Brutally Honest

Andrea Mitchell: McCain must've cheated, he was so well prepared

From MSNBC:

(Videotape)

SEN. JOHN McCAIN (R-AZ): Defeat it. Couple of points. One, if I'm president of the United States, my friends, if I have to follow him to the gates of hell, I will get Osama bin Laden and bring him to justice. I will do that and I know how to do it. I will get that done.

(End videotape)

MR. GREGORY: Andrea Mitchell, that's a pretty clear contrast.

MS. ANDREA MITCHELL: Oh, absolutely. And, you know, there was the crisp, immediate, forceful response by John McCain, clearly in a comfort zone because he was with his base. And Barack Obama, taking a risk in going there but seeing an opportunity. And a much more nuanced approach. The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because that--what they're putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama.

MR. GREGORY: Right.

MS. MITCHELL: He seemed so well prepared.

MR. GREGORY: Well, you talk about this issue and the crisis that's in Georgia, nuanced doesn't work for Democrats. And here, Obama's been criticized this week for the idea that there should be restraint on both sides when the administration, you hear this morning, is out with very tough language against Russia.

MS. MITCHELL: In the long run, though, if you look at the analysis and how this all started, nuanced may be a better approach than this get tough approach. But clearly, as a sound bite in a political campaign, going after Russia, going after Putin is a much more appealing approach. But when you, when you talk to people who really know the issue, Georgia did things and Ossetia is not a clear-cut case. I mean, there is a lot of, of depth here. But what Obama is trying to--how he's trying to frame it is not as easily sold on the campaign trail.

That'll be the spin then I guess... McCain kicks butt at Saddleback, Obama looks less than Presidential (and typically nuanced) and it all must be because McCain cheated.

Pretty amazing... but then again, not really.  The MSM has to continue to prop up this empty suit and they're going to have to be pretty creative to do so.  Accusing McCain of cheating is but one way.  There'll be more ways unveiled between now and November, no doubt.

With props to Kim at Wizbang who's pretty pissed about the whole thing:

Unbelievable. Barack Obama got his ass handed to him last night because he is a light weight and that's it. There is no other reason, and for his camp to completely malign Senator McCain's honor and integrity is just plain offensive.

According to the Obama camp John McCain couldn't possibly have had a great night because he was able to call on his deep bench of knowledge that's a result of a lifetime of experience in government and military service and international relations. No. According to Obama, that couldn't possibly be the case. It has to be that he cheated.

How utterly pathetic.

But, you know, Obama can just up this charade that he's in the same league as McCain and then toss insults when he fails to measure up because it will illustrate even more that Obama is about as qualified to be President of the United States as Bozo the Clown.

It's the liberal way really.  When they can't best your ideas, your thinking, your mindset, they attempt to tear you down with lies, innuendo, and blatant falsehoods.

I call it evil.  You can call it what ever the hell you'd like.

Communist Party endorses Obama...

... but perhaps it's not the Communist Party he once knew:

Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.

A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.

This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.

Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”

If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.

H/T Cassy at Wizbang.

Idiocy portrayed as enlightenment

From Rev. Susan in Ca. speaking about The Obamessiah:

I think he reaches across the aisle moreso than other senators, whether republican or democrat.

Really Rev. Sue?  Really?  And you base that opinion on what exactly?  Seriously, on what?

Certainly not on the record:

The NYT looks at the National Journal rating of Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate and the fallout it could cause. "In many ways, the Obama campaign is challenging the fundamental political premise that has prevailed in Washington for more than a generation: that any majority coalition must be carefully centrist, if not center-right. Bill Clinton ran in 1992 as a candidate willing to break with liberal orthodoxy on many issues, including crime and welfare, and eager to move the party -- which had lost five of the six previous presidential elections -- to the middle. Mr. Clinton’s New Democrats assumed a certain level of conservatism among voters.

Mr. Obama and his allies are basing his campaign on a different bet: that the right-leaning political landscape Mr. Clinton confronted has changed. Several major Democratic strategists, and outside analysts as well, argue that the country has shifted to the left because of the Iraq war, the economy and seven-plus years of President Bush, and that it has become open to a new progressive majority."
 
McClatchy does a fact-check of sorts on Obama's senate record vs. his presidential rhetoric. "Obama says if he were president, he'd take politically courageous stands while forging the consensus needed to enact universal healthcare, immigration revisions, global warming legislation and a withdrawal from Iraq. His three-year record in the Senate, however, offers little evidence that he can do what he's promising. His party was in the minority for his first two years, and in the third he began campaigning for president and missed lots of time on Capitol Hill. He was absent from or only partly involved in some key bipartisan efforts to head off stalemates on judicial nominations, immigration and Iraq war policy."

Someone will have to one day help me understand the liberal mind... because I have only two possibilities to explain the Rev. Sue and all she represents:

1. Someone exhibiting absolute and complete ignorance... or
2. Someone hell bent on attempting to carry forth a lie, willfully and with malice.

If you can offer up other possibilities, by all means, do so.

 

Barack Obama: Like coming out of a sexually dry period

I kid you not:

Have you ever gone through a really dry period sexually? At first you get angry that you're being neglected and ignored, and you act out. Then one day you wake up with a sense of nonchalance and you start to marvel at how much you're getting done, and how much easier it is not to care. And then... one day, maybe a stranger comes and begins to romance you and strokes your hair in a sort of contemplative way, uttering the most delightful insights. He touches your hand softly and then a little more firmly, awakening the feelings that you thought you'd left behind, and then you start speaking really poetically and hearing melodies and then suddenly you WANT IN! You want back in the game and you think 'spring is here'... YES WE CAN!

Barack Obama is inspiring us like a desert lover, a Washington Valentino. We who have felt apathetic, angry at two (likely) stolen elections, K-Street hegemony, the "pornography of the trivial"* in journalism and culture; we who are heartbroken over a war we knew was wrong, we who thought (especially after Baby Bush got in a 2nd time) that America got what it asked for; we who stopped wanting to participate 'cause it doesn't matter whether we do or don't; we have a crush. We're talking about it; we're getting involved, we're tuning in and turning out in numbers we haven't seen in ages. My musician friends and I are writing songs to inspire people and couples all over America are making love again and shouting "yes we can" as they climax!

Yea... and the rest of us might soon be suffering from a venereal disease.

Sheez.

H/T to Gerard who reacts thusly:

Yes, Lili Haydn, coming off like a string of wet firecrackers. Lili Haydn - late of "Porno for Pyros" now leader of "Ignorant Sluts for Obama" - of whom the best that can be said is, "She has the brain of a singer."

Umm... she has a brain?

"You remember Bush, right?"

The Anchoress has a linkfest going on over there this morning that's good, as usual, but this particular reference jumped out at me:

You remember Bush, right?  The guy who goes to Asia and tells China to free her people, while the press jeers, the guy who, while in Asia also meets with Democracy Activists in Burma and gets ignored for it, the guy who drew enormous and supportive crowds in Korea, while the American press yawned?

Sure, you remember Bush!  He’s the guy whose life was threatened along with Barack Obama’s but only the threat to Obama was newsworthy for a very long time at CNN.  Bush?  You mean the creepy moron who will be charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity as soon as congress can figure out how to do that without exposing itself or having to put some of its own members under oath? 

Yeah, that guy!  The guy who does more than just talk about freedom and progress.  The guy who has brought real hope and change to people all over the world, and yes, here in America.  But you don’t want to hear it.  It’s the wrong and inconvenient narrative, the embargoed one.

This takes me back to Sonja and her piece I linked to some days ago.  You might remember this excerpt:

My first thoughts are that all Christians need to take a course in critical thinking.  This is critical.  As an adult convert (at the age of 30) who went to a regular liberal arts college and learned the art of critical thinking and discourse, I have been regularly appalled at the lack of critical thinking that I see amongst the brethren and sistren.   It is why so many are now so bitterly disillusioned with President Bush.  Those of us who are critical thinkers saw him for who he was back in 1999; a charlatan.  But most Christians only heard what they wanted to hear in 2000 and again in 2004.  Having done that, and been so badly burned they seem unwilling to trust any politician again.

You'll note two glaring things here in these two quoted excerpts.  The Anchoress, while defending President Bush, provides tons of fodder substantiating her defense.  Sonja, while attacking the President, provides nothing, nada, zilch to substantiate her idiocy.

But wait... there's more:

I woke up this morning and realized I’m watching this dream come true.  On August 28, 2008 … 45 years to the day later, Barack Obama will accept the nomination for the Democratic Party.

This year. This election. We’re choosing hope. We’re looking at the content of someone’s character and not the color of their skin. Yes, Amen and all good things, we’re choosing hope. Let justice roll down like a mighty river and may grace abound …

- Ravine of Light

That was Sonja back on June 5th... glowingly Obasmic and poetic in her support for the Obamanation.

Roll forward to this week:

I’ve viewed life primarily through the lens of a Democrat.  I worked for my senator when I was in college. Senator Stafford was a life-long Republican and I thoroughly admired him and supported his work. I believe that the government’s job is to protect it’s citizens, to provide a safety net for them should they need it, and several other things that I haven’t yet verbalized enough to write.  I still don’t know who I’ll be voting for in the upcoming presidential election. There was a time when I certain it would be Obama … but recently I’ve been thinking about Nader.  I know … throwing my vote away again.

Well, well, well... what happened?  I thought justice was rolling down the river like a mighty river?  I thought grace was abounding?  Now we're considering voting for... Ralph Nader?   Ralph Nader?

And this decision, we have to assume, is arrived at via Sonja's masterful embrace of " the art of critical thinking and discourse"?

Yea... right...  Critical thinking led to her embrace of Obama, her throwing Obama under the bus and now her embrace of Ralph Nader?

I'd like to suggest that Sonja has instead embraced uncritical emoting and so typifies and exemplifies what passes for liberal thought today.

Thank God for The Anchoress who rather than speak about her critical thinking skills simply gives us evidence for it.

And thank God for people like Sonja who best represents that school of thought emoting thinking people should avoid.

Leave Barack Alone

Blame Gerard... he's such a meanie (warning... foul language alert).

"The One"

Via Wizbang:

Poll Crap

Yesterday's Gallup Daily tracking poll has Obama up by 6 points over McCain and the title of the post breathlessly asks "Is there a Europe Effect?"

Yet, a cursory glance here shows that Obama held a 6 point advantage on the 21st of July (before the trip) and the same lead on the 11th and back on the 6th.

So, no there's no Europe Effect... there's Gallup wishful thinking.

Michelle Obama - lives of children will be devastated

Unless her husband is elected:

"We have one candidate who essentially is telling us every day that the world as it is just fine. That what we've been doing for the last eight years is fine," Obama said. "Stay the course. Don't make too many changes.

"And then we have this other candidate -- Barack Obama -- who is saying every day that the world as it is not right. It's not good enough," she said.

Obama rattled off a list of areas where she believes the nation has been underperforming during the two terms of President Bush: education, health care and the economy.

"I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did," Obama said. "Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn't be so bad right now. Instead, we're in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child."

Um... Michelle... sweetie... it would seem to me that taking your children to the church you've been taking them to since birth would be more devastating than anything John McCain might do if elected.

Capece sistah?

Multiple Media Obasms

Via Hot Air:

Anyone got a cigarette?

What media bias?

This media bias:

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq'  has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

...

In McCain's submission to the TIMES, he writes of Obama: 'I am dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it... if we don't win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president.'

NYT's Shipley advised McCain to try again:  'I'd be pleased, though, to look at another draft.'

Out-freakin'-rageous if true.

This just in...

... the sky is blue, the grass is green, water is wet, Al Gore is a schmuck and a Rasmussen poll states that Americans see the press as pro-Obama:

The belief that reporters are trying to help Barack Obama win the fall campaign has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help Obama with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago. 

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help John McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

...

Among Republicans, 78% believe reporters are trying to help Obama and 10% see most offering unbiased coverage.

As for unaffiliated voters, 50% see a pro-Obama bias and 21% see unbiased coverage. Just 12% of those not affiliated with either major party believe the reporters are trying to help McCain.

In a more general sense, 45% say that most reporters would hide information if it hurt the candidate they wanted to win. Just 30% disagree and 25% are not sure. Democrats are evenly divided as to whether a reporter would release such information while Republicans and unaffiliated voters have less confidence in the reporters.

...

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.

...

These results are consistent with earlier surveys finding that large segments of the population believe the media is biased It is also clear that voters select their news sources in a partisan manner.

H/T Insty.

Compare and contrast (UPDATED) (TWICE)

Compare this:

Barack Obama’s advisers insist his coming trip abroad is not a campaign swing. Even so, the high-profile journey has all the trappings of a rock-star tour.

The Illinois senator’s trip to Europe and the Middle East has generated so much interest that all three TV network news anchors are planning to accompany the candidate.

Foreign media have reported daily on the impending visit. And the campaign revealed Friday that Obama intends to meet with top U.S. allies.

Obama is surely looking to burnish his foreign policy credentials overseas — but on the back end of it, his superstar persona might get the biggest boost.

“What you’re about to see is enormous publicity,” Democratic strategist Susan Estrich said. “He’s got three anchors coming with him. He’s got the glitterati of the press corps.”

With this:

"Good Morning America" on Wednesday attempted to guilt trip John McCain for taking a foreign trip while "Americans wrestle with a tough economy." Five times over the course of two segments, various GMA hosts, reporters and analysts insinuated that McCain's trip to Colombia and Mexico might result in voters thinking he doesn't care about the economic situation of Americans. Correspondent Bianna Golodryga pointedly wondered, "But at a time when polls show Obama ahead of McCain by 16 points on the economy, should McCain be staying closer to home?" GMA co-host Robin Roberts, in an interview with Senator McCain, questioned, "So, why is Senator McCain abroad when Americans are focused on the economy here at home and losing jobs, more and more jobs, as Bianna just reported?"

It must mean that the economy is turning around... in a matter of what... oh... less than 20 days.

Itsamiracul.

Or it's out the wazoo media bias.

You be the judge.

UPDATE: Michelle has turned us on to what ought to become a T-shirt best-seller:

UPDATE #2: I may've been a tad premature on reporting that the economy has turned a corner.  GatewayPundit has the full story... and I do mean... full.

This media bias

The Anchoress rants righteously:

The press isn’t just acting like Obama is already president - they’re exceeding the sort of international coverage they have given the sitting president, who could barely buy a headline while in Africa and whose recent trip to Japan - which occurred during his birthday - went widely unnoted.

But that’s the honest, balanced, unbiased  mediating intelligence” of the modern day mainstream media. 

We don’t yet know if Couric, Gibson and Williams and the rest of the “media stars” will curtsy or bow and wait until spoken to by Obama before uttering a word. I hope they don’t slobber over their mics or cry in his presence, or I may have to reach down my gullet and vomit up a lung.

You do realize, don’t you, that if a GOP candidate with weak foreign policy was doing the same thing - making a “world tour” with dramatic backdrops - the press would be sneering about how the whole thing is a “stunt” meant to “deflect his inexperience.” I know you know it, but I had to say it, anyway.

McCain ought to push for equal time if only to raise media-fawning-and-suck-up awareness in the heartland.

CNN: Counterfeit News Network

Powerline posts evidence to support the idea that CNN will do anything to ensure Obama's election.

Anything:

Robert Coram is the author of American Patriot: The Life and Wars of Colonel Bud Day.  He has forwarded a message related to our post "Setting the record straight on Bud Day, and CNN."  Mr.  Coram writes:

The CNN description of Col. Bud Day was simply wrong. Col. Day was never a member of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The Swifties criticized John Kerry’s Vietnam service, his medals, and the details of his discharge. After Kerry’s salute and his "reporting for duty" comment at the convention, another group sprang up around documentary producer Carlton Sherwood whose goal was to make Kerry accountable for the 1971 testimony before Fulbright’s committee, testimony in which he talked of war crimes, atrocities, etc. Col. Day was part of the second group and not the Swifites. In fact, he disagreed with the central thrust of the Swifties, that of questioning Kerry’s medals.

There was not just a philosophical but a legal difference in the Swifties and in the group which coalesced around Carlton Sherwood. The Swifties were organized as a Section 527 and thus "political," while Sherwood’s group was a for-profit S corporation organized in Pennsylvania and, at least in theory, "non-political."

This whole issue becomes more complex when in September of that year the Swifties had lost all momentum and were dead in the water but were sitting on millions of dollars while Sherwood’s group had no traction and was broke.

About the time Sinclair announced it was running "Stolen Honor" and the resulting flap and publicity, the Swifties decided they need to regain their momentum. They asked the POWs who had appeared in Sherwood’s documentary to join them in taping a series of television ads. The ads had enormous impact, the most powerful of which was one of Col. Day, Medal of Honor around his neck, staring into the camera and asking of John Kerry, “How can you expect our sons and daughters to follow you when you condemned their fathers and grandfathers?”

Taping the series of ads was the only place where the two groups came together. That does not make Bud Day a Swifty. CNN was wrong.

There's more, lots more, all of it worthy of passing along to your friends and neighbors so that you can tell them...

... this is...  CNN.

"we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat"

Via Obama's own web-site, this screen capture (in case it disappears, as it likely will... click on the image to see a bigger version):

The paragraph reads:

This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the Presidency. By no means is he a true Marxist, but under Karl Marx's writings we are to support the party with the best interests of the mobilization of the proletariat. Though the Democratic Socialists of America or the Communist Patty of America may have more Socialististic values, it is pointless to vote for these candidates due to the fact that there is virutally no chance they will be elected on a National level. The members of this group are not Leninists, Stalinists, etc. and do not support or condone the actions of North Korea, China, Cuba or any other self-procalimed "Marxist States." They do not in anyway represent the Marxist philosophy nor do they represent Socialism/ Communsim. We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!

H/T to Kate.

Hope and change

Obama's glass ceiling:

While Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has vowed to make pay equity for women a top priority if elected president, an analysis of his Senate staff shows that women are outnumbered and out-paid by men.

That is in contrast to Republican presidential candidate John McCain's Senate office, where women, for the most part, out-rank and are paid more than men.

Obama spoke in Albuquerque, N.M. last week about his commitment to the issue and his support of a Senate bill to make it easier to sue an employer for pay discrimination.

"Mr. McCain is an honorable man, we respect his service. But when you look at our records and our plans on issues that matter to working women, the choice could not be clearer," Obama told the audience in New Mexico, a voter-swing state. "It starts with equal pay. Sixty-two percent of working women in America earn half or more than of their family's income. But women still earn 77 cents for every dollar earned by men in 2008. You'd think that Washington would be united it its determination to fight for equal pay."

...

On average, women working in Obama's Senate office were paid at least $6,000 below the average man working for the Illinois senator. That's according to data calculated from the Report of the Secretary of the Senate, which covered the six-month period ending Sept. 30, 2007. Of the five people in Obama's Senate office who were paid $100,000 or more on an annual basis, only one -- Obama's administrative manager -- was a woman.

The average pay for the 33 men on Obama's staff (who earned more than $23,000, the lowest annual salary paid for non-intern employees) was $59,207. The average pay for the 31 women on Obama's staff who earned more than $23,000 per year was $48,729.91. (The average pay for all 36 male employees on Obama's staff was $55,962; and the average pay for all 31 female employees was $48,729. The report indicated that Obama had only one paid intern during the period, who was a male.)

McCain, an Arizona senator, employed a total of 69 people during the reporting period ending in the fall of 2007, but 23 of them were interns. Of his non-intern employees, 30 were women and 16 were men. After excluding interns, the average pay for the 30 women on McCain's staff was $59,104.51. The 16 non-intern males in McCain's office, by comparison, were paid an average of $56,628.83.

The new kind of politician smells a lot like the old kind of hypocrite.

Putrid.

But hey, he's all about hope and change.

"And please, please try to wake the hell up."

Via Insty comes Arthur Silber's hard look at the "woozily sentimental, intellectually reprehensible remarks" of your average Obama supporter:

I have several complicated essays in the works concerning the nature of the attraction that Barack Obama holds for many of his supporters. Once I complete some other articles, I will turn my full attention to them.

I want to mention the following, only because I am still so gobsmacked by it. A little while ago, in a fleeting moment of distraction, I turned my radio to the Stephanie Miller show. No more links for her; I gave her a link some months ago in connection with her grotesquely awful comments about the tasering of Andrew Meyer (she was Commentary Four). Miller is on vacation this week, so a couple of guest hosts are filling in.

The subject was Obama, and the comments in general were fairly horrifying, but in the way that has been typical for several months now. "Oh, his message is so wonderful!" What's that message? "Hope! Change!" And what's the nature of that hope and change?

So much for specifics.

Then another caller came on the line.  She began by announcing that, of course, in general she doesn't believe any of that nonsense about God controlling our national destiny, and she certainly doesn't believe that God chose that awful George Bush to be our president.

BUT, she burbled on, she absolutely believes that Barack Obama has been ordained by God to lead the United States of America.  AND, she  further oozed, look at the physical effect he has on people!  This, she portentously announced, IS.  NOT.  A.  COINCIDENCE.

THIS.  IS.  SIGNIFICANT.

Reactions of this kind to Obama are fairly common. No, they are not this extreme much of the time, but such statements are far from unusual. And many of Obama's less obviously deluded supporters fall along the same continuum.

Take a look at the woozily sentimental, intellectually reprehensible remarks collected at the beginning of "Obama's Whitewash," the third excerpt here, and the comments here. Moreover, this kind of reaction -- an emotion-driven response utterly devoid of coherent ideational content, a response that leads far too many people to be enthusiastically willing to believe virtually anything that Obama might proclaim and to follow him anywhere -- is one that Obama and his campaign explicitly seek to elicit.

People had better wake the hell up, and they had better study some history very damned fast. I have sometimes remarked, and I repeat the warning here, that the twentieth century was a nonstop train of horrors -- yet in one sense, the most terrible and horrifying aspect of the twentieth century is that we learned absolutely nothing from it.

There's more, all of it noteworthy and repeatable and in fact worthy of passing on to an Obama supporter near you who's elevator still goes to the top.  I say still because frankly, there's no hope (or change) to be found for the true Obamaniac.

Unity

Larwyn points us to Gateway Pundit and the latest episode of As the Democrat Party Turns:

Bill Clinton says Barack Obama must 'kiss my a**' for his support

The Telegraph reported:

Bill Clinton is so bitter about Barack Obama's victory over his wife Hillary that he has told friends the Democratic nominee will have to beg for his wholehearted support...

The Telegraph has learned that the former president's rage is still so great that even loyal allies are shocked by his patronising attitude to Mr Obama, and believe that he risks damaging his own reputation by his intransigence.

A senior Democrat who worked for Mr Clinton has revealed that he recently told friends Mr Obama could "kiss my a**" in return for his support.

Of course, this will all hinge on what the definition of "a**" is. 

 

"We are all Hussein"

Emily Nordling has never met a Muslim, at least not to her knowledge. But this spring, Ms. Nordling, a 19-year-old student from Fort Thomas, Ky., gave herself a new middle name on Facebook.com, mimicking her boyfriend and shocking her father.

“Emily Hussein Nordling,” her entry now reads.

With her decision, she joined a growing band of supporters of Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, who are expressing solidarity with him by informally adopting his middle name.

The result is a group of unlikely-sounding Husseins: Jewish and Catholic, Hispanic and Asian and Italian-American, from Jaime Hussein Alvarez of Washington, D.C., to Kelly Hussein Crowley of Norman, Okla., to Sarah Beth Hussein Frumkin of Chicago.

Jeff Strabone of Brooklyn now signs credit card receipts with his newly assumed middle name, while Dan O’Maley of Washington, D.C., jiggered his e-mail account so his name would appear as “D. Hussein O’Maley.” Alex Enderle made the switch online along with several other Obama volunteers from Columbus, Ohio, and now friends greet him that way in person, too.

Mr. Obama is a Christian, not a Muslim. Hussein is a family name inherited from a Kenyan father he barely knew, who was born a Muslim and died an atheist. But the name has become a political liability. Some critics on cable television talk shows dwell on it, while others, on blogs or in e-mail messages, use it to falsely assert that Mr. Obama is a Muslim or, more fantastically, a terrorist.

“I am sick of Republicans pronouncing Barack Obama’s name like it was some sort of cuss word,” Mr. Strabone wrote in a manifesto titled “We Are All Hussein” that he posted on his own blog and on dailykos.com.

So like the residents of Billings, Mont., who reacted to a series of anti-Semitic incidents in 1993 with a townwide display of menorahs in their front windows, these supporters are brandishing the name themselves.

“My name is such a vanilla, white-girl American name,” said Ashley Holmes of Indianapolis, who changed her name online “to show how little meaning ‘Hussein’ really has.”

-NYTimes.

In that spirit, and in response to ReliaPundit's question here, I've modified my Presidential campaign accordingly:

All nuance, all the time

Glenn Greenwald highlights Keith Olbermann's flip flopping on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) now that Obama has come out in support of it:

On January 31 of this year, Keith Olbermann donned his most serious face and most indignant voice tone to rail against George Bush for supporting telecom immunity and revisions to FISA. In a 10-minute "Special Comment," the MSNBC star condemned Bush for wanting to "retroactively immunize corporate criminals," and said that telecom immnity is "an ex post facto law, which would clear the phone giants from responsibility for their systematic, aggressive and blatant collaboration with [Bush's] illegal and unjustified spying on Americans under this flimsy guise of looking for any terrorists who are stupid enough to make a collect call or send a mass email."

Olbermann added that telecom amnesty was a "shameless, breathless, literally textbook example of Fascism -- the merged efforts of government and corporations that answer to no government." Noting the numerous telecom lobbyists connected to the Bush administration, Olbermann said:

This is no longer just a farce in which protecting telecoms is dressed up as protecting us from terrorists conference cells. Now it begins to look like the bureaucrats of the Third Reich, trying to protect the Krupp family, the industrial giants, re-writing the laws of Germany for their benefit.

Olbermann closed by scoffing at the idea that telecom amnesty or revisions to FISA were necessary to help National Security:

There is not a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or protecting the people from terrorism, Sir. This is a choice of protecting the telecoms from prosecution or pretending to protect the people from terrorists. Sorry, Mr. Bush, the eavesdropping provisions of FISA have obviously had no impact on counter-terrorism, and there is no current or perceived terrorist threat the thwarting of which could hinge on an email or phone call that is going through Room 641 of AT&T in San Francisco.

Strong and righteous words indeed. But that was five whole months ago, when George Bush was urging enactment of a law with retroactive immunity and a lessening of FISA protections. Now that Barack Obama supports a law that does the same thing -- and now that Obama justifies that support by claiming that this bill is necessary to keep us Safe from the Terrorists -- everything has changed.

Greenwald, no fan of FISA, goes on to chronicle Olberman's reversal including a a tell-tale interview with Newsweek's Jonathan Alter.

In summary, from the perspective of Keith Olbermann, who speaks for many a moonbat across this great land, Bush=Nazi when it comes to his support of FISA but Obama=Strength when he supports the exact same legislation.

Nuance.  It's a beautiful thing.

Kate gets the H/T.

When flip-flopping is virtuous

I guess we can call this a nuanced hope and change campaign:

Barack Obama has taken a stroll this week away from traditional liberal political positions, his path toward the political center marked by artful leaps and turns.

Senator Barack Obama appears to have moved toward the political center in the last week judging by his comments on guns and the death penalty. Mr. Obama visited Pittsburgh on Thursday.

On Thursday, he seemed to embrace a Supreme Court decision, written by the court’s premiere conservative and upheld 5-to-4, striking down Washington, D.C.’s ban on handguns.

Mr. Obama seemed to voice support for the ban as recently as February. On Thursday, however, he issued a Delphic news release that seemed to support the Supreme Court, although staff members later insisted that might not be the case.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through common-sense, effective safety measures,” Mr. Obama said. “The Supreme Court has now endorsed that view.”

He added, “Today’s decision reinforces that if we act responsibly, we can both protect the constitutional right to bear arms and keep our communities and our children safe.”

In the last week, Mr. Obama has taken calibrated positions on issues that include electronic surveillance, campaign finance and the death penalty for child rapists, suggesting a presidential candidate in hot pursuit of what Bill Clinton once lovingly described as “the vital center.”

"Artful leaps and turns"

"Calibrated positions"

Nuance baby... it's all about the nuance.

Hope and change can mean any damned thing you want hope and change to mean and if you don't agree, well... you should die.

Embrace your inner nuance.

Obama or die

Via Michelle Malkin, a picture that may not be all that satirical given Obama's association with ex-terrorists:

The manipulative Newsweek poll

If you haven't heard about the latest Newsweek Poll, you will:

Barack finally has his bounce. For weeks many political experts and pollsters have been wondering why the race between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain had stayed so tight, even after the Illinois senator wrested the nomination from Hillary Clinton. With numbers consistently showing rock-bottom approval ratings for President Bush and a large majority of Americans unhappy with the country's direction, the opposing-party candidate should, in the normal course, have attracted more disaffected voters. Now it looks as if Obama is doing just that. A new NEWSWEEK Poll shows that he has a substantial double-digit lead, 51 percent to 36 percent, over McCain among registered voters nationwide.

What you won't hear, unless you mix your intake of the news with alternative outlets such as this one, is that this poll is pretty much cooked:

Here's all you need to know: They polled 896 people. Guess how many identified Republicans there were?

231.

Democrats had 324 respondents and supposed independents 307.

Ridiculous.

A reputable pollster has it a four-point spread. Gallup has it at two. Who do you suppose is more reliable?

They're also now on a first-name basis with The Messiah.

...

Expect orgasms over at MessNBC tonight.

Plainly Obasmic folks... plainly.

H/T Larwyn.

Explaining the popularity of Barack Obama... (UPDATED)

... Bush Derangement Syndrome and so much more, Elizabeth Scalia, also known as The Anchoress, does us all a favor at Pajamas Media:

A friend who homeschools her children — and does it so well that the oldest has won a full academic scholarship to a university — was surprised that commenters would express such contempt not for the committee findings, which contradicted their worldview, but for the reporter who covered it. “It’s illogical,” she said. “Do public schools no longer teach critical thinking skills?”

Curious about that myself, I asked a friend who teaches social studies at a local and very well-regarded high school. “We’re supposed to be teaching critical thinking,” she said. “It’s in all the local and state standards, but in practice … there’s only so much time.”

“I really do try to tell my students to keep an open mind and consider all sides,” she continued, “but how much effect do you think that has when they get their news from sound bites followed by sarcasm on Comedy Central, and they see teachers wearing ‘Bush Lied’ buttons on their lapels? The button gives a cue: ‘Think this way, you’ll get an A.’ That’s pretty alluring. There is nothing out there actively encouraging reasonable thought; we do not teach logic.”

A quick poll of college freshmen around the house found little to disagree with in her assessment. “Mr. B. did make a point of telling us to listen to both sides and make up our own minds, but mostly you knew where a teacher stood politically, because even if they tried not to show it, you could see it in how they taught — how they’d talk up what they supported and barely mention the other side.”

I showed them the Hiatt piece and comments, and asked their thoughts. “Well, you know,” one young man shrugged, “it doesn’t really matter. It’s gone beyond what’s true or not anymore. People are going to believe what they want to believe.”

Hiatt himself suggested as much, writing:

Why does it matter, at this late date? The Rockefeller report will not cause a spike in “Bush Lied” mug sales, and the Bond dissent will not lead anyone to scrape the “Bush Lied” bumper sticker off his or her car.

“It doesn’t matter,” the young man, repeated. “People don’t look at ‘the truth’ as ‘the truth’ anymore. There’s just what you believe, and how the other guy is wrong.”

“But that describes feelings, not truth,” I said.

“Right. Your feelings are your truth.”

“When did this happen?” I asked, “because I didn’t get the memo.”

There's more, all of it worthy, all of it summing up what I've been saying, less articulately, here:

This election season seems to be pitting the shallow-minded against those with some semblance of critical thinking skills.  Who'll win will, in my view, set the course for the near future, and perhaps beyond, of this country.

For the love of God and country, think before pulling the lever folks. 

Seriously.

UPDATE: As if on queue, this YouTube video of Obama supporters singing "Put down the bong and vote for Obama". 

I kid you not:

H/T to Wizbang.

Obama: I've got your hope and change right here - Part Deux

So you're thinking about voting for Obama?  You think he's a different kind of politician?

Think again (emphasis on the the "think"):

Makes me want to go back to some quotes I've chronicled over the last few weeks and months.

Like:

... the lame brained:

"He just seemed very firm about the change, and that’s, like, his motto."

... and the ordained:

"I love the vision and breath of fresh air Obama represents."

Or:

The one thing with Obama that I have hesitation about is the lack of foreign policy experience, but Bush didn't have much either. The difference is, I trust Obama's thought process MUCH moreso than GW's.

- Rev. Susan in Ca.

Or my personal favorite:

I woke up this morning and realized I’m watching this dream come true.  On August 28, 2008 … 45 years to the day later, Barack Obama will accept the nomination for the Democratic Party.

This year. This election. We’re choosing hope. We’re looking at the content of someone’s character and not the color of their skin. Yes, Amen and all good things, we’re choosing hope. Let justice roll down like a mighty river and may grace abound …

- Ravine of Light

Looking at the content of someone's character.

Yea... right.

H/T to small dead animals for the YouTube-mentary.  The best 10 minutes of education on who not to vote for I've seen thus far.

Obama: I got your hope and change right here

D. J. Drummond chronicles yet more evidence that Barack Obama is not the person he and the Obamaniacs are trying to tell us he is:

March 1, 2007 – In response to an FEC ruling regarding contributions to a presdiential campaign, the Obama campaign said the following:
"Sen. Obama is pleased the FEC took this important step in preserving the public financing system. If Sen. Obama is the nominee, he will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election."

April 27, 2008 –  Barack Obama promises “I would be very interested in pursuing public financing, because I think not every candidate is going to be able to do what I've done in this campaign, and I think it's important to think about future campaigns.”

June 19, 2008 – the Mercury News reports “Sen. Barack Obama has become the first candidate in a general presidential election to reject public campaign financing, despite an earlier pledge to accept the limits and benefits of the system.”

What will it take to convince the populace that this dude ain't nuttin' but a politician of the Bill Clinton class, only worse?

What?

I agree with Barack Obama

In fact, I get all light-headed about it... damned near ready to swoon over these comments:

All Obasms all the time

I've decided to create a new category today.  And this post will be it's inaugural entry.  Though I've used the term here and here already, I'm thinking we'll have lot and lots of opportunity to use it again. 

Trust me people, it's seriously getting stupid out there:

Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don't understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama's aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

No, it's not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organiz