s sickening – absolutely sickening that he would then turn around and go on Face the Nation and pretend he’s a good guy in all this. In front of millions of people.

The thing is – we’ve seen how the guy operates and it’s in no way what he pretended to be this morning.

Maybe it’s time for him to find another job because he’s becoming more and more obvious with every day that passes.

“DOBBS: I have to say that what I don’t understand. … With the antipathy towards Senator Obama that has built up over the last few weeks, for the life of me, I don’t understand why the … Republicans aren’t doing everything they can to get this man the nomination.”

My thoughts too — all along. And that’s why I believe the GOP and the conservative pundits have hit Hillary much harder, for over a year, while praising Obama: They know Obama will be far easier to beat in the general election. So Lou Dobbs and panel wonder why the North Carolina GOP is hitting Obama with attack ads at this juncture, before the Democratic nomination is settled.

Shorter me and Dobbs: DON’T LOOK A GIFT PONY IN THE MOUTH!

Actually, I think the rationales behind the GOP hitting Obama now are important, and probably smart strategy, for 1) rallying its base, and 2) raising funds for John McCain, whose fundraising has lagged badly behind both Democratic candidates. The GOP presumes that if Obama is the nominee, they need to begin firing up their reliable voting base and, the more and more the GOP can get their base to hate and distrust Obama, the more and more money will come pourin’ in.

Transcript snippets below:

FROM the Lou Dobbs This Week, aired April 26, 2008 — including portions that aren’t in the video clip above:

DOBBS: And is it – let’s go to Hillary Clinton whose narrative is now starting to move in to the national media. Diana West, is it that we have been too pro-Obama or too anti-Clinton in the national media for that narrative to be so late to the forefront of our reporting?

WEST: Well I think that the press has given Senator Obama a pass for the first year or so of his campaign. And so he’s facing questions that really should have come to him and embedded months and months ago, which is very difficult for him. I mean I think one of the things that it’s not just about Reverend Wright, we are now assembling a cast of anti-American characters including the former weatherman Bill Ayers. We have in his – also among people in his padre, Rashid Khalidi, who is a, you know, well-known apologist for (inaudible).

DOBBS: I have to say that what I don’t understand, Diana West, is this.

WEST: Yes.

DOBBS: With the antipathy towards Senator Obama that has built up over the last few weeks, for the life of me, I don’t understand why the democrats, I mean the republicans aren’t doing everything they can to get this man the nomination. You know, he…

WEST: Maybe that’s behind John McCain’s order to the North Carolina party, I don’t know, to stop the bleeding. I don’t know.

DOBBS: But it still seems that the republicans fare Senator Clinton far more.

SHEINKOPF: The stake for them – that is a major mistake. That’s not smart thinking and if the votes in Pennsylvania are any indication of what the future looks like, they look at the spread of those counties by counties in the vote, they should not – they should be really afraid of her and they should know they can take him down. That’s the difference.

::::::::::::

And here’s part of the earlier discussion, on Rev. Wright:

DOBBS: We are back now with Diana West, Hank Sheinkopf, and Errol Louis. Good to have you all with us again today. Hank, this ad with the – showing – in North Carolina by the republicans, showing Reverend Jeremiah Wright back in our faces again, back with Bill Moyers on his PBS broadcast, why won’t this guy go away? Is he trying — does he have any concept of what he is doing to Senator Barack Obama?

SHEINKOPF: What he has found is that he can extend 15 minutes of fame into 20 minutes. And he’s going to use it any way he can because he believes in the rightness of his position. No pun intended there. I mean that’s what this is all about and damn politics. What he said publicly, if you look at the quotes last week, he kind of said Barack Obama is just another politician. And he’s going to now prove that point.

DOBBS: Well, let’s take a look and listen. Let’s hear what he had to say about Senator Obama’s speech in Philadelphia. Here we go.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL MOYERS, PBS, HOST: In the 20 years since you have been his pastor, have you heard him repeat any of your controversial statements as his opinion?

REV. JEREMIAH WRIGIHT, TRINITY UNITED CHURCH OF CHRIST: No. No, absolutely not. I don’t talk to him about politics. And so he had a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician. I continue to be a pastor to speak to the people of god about the things of god.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: What do you think?

LOUIS: I think it explains some of why we do find him in our face. I mean, he – especially some of his followers who set up this whole website to try to set the record straight, they have the naive belief –

DOBBS: How did they do? How did they do?

LOUIS: Well, they have this naive belief. It’s actually touching in a way that if they just have him explain it. If they just go back to the Bible. If they just talk about what goes on in church, that somehow outside political observers will look at and say, oh, that makes sense. And you know, maybe in the right context, it is not quite so offensive. They couldn’t be more wrong. If the political advisers could have them go on vacation for the next six months, I’m sure they would do it. But…

DOBBS: It is too late now.

LOUIS: Well, that’s right. And, look, they have every right, like any other American to advance their cause. If they want to try to be clear about what they think has been misinterpreted by the media, they have every right to go out and do it. If they had a better advisory team, I think they might decide whether or not this was the right time to do it. Maybe after next January they could set the record straight.

DOBBS: The best advice that any of us gets, and most of us often neglect is, just shut up. And they — they, being Jeremiah Wright, and the members of the church, will not shut up. There is also in that breathtaking suggestion that maybe there’s a double standard in this country that you can be absolutely acrimonious toward this country and have it be accepted on some basis. There is – I just have to let everybody know, there is no out in this country for those who do not respect this country. There are a lot of sins that will be forgiven, but working against this country, taking this country down will not be one of those in which you find an out for any reason at any time.

SHEINKOPF: I couldn’t agree more. Look, I had a friend for many years, a good criminal lawyer who used to tell people that no one went to jail for not saying something, not seeing something, not hearing something. And you know what, it is time for Reverend Wright, although it is very late in the game to say that I got to disappear for six months. I got to do something but every minute he shows up is another minute he takes something out of Barack Obama’s fight. It’s just that simple.

DOBBS: Diana, your thoughts?

WEST: Well, I think it also shows the extent to which Reverend Wright doesn’t say really anything wrong with anything that he had said. And I think on that sort of fork tongue messages in terms of “I as a pastor, say what, do what I have to do” and Senator Obama as a politician does what he has to do, I think it muddies the message. Does that mean that Senator Obama knows full well he is trying to repudiate something that he doesn’t really mean to repudiate? I mean, what is the message there?

DOBBS: You know what the message is. It’s straight forward. He’s saying that he’s got a job to do. It is like slicing and dicing us all by race, by demographics, by income, by geography and occupation and saying, and of course, behave as you will, because none of that matters against the greater identity, which is we are American citizens and we have a nation to preserve, protect, and defend. I don’t get how there can be this going on within the democratic party. LOUIS: Well, you know, here again, Jeremiah Wright is not within the democratic party. I mean, I don’t know what his registration may be, but he is not – he is not what you call a team player when it comes to democratic politics. I think you know, this is what you get when you get these holy men. You know — whether it is Jeremiah Wright, Dalai Lama, Martin Luther King, any minister you want, they are not going to be that helpful from a political standpoint. They are talking about or attempting to talk about something that is so far above the level of politics they’re just – it’s not going to be consistent, it’s not going to be helpful or comprehensible to a lot of folks.

DOBBS: What about Senator Obama’s responsibility here, Hank?

SHEINKOPF: Well, Barack’s responsibility – average person when you talk to the street will say, white Catholic or blue collar people will say, you know, it’s not that I left the democratic party, it’s that the democratic party left me. That was the excuse for Reagan, and that will the excuse for Obama if he’s the nominee for a lot of people, why?

WEST: Well, the biggest problem…

SHEINKOPF: The Reverend.

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Read the full segment.

SPECIAL THANKS to V4Hill for the video clip.

Sen. Barack Obama continued accepting donations from oil company executives and employees last month even as he aired ads in which he stated he took no oil company money, his campaign finance reports show.

Obama has taken at least $263,000 from oil company executives, family members and employees since entering the presidential race last year, including $46,000 last month. At least $140,000 has come in chunks of between $1,000 and $2,300, the maximum permitted under federal law.

Obama supporters will point out that Hillary also take money from oil executives. She freely admits this, saying:

“Well the fact is [Obama] didn’t take money from oil companies, but you can, and we do, take money from people who work for oil companies, they’re Americans, they can contribute, so we both do that,” Clinton admitted.

Why does Obama continue to mislead the public about the source of his contributions? It might come as a shock to his supporters: it polls well. It’s an open secret that Obama spends lavishly on a small army of pollsters, message men, media advisers, public relations experts, and advertising agencies. But in the case of being clean of oil money, Obama’s money machine didn’t speak to his message men:

In the weeks leading up to the Pennsylvania primary, Obama aired a campaign spot in Indiana and Pennsylvania that sought to reinforce his theme that he would change the Washington culture, while also tapping into voter distress about the high price of gasoline. In the ad, he called for a windfall profits “penalty.”

“Since the gas lines of the ’70s, Democrats and Republicans have talked about energy independence but nothing’s changed — except now Exxon’s making $40 billion a year and we’re paying $3.50 for gas. I’m Barack Obama. I don’t take money from oil companies or Washington lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change anymore,” says the spot, which aired as recently as April 8.

Obama’s team has carefully crafted a message that he doesn’t take money from political action committees, although he did until recently, and he doles out substantial amounts of money from his own PAC. Instead he takes enormous sums from people who just so happen to all work in that industry. It’s really just a shell game with dummy corporations: These groups of ultra-wealthy donors are not registered and regulated, and therefore Obama can claim that he doesn’t take money from oil companies:

Obama’s ad is factually correct. He does not take money from oil companies. A 1907 federal law bars all corporations from giving money to political candidates. However, oil company employees can make donations.

As the ad aired, Obama took $12,400 from oil company executives and employees in increments of $1,000 or more. Altogether, people who identify themselves as working for oil and gas companies donated $46,000 in March.

Obama’s claims allow him to project a squeaky clean image created by his handlers. The only problem with this poll-tested strategy is that it collides with the reality that wealthy oil executives are pouring money into his campaign. Obama’s chief strategist David Axlerod, in a moment of candor, described his role like this: “I know my business and the technology of politics and polling and focus groups, all of what we do, in some ways contributes to an atmosphere of cynicism. I try to fight that. I can’t say I’m totally blameless.” You think?

Obama’s willingness to say one thing and do another is wearing thin. He continues to lose contests and his favorability ratings have plummeted. Claiming to be clean of oil money is one thing, actually doing it is something else. “From our perspective, if there is a distinction between oil company PACs and lobbyists, and their executives, it is a mighty fine line,” said Sheila Krumholz, director of the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign donations. “They all represent the same interest — oil.”