Here are more NoQuarter reports on Obama’s inconsistent stands on gun control during the primaries as well as the SCOTUS ruling:

* “Two-Faced: Obama Tries to Straddle Both Sides of Gun Rights,” by SusanUnPC

* “SCOTUS Ruling on Gun Rights Highlights Obama Electability Issues,” by SusanUnPC

* “Obama’s Gangster Mentality,” by SusanUnPC

* “Coattails & Rural Districts,” by Truthteller

* “Kentucky Poll: Wright, Bitterness, Bosnia, Electability,” by Truthteller

* “Obama on Board That Funded Handgun Bans,” by SusanUnPC

* “Handwriting’s on the Wall … Err, the Questionnaire,” by Alegre

* “Obama the Magician,” by Bud White

… Barack Obama has taken multiple positions on banning handguns and the D.C. handgun ban. He has stated his belief that handgun bans were constitutional and he supported them. Then he actually refused to state a position. Now, Barack Obama has issued a statement that some are reporting as an embrace of the U.S. Supreme Court decision overturning the D.C. handgun ban while others are reporting that he is still straddling his position. [See more below.]

Even an Obama supporters, TalkLeft‘s Big Tent Democrat, attacks Obama’s “Feet of Clay.” BTD quotes Politico:

Barack Obama has crafted an image as an unconventional candidate, a change agent and a post-partisan politician who represents a dramatic break from the status quo. … when confronted with a series of thorny issues the Illinois senator has pursued a conspicuously conventional path, one that falls far short of his soaring rhetoric. Faced with tough choices on fronts ranging from public financing and town hall meetings to warrantless surveillance and the Second Amendment, Obama passed up opportunities to take bold stands. … Instead, he has followed a familiar tack, straddling controversial issues and choosing politically advantageous routes. …

Denver delegates must know that vacillating statements and actual votes that contradict those statements on Second Amendment issues are “deal breakers” for millions of voters nationwide. Memeorandum.com is tracking posts linking Politico’s “Obama: Change Agent Goes Conventional.” Most astonishing: the ABC News report by Jake Tapper on Obama’s stumbling, bumbling exchange with a Pennsylvania reporter:

Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban.

Here’s how the exchange went down.

"In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional," Layne said. "Now you’re embracing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down that law—

"That’s not what I said," Obama interrupted, per ABC News’ Jennifer Duck.

"Your aide said that," Layne clarified.

"I don’t know what my aide said but I’ve been very consistent, I teach constitutional law," Obama said. … (Read all of Jake Tapper’s “Obama Eager to Distance Self from Campaign’s Former Position on DC Handgun Ban.”)

You think those GOP 527s — especially the NRA — won’t relentlessly attack Obama on his defensive backtracking from his all-over-the-map statements? His campaign can be derailed permanently by this one issue alone. The NRA has already begun:

From the NRA’s wryly-titled story, “Clinging to the Constitution“:

In recent days, GOP presidential candidate John McCain has highlighted Barack Obama’s comments about small-town Americans “clinging” to guns and religion. Senator McCain’s comments, though, have a different spin. In Arlington, Virginia, for instance, McCain said: “I know why [residents of small towns] embrace their constitutional rights, and why they embrace their religious beliefs, and it’s because they’re fundamentally good and decent people. ”

By referencing our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, John McCain demonstrates an understanding of this issue that has continued to escape Barack Obama. Americans don’t “cling” to their guns out of bitterness. They fight to preserve their constitutional liberties because they love this country.

If Barack Obama wants to believe that gun owners are simply bitter…he should remember something else. We’re voters too, and we don’t support those who believe in Chicago-style gun control.

That’s mild by NRA standards. They’re just warming up!

The NRA crippled Al Gore in 2000. During the days of the Florida recount, I was at a local Safeway. The barely-eligible-to-vote teen who boxed my groceries noticed the Al Gore sticker on my jacket. He said, “I would have voted for Gore, but he was going to take my guns away.”

That the NRA’s message filtered down to an 18-year-old grocery store box boy in a rural community, and got him to change his vote, is proof that the NRA knows how to demolish its perceived foes.

Accurate or not, the NRA’s campaign against Gore worked in 2000. The NRA’s campaign will have endless ways to attack Obama in 2008 because of his flip-flopping statements and his Illinois state senate voting record that, CBS News predicted, will haunt Barack Obama in a general election.

Obama’s remapping of his policy issues to take more “advantageous routes,” as characterized by today’s hot Politico story, will be derailed by relentless campaigns by the NRA and other 527s. Obama will end up cut off at the knees once his all-over-the-map views and his Illinois state senate voting record on gun rights are exposed.

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

Here’s a fascinating timeline of Obama’s conflicting statements on the Second Amendment, via a McCain campaign press release. (Clearly, this is “oppo research” that the McCain campaign had ready to issue once the SCOTUS ruling came in yesterday morning, and this press release was issued immediately afterwards.)

A TIMELINE OF POLITICAL POSITIONING ON SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS

… Please find below a timeline of Barack Obama’s support for the D.C. handgun ban and subsequent reversal:

SEPTEMBER 1996: In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

2004: Barack Obama Voted Against “Letting People Use A Self-Defense Argument If Charged With Violating Local Handgun Bans.” “[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.” (Ryan Keith “Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics,” The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

NOVEMBER 2007: The Chicago Tribune Reports That The Obama Campaign Says Barack Obama “Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional.” “[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’” (James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, “Court To Hear Gun Case,” Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07)

FEBRUARY 2008: During An Interview, Barack Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

· In The Same Interview, Barack Obama Indicated He Feels The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. Harris: “And you’ve said that it’s constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?” Obama: “Oh, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we’ve got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets …” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

· In This Interview, Barack Obama “Didn’t Dispute The Characterization That He Believes The Ban Is Constitutional.” “But a colleague points out that Obama took a question about the constitutionality of the gun ban from WJLA’s Leon Harris during the Potomac Primary, and didn’t dispute the characterization that he believes the ban is constitutional.” (Ben Smith, “Inartful,” The Politico, 6/26/08)

· Watch The Interview Here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wu9jE1MnAE

FEBRUARY 2008: Barack Obama “Declined To Take A Position For Or Against Its Constitutionality.” “Today Obama reiterated his support for tighter enforcement of laws already on the books – such as stronger background checks and enhancing programs to trace the provenance of guns used in crimes. He would also seek to close the loopholes that currently apply to firearms purchased at gun shows. But asked today about the DC handgun ban currently being reviewed by the US Supreme Court, Obama declined to take a position for or against its Constitutionality but did express broad support for the rights of local jurisdictions to make such decisions for themselves.” (David Wright, Ursula Fahy And Sunlen Miller, “Obama: ‘Common Sense Regulation’ On Gun Owners’ Rights,” ABC News, 2/15/08)

MARCH 2008: Obama Campaign “Would Not Elaborate On Whether The Senator Supports The D.C. Gun Ban.” “Jen Psaki, a spokeswoman for Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, said Mr. Obama ‘believes the Second Amendment creates an individual right, and he greatly respects the constitutional rights of Americans to bear arms.’ ‘He also believes that the Constitution permits state and local governments to adopt reasonable and common-sense gun safety measures,’ she said, but would not elaborate on the whether the senator supports the D.C. gun ban.” (Gary Emerling, “Nation Awaits D.C. Handgun Ruling,” The Washington Times, 3/17/08)

APRIL 2008: Barack Obama Says “I Confess I Obviously Haven’t Listened To The Briefs And Looked At All The Evidence.” CHARLIE GIBSON: “Senator Obama, the District of Columbia has a law — it’s had a law since 1976; it’s now before the United States Supreme Court — that prohibits ownership of handguns, a sawed-off shotgun, a machine gun or a short-barrelled rifle. Is that a law consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms?” OBAMA: “Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence. As a general principle, I believe that the Constitution confers an individual right to bear arms. But just because you have an individual right does not mean that the state or local government can’t constrain the exercise of that right, and, you know, in the same way that we have a right to private property but local governments can establish zoning ordinances that determine how you can use i t. And I think that it is going to be important for us to reconcile what are two realities in this country. There’s the reality of gun ownership and the tradition of gun ownership that’s passed on from generation to generation. You know, when you listen to people who have hunted, and they talk about the fact that they went hunting with their fathers or their mothers, then that is something that is deeply important to them and, culturally, they care about deeply. But you also have the reality of what’s happening here in Philadelphia and what’s happening in Chicago.” (Democratic Presidential Candidates Debate, Philadelphia, PA, 4/16/08

JUNE 2008: Barack Obama Says He Wants To “Wait And See How The Supreme Court Comes Down.” OBAMA: “What I have said is that I do not — what I have said is, is that I’m a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, but I do not think that that precludes local governments being able to provide some commonsense gun laws that keep guns out of the hands of gangbangers or children, that local jurisdictions are going to have different sets of problems, and that this is a very fact-intensive decision that has to be made. But I do think that the Second Amendment is an individual right. So, what I would like to do is wait and see how the Supreme Court comes down, and evaluate the actual reasoning in the case to see how broad or narrow the decision’s going to be.” (Barack Obama, Press Conference, Chicago, IL, 6/25/08)

JUNE 2008: The Obama Campaign Says An Unnamed Was “Inartful” In Telling The Chicago Tribune That Barack Obama Thought The Handgun Ban Was Constitutional “With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an ‘inartful’ statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional. ‘That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position,’ Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.” (Teddy Davis And Alexa Ainsworth, “Obama Camp Disavows Last Year’s ‘Inartful’ Statement On D.C. Gun Law,” ABC News, 6/26/08)

JUNE 2008: ABC News’ Jake Tapper Says Barack Obama Is “Embracing The 5-4 Decision, Written By Justice Antonin Scalia, That Struck Down The DC Handgun Ban As Unconstitutional.” “Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, may have a long record of supporting gun control measures, and he may have seemed to have previously endorsed the DC Handgun Ban. But just now he issued a paper statement embracing the 5-4 decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, that struck down the DC Handgun Ban as unconstitutional.” (Jake Tapper, “Obama Embraces Supreme Court Decision As ‘Well-Needed Guidance,’” ABC News, 6/26/08)

JUNE 2008: Politico’s Jonathan Martin Says Barack Obama “Plainly Trying To Straddle Here.” “He’s plainly trying to straddle here. It actually sounds – especially the ‘Cheyenne and Chicago’ language – quite a bit like the language Howard Dean used in ’04 when trying to reconcile gun views tailored for pro-gun Vermont with a Dem primary.” (Jonathan Martin, “Obama Careful On Heller,” Politico, 6/26/08)

JUNE 2008: Now, This Afternoon, Barack Obama Says “I’ve Been Very Consistent, I Teach Constitutional Law” Despite His Numerous Contradictory Positions. “Craig Layne, a reporter from WJET-TV in Erie, Penn., today asked Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, a question on the DC gun ban. Here’s how the exchange went down. ‘In November you mentioned that the DC handgun law was constitutional,’ Layne said. ‘Now you’re embracing the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision striking down that law—’ ‘That’s not what I said,’ Obama interrupted, per ABC News’ Jennifer Duck. ‘Your aide said that,’ Layne clarified. ‘I don’t know what my aide said but I’ve been very consistent, I teach constitutional law,” Obama said. What I said was that I believe 2nd Amendment as being an individual right and have said that consistently. I also think that individual right is constrained by the rights of the community to maintain issues with public safety. I don’t thi nk those two principles are contradictory and in fact what I’ve been saying consistently is what the Supreme Court essentially said today.’” (Jake Tapper, “Obama Eager To Distance Self From Campaign’s Former Position On DC Handgun Ban,” ABC News, 6/26/08)

###

First, we have — shudders — a presumptive presidential candidate who talked gansta style in Philadelphia on June 13th. From my story, “Obama’s Gangster Mentality“:

“If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun. Because from what I understand, folks in Philly like a good brawl. I’ve seen Eagles fans.”

Obama’s words are dangerously poor examples to our nation’s youth. Obama’s words are unbecoming of a presidential candidate, let alone a president.

We’ve long known that Barack Obama is highly vulnerable on the issue of gun rights due to his all-over-the-map statements on gun ownership rights — and, most seriously, his voting record.

Before gun-lovin’ Idaho’s primary, Obama talked the talk about gun owners’ rights. But, during his terms as an Illinois state senator, he voted for laws that will disturb any gun ownership advocate. A CBS News story, “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — its subtitle is “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control” — reports:

He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn’t have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes. …

More from “Obama Record May Be Gold Mine For Critics” — “Eight Years As State Senator Were Full Of Controversial Votes, Including Abortion And Gun Control”:

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic “assault weapons” and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

“It’s bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time,” said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. “It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank.”

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons. …

Now, for today’s new twirl from the typical Obama “dance” around the issues:

Here’s that “inartful statement” featured today at ABC News’s blog, Political Radar:

ABC News’ Teddy Davis and Alexa Ainsworth Report: With the Supreme Court poised to rule on Washington, D.C.’s, gun ban, the Obama campaign is disavowing what it calls an "inartful" statement to the Chicago Tribune last year in which an unnamed aide characterized Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., as believing that the DC ban was constitutional.

"That statement was obviously an inartful attempt to explain the Senator’s consistent position," Obama spokesman Bill Burton tells ABC News.

The statement which Burton describes as an inaccurate representation of the senator’s views was made to the Chicago Tribune on Nov. 20, 2007.

In a story entitled, "Court to Hear Gun Case," the Chicago Tribune’s James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins wrote ". . . the campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he ‘…believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional.’"

http://www.topix.com/content/trb/2007/11/court-to-hear-gun-case

The Chicago Tribune clip from Nov. 20, 2007, is an inaccurate representation of Obama’s views, according to Burton, because the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has refrained from developing a position on whether the D.C. gun law runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

When Obama has been asked on multiple occasions to weigh in on the D.C. gun case he has regularly maintained that the Second Amendment provides an individual right while at the same time saying that right is not absolute and that the Constitution does not prevent local governments from enacting what Obama calls "common sense laws."

Although he has been willing to describe his general views on this topic, Obama has sidestepped the question of whether the ban in the nation’s capital runs afoul of the Second Amendment.

…

Remember this debate question by ABC’s Charlie Gibson?

Asked by ABC News’ Charlie Gibson if he considers the D.C. law to be consistent with an individual’s right to bear arms at ABC’s April 16, 2008, debate in Philadelphia, Obama said, "Well, Charlie, I confess I obviously haven’t listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence."

In stark contrast, Sen. McCain has been a straight-shooter on the issue, reports Political Radar:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., by contrast, has been forthcoming when it comes to the D.C. gun law. 
He signed an amicus brief in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, signaling not only his belief in the Second Amendment but also his view that the DC gun ban is incompatible with it.

Our friends at Reason magazine call Obama’s slippery statements “fishy.”

Earlier, Barack Obama had issued a fishy retraction of last year’s unambiguous statement that “the gun ban is constitutional.”

Remind me, would you: What is it that rots from the head?

Cooper referred to this advertisement:

The commercial is vacuous, for it fails to establish a viable connection between Travis Childers and Barack Obama. Moreover, the opposition researchers of the Republican opponent neglected to cite specific actions or statements of Childers that may bespeak a commitment to the values Barack Obama upholds.

The advertisement did have an effect, however. Indeed, it elicited a response from Childers, who most probably cut the commercial as a result of polling data that revealed Obama was a liability in his northern Mississippi Congressional district.

Notice how Childers speaks directly into a camera that slowly zooms in to capture a frontal portrait of his bust. Also notice the setting: his kitchen, which affords a view of a barn. Authenticity and credibility had to be established with voters in the wake of the connection to Obama and Wright, and this would only be achieved with a narrative articulated within the confessional mode in a sequence that is unedited and captured in one long take. Obama and Wright, in other words, created a problem of trust for this candidate, who had to spend precious funds on a commercial in which he separated himself from the cause of his slip in the polls.

But notice how Childers does not mention the cause; he only mentions “politicians I do not know and have never met.” He had to separate himself from Obama, but he did not want to remind his constituents of any relation he may have with the man to which he was tied. He certainly did not want to remind them of Wright, who he avoided altogether in this commercial. Wright must have been too controversial a topic to broach in a region where the Southern Baptist Convention reigns supreme.

Also notice how he had to reiterate his pro-life and pro-gun stance. His political affiliation with Obama, who disparaged rural voters as so many xenophobes who “cling” to guns and religion, required him to assure voters that he did indeed share their rural values. This may also explain the setting of the commercial. But again, his affiliation with Obama and with Reverend Wright’s God Damn America Church compelled voters to question his commitment to rural Mississippi values: hence why he and his operatives cut this commercial.

Yes, Childers did win, but he only won by separating himself from Obama and Reverend Wright. One should also keep in mind that the DCCC outspent their Republican counterparts almost 2 to 1 during this special election. Will Childers and other Democrats in conservative districts have such lavish funding in November? Can they rely on low turnout during a Presidential year? Will they survive the large number of Republicans and conservative Democrats who will arrive to the polls in order to vote against a Presidential candidate who not only made derisive comments about guns and religion but also attended the God Damn America church for twenty years?

Childers had to distance himself from Barack Obama in order to win the special election in northern Mississippi. And Republicans knew they could complicate his bid for Congress with a commercial that highlighted his shared Party affiliation with Obama and Reverend Wright. Campaigns that are funded conduct polls, and they cut their advertisements accordingly.

But do candidates running for the US House and the Senate desire to confess to the camera that they are the people they claim to be? Do Democrats running for the House and the Senate desire to reiterate again and again their commitment to guns and religion and other aspects of rural life during a competitive reelection bid? Do Democrats running for Congress desire to spend precious funds on commercials that ultimately remind voters that their political Party has embraced an inner city elitist who is woefully out of touch with voters in rural and suburban America?

Barack Obama is a liability for Democrats. Everyone can cite the victories in recent special elections as evidence to the contrary, but candidates for Congress do not cut advertisements wherein they are confessing to the camera unless the standard bearer of the party is someone who throws their credibility into question.

Did I mention that Clinton won West Virginia by a 41 point margin? And did I mention that more than half of West Virginia Democrats view Obama as untrustworthy? 52% of West Virginia Democrats also believe Obama shares the views of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the controversial pastor whose God Damn America Church Obama attended for 20 years. Clinton wins these voters; Obama cannot and did not. And he certainly will not win the votes of rural Independents and Republicans if rural Democrats find him radical and untrustworthy.

Clinton can provide coattails to Democrats running in rural and conservative districts. Obama, on the other hand, will force these candidates to spend money on advertisements and mailers that establish their credibility with voters who own guns and practice religion. If superdelegates hope win the White House and increase Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, they will cast their votes for Hillary Clinton, not Barack Obama, who is yet to win a primary in one of the swing state states we must win in November.

Conceding Kentucky to Clinton, Obama has already dismissed Kentucky Democrats as so many “typical white people” whose participation in the Democratic primary is inconsequential. Kentucky Democrats will determine the outcome of the general election, however. And according to a poll conducted on behalf of Herald-Leader/WKYT on May 7-9, 2008, Obama has an electability problem with Kentucky Democrats.

I quote:

Wright’s remarks are important or very important to 43 percent of those polled. Among white voters, his statements were important to 46 percent, compared to only 11 percent of black voters.

Compounding this problem is Obama’s elitist remark about white, rural, bitter voters who “cling” to guns and religion. According to the poll I cite above,

Twenty-nine percent of voters said they didn’t care about Obama’s comments about rural voters clinging to guns and religion.

In other words, 71% of Kentucky Democrats do care about Obama’s derisive statements about rural white voters who “cling” to guns and religion.

Compare these alarming figures to the following finding of the Herald-Leader/WKYT poll:

Twenty-three percent of those polled said Clinton’s misstatements about whether she was under sniper fire in Bosnia were important to their vote.

Clinton’s statements about Bosnia have not affected Kentucky Democrats’ perception of her viability and electability. I guess the voters of Kentucky know how to pick a President.

—————————————–

Lest one try to dismiss the results of this poll, let us remember that the Democratic nominee will have to win Kentucky in the general election. Bill Clinton won Kentucky in 1992 with 44.55% of the vote, and he won it again in 1996 with 45.84% of the vote. Neither Gore nor Kerry could carry Kentucky, and neither of them managed to win the White House. Kentucky, in other words, is an important swing state, and Obama with his out of touch elitism will not be able to carry it if almost half of Kentucky Democrats find his pastor’s statements offensive.

Clinton, on the other hand, can carry Kentucky. Just listen to this expert on Kentucky politics and culture:

“It is the working class support that Hillary is enjoying and Bill Clinton did alright by the working and middle class,” Gershtenson said. “Those folks enjoyed improving times over the course of his terms and I think that makes a big difference.”

“Typical white people” matter, even if Obama, Brazile and other Washington, DC, elites denigrate and dismiss them. Or perhaps Obama really does despise the “typical white people” of Kentucky. After all, he and his wife listened to the following again and again when they attended the “God Damn America” Church in inner city Chicago for a full twenty years:

I felt I had let my readers down by not jumping on Barack’s Ebay waffle sooner. I felt like such a failure that it was a good thing that Hillary came through to cheer me by handing Obama his ass on a plate in Pennsylvania on Tuesday night.

Now, those of you who know me also know that I never give up. Having lost the timely opportunity to write about Barack’s waffle, I believed that my readers would lose faith in Uppity once they found out that she didn’t do her homework soon enough.

But, being a tenacious little bugger, bearing dozens of sexist Corporate America scars to prove it, I wasn’t going to let Barry’s waffle go unrecognized–if for no other reason than the symbology of it all. I mean what else would he order for breakfast but waffles, considering his ever-reversible stances on things like gun control and raising payroll taxes on the middle class?

It seems that, as it is with all immature children, Barry didn’t finish his breakfast and someone snatched what was left of the spitty meal from Plastic Jesus’ blessed plate. This, by the way, was the same waffle Barry used as an excuse not to answer a reporter’s question.

Having successfully avoided traveling reporters’ questions for ten days since he declared half of PA to be racist hicks who pray a lot and hang onto guns, Barry had gotten very creative.

When the reporter approached him and asked him about Carter’s visit to his terrorist endorsers, Hamas, Barry No-More-Debates Obama responded, “Why can’t I eat my waffle“.

When pressed further, Barry said, “Just let me eat my waffle”. Atta way, Barry. No sense of discussing a few more of your “casual” terrorist friends when you are about to get your ass handed to you on a plate in another Primary, right?

Apparently, Barry was lying again. And he wasn’t just lying about Hamas either. The fact is, he didn’t eat his waffle and here’s the proof. As you can see, Barack didn’t finish his waffle and some very enterprising person saw an Ebay opportunity with the potential to match the income generated by the cheese sandwich with the image of the Virgin Mary on it.

I mean if people would be willing to pay thousands for an image of the Virgin Mary on a half-eaten cheese sandwich, imagine what people would be willing to bid for Jesus Obama’s waffle, complete with his DNA and spit on it! Not only that but he left his little sausage behind in Pennsylvania too! Why don’t you think about that. I’ll wait….

Now you have got to love America — what’s left of it. Just as Barack’s waffle and his sausage were…um…pulled from Ebay, another enterprising soul was ready to capture Barry’s spitty breakfast for posterity! Here we have an interpretive painting of Barack Obama’s waffle listed on Ebay.

Now, if you look at the original and do a comparison, you will see that this is indeed a very realistic rendition offered by this published artist, wouldn’t you agree?

At the time of this entry, this listing of an artist’s rendition of Barack’s waffle and little sausage has had more than two thousand hits. I just hope the holder of the original doesn’t sell it for DNA. I would hate to think anybody would clone the vapid jerk in the perpetual disconcerting black suit.

Barack Obama’s presidential campaign has worked to assure uneasy gun owners that he believes the Constitution protects their rights and that he doesn’t want to take away their guns.

As Jerlyn at TalkLeft points out, “At Wednesday’s debate, Barack Obama wouldn’t say what his position is on the DC law banning handguns.” She notes that Obama “dodged, saying he wasn’t familiar with the facts of the case.” She asks:

Why didn’t Obama answer the question at the debate instead of weaving and bobbing? Was it because he didn’t want to alienate PA voters, many of whom favor strong gun ownership rights? And, did he fail to tell the truth?

Jeralyn affirms that in November, “his campaign told the Chicago Tribune he supported the ban. (Chicago Tribune November 20, 2007.)” So which is it, Sen. Obama? You can’t have it both ways.

Obama’s efforts to woo gun owners in states like Pennsylvania may be further damaged when gun owners and gun rights groups learn of Obama’s long association with the Joyce Foundation, which “doled out at least nine grants totaling nearly $2.7 million to groups that advocated the opposite positions.”

This is the second board position about which voters have become aware, the first the Woods Fund, a board he sat on with former Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers.

LaBolt [a campaign spokesperson] said Obama, an Illinois senator, “does not remember each of the over 1,500 individual grant requests and his assessment of their merits, but he considered all requests in light of the foundation’s goal of developing a robust public dialogue around reducing gun violence.”

Voters need to learn more about Obama’s association with liberal boards that voters outside large cities may question. Reports Politico:

Obama’s service on the board of the Joyce Foundation and a few other Chicago-based nonprofits including the Woods Fund of Chicago remains one of the least scrutinized parts of his career. But it’s one that could hamper his efforts to woo populations of rural pro-gun voters in Pennsylvania, which votes April 22, and in a general election match-up with the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Sen. John McCain.

In his appeal to gun owners, Obama has not emphasized his own legislative record, which includes supporting a ban on semiautomatic weapons and concealed weapons, and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month. He has blamed his staff for indicating on a questionnaire filled out during his 1996 state Senate bid under his name that he supports banning “the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns.”

Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago and served as president of the Harvard Law Review, has instead focused on his respect for what he contends are constitutionally guaranteed gun owners’ rights, the “passion” of hunters and the “tradition” of handgun ownership.

Many pundits have criticized Obama’s vague, confusing answers to questions about gun ownership and rights during last Wednesday’s debate.

One blogger summed up Obama’s performance this way:

By the time Gibson got around to the issues, Obama looked lost and upset. It got worse when Gibson asked about capital-gains tax rates, which Obama has pledged to raise. When Gibson repeatedly pointed out that decreasing the rates actually increased the revenues, Obama simply couldn’t come up with an answer, stammering while trying to change the subject. On guns, both Hillary and Obama stumbled through tortured explanations of how they support a Constitutional right for individuals to own guns while backing gun bans like the one in DC.

The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they’re speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight.

Here is ABC News’s transcript of the debate, and here is the video of the portion of the debate on gun rights and the Second Amendment:

First, you have to see the hysterical reaction of in-the-KoolAid-tank-for-Obama David Corn, a “journalist” (except-for-his-Obama-mania) for The Nation. It’s Corn’s original, histrionic variation of “Leave Barack Obama Alone!“:

[L]efty journalist David Corn, sounding somewhat agitated, told Wolfson and Singer, “I don’t understand why you’re making this an issue” and brought up the cases of two Weather Underground criminals who were pardoned by Bill Clinton. “Did Sen. Clinton think that was the wrong thing to do when he pardoned these two terrorists?” Corn asked.

“I am not aware, perhaps you are, of Linda Evans or Susan Rosenberg — of either of them hosting a political event for Sen. Clinton at their homes,” Wolfson answered.

“That’s not what I asked!” Corn interrupted.

“I appreciate your passionately-held feelings on this race and on this issue,” Wolfson continued. [Ah yes, the ironic understatement. Good one, Howard.] “But when you get to ask a question, I get to answer it.” … continued below …

“Fair enough,” Corn said.

“The difference here is that Bill Ayers hosted an event for Sen. Obama when he was running for state senate…This is not somebody that Sen. Obama would just run into on the street. This is somebody who hosted an event for him at his home in a political context. We’re not talking about whether Sen. Obama ran into somebody at an ice cream store in Hyde Park…”

“Bill Ayers is unrepentant of what he did. He is unrepentant about what he did in the 60s and early 70s. That is a difference, of course, with Linda Evans and Susan Rosenberg…If Sen. Obama is not able to answer the questions last night…I think it is absolutely reasonable to ask him for a fuller accounting of why Bill Ayers hosted him at his home for a political event.”

Now, here is the full audio of this morning’s call. It’s always fascinating — if that’s the right word — to listen in on the media’s questions:

____________

P.S. Corn incorrectly said that President Clinton “pardoned” two WU terrorists. 1) President Clinton “commuted” their sentence; he did not pardon either, and 2) Hillary Clinton, as First Lady, had no part in the pardoning process about which we are aware. I believe the process for commutations and pardons begins in the Department of Justice, in an office that sifts through an enormous volume of requests, winnows down that list, and then presents, to each president, a short list of those believed to merit consideration. Those DOJ lists are then reviewed by each president’s aides before the president sees a list. (At least that is my understanding of the process.)

P.P.S. David Corn did remarkable reporting on Valerie Plame Wilson and on the trial of Scooter Libby, and I will always respect him for that work. It’s just that today — and on television recently when I’ve seen him as a commentator — that he seems a bit overwrought about Barack Obama’s candidacy. And I wonder why he is acting that way.

I just love Fact Hub — it’s a great way to keep up with the campaign and they had fact checks up immediately, during the debate.  Take a look at something they caught regarding a bit of a flub-up of Obama’s during the debate last night:

Sen. Obama’s Handwriting Appears On Questionnaire Supporting Total Handgun Ban

During the debate, Sen. Obama flatly denied his handwriting appeared on a questionnaire where he expressed his support for a total gun ban:

Gibson: But do you still favor the registration of guns? Do still you favor the licensing of guns? And in 1996, you – your campaign issued a questionnaire. And your writing was on the questionnaire that said you favored a ban on handguns.

Obama: No, my writing was not on that particular questionnaire, Charlie. As I’ve said, I have never favored an all-out ban on hand handguns

That’s not the case, you can see his handwriting on the very questionnaire here:

The entire questionnaire is available here.

More on this story, including the Obama campaign’s initial denial he ever saw the questionnaire, here.

Oops!  He got another one wrong guys.  I suppose now he’s going to issue another one of his “what I meant to say was…” memos or deliver one of his famous speeches to undo the damange caused by getting caught out in this blunder, eh?

As for the debate, a friend just sent me the following email about how what they thought of Obama’s answers to some of the questions:

Ha! He didn’t fill out the questionnaire …

he was absent when Wright went wild …

it’s okay for him to hang out with Ayers because Clinton pardoned other people …

he only wears a flag pin when a veteran gives him one …

he’s for a windfall profits tax on oil companies but he voted for Cheney’s energy bill …

he doesn’t take money from federally registered lobbyists but he takes the money they bundle … etc.

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

Special thanks to Vet4Hill for the video. – SusanUnPC

Dear Senator Obama:

My name is Chastity and I’m a 33-year-old African-American woman. I was deeply saddened and disturbed by your comments about Senator Clinton. A woman has a right to defend the 2nd amendment without condescending comparisons that represent your lack of knowledge in regards to the women’s suffrage plight.

“Who does she think she is? Annie Oakley?”

I want to answer that question. If you are asking if Senator Clinton is similar to Ms. Oakley in her amazing talent and timely rise to fame which propelled her to become the first American female superstar, then I agree with that depiction.

I must tell you I am deeply offended that you find it humorous that she would defend the right of men or women to bear arms. If it were not for the media’s disdain for Senator Clinton, your not-so-humorous comments would be put in their appropriate context.

You expressed regret in regards to your wording of the “bitterness” of small town citizen’s economic struggles but, the next day, you disparaged Senator Clinton regarding her defense of constitutional freedoms. I am appalled by the media’s lack of outrage. (Women everywhere should also be outraged!)

Senator McCain also referred to your comments as elitism and out-of-touch. So does that mean he’s the Lone Ranger?

It is also fair to note you did not make any jokes at Senator McCain’s expense.

In a time when we have the possibility of an African-American or female president, to have one of the candidates publicly demean another candidate is unacceptable. I implore you to not only apologize publicly to Senator Clinton but to educate yourself on Ms. Oakley’s contributions to society. She broke stereotypes, and she engaged in extensive, albeit quiet, philanthropy for women’s rights and other causes.

“Shame on you.” “You should know” that using humor as a vehicle to degrade someone that expressed justified concern about your misrepresentation of small town America as “bitter” — instead of “ungratified” — only antagonizes the up-hill battle that women face in the fight for equality.

If elected president, you will not only represent the ungratified small towns, but you will also represent Senator Clinton and her right to protect unalienable rights. To mock her remarks because your statements were “self admittedly inappropriate” is wrong.

You are displaying an antipathy for someone who represents thousands of American women who have been disparaged for centuries. And you abet the continued inappropriate characterization that woman cannot lead a country or defend a nation.

As an African-American, I am “very proud” to have someone of your caliber representing us in the presidential race, but as a woman I am “equally proud” of Senator Clinton for the same reason.

There is nothing funny about that!

Sincerely,

Chastity from Texas

One of the things most disconcerting about Obama is that he is the Master of Misdirection. Like a magician who distracts you in order to pull off a trick, Obama is the opposite of who he claims to be.

Here are some examples:

After the Wright story broke, Obama flatly told Anderson Cooper that he never heard Wright make those statements.

Then he lectures us on race, admits hearing those statements and, here’s the fake-out, equates Wright’s unacceptable hate sermons with Ferraro making an obvious observation about his candidacy.

Obama is running an ad in Pennsylvania touting the fact that he doesn’t take money from oil companies. Did you see that? No one takes money from oil companies; it’s illegal. But Obama does take money from oil executives.

Obama attacked Hillary on NAFTA while campaigning in economically troubled Ohio, and then a member of his inner circle tells the Canadians that all this talk is just politics. Vous devez être plaisante?

Obama is running as the unity candidate. He unexpectedly loses New Hampshire to Hillary and then his campaign runs a relentlessly negative and racially charged campaign heading into South Carolina. They accuse the Clintons of being racists. Come again?

While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama votes repeatedly against the right’s of gun owners. Now he is touting his credentials as a constitutional scholar and his belief in the 2nd Amendment. Watch out, Pennsylvania sportsmen!

Obama claims he is pro-choice, but when he was in the Illinois State Senate he voted ‘present’ on issues of choice — telling us he was keeping the seat warm but not voting to support women’s rights.

Obama’s campaign is based largely on one speech he gave in 2002. But he has done absolutely nothing to end the war in Iraq since entering the Senate in 2005, except to remind us about the speech he gave.

Obama tells us he believes every vote should be counted, but it’s his campaign that is the only thing holding up counting Michigan and Florida, or having a re-vote. Which is it, Senator Obama? Do Democrats count votes or not? A stolen nomination is a lost election.

This tiring magic act never ends. Some are fooled by the tricks; others are beginning to see.