Oh, boy. Well, Obama recently showed his true colors on “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” (see this, this, and this) and he has REALLY shown them on “DOMA” (Defense of Marriage Act). I’m sorry to keep harping on this, but hey – it IS Pride month, after all, and what better time to stab a community in the back than the month you proclaim for them? At least that seems to be Obama’s Opposite World logic.

Before I go any further, let me just say, for the gazillionith time: I TOLD YOU THIS WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. All of us who didn’t just blow off his anti-gay associates, those of us who saw his saying one thing and doing another, without making excuses (”well, yes, I am disappointed, but…” Those of us who paid attention to his close associates KNEW this was coming. Once again, for all of you groups who supported Obama, who just KNEW he was going to bring Hope! and Change! on his little Rainbow Unicorn Pony, thus throwing the rest of us to the curb, I freakin’ told you so.

John Aravosis, lays it all out in this article, “Obama Defends DOMA In Federal Court.” Here’s a little taste of it:

We just got the brief from reader Lavi Soloway. It’s pretty despicable, and gratuitously homophobic. It reads as if it were written by one of George Bush’s top political appointees. I cannot state strongly enough how damaging this brief is to us. Obama didn’t just argue a technicality about the case, he argued that DOMA is reasonable. That DOMA is constitutional. That DOMA wasn’t motivated by any anti-gay animus. He argued why our Supreme Court victories in Roemer and Lawrence shouldn’t be interpreted to give us rights in any other area (which hurts us in countless other cases and battles). He argued that DOMA doesn’t discriminate against us because it also discriminates about straight unmarried couples (ignoring the fact that they can get married and we can’t).

He actually argued that the courts shouldn’t consider Loving v. Virginia, the miscegenation case in which the Supreme Court ruled that it is unconstitutional to ban interracial marriages, when looking at gay civil rights cases. He told the court, in essence, that blacks deserve more civil rights than gays, that our civil rights are not on the same level.

Yep. Pretty much. But we already knew that, didn’t we? When the military will gladly take people, check that – heterosexual people – with criminal records over keeping West Point grads, I think the message is clear.

I am disgusted beyond belief. Not surprised, mind you, just disgusted. And angry.

There’s more, as this article highlights, “Gay Rights Groups Irate After Obama Administration Lauds Defense Of Marriage Act.” Make sure you check out the powerful photo in this one:

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama claimed “we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act,” which says states are not required to recognize other states’ same-sex marriages.

That was then. This week, the Obama administration is facing the ire of gay rights groups after it filed a brief in California federal court defending the Defense of Marriage Act and calling it a “valid exercise of Congress’ power” that is saving taxpayers money.

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, was signed into law by President Clinton in 1996. It doesn’t prohibit same-sex marriages; instead, it says that no state “shall be required” to honor same-sex marriages taking place elsewhere or any “right or claim arising from such relationship.”

“Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire” would be appropriate here, IF we weren’t talking about people’s LIVES. And that’s what makes this so egregious. Still disgusted beyond belief, but this time, not only with Obama, but these groups who jumped on his little American Idol bandwagon, lapping up his Teleprompter “Words, just words.” And that’s JUST what they were – words. The actions are telling the tale, and it ain’t good.

And in a related case, the DOJ weighs in on a related case, “DOJ Moves To Dismiss First Fed Gay Marriage Case“:

The government said Smelt and Hammer seek a ruling on “whether by virtue of their marital status they are constitutionally entitled to acknowledgment of their union by states that do not recognize same-sex marriage, and whether they are similarly entitled to certain federal benefits.

“Under the law binding on this Court, the answer to these questions must be no,” the motion states.

Oh, yes – he is SUCH a friend to the LGBT community – in Opposite World, that is. And this kind of backtracking, bamboozling, bullshit from Obama is precisely why I told the HRC guy who called me the other day to get me to reinstate my membership that there was no way in hell I would do that after the HRC supported Obama, and not HRC (you know, as in Hillary). He kept telling me that Obama SAID he was going to this, and Obama SAID he was going to do that. I told him Obama could say whatever he WANTED, but the fact remained he had done NOTHING yet, and his history led me to believe he wouldn’t. I just didn’t realize that in one week – within a couple of days of each other – that Obama would prove me right. And not just that he wasn’t going to do anything, but he did WORSE than that, screwing us six ways to Sunday. What I told this man at HRC as I got off the phone was, “Obama is no friend to the GLBT community.” Talk about an understatement.

Once again, I say that anyone who thought for one skinny second that Obama was going to do anything at all positive for the GLBT community was deluding themselves so they could vote for the one everyone said was the cool kid, the popular guy, the one whose razor thin resume would have been laughed at except for his marketing team who billed no experience, and no qualifications, as the Change We NEED!! Well, this is change alright, but I sure as hell don’t need it, and frankly, I resent all of those people who mindlessly voted for this man, who attacked all of us who didn’t buy his hooey from the get-go, all those people who called (and still call) us racists, and on and on and on because we didn’t swallow the Kool Aide.

So, during this Pride Month, let me just say, thanks shitloads for giving us this guy who is taking us back, no, legislating us back into the closet (a little poetic license – you know what I mean). Yep – thanks a whole lot for a whole lot of grief.

Now – what are you gonna DO about it???

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them – FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words – just speeches – just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short – he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

Barack Obama promised to filibuster the FISA bill, but instead, he voted for it, and many of his supporters are understandably concerned about his willingness to compromise our civil liberties. As Dawn Teo wrote for Huffington Post:

Last week, Obama supporters created a “Get FISA Right” group using the Obama campaign’s web-based social networking application. The group was an unusual addition to the website — formed as it was by Obama supporters for the purpose of protesting Obama’s position on the FISA bill…The group became the largest one on the Obama website within days, growing to more than 21,000 members in less than week.

Obama posted a response to the Get FISA Right group in which he reassures his supporters that:

…once I’m sworn in as President — to have my Attorney General conduct a comprehensive review of all our surveillance programs, and to make further recommendations on any steps needed to preserve civil liberties and to prevent executive branch abuse in the future.

Will Mitchell, an member of the Get FISA Right group on Obama’s website, hand delivered a letter yesterday to Obama’s Chicago campaign office, appealing to Obama both to reconsider his own support of FISA and to speak on the floor of Congress against the bill:

We ask that you back up your words with action by addressing your constituents on the floor of the Senate with the same oratorical power you used in Philadelphia to lay out your vision of a ‘More Perfect Union.’ The American people have just as much right to know of the dangerous precedent this Congress would be setting by granting retroactive immunity to those who “may have violated the law” and allowing spying on law-abiding citizens …. We ask you to reconsider your current position on the bill as a whole and strongly oppose a bill about which you said, “I know that the FISA bill that passed the House is far from perfect. I wouldn’t have drafted the legislation like this, and it does not resolve all of the concerns that we have about President Bush’s abuse of executive power.” In your statement you also wrote, “In a dangerous world, government must have the authority to collect the intelligence we need to protect the American people. But in a free society, that authority cannot be unlimited.” We agree.

That was yesterday, and today we know that Obama voted in favor of FISA. Hillary voted against FISA, just like she said she would. She didn’t do it without consideration; our national security is amongst the New York Senator’s greatest concerns. But as she makes clear in her statement, the FISA bill goes against our constitutional rights:

Congress must vigorously check and balance the president even in the face of dangerous enemies and at a time of war. That is what sets us apart. And that is what is vital to ensuring that any tool designed to protect us is used – and used within the law – for that purpose and that purpose alone. I believe my responsibility requires that I vote against this compromise, and I will continue to pursue reforms that will improve our ability to collect intelligence in our efforts to combat terror and to oversee that authority in Congress.

The comments on Obama’s website make clear how disappointed his supporters are. Here’s one example of the many comments left by fellow Democrats, who believed Obama was a man of his word:

FISA Bill

By Paul – Jul 9th, 2008 at 9:26 pm EDT

Also listed in: Senator Obama – Please Vote NO on Telecom Immunity – Get FISA Right

When Bush was elected in 2004 I was dejected, disappointed and totally deflated because I felt my country had let me down. We failed to send W back to Texas. How could that many Americans have deliberately voted for him? The effect of Senator Obama voting for the FISA bill today is similar though not as profound. I am dejected, disappointed and partially deflated because I feel that the Senator has let me down. I can not rectify his deliberate turn about and support of this bill. Since he clearly operates by making politically calculated votes, it makes me wonder how he would of voted had he been in the senate when the authorization to use force was passed. I think he may have voted for it. I also suspect that he would have voted for the Patriot Act since Senator Feingold was the only one to oppose it. It seems that Senator Obama is not the champion for my civil rights that I took him to be. I wonder how many of Bush’s executive excesses President Obama will reverse. Maybe very few since presidents seem loathe to relinquish any priviledges.

I am sadder but wiser now. He is no longer a champion for my rights. He is simply a presidential candidate….

This time, in response to the reporter’s question regarding if mental distress should count in considering a late term abortion, WORM said this:

Obama: “My only point is this — historically I have been a strong believer in a women’s right to choose with her doctor, her pastor and her family. And it is ..I have consistently been saying that you have to have a health exception on many significant restrictions or bans on abortions including late-term abortions.

In the past there has been some fear on the part of people who, not only people who are anti-abortion, but people who may be in the middle, that that means that if a woman just doesn’t feel good then that is an exception. That’s never been the case.

I don’t think that is how it has been interpreted. My only point is that in an area like partial-birth abortion having a mental, having a health exception can be defined rigorously. It can be defined through physical health, It can be defined by serious clinical mental-health diseases. It is not just a matter of feeling blue. I don’t think that’s how pro-choice folks have interpreted it. I don’t think that’s how the courts have interpreted it and I think that’s important to emphasize and understand.”

Well, golly gee willikers – I don’t think that is a whole lot better, there Obama! Still waffling, still trying to appease all sides, and still acting like women: 1. should CARE what you thinks; and 2. like we need your patronizing permission on ANY of this, especially since YOU ARE NOT A DOCTOR! Or a PASTOR! OR a WOMAN!! There are LAWS about this already, there, Skippy, and you don’t have to like them or agree with them, but they exist. There isn’t just “Roe,” there is also “Doe,” which deals directly with the whole “mental distress” provision.

Sheesh.

There are two very good posts on this I would like to commend to you, one by Ann Althouse, an attorney, and the other the author of Fausta’s Blog. They can both be accessed through This Link.

I wonder what flip-flops today will bring?? Oh, I can hardly WAIT!!!

Obama courts Middle America in attempt to counter ‘antiChrist’ image

If Obama thinks he has problems with us Just Say No Deal Pumas, he’s got much bigger problems with the very same Americans that he put down during the primaries, you know, those bitter, gun toting, bible clinging folks:

The Obama team’s strategy of picking up conservative, evangelical Christian voters has run into unexpectedly strong headwinds. This is especially true among the poor, white and working-class voters of Scots-Irish descent who live in the Appalachian mountain region that stretches across parts of seven states.

Barack Obama may wonder why many people aren’t falling in line behind him, but the truth is, he faces major public relation problems. Many people just don’t trust him to tell the truth about himself. Obama remains a mystery to millions of ordinary Americans. Who is he? What does he believe in? Is he a Christian? And if so, after 20 years in the church run by Jeremiah Wright, what kind of Christian is he? Doyle writes:

Along with Internet claims that he is a Muslim, some evangelical Christians have put it about that Obama may be the Antichrist. Glenda Kinzer, 41, from rural Ohio, believes the end of the world is about to occur. “A lot of people are talking about how Obama fits the description” of the Antichrist. “I always thought he will be from the Middle East.”

Obama is now advertising his Christianity by pushing Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Not long ago, liberal Democrats worried about Bush using religion, and now, Obama, the shape-shifter extraordinaire is hawking the same old wares (this is a new kind of politician?). Not only are these programs designed to replace social programs (and social programs have long been the mission of the Democratic party), even more troubling is that Obama’s plan “blurs the nation’s constitutional separation of church and state”:

Earlier in the week, he unexpectedly took a page from George W. Bush’s political playbook by embracing his controversial “faith-based initiatives.” He told voters in the evangelical heartland of Ohio that as president he would fund religious groups dealing with America’s social problems provided they did not discriminate in who they offer help.

He praises Ronald Reagan and copies George Bush. Yet Obama remains an unknown. Many of us will never vote for him because he is inexperienced, unproven and displays poor judgement. And Obama’s talking points consist of whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. What are Obama’s positions? As they say about the weather, wait five minutes and they’ll change. Just last week Obama appeared to throw MoveOn under the bus. MoveOn is one of his major contributors, but for the sake of appearances, they went quietly under the bus. Obama’s followers embrace his political position of never allowing values to come in the way of winning:

In the run-up to the July 4th national holiday, Obama has been on a “values” tour of middle America as he seeks to counter Republican attempts to label him as too liberal.

That’s the thing: Obama will say and do anything for the sake of appearances. And the good folks of Middle America are wise to question who he is and to wonder about his motives.

I’m a little confused. And it’s starting to bother me. Just when I think I am beginning to understand who Obama is the guy just up and changes. As easy as putting on a new pair of socks. But forgetting that your feet still stink. So I’ve been wondering if it is possible that Obama stands for anything at all. Or if he wasn’t kidding about all that change stuff. Maybe that is why the rest of us need hope so bad. Because we sure as hell can’t count on him to show any backbone. But worms are like that.

I mean you gotta figure that a politician will change from time to time. Especially when they talk about working across the aisle. The art of compromise requires a little give and take. And call me silly, but I actually think that people willing to evolve their perspectives are the kind of folks we need in politics. If someone is incapable of learning and growing then they sure as hell don’t need their hands around the reigns of power.

But that doesn’t appear to be what is happening with Barky Obama. No, I think he has a bad case of the I have no core values syndrome. AKA I will be whatever people want me to be as long as it allows me to gain power over them. And what gets me is that he has the audacity to call this a new kind of politics. It’s such a shame that a Harvard graduate wouldn’t know that slimeball I’ll pretend to be on your side politics has been around for ages. Hardly a new phenomenon.

And I am not the only one scratching their head over these sudden transformations. Even some on the fringe left are starting to question Obama’s positions. Or should I say the lack of them. But most are making excuses for him. WORMs for the Worm. An army of them.

One such WORM is Stephen Ducat who writes for the Huff and Puff Huffington Post. The dude is a true believer. That’s for sure. But at least he has accepted that Obama is not divine. One of the fortunate few. So maybe there is hope after all.

Understanding Obama’s Recent Right Turn

To see Barack Obama behave like any other invertebrate Democrat is an especially painful blow.

You see what I mean? Ducat actually realizes that Obama is a Worm. And he sees clearly that this talk of a new politics is just a ruse, a fancy slogan that sounds good and people hope is true.

Obama’s resort to the triangulation of the old politics is an admission of a much more serious limitation. It tells us that he does not believe in his own ability to reframe certain key issues in a way that makes a progressive stance the one that is obviously the most moral. It shows that he does not feel up to the task of rendering some liberal principles intellectually clear and emotionally compelling.

Ducat recognizes that Obama is not a real leader after all. Which is actually kind of comforting. Maybe he has been laying off the Cult-Aide for a few days.

His limited ability to exercise moral leadership leaves him with no choice other than to accept Republican frames on issues. So, on the FISA bill, for example, loss of privacy and immunity for criminal telecom companies become a trivial price to pay for protection from unfathomable and pervasive Evil.

But just when I thought I had some hope Ducat goes ahead and spoils it for me. Because even though he realizes that Obama is all hype and doesn’t even believe his own bullshit, he can’t help himself but to come to Obama’s defense. He has a game plan. A strategy that he believes will make everything all better. And if it wasn’t so absolutely ridiculous it might be funny.

Ducat is of the mind that all Obama needs to do is create a commercial. He can make the fallout from his nasty little flip flops go away by adopting that tried and true strategy: Divert attention away from yourself by blaming the other guys for the things you support.

The 30-second ad opens on a scene in a middle class suburban kitchen. A mother is speaking on the phone. Her voice is muffled and is drowned out by an intermittent electronic beep, along with the sounds of someone frenetically striking a computer keyboard. The screen quickly splits in half to reveal the woman’s nine-year-old daughter speaking by cell phone to inform her mother that she is ready to be picked up from the school bus stop. The screen is then split in thirds to reveal a man wearing headphones sitting in front of a computer typing notes, obviously monitoring the mother-daughter conversation. Behind him is a massive warehouse filled with computers and scurrying NSA technicians. This image then takes up the entire screen. The voiceover says, “Republicans, like George Bush and John McCain, have taken away our freedoms, invaded our private lives, and made us less safe.” We then quickly see a succession of images — a scene from Iraq that features a burning American tank, a scene of grenade launchers being placed into a packing crate, a scene of an unguarded American port where uninspected shipping containers are being off loaded, and finally a scene of a car with blacked out windows slowing down in front of an unsecured nuclear power plant. A window rolls down. A hand holding a camera reaches out to snap photos. Then the car speeds away. The voice over then concludes, “Protecting America means preserving our rights [cut to an image of the Constitution in which the camera scrolls down the Bill of Rights section], along with defeating terrorists.” The last image is a scene of Barack Obama standing up and pointing toward a large map of some unidentifiable part of the world. Below him is a large conference table of twenty or so advisors who are listening with rapt attention. (Emphasis mine)

And the sad part is that this strategy might just work. Because it focuses on fear. The very thing that Obama claims is the old politics. We are to ignore the irony that this is being presented as a “progressive” plan. Obama’s lack of moral principles extends down to his followers. Worms all.

by Medusa and Bud White

Two-faced? Hypocritical? Or showing his true colors? Last week Barack Obama made 180 degree turns on three previous positions he had taken in order to seduce liberal Democrats. In an article entitled “For Obama, winning is everything“, Michael Tomasky writes of these changes, claiming that:

It’s acceptable – and necessary – for Barack Obama to compromise his liberal principles in order to get elected

Taking Fat-Cat Money

In November 2007, the Midwest Democracy Network, a non-partisan alliance of 20 civic and public interests groups, released the unedited responses to a questionnaire on federal political and government reform issues. The questionnaire was sent to both Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Question 1-B asks:

If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?

Barack Obama answered the question in detail: Yes. I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests. I introduced public financing legislation in the Illinois State Senate, and am the only 2008 candidate to have sponsored Senator Russ Feingold’s (D- WI) bill to reform the presidential public financing system.

In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election.My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election.

My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election.The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (r- AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.

However, on June 19, in an about-face so abrupt as to cause whiplash in his beholden followers, Obama said he would forego public finances in his presidential race against John McCain.Previously decrying special interests money, which made him the darling to liberal Democrats, Obama has rejected the 84 million dollars in public funds available to him. This allows him to accept money from special interest groups, making clear that against all his claims, he is a Washington insider. Anthony Corrado writes:

Obama “is likely to outspend McCain and the Republican national committee combined by perhaps two to one. Between now and election day, we very well may see Senator Obama spend $400m or more

Obama is clearly two-faced, as we are seeing more and more. But he’s not simply repeating old and familiar patterns, according to Richard Briffault, a campaign finance expert at Columbia University:

Obama is the first candidate since the public financing system was established by congress in 1974 to opt out of the system.

Denying Civil Liberties

The second liberal principal Obama sacrificed in the space of one week is his decision to support a bill that gives the telecoms retroactive immunity. Only last year Obama promised to filibuster the bill but instead, in a stomach-lurching turn to the right, he gave his support to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, and climbed in bed with George Bush and company. No doubt Obama is attempting to show some strength regarding national security to those of us who know he has none, but he’s sacrificing the very liberals who fell for his dippy promises of hope and change:

Asked specifically why he’s supporting the current FISA bill when he’d promised months ago to support a filibuster of an earlier version of the bill, Obama suggested flat out that “national security” overrides the question of telecom immunity.

The Death Penalty

As Michael Tomasky writes, most liberals are opposed to the death penalty, so when Obama joined in with the most conservative minority of the supreme court justices to support the death penalty in the case of the rape of a child, he turned more right than many from the right wing, causing many of his supporters to doubt their support. David Sirota suggests that “When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don’t pay a lot of attention look at one thing: ‘Does the guy believe in something?’ They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow.” The Huffington Post has noticed Obama’s lurch to the right:

Sen. Barack Obama is risking his brand as a political reformer, according to reports today in the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post. In recent weeks, he has moderated or changed positions on a number of politically-charged issues, leading to criticism from demoralized Democratic activists and charges of “flip-flopping” from conservatives.

Hillary supporters have long known that Obama wears whatever mask will gain him political advantage in the moment. The big blogs are now beginning to catch on to Obama’s tricks. Anglachel notices this trend:

Overall, the trend I am seeing is that, with Hillary out of contention, the Blogger Boyz have abruptly noticed The Precious is not what they have claimed him to be or, rather, they are finally having to acknowledge that we HRC supporters were right about the mendacious little bastard all along.

Indeed, there is an emerging narrative — not just in the blogosphere — that Obama is two-faced. Unlike the charge that Kerry was a flip-flopper, this narrative is born out of Obama’s own actions; no windsurfing imagery is necessary, even the big blogs are beginning to see that Obama has no core values and that he suddenly shifts positions and rhetoric to suit his needs. Politico reports:

“[A] lot of people tried to convince themselves that he was a progressive hero, and I think they were disappointed,” Hamsher said. “You can feel a real shift in the zeitgeist online.”

Obama recently told women that they need to “get over” that Hillary lost. But what Obama doesn’t understand or have the maturity to see is that in this extended job interview, in which women are the majority of voters, his tactics, reversals, arrogance, and bullying do not easily fade from memory. Even at this date, Obama is largely unknown to the public, but what we do know is that he will say one thing and do another. Where we come from that’s called lying, and it’s something we’d expect from a con.

Hopefully you had dinner some time ago and there is little chance that it won’t stay down. But I am warning you in advance. Listen to this bullshit and tell me if it hurts.

The wife U.S. Republican John McCain callously left behind

While Obama will surely press his credentials as the embodiment of the American dream – a handsome, charismatic young black man who was raised on food stamps by a single mother and who represents his country’s future – McCain will present himself as a selfless, principled war hero whose campaign represents not so much a battle for the presidency of the United States, but a crusade to rescue the nation’s tarnished reputation.

(Emphasis my own)

We have all heard this myth. But upon examination it just doesn’t add up. Where is it that Obama was raised on food stamps? In Hawaii? Don’t think so. He was enrolled in a high scale upper class private school. Was it in Indonesia? Nope, it wouldn’t have been there either. They never even heard of food stamps. Kansas? Nope not there either. In fact, Obama never lived there. Not even a day. Not. a. single. day.

So this food stamp myth is precisely that. It is a lie made up by Obama to make him seem as if he is one of us and not the elitist pampered snob that he really is. How many days do you think he spent wondering how he would put food on the table? I am fairly certain that the answer to that question is NONE. Unless of course he decided to spend his money on drugs rather than food. But that would have been a conscious decision, not something that happened because of the hand life had dealt him.

So the author of this article starts with a lie to make Obama seem to be someone he isn’t. Then she uses that lie as a set up for a hit piece on McCain, someone that spent 5 years being tortured and abused by the Vietnamese. A hardship that has been carefully and fully documented for decades. Not some made up piece of illusion spinned by the Obama WORMs.

The author, Sharon Churcher, wastes no time at all getting to the meat of her contention. She believes that McCain is a horrible man that dumped his wife to take up with someone younger. And she claims that McCain did this solely for Cindy’s money.

Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi-millionaire who had impeccable political connections.

Never mind that the former Mrs. McCain, Carol, doesn’t believe that John left her for any intention that was not honorable or natural. Churcher ignores the truth and holds onto a lie. A lie as false as the lie about Obama she started her article with.

Carol insists she remains on good terms with her ex-husband, who agreed as part of their divorce settlement to pay her medical costs for life. ‘I have no bitterness,’ she says. ‘My accident is well recorded. I had 23 operations, I am five inches shorter than I used to be and I was in hospital for six months. It was just awful, but it wasn’t the reason for my divorce.

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that happens…it just does.’

I mean, think about it. If you were captured and tortured and abused for 5 years, do you think it might have changed your views on a lot of things? Don’t you think that under the circumstances you might want to try new and different things? And if his ex-wife isn’t bitter do you think that it is fair to ask the rest of us to become bitter toward someone when the person closest to him at the time doesn’t see him that way?

Clearly Churcher is reaching here. She is so filled up with the Cult-Aide that playing loose and hard with the facts doesn’t mean a thing to her. The Obamedia has been getting away with telling lies and twisting the truth for so long now that many journalists don’t even feel the need to pretend to follow what used to be the rules of journalism any longer.

I expect that this type of yellow journalism will become the new standard. In fact, it is already starting.

Brilliant at Breakfast has already weighed in. And no, they don’t worry about using facts to back up their claims. Only the horrible rumors we have all heard.

Yes, my feminist friends, you’re planning to vote for a guy who dumped his wife because she had the temerity to be disfigured in an automobile accident and gained weight. You know, when you look at Cindy McCain these days, she doesn’t look happy, does she? Maybe it’s the 4 tons of Botox she has injected into her face in a vain attempt to still be the 25-year-old her husband fell for in the first place. Or maybe it’s that a man who dumped a wife because she didn’t look the same anymore, and who called the woman for whom he dumped her a “cunt” and a “trollop” in public, probably berates her in private because SHE didn’t stay 25 forever either.

I mean seriously, have you such a load of crap from anywhere? Except maybe The Drudge Report. Because that is exactly the type of nonsense and the style that these folks are going to emulate.

This attempt by Churcher is clearly designed to make the alternative to Obama, McCain, seem as if he is a woman hating, immoral creep. McCain may be many things but he isn’t any of these things. What we are witnessing is a Cultist response to those of us that refuse to follow the party line and back their illegitimate candidate. They will do and say anything they can over the next few months to tear McCain down and make him appear to be a monster. Sort of what Samantha Powers tried to do to Hillary.

And speaking for myself, every single time that the Cultists use lies and distortions to create a false image of who McCain is the closer I will move toward him. Every. Single. Time.