Thursday, February 28, 2008

No...really? Obama soft on NAFTA???

Oh, surely this can't be. The anointed one could not possibly been caught fibbing now, could he? I already know better than to ask this of the "lobamatized;" but generally speaking, usually where there's smoke, there's fire.

To be fair to Senator Smoothie, the story has since been denied by ONE Canadian "official;" however, the rest of the Canadian press is all over it. From "Citizens for Legitimate Government," enjoy.

Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric 27 Feb 2008 Barack Obama has ratcheted up his attacks on NAFTA, but a senior member of his campaign team told a Canadian official not to take his criticisms seriously, CTV News has learned. Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama's campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada's ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources. The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

And if you're in the mood for further research, check this out:

Shocker: Obama Campaign Reveals Fake Stand on NAFTA [Video UPDATE] »

By SusanUnPC on February 28, 2008 at 12:40 AM in:

NAFTA, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton 70 Comments

Must-see VIDEO UPDATE (second video update below the fold):

A Canadian medical professional (no more to protect anonymity) reports to me: “This story made headlines tonight in Canada in all major Canadian news networks. Barack Obama has been caught lying. Spread this as much as you can because it is true and factually supported. I think the people of Ohio as well as the rest of America, deserve to know this.”

(Original) Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Canadian media reveal Obama’s posture on NAFTA is solely “campaign rhetoric.” Via News article, “Obama staffer gave warning of NAFTA rhetoric“:

… Within the last month, a top staff member for Obama’s campaign telephoned Michael Wilson, Canada’s ambassador to the United States, and warned him that Obama would speak out against NAFTA, according to Canadian sources.

The staff member reassured Wilson that the criticisms would only be campaign rhetoric, and should not be taken at face value.

But Tuesday night in Ohio, where NAFTA is blamed for massive job losses, Obama said he would tell Canada and Mexico “that we will opt out unless we renegotiate the core labour and environmental standards.”

Late Wednesday, a spokesperson for the Obama campaign said the staff member’s warning to Wilson sounded implausible, but did not deny that contact had been made.

Oh, that bamboozler. Imagine, for a moment, that you’re the head of state or diplomatic corps, or one of the chief politicians or government officials, for the hundreds of nations across the world. Wouldn’t you read this article and wonder WHICH OBAMA you’ll be dealing with, and IF he means anything he says?

Read the rest

Friday, February 22, 2008

Dontcha think it's weird...

that even an Obama "Follower" raises doubt about his cult-like persona? From what I can see, those I encounter who wish to see him ascend to the throne haven't the faintest clue about his history, his policies (neither does he) nor his "republicanism;" yet, all they can do is hop up and down on one leg with arms outstretched and with glazed eyes raised heavenward, shout "yes we can!" Craig Crawford had a nice article this week entitled "Yes, we can What?" which would have been quite humorous were it not so painfully on target.

I did toy with switching gears and playing with John McWad's latest little scandal but I was too busy retching buckets of blood just over the imagery. So, once again, here's a bit of Obamarama's funny...we've been using the Kool-Aid line related to the rightwing sheeple but now, given what I'm seeing around the Obama Cult, I have to wonder who it is who's REALLY drinking the Kool-aid these days.

From the Boston Herald:

Click here: When backing Barack feels like joining a
cult -

When backing Barack feels like joining a cult

By Margery Eagan Thursday, February 21, 2008 Columnists

Photo by AP

I’m an
Obama girl and my man throttled Hillary Clinton, again, Tuesday night.

Suddenly, the impossible is real.

Suddenly, I’m nervous. Very
nervous, actually.

I’m nervous because an otherwise normal grownup told
me yesterday she’s watched the (Black Eyed Peas) “Yes We Can” Obama
video about 100 times and gets “weepy” every time.

I’m nervous because a
longtime political type, normally quite cynical, now waxes rhapsodic about
Obama’s “cool.”

“He’s elegant, controlled, the best-dressed candidate
ever,” he says. Never a red tie, yellow or bright blue. No, Obama does a subdued
lean charcoal gray suit with a gray or silvery tie. Everything muted, measured,
fluid. “He floats onto the stage, a bit of the Fred Astaire thing going.”

Fred Astaire?

This same man, 100 percent anti-illegal aliens,
fears Obama could pull a Reagan or a JFK on the Mexican border, head down there,
chanting, “Tear down this wall!” or even do an “Ich bin ein Tijuana!!!”

He’s with Obama anyway.

I’m nervous because Harvard political
genius Elaine Kamarck told me Hillary understands the various messes we’re in
far better than Obama.

Suppose Kamarck’s right?

I’m nervous
about the “O’Bambi” factor. Will the terrorists move in next door when Obama’s
in the White House?

I’m nervous because Michelle Obama, about whom I
just wrote a fawning puff piece, now says that until her husband’s stunning
ascendancy, she’s never before been proud of America. Huh?

Barack now
claims she didn’t mean it. Oh, yes she did. We all know the insufferable,
holier-than-thou, Blame-America-First types who lecture the unwashed from the
rarefied air of Cambridge and Brookline.

If I wanted lecturing, I’d be
with Hillary.

I’m nervous because too many Obama-philes sound like
Moonies, or Hare Krishnas, or the Hale-Bopp-Is-Coming-To-Get-Me nuts.

These true believers “Obama-ize” everything. They speak Obama-ese. Knit
for Obama. Run for Obama. Gamble - Hold ’Em Barack! - for Obama. They make Obama
cakes, underwear, jewelry. They send Valentine cards reading, “I want to Barack
your world!”

At campaign rallies people scream, cry, even faint as Obama
calmly calls for the EMTs. When supporters pant en masse, “I love you!” (like
The Beatles, circa 1964), Barack says, “I love you back” with that deliciously
charming, almost cocky smile.

Oh - I’m nervous because it’s all gone to
his head and he hasn’t even won yet.

I’m nervous because it’s gone to a
lot of other people’s heads as well. Maryland Congressman Elijah Cummings
introduced Obama last week in Baltimore and said, “This is not a campaign for
president of the United States, this is a movement to change the world.”

“He walks into a room and you want to follow him somewhere, anywhere,”
says George Clooney.

“I’ll do whatever he says to do,” says actress
Halle Berry. “I’ll collect paper cups off the ground to make his pathway clear.”

I’m nervous because nobody’s quite sure what Obama stands for, even his
supporters. (“I can’t wait to see,” said actress/activist Susan Sarandon,
declaring full support nonetheless).

I’m nervous because even his
biggest fans can’t name Obama’s accomplishments, including Texas state Sen. Kirk
Watson, an Obama-man who humiliated himself when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews asked
him about five times to name something, anything, Obama’s done. Watson hemmed.
Watson hawed. Watson gave up.

I’m nervous because John McCain says
Obama’s is “an eloquent but empty call for change” and in the wee, wee hours, a
nagging voice whispers, suppose McCain’s right, too? Then what?


Wednesday, February 20, 2008

The Amazing Brilliance of Barack Obama

If You’re An Obama Supporter… / If You’re A Clinton Supporter… Part 1

*Permission to post full text granted by author* (catch that, Barack?)

If you’re an Obama supporter, you know Clinton has too much “baggage” to win the general election.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you know Clinton has successfully fought off the Republican attack machine for the past 16 years, and there’s nothing new to throw at her that will stick.

If you’re an Obama supporter, asking how Obama will deflect right-wing attacks (such as questioning his “Muslim family ties” or dealings with Tony Rezko) during the general election campaign is good strategy.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, asking how Obama will deflect right-wing attacks (such as questioning his “Muslim family ties” or dealings with Tony Rezko) means you’re just a paid Hillary shill and/or “concern troll” trying to smear Obama.

If you’re an Obama supporter, suggesting that Latinos are not voting for Obama because “Latinos hate blacks” is a valid observation.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, noticing that African-Americans are voting overwhelmingly for Obama is racist.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you hate Hillary for her pro-Iraq War Resolution vote, and remind everyone within earshot that Obama never voted in favor of the IWR.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you remind everyone within earshot that Obama was not a Senator at the time of the IWR, and thus no one knows how he might have voted (especially when you consider his votes to continue funding the war ever since), but you get drowned out by the Obama supporters reminding everyone within earshot that Obama never voted in favor of the IWR.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you don’t like the fact that Clinton voted to authorize the Iraq War, but you realize that 76 other Senators, many with far more liberal leanings than Clinton, were duped into a “Yea” vote by the Bush administration’s lies.

If you’re an Obama supporter, Hillary started the Iraq War all by herself.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you remember than Barack supported John Kerry in his 2004 run for the White House, and you think this is fine, because both are solid, anti-war Democrats( and completely dismiss that he's voted to continued to fund the war he voted against).

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you remember that Kerry voted the same way Clinton did on the 2002 Iraq War Resolution.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you cheer Obama’s plan to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within 16 months after taking office.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, nobody listens when you mention Clinton’s plan to start withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days after taking office.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you know you can’t reasonably assume that Hillary is going to bring all the best things about her husband’s eight years of peace and prosperity to the table — you may be getting a “twofer,” but ultimately, it’s Hillary running, not Bill.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you know Hillary is going to bring all the worst things about her husband’s eight years of — well, you can’t remember what was so bad about the Clinton years, except for the Monica Lewinsky scandal, but you’re sure there’s plenty of bad stuff that will carry over into a Hillary Clinton administration.

If you’re an Obama supporter, it’s time for those old, out-of-touch, irrelevant Baby Boomers — in fact, it’s time for everyone over the age of 45 — to get the hell out of the way and hand the reins over to the youth of America.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, of any age, you suddenly become irrelevant the moment you remind the Obama supporters that Obama himself is 46 years old, which makes him a Baby Boomer, too.

If you’re an Obama supporter, 54-year-old Robert F. Kennedy is an out-of-touch Baby Boomer (he did, after all, endorse Clinton).

If you’re an Obama supporter, 50-year-old Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is a savvy, intelligent American (she did, after all, endorse Obama).

If you’re an Obama supporter, you use to revere 80-year-old poet laureate and living American treasure Maya Angelou — until she endorsed Clinton, which suddenly made her old, out of touch, and irrelevant.

If you’re an Obama supporter, 76-year-old Ted Kennedy is neither old, nor out of touch, nor irrelevant, because he endorsed Barack Obama.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you stand behind Obama for demanding that Don Imus and John Tanner be fired from their respective jobs for making racist remarks.If you’re a Clinton supporter, you have no right to demand that Obama fire rabidly anti-gay “ex-gay” preacher Donnie McClurkin — who demonizes gay and lesbian Americans as child killers — hired to emcee an Obama fundraiser chock-full of homophobes.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you agree that marriage equality for same-sex couples is a decision that should be left to the states.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you wonder how Obama can use the same “states’ rights” argument against same-sex marriage that was used against his own parents’ interracial marriage (which wasn’t recognized in a handful of states at the time they were married).

If you’re an Obama supporter, you echo Obama’s repeated mantra of “post-partisan unity,” and agree wholeheartedly that it’s time to “reach out” to Republicans because we can’t get anything done if we’re not all working together.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, pointing out that Obama pits minority groups within the Democratic Party against one another in order to score votes and donations from the larger and more powerful group is just wrong. And racist.

If you’re an Obama supporter, you insist that Obama has not interjected religion into this campaign.If you’re a Clinton supporter, you want to know how Obama can justify his refusal to support same-sex marriage equality based on his own religious beliefs — as well as the religious beliefs of Dick Cheney, “and over 2,000 religious leaders”.

If you’re an Obama supporter, anyone who won’t sign a loyalty oath to vote for Obama in the general election is a traitor to the Democratic Party.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you’re not allowed to take issue with Michelle Obama’s (who just became "proud of my country") reluctance to support Hillary Clinton if she wins the Democratic nomination.

If you’re a Clinton supporter, you remember how quoting passages from a speech by British Labor party leader Neil Kinnock, and “forgetting” to attribute those passages to Kinnock, cost Joe Biden the 1988 Democratic nomination.

If you’re an Obama supporter, plagiarizing a key portion of Deval Patrick’s 2006 campaign speech is a non-issue.

Stay tuned for Part 2. There’s just so much more, presenting it all at once would result in the longest blog entry in the history of the Web. by BuffytheFundieSlayer - DU

And, if you're an Obama supporter, be sure and send a thank you note to Karl Rove. Have another slug of Kool-aid...Cheers.

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter. - "Martin Luther King"

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Plagiarism - "No Big Deal" for Obama

Hmmm..."no big deal." Where have we heard THAT sentiment before? Like WMD lies are "no big deal?" Like Osama bin Laden is "no big deal?" Like breaking the laws of our land is "no big deal?"

Well, thank God then, that Michele Obama has hope for our country for the first time now. That makes me feel a WHOLE lot better.

From the Associated Press -

"(AP) Sen. Barack Obama said Monday that he doesn't think it's a big deal that he borrowed lines from his friend Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, although he probably should have given him credit."

Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama, the Plagiarist?

With all thanks and credit to the work of Taylor Marsh blog...(Hey, Obama - see? It's not hard to give credit to other writers instead of pretending they're yours. But hey, this is no surprise to me...I know a fake when I see one. (See previous blog entries) Oh, and please don't stop of Obama's lifted words are ALL over the internet(s). Bring on the light,'re sure gonna need it.

Taylor Marsh

BIO Become a Fan Get Email Alerts Similar Bloggers
'I Have a Dream' Becomes Obama's 'I Have a Con'
Posted February 18, 2008 | 12:34 PM (EST)


Read More: 2008, Accusations Of Plagiarism, Barack Obama, Clinton And Borrowed Words, Clinton And Language, Democrats, Deval Patrick, Devall Patrick Speech, Obama And Borrowed Words, Obama And Devall Patrick, Obama And Language, Obama And Plagiarism, Breaking Politics News


When Senator Joe Biden was found to have lifted pieces of someone else's speech he was politically humiliated. One wonders what the reaction to Senator Obama will be, now that we find out that those all important words he's been spouting are not his own. Will the standard be different for him?

During a conference call this morning, Howard Wolfson had this to say. Via Mark Halperin:

"If you're going to be talking about the value of words, the words ought to be your own." - Howard Wolfson
Rhetorical flourishes are inspiring, especially when they're authentic. The problem comes when they're canned. Jake Tapper has a good run down on Obama's convenient oratory. It would be one thing if they came from the heart, or if what he was saying was actually original. Unfortunately, they don't and they aren't. They've all been said before. "Yes, we can reuse slogans!" says Ben Smith. "You bet your life we can," quips Deval Patrick. Si Se Puede. The word bamboozled comes to mind.

Deval Patrick in October, 2006:

" ... All I have to offer is words, just words. 'We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.' Just words. Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words. 'Ask not what your county can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.' Just words. 'I have a dream.' Just words."

Barack Obama in Wisconsin, February 16th, this past Saturday, as he tries to con Wisconsin voters in preparation for Tuesday's primary:

"Don't tell me words don't matter. 'I have a dream.' Just words. 'We hold these truths to be self evident. That all men are created equal.' Just words. 'We have nothing to fear but fear itself.' Just words. Just speeches."

A reader from Massachusetts emailed me this last night:

... Guess what the lead-off story was on the local broadcast news tonight? Yes, "Plagiarism?" It was all about how Obama's "just words" riff was strikingly similar to Deval Patrick's speech from 2006. The story included a grainy video of Patrick delivering his speech, and then the clip from Obama's speech the other night. The reporter mentioned that the two shared campaign strategist, and that borrowing from others' campaigns wasn't that uncommon. However, it could cause a problem for Obama because it raises the idea that he may be just reading from a script. Then cut to the Hillary Clinton saying it's going to take more than speeches, it will take hard work.

It's what the New York Observer wrote about earlier in January. Via writer Steve Kornacki:

One small Obama-related detail from last night: The "Yes we can!" refrain that Barack Obama trumpeted in his concession speech was actually the campaign theme adopted by Deval Patrick, a top Obama supporter who rode the slogan to the Massachusetts governorship in 2006.

Oh, but wait! Before the bleachers come crashing down, Governor Deval Patrick issued a statement on the mutual mission of Patrick and Obama, which also just happens to include mirrored language and speeches that are exactly alike. Patrick's statement comes complete with... wait a minute. Excuse me, but the word gypsy must have run all out. Tapper offered Patrick's ramblings in an update:

UPDATE: The Obama campaign has issued a statement from Gov. Patrick: "Sen. Obama and I are long-time friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him responding in just the way he did."
Tapper's comments afterwards are spot on.

The Boston Globe joined Deval Patrick with Barack Obama back in April of 2007. That was two months after I reported on Obama's flyover to skip the first issues debate in Carson City, Nevada, which was followed by his subsequent phone in presentation, as he showed up unprepared for the first health care debate. (This all happened long before I became a partisan for Clinton.) Now it's all these months later and all we've got today is a gullible traditional media sharing the same hope soda, while aiding and abetting a political con job that's sucked in independents by the droves in a DEMOCRATIC primary race.

Cons eventually catch up with you. Obama's played his supporters for suckers. They bought into the hope hype, sucking up this stuff with a straw, only to find out Obama's not an original, he's a knock off, of a governor, no less. Siphoning off of a winning campaign to try to win the presidency with a formula. Hey, it's politics. One campaign model fits 'em all. Put your twenty bucks in the bucket and shut the hell up!

The traditional media, cable talking heads, and quite a few large progressive blogs have regurgitated the Obama story like a pack of nomads wandering in the political desert in search of sustenance; people bankrupt of political or factual integrity looking for the answer and refusing to see what was in front of their faces all along. The question is whether the journalists who bought into the Obama hype, along with the cable talking heads who propped his campaign up, and the Obama blogs who didn't care one whit about the facts or his record but were only interested in spreading their Hillary hatred, have got so much invested they won't have the honesty, the integrity, and the moral courage to back peddle on their craven cave in before it's not only too late for them, but too late for the Democratic party.

Barack Obama isn't an original. He's the first 21st century L. Ron Hubbard of politics, Elmer Gantry, name your huckster.

"I have a dream" just became "I have a con."

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Reverend Obama Racist?

Hmmm..lost track..or would that be "reverse racism?" Maybe Pastor Barack needs to remove a few planks out of HIS eyes?

Jesse Jackson Jr. (Obama’s national co-chair) implies Hillary is a racist.

Obama campaign memo that was integral in swiftboating the Clintons on race.

Obama spokesman continuing the swiftboating of the Clintons on race before South Carolina.

Obama praising Reagan, using him to attack Bill Clinton.

Obama attacks Edwards and Hillary in Iowa for what he would do himself in Nevada.

Obama takes a page from Rove and attacks Edwards in Iowa on his strength.

Obama attacks Edwards, using the familiar “Edwards is a phony” meme Obamites used on the netroots. “"Part of the problem John would have in a general election is the issues he's taken on now are not the issues or the things that he said four years ago, which always causes problems in general
elections," Obama said of Edwards,”
(To know what Edwards actually said four years ago read )

Edwards on Obama’s campaign tactics.
Earlier in the debate (this is what Edwards was alluding to. Obama is replying to Hillary):

St. Obama: But when you comb my 4,000 votes in Illinois, choose one...... try to present it in the worst possible light, that does have to be answered. That does have to be answered.

Later in the debate:

EDWARDS: The question is, why would you over 100 times vote present? I mean, every one of us -- every one -- you've criticized Hillary. You've criticized me for our votes.
OBAMA: Right.
EDWARDS: We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we've cast.

David Axlerod, Obama’s top adviser, claimed on television that he could not remember anything Edwards had done in the Senate—even though four years earlier he was listing the great things Edwards had done in the Senate when he was working for Edwards. Is his memory that bad or was he lying?

The Obama campaign smears Bill Clinton with a lie:

We've just obtained an email that shows that the Obama campaign yesterday circulated a negative, and ultimately false, story about Bill Clinton -- that he allegedly made money giving a speech on September 11, 2006.
This email is unusual in that it is flagging something potentially negative not about a primary rival but about the former President -- one who obviously isn't running in the Democratic primary and who remains popular with Dem primary voters.
The email, which was sent out by Jen Psaki of the Obama campaign and circulated to reporters (not us) on an off-the-record basis late yesterday

The story spread about Bill ultimately turned out to be false. It ended up on Drudge yesterday, where it was given heavy play for many hours, though there's no proof that it was given to Drudge by the Obama campaign. After Drudge posted it, The Observer's Politicker blog thoroughly debunked the
story, pointing out that Bill's schedule proved that he'd actually given the speech the night before, on Sept. 10.

The Obamite thread about Hillary included two criticisms Hillary mundane criticisms Hillary leveled against Obama, including one in which she said Obama offers false hope. There is no need to document the countless attacks, usually veiled, that Obama has made on Hillary and to a lesser degree
Edwards. We all know it. He does so in almost every speech! Here is a sampling, courtesy of the website /

(Obama went on the attack two days after beginning his “positive” campaign)

02/12/07 HEADLINE: Obama's first salvo targets Hillary Clinton

06/15/07 Obama campaign pushes opposition research falsely accusing Bill Clinton of giving paid speech on 9/11/06.

06/16/07 Obama campaign pushes opposition research referring to Hillary as ‘(D-Punjab).’

07/27/07 HEADLINE: Obama likens Hillary to Bush; Hints at poor foreign policy

10/12/07 Obama says Hillary is leading 'because she's Hillary Clinton as opposed to Hillary Rodham.'

10/11/07 Obama accuses Hillary of trying to 'massage the past.'

10/12/07 Obama campaign says it questions 'what principles, if any' Hillary has.

10/13/07 Obama says Hillary is willing to 'go along with Bush policies.'

10/15/07 Obama says Hillary is 'the most calculating politician in this race.'

10/28/07 Obama says Hillary believes 'you should hedge and dodge and spin, but at all costs, don't answer.'

10/30/07 Obama chief strategist: Hillary 'has a special-interest obsession.'

10/30/07 Obama says Hillary 'has not been truthful and clear.' /

11/01/07 Obama chief strategist says Hillary passes 'everything through a political calculator' and is not 'forthright.'

11/01/07 Obama campaign said Hillary 'offered more of the same Washington political calculation and evasion.'

11/02/07 Obama said Hillary has 'one position one day and one position another day.'

11/07/07 HEADLINE: Obama: Clinton flip-flops on energy

11/14/07 Obama surrogate Larry Tribe: ' not really a phony, though she plays one on TV.'

11/18/07 HEADLINE: Obama accuses Clinton campaign of mud-slinging with Novak column

11/27/07 Obama Mocks Hil 1st Lady Role

12/18/07 Obama Hits Hillary In New Hampshire Mailer

12/21/07 Obama Camp Registers Anti-Clinton Web Sites

12/18/07 Clinton makes nice, but Obama questions her character

12/27/07 'Barack Obama's right hand man thinks may have had something to do' with Bhutto's assasination.

12/27/07 Obama's campaign links Bhutto's assasination with Hillary's 'different judgment'

12/27/07 Obama links Bhutto's assassination to politicians like Hillary who 'have not made particularly good judgments.'

12/28/07 Obama's campaign says Bhutto's assasination was 'yet another manifestation' of Hillary's poor judgment.

01/09/08 Obama supporter calls Hillary one of the ‘guardians of the status quo.’

01/10/08 Obama supporter mocks Hillary’s teary moment and says ‘don’t cry’ to Obama. /

01/10/08 Obama supporter doubts Hillary’s sincerity and says ‘those tears have to be analyzed.’

01/11/08 Obama supporter suggests Hil’s tears were crocodilian.

01/18/08 Obama suggests Hillary was not truthful and was 'willing to say anything to get elected.'

01/18/08 Michelle Obama says Hillary represents 'the same old thing over and over again'

01/18/08 John Kerry says Hillary uses ‘the kind of politics I expect from the other party.' /

01/21/08 Obama accuses Hillary of being 'willing to say anything to get elected.'

Yesterday: Obama releases a lying ad in Wisconsin.

For months: Obama has lied about his plan being universal, aside from a short interlude of honest which disappeared as soon as Iowa and New Hampshire approached.

Race Baiting

Everyone thinks race became an issue in January. In fact is was introduced into the race in November by the Obamas. Remember this was at a time when Hillary looked bulletproof in Nevada and led big in New Hampshire. Obama was in a close three way battle in Iowa (this was before Edwards faded in
Iowa, only to recover late but it was not enough). He needed to build a firewall in South Carolina. The exit poll from the South Carolina primary makes it very obvious how he did it.

November 12, 2007:

With polls showing African-Americans have yet to give overwhelming support to White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), his wife Michelle said "black America will wake up and get it" in an interview running on MSNBC on Monday.
(this was at a time Obama was in the 40’s with black voters in an eight candidate field. Clearly his wife expected him to get well more than the 40’s and we now know what tactics they used to go from the 40’s to the mid to high 80’s)

Obama supporter Charles Barron, a NYC councilman, (November 2007): “Why wouldn’t black people support a black candidate who is ready to lead America?"

November 30, 2007. Obama supporter Chris Rock at a Harlem event:
A few minutes later, the comedian Chris Rock picked up on that theme. “You’d be really embarrassed if he won and you wasn’t with him,” Rock said. He altered his voice to comic affect. “‘I had that white lady. What was I thinking? What was I thinking?’”
Jesse Jackson Jr. implies Hillary is a racist.

Obama campaign memo that was integral in swiftboating the Clintons on race.

Obama spokesman continuing the swiftboating of the Clintons on race before South Carolina.

Jesse Jackson Jr. playing the race card to win over superdelegates.

In an interview, Cleaver offered a glimpse of private conversations.

He said Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois had recently asked him "if it comes down to the last day and you're the only superdelegate? ...

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

If You Don't Have a Problem with This...

then "bless" you on your path to Fascism.

Once in a while, Obama makes a passing reference to our diminishing individual liberties, but hardly ever in his stump speeches. At an early-morning rally the day of the New Hampshire vote, he told some 300 students at the Dartmouth College gym: "My job this morning is to be so persuasive . . . that a light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack."

Thursday, February 07, 2008

Holy Lieberman! Justice for Joe!

I'll let this one speak for itself and resist taking a nice slam at our Republican senator from CT - I'll take it!

With all thanks and appreciation to (click link to right if you're interested in reading what in my humble opinion, is one of the best blogs out there)

Next step...VOTE HIM OUT OF THE SENATE, CT...and yeah, I DID tell you so.

Click here: Firedoglake - Firedoglake weblog » Lieberman Has “Superdelegate” Status Stripped Because of McCain Endorsement

Lieberman Has “Superdelegate” Status Stripped Because of McCain Endorsement

By: Jane Hamsher

Wednesday February 6, 2008 6:00 pm

Mark Pazniokas:

Thanks to Zell Miller, there is a rule to deal with Joe Lieberman.

Lieberman's endorsement of Republican John McCain disqualifies him as a super-delegate to the Democratic National Convention under what is informally known as the Zell Miller rule, according to Democratic State Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo.

Miller, then a Democratic senator from Georgia, not only endorsed Republican George Bush four years ago, but he delivered a vitriolic attack on Democrat John Kerry at the Republican National Convention.

The Democrats responded with a rule disqualifying any Democrat who crosses the aisle from being a super delegate. Lieberman will not be replaced, DiNardo said.

And for those who said they'd never lift their glass in a toast to Zell Miller...cheers!

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."Martin Luther King

Tuesday, February 05, 2008

I Voted For John Edwards Today!

Ocharma, Billary...

brought to you by the Mainstream Media.

Howdya like it?

I don't.

I refuse to allow corporate, media whores to decide who I'll vote for.

That's only ONE of many reasons I proudly cast my vote for John Edwards today.

"There is nothing worse than gangrene of the soul."
Mike Malloy 1/20/05

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Martin Luther King

Sunday, February 03, 2008

Are We Having Fun Yet?

"The End of the World"
Courtesy of

Saturday, February 02, 2008

John Edwards On the Ballot for Super Tuesday

Vote for him. IF you have learned ONE thing from all we've been through...Vote for him.

If you don't know who Paul Krugman is, do yourself and the rest of us a favor. Find out.

But to make your job as an INFORMED, AMERICAN CITIZEN a bit easier, below, with all thanks and acknowledgement, is an op-ed piece he wrote for the New York Times this week, "The Edwards Effect." And then tell me why I should support Hillary or O-sham-a.

Meanwhile, I'll be voting for John Edwards.

No more settling. No more holding my nose and voting for the lesser of two evils. You go on ahead and vote for who you believe in - that's what this country USED to be about. But when you cry and moan about the personal poverty awaiting 'round the bend, gifted to you by either of the other two (oh, think it can't happen to you? Just wait and see), DON'T come running to me, because, hear me loud and clear, I WILL be the first one to tell you "I told you so."

February 1, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

The Edwards Effect

So John Edwards has dropped out of the race for the presidency. By normal political standards, his campaign fell short.

But Mr. Edwards, far more than is usual in modern politics, ran a campaign based on ideas. And even as his personal quest for the White House faltered, his ideas triumphed: both candidates left standing are, to a large extent, running on the platform Mr. Edwards built.

To understand the extent of the Edwards effect, you have to think about what might have been.

At the beginning of 2007, it seemed likely that the Democratic nominee would run a cautious campaign, without strong, distinctive policy ideas. That, after all, is what John Kerry did in 2004.

If 2008 is different, it will be largely thanks to Mr. Edwards. He made a habit of introducing bold policy proposals — and they were met with such enthusiasm among Democrats that his rivals were more or less forced to follow suit.

It’s hard, in particular, to overstate the importance of the Edwards health care plan, introduced in February.

Before the Edwards plan was unveiled, advocates of universal health care had difficulty getting traction, in part because they were divided over how to get there. Some advocated a single-payer system — a k a Medicare for all — but this was dismissed as politically infeasible. Some advocated reform based on private insurers, but single-payer advocates, aware of the vast inefficiency of the private insurance system, recoiled at the prospect.

With no consensus about how to pursue health reform, and vivid memories of the failure of 1993-1994, Democratic politicians avoided the subject, treating universal care as a vague dream for the distant future.

But the Edwards plan squared the circle, giving people the choice of staying with private insurers, while also giving everyone the option of buying into government-offered, Medicare-type plans — a form of public-private competition that Mr. Edwards made clear might lead to a single-payer system over time. And he also broke the taboo against calling for tax increases to pay for reform.

Suddenly, universal health care became a possible dream for the next administration. In the months that followed, the rival campaigns moved to assure the party’s base that it was a dream they shared, by emulating the Edwards plan. And there’s little question that if the next president really does achieve major health reform, it will transform the political landscape.

Similar if less dramatic examples of leadership followed on other key issues. For example, Mr. Edwards led the way last March by proposing a serious plan for responding to climate change, and at this point both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are offering far stronger measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases than anyone would have expected to see on the table not long ago.

Unfortunately for Mr. Edwards, the willingness of his rivals to emulate his policy proposals made it hard for him to differentiate himself as a candidate; meanwhile, those rivals had far larger financial resources and received vastly more media attention. Even The Times’s own public editor chided the paper for giving Mr. Edwards so little coverage.

And so Mr. Edwards won the arguments but not the political war.

Where will Edwards supporters go now? The truth is that nobody knows.

Yes, Mr. Obama is also running as a “change” candidate. But he isn’t offering the same kind of change: Mr. Edwards ran an unabashedly populist campaign, while Mr. Obama portrays himself as a candidate who can transcend partisanship — and given the economic elitism of the modern Republican Party, populism is unavoidably partisan.

It’s true that Mr. Obama has tried to work some populist themes into his campaign, but he apparently isn’t all that convincing: the working-class voters Mr. Edwards attracted have tended to favor Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Obama.

Furthermore, to the extent that this remains a campaign of ideas, it remains true that on the key issue of health care, the Clinton plan is more or less identical to the Edwards plan. The Obama plan, which doesn’t actually achieve universal coverage, is considerably weaker.

One thing is clear, however: whichever candidate does get the nomination, his or her chance of victory will rest largely on the ideas Mr. Edwards brought to the campaign.

Personal appeal won’t do the job: history shows that Republicans are very good at demonizing their opponents as individuals. Mrs. Clinton has already received the full treatment, while Mr. Obama hasn’t — yet. But if he gets the nod, watch how quickly conservative pundits who have praised him discover that he has deep character flaws.

If Democrats manage to get the focus on their substantive differences with the Republicans, however, polls on the issues suggest that they’ll have a big advantage. And they’ll have Mr. Edwards to thank.

"There is nothing worse than gangrene of the soul."
Mike Malloy 1/20/05

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
Martin Luther King

Friday, February 01, 2008

Hey, Lieberman! Yoohoo..Where ARE You???

Hey Joe!

Looky here! "You can run but you cannot hide" as the saying goes, eh?

KUDOS TO NANCY DINARDO, CT Democratic Party Chair!!!
Kudos to your staff as well. Very professional and with a passion I love!

Statement by Chairwoman Nancy DiNardo Regarding Senator Lieberman’s Campaign Appearance in Connecticut with Senator McCain.

“I continue to be disappointed beyond words with Joe Lieberman, as are a lot of Connecticut Democrats -- saddened, surprised, and truly disheartened by just how completely he has abandoned the Democratic principles that have guided him over the years and the Party whose members have supported him and helped him achieve his goals. As recently as 18 months ago, Senator Lieberman was telling us Democrats that he shares our values, and with the exemption of Iraq, that he agrees with us on the issues we care so much about -- critically important issues like a woman’s right to choose, tax and economic policies, healthcare and education. Moreover, in July of 2006, Senator Lieberman even stated that he intended to work to help a Democrat get into the White House in 2008. His endorsement of Senator McCain means he either doesn’t care about the issues noted above, or he’s putting politics ahead of people. If you look at Senator McCain’s voting record, and campaign platform – on these, and many other issues we care about – you’ll understand why I am saying this. This is a man, Senator McCain, who proudly says he was a “foot soldier” in the Regan Revolution. Senator McCain is wrong on the issues we Democrats care so much about—and he’s wrong by a lot. I am proud to stand with my fellow Democrats and announce that we as a Party will grow stronger and do everything in our power to make sure a Democrat is elected in November, “ said Nancy DiNardo, Chairwoman, CT. Democratic Party.