/* Header ----------------------------------------------- */ #header-wrapper { width:660px; margin:0 auto 10px; border:1px solid #666666; } #header-inner { background-position: center; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } #header { margin: 5px; border: 1px solid #666666; text-align: center; color:#333333; } #header h1 { margin:5px 5px 0; padding:15px 20px .25em; line-height:1.2em; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.2em; font: normal normal 200% Georgia, Serif; } #header a { color:#333333; text-decoration:none; } #header a:hover { color:#333333; } #header .description { margin:0 5px 5px; padding:0 20px 15px; max-width:700px; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.2em; line-height: 1.4em; font: normal normal 78% 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Arial, Verdana, Sans-serif; color: #666666; } #header img { margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; } /* Outer-Wrapper ----------------------------------------------- */ #outer-wrapper { width: 660px; margin:0 auto; padding:10px; text-align:left; font: normal normal 100% Georgia, Serif; } #main-wrapper { width: 410px; float: left; word-wrap: break-word; /* fix for long text breaking sidebar float in IE */ overflow: hidden; /* fix for long non-text content breaking IE sidebar float */ } #sidebar-wrapper { width: 220px; float: right; word-wrap: break-word; /* fix for long text breaking sidebar float in IE */ overflow: hidden; /* fix for long non-text content breaking IE sidebar float */ } /* Headings ----------------------------------------------- */ h2 { margin:1.5em 0 .75em; font:normal normal 78% 'Trebuchet MS',Trebuchet,Arial,Verdana,Sans-serif; line-height: 1.4em; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.2em; color:#333333; } /* Posts ----------------------------------------------- */ h2.date-header { margin:1.5em 0 .5em; } .post { margin:.5em 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #666666; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .post h3 { margin:.25em 0 0; padding:0 0 4px; font-size:140%; font-weight:normal; line-height:1.4em; color:#a9501b; } .post h3 a, .post h3 a:visited, .post h3 strong { display:block; text-decoration:none; color:#a9501b; font-weight:normal; } .post h3 strong, .post h3 a:hover { color:#333333; } .post p { margin:0 0 .75em; line-height:1.6em; } .post-footer { margin: .75em 0; color:#333333; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; font: normal normal 78% 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Arial, Verdana, Sans-serif; line-height: 1.4em; } .comment-link { margin-left:.6em; } .post img { padding:4px; border:1px solid #666666; } .post blockquote { margin:1em 20px; } .post blockquote p { margin:.75em 0; }
Read more!
/* Comments ----------------------------------------------- */ #comments h4 { margin:1em 0; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.4em; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.2em; color: #333333; } #comments-block { margin:1em 0 1.5em; line-height:1.6em; } #comments-block .comment-author { margin:.5em 0; } #comments-block .comment-body { margin:.25em 0 0; } #comments-block .comment-footer { margin:-.25em 0 2em; line-height: 1.4em; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; } #comments-block .comment-body p { margin:0 0 .75em; } .deleted-comment { font-style:italic; color:gray; } #blog-pager-newer-link { float: left; } #blog-pager-older-link { float: right; } #blog-pager { text-align: center; } .feed-links { clear: both; line-height: 2.5em; } /* Sidebar Content ----------------------------------------------- */ .sidebar { color: #666666; line-height: 1.5em; } .sidebar ul { list-style:none; margin:0 0 0; padding:0 0 0; } .sidebar li { margin:0; padding-top:0; padding-right:0; padding-bottom:.25em; padding-left:15px; text-indent:-15px; line-height:1.5em; } .sidebar .widget, .main .widget { border-bottom:1px dotted #666666; margin:0 0 1.5em; padding:0 0 1.5em; } .main .Blog { border-bottom-width: 0; } /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ .profile-img { float: left; margin-top: 0; margin-right: 5px; margin-bottom: 5px; margin-left: 0; padding: 4px; border: 1px solid #666666; } .profile-data { margin:0; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; font: normal normal 78% 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Arial, Verdana, Sans-serif; color: #333333; font-weight: bold; line-height: 1.6em; } .profile-datablock { margin:.5em 0 .5em; } .profile-textblock { margin: 0.5em 0; line-height: 1.6em; } .profile-link { font: normal normal 78% 'Trebuchet MS', Trebuchet, Arial, Verdana, Sans-serif; text-transform: uppercase; letter-spacing: .1em; } /* Footer ----------------------------------------------- */ #footer { width:660px; clear:both; margin:0 auto; padding-top:15px; line-height: 1.6em; text-transform:uppercase; letter-spacing:.1em; text-align: center; } -->

Saturday, April 12, 2008

Sen. Obama must be feeling down today...

Cross-Posted at MyDD

I understand Sen. Obama, periodically, when he is feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost his appeal. (parody of Obama)

That can be the only explanation for Obama's emotional attack on Sen. Clinton today as detailed in CNN's Political Ticker and on MSNBC.

Obama was described by CNN as "visibly agitated" with his "voice rising", as he responded to Sen. Clinton's retorts to his comments about people in small-town America as being "bitter" about their economic lot, and therefore clinging to religion and guns, as he said; "She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her."

Obama then decided to throw the kitchen sink at Clinton. In a feeble attempt to get back at Clinton and to demean her support of the Second Amendment right to gun ownership, he accused her of "talking like she's Annie Oakley...packing a six-shooter."

Obama then went on to note that he has consistently spoken about his support of the Second Amendment ABC News Political Radar. In the interest of accuracy, however, I will note that Obama has stated that he "not in favor of concealed weapons" whereas both Clinton and McCain are opposed to out-lawing them. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review 4/2/08. It is noted by CNN that Obama supports a national law against carrying concealed weapons, with exceptions only for retired police and military personnel.

Obama's emotional response and inaccurate attempt to make his position on the Second Amendment comparable to Sen. Clinton's, demonstrates that Obama and his campaign advisors are in a bit of a panic over his recent gaffe, and their fear that he will not be able to count on the vote of small-town America in the upcoming primaries. It also demonstrates that he is not used to the negative media response he is getting now, and doesn't know how to respond.

It most certainly raises serious questions about Sen. Obama's electability in the general election should he be the nominee.

Thursday, April 10, 2008

Obama on Israel: What does he really believe?

I don't know about you, but when I see an article like this one (Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) which appeared in the LA Times, it gives me reason to give credence to the little voice inside me which says "I don't trust that Obama is a friend to Israel."

Although many in the liberal world like to chalk these fears up to "right-wing" talking points, when the representatives of the side you are afraid he is taking, also believe that he is taking their side then at the very least, one must conclude that Senator Obama is sending out messages that are being read the same by both sides. 

I note that since 2002, there has been a distinct trend for Arab-Americans to shift their affiliations and voting to the Democratic Party Arab-American Institute.  What I think we are seeing then, therefore, is mirror-image voting in the two communities.  Jewish-Americans tend to view themselves as socially liberal, but many skew to the right when the issue is related to Israel/Arab relations, while Arab-Americans tend to be more conservative, yet skew to the left when the issue is Israel/Arab relations.  One, therefore, has to be careful, not to use too broad a brush, when dismissing other Democrats' positions with regard to this issue as merely  "right-wing" talking points.

Maybe you must conclude that Sen. Obama's recent pro-Israel statements and actions are disingenuous, and just represent his effort to pander to the Jewish Vote in this Country.  

Politics as usual.

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Mystery Man Obama (by TexasDarlin) with an introduction by cjbardy

The following Diary is one that has been purged by MyDD.  I imagine the reason for the purge is two-fold:  First, it raises discomfiting questions about the background of Senator Obama, and second, because some of the sources come from what are generally considered conservative blogs or news sources.  Apparently, such sources are generally deemed by affiliates of the progressive/liberal movement in this Country to be false, without further question or examination.   When I went though the Diary, I noted that the author had included 24 sources.  Of those, about 10 or 11 come from what could be considered "conservative" news sources of blogs, but interestingly, when you look at the articles themselves, they are for the most part based on main-stream news sources.  

The point of this introduction is to ask the reader to evaluate everything you read with a cautious eye, and determine whether it is accurate and make sense to you, based on its content, and not based on the political bent the publication may have.  Neither the Conservative nor the Liberal media are right or wrong all the time.  

That is why it is best to look at everything.

MYSTERY MAN OBAMA (deleted at mydd)
by TexasDarlin, Wed Apr 09, 2008 at 04:55:32 PM EST

Who Is Barack Obama? I keep coming across this question in one form or another. And I don’t think it’s throwing flames to ask. It’s our duty to dig deep, right? After all, he could be our country’s next president, leader of the free world. And, it’s imperative that we Democrats nominate the most electable candidate to do battle with war hero and patriot John McCain this November.

So do we know Barack Obama? His life should be an open book, god knows Hillary’s is. Why are we afraid to do the research? Will we be called racist or un-Democratic or otherwise blasphemous if we ask provocative questions? When it comes to interviewing our presidential candidates, should any query be off limits? Is Barack Obama entitled to a private past?

Where are Barack’s friends, ex-lovers, roommates, and colleagues? Shouldn’t we be hearing from them about now? Their stories and reports and yes, even gossip, about Barack’s personal and professional life — his jobs, hobbies, habits, religious practices, romances, philosophies, medical history, and personality traits — are surely relevant. I’ve seen very few interviews with such people. There was a NY Times story not long ago in which a couple of dozen friends and peers from Barack’s youth were surveyed about whether his actual drug use matched the well-known passages from his “memoir.” They said he smoked a little pot, that’s it. Did anyone else read that and ask: How else has Barack used his creative license?

RED FLAG QUESTIONS about Barack’s past that have barely been touched by the media include: dual citizenship, drug use, ties to Kenya and family relations, socialist/Marxist mentors, liberal/left-wing philosophy, religious background, State Senate of Illinois record, friendships, etc.

You can be sure that the Republicans are already salivating over the mysterious aspects of Barack’s life. We’d be irresponsible to assume that these questions will remain unasked if he is our nominee.

Obviously each of these issues could comprise its own article, but here are just a few search results:

Dual Citizenship?

Many have speculated that Barack might have dual citizenship because his father was Kenyan and Barack lived in Indonesia:

Obama was born on August 4th, 1961 - before Kenya became an independent nation. However, when Kenya became independent two years later (its constitution) … provided: any person who, having been born outside Kenya, if his father becomes…a citizen of Kenya (the child also) becomes a citizen of Kenya.. (Thus) it’s quite possible that Obama acquired Kenyan Citizenship at birth.

A brief review suggests that it’s possible, especially given that Obama’s step-father was an Indonesian government official, that Obama might have taken Indonesian nationality. Source.

(On a related note, many bloggers have questioned whether Barack’s birth certificate is available.)

Security clearances and other applications:

It’s not clear whether dual citizenship is disqualifying for the presidency. However, the State Department considers it a factor when granting security clearances for access to classified information. A past history of drug use is also relevant:

The (security) clearance process considers such factors as…violations of the law; drug or alcohol abuse…extensive travel…residence and/or employment overseas…dual citizenship…foreign contacts…family or relatives who are not citizens of the United States… Source.

( The Illinois Board of Admissions to the Bar also requires disclosure of past drug use and unlawful behavior. Did Obama provide complete answers on his Bar application?)

Allegiance is also a State Department requirement:

If there is any doubt about unquestioned preference for and allegiance to the United States, unencumbered by any undue foreign influence, DS must…determine that individual ineligible for access.

Decisions regarding eligibility for access to classified information take into account factors that could cause a conflict of interest and place a person in the position of having to choose between his or her commitment to the United States, including the commitment to protect classified information, and any other compelling loyalty. Source.

Kenyan loyalties:

Raila Odinga is Barack Obama’s cousin, and the man Obama backs for president in Kenya…even as Raila Odinga attempts to overthrow the current government of Kenya, and replace it with a terror-supporting dictatorship.

In August 2006, Mr. Obama visited Kenya and spoke in support of Mr. Odinga’s candidacy at rallies in Nairobi. …Mr. Obama interrupted his (US) campaigning to have a telephone conversation with his African cousin about the constitutional crisis in Kenya.

If (Obama) has been putting tribal or family considerations above America’s national interest by supporting Mr. Odinga’s anti-Western candidacy, it raises serious questions about his judgment.

Whether Mr. Odinga has ordered his men to commit murder and arson is unclear. But his own background does not exactly suggest enthusiasm for democracy and the rule of law. Mr. Odinga’s father, Oginga Odinga, led the Communist opposition during the Cold War and Raila Odinga was educated in Communist East Germany.

Mr. Odinga (has an) electoral pact with the National Muslim Leaders’ Forum — a hardline Islamist organization that represents Kenya’s Muslim minority. According to this document, dated August 29, 2007, Mr. Odinga promised the Muslim leaders that, if elected, he would establish Sharia courts…throughout the country. Source.

Barack’s father:

Obama’s life story is vastly different from the one he portrays…Obama stated in his Convention speech: ‘My father … grew up herding goats.’ The ‘goat herder’ claim has been repeated endlessly. Fact: Obama’s grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama was a prominent and wealthy farmer. His son, Obama’s father, was a child of privilege, not privation. He was an outstanding student, not a herdsman. Source.

Socialist mentors:

Starting with his father….

If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama’s Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, “All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own.”

So we know that his father’s ideals were a driving force in his life, but the one thing that Obama does not give us are the contents of those ideals. ..A bit of research…reveals the answers about Barack Obama’s father and his father’s convictions which Obama withholds from his readers….(he was). a Harvard trained economist (who) attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western ‘third way” leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga. Source.

Another Marxist mentor:

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama’s life as a “secret smoker” and how he “went to great lengths to conceal the habit.” But what about Obama’s secret political life? It turns out that Obama’s childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

Through Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)…Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where…he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his “poetry” and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just “Frank.”

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member…congressional committees…accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

… Davis “espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics.” Source.

And the radical associations continued…

It was in Chicago that Obama became a “community organizer” and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America,…and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama’s career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as “the most liberal Senator.” Source.

What were Barack’s religious influences before joining Rev. Wright at Trinity?

This topic is treated as taboo; whenever the word “muslim” is used in the same sentence as “barack obama” accusations of flame-throwing are immediately made. But why are these questions off-limits, and will the GOP abide by such polite guidelines?

The important question is NOT whether Obama has any muslim history. Rather, it’s whether he’s been truthful about his past.

On the campaign trail in Kansas, Barack told 4 women in a coffee shop:

“My mother was a Christian from Kansas…I was raised by my mother. So, I’ve always been a Christian. The only connection I’ve had to Islam is that my grandfather on my father’s side came from that country. But I’ve never practiced Islam.” Source.

His website repeats it: “Obama Has Never Been A Muslim”

Is Barack telling the truth about his religious background?

By most accounts, Barack’s mother was atheist and “Obama’s father…grandfather… stepfather…Sarah, who Obama calls grandmother…stepbrothers and stepsisters were (or are) Muslims.” Source.

“She (Obama’s mother) touted herself as an atheist,”… said Maxine Box, who was Dunham’s best friend in high school. Source.

Obama’s mother Anna is often reported as being an atheist. Her parents…shed their Methodist and Baptist upbringing and began attending, along with Anna, Sunday services at the East Shore Unitarian Church in nearby Bellevue. Source.

Barack says he’s “never practiced Islam” but others report differently:

Obama’s Indonesian schooling began when he was entered into the Roman Catholic, Franciscus Assisi Primary School on January 1, 1968….registered under the name Barry Soetoro…School documents listed (him) as an Indonesian citizen and his religion was listed as Islam…

According to one of Obama’s teachers and the principal from 1971 through 1989, Barry actively took part in Islamic religious lessons…”I remembered that he had studied “mengaji” (recitation of the Quran).” Source.

Always been a Christian?

State Senate Records:

“It appears that Obama never kept records of his time in the Illinois state legislature, or he discarded them….Either way, he clearly intended to leave no paper trail.” Source:

“You know I’m not certain, Lynn,” Obama said. “I didn’t have the resources to ensure that all this sutff was archived in some way; it could have been thrown out. I haven’t been in the state senate now for some time. I’m not sure, Lynn. I don’t know.” Source.

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues…according to many South Siders. “He’s been given a pass,” says Harold Lucas, the community organizer in Chicago. “His career has been such a meteoric rise that he has not had the time to set a record.” Source.

Imagine the disappointment of having a Freedom of Information Act effort, only to find that no data exists to acquire….they no longer exist, and may never have at all. Source

Friends and Associates:

The controversial list is seemingly endless. In addition to Barack’s cousin Odinga and Marxist mentor Frank Marshall Davis, both discussed above, there are others:

Tony Rezko, the corrupt slum-lord and political fixer who helped Barack and Michelle buy their Chicago mansion;

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the long-time pastor and spiritual mentor who has hateful feelings about America and white people, praises Louis Farrakhan, and some say is a former muslim;

William Ayres and Bernardine Dohrn, Weather Underground terrorists who befriended Barack in Chicago and helped raise funds for his early political career, and associated shady characters.

Who else is friends with Barack? Shouldn’t the company one keeps be relevant when running for President?

Final Note:

The sole purpose of this diary is to highlight issues that will likely be red flags for Barack Obama in the general election, and to bring awareness to the voters about outstanding questions related to this potential United States President.

Clearly, there is much more vetting to be done.

Research for this diary was based on Google searches and other secondary resources. The author has not conducted any independent verification of the information contained herein for accuracy.

Tuesday, April 8, 2008

It’s MY Damn Democracy (by Fleaflicker) with an introduction by cjbardy

I would like to introduce the below Diary by Fleaflicker by saying that this is not the first time a supporter of Hillary Clinton has been banned from posting a Diary at one of the popular Democratic blogging sites (this time MyDD), nor is it the first time that someone's work has been purged. There have been others as well, including but not limited to my internet colleagues Linfar and Texas Darlin. In addition, others, including me, have suffered short-term bans when we post something controversial or in support of those not allowed to post.  Speaking the truth is important, even when it makes readers uncomfortable, and even when it results in negative consequences for the speaker. Consideration of all sources of information, regardless of the popularity of the source, and pointing out negative as well as positive facts about candidates and policies, is vital to the ability of a voter in a democracy to make informed decisions. We, the supporters of Hillary Clinton will continue to speak out in our writing, no matter where we need to go to do it, so that we can present facts and opinions that may be useful to you in your decision-making.

Cross-Posted at Hillarys Bloggers

I want to assure everyone that although MyDD banned me I will not go gently into the night. You can count on that. But I have no intention of returning to MyDD. They not only asked me to leave, they made me disappear. So I am not going to fight them on their own turf where they have all the advantage. Truthfully, they have every right to censor whomever they choose on their own site. Fascists always do. Far be it from me to point out that in doing so they undermine the very name of their blog and the foundation of our democracy. But that isn’t a point I intend to belabor at this moment. Suffice it to say that it is a fact.

I realize that many of my posts are controversial. That is intentional. For unless we stretch the boundaries of what truth is and expand how we examine facts, we may never get at their essence. And frankly I have had enough of the dumbed down, politically correct reporting of supposed facts that manage to lull people into acceptance and inaction.

This is NOT a time to be quiet. This is NOT a time to conform and to do things their way because it is acceptable. And they won’t make you disappear. No, this is a time to fight with every weapon in our arsenal. Because I assure you, that is exactly what the other side is doing. And they are doing so with the alliance of a complicit media, and sadly, with the complicity of what has become the mainstream blogosphere.

This is NOT the time to fit in. That is what they want from us. If they can keep people in a nice little box that they control the dimensions of then they can accomplish this coup. And make no mistake, that is exactly what is going on here. How else do you explain how the media focuses almost solely on issues that discredit and demean one candidate while glossing over the glaring inconsistencies of another? You might ask yourself: Did the media suddenly get stupid? And I have no problem answering that question for you. Because it is a very simple one: NO.

Quite to the contrary, the media got very smart. Because these corporations that own the media realized that they have the power to control the message to their advantage and that is EXACTLY what they are doing. And rather than fight this incredible injustice, the DNC and the party leaders have decided to go along with the coup, or the FIX as some call it. And they ask us to cool out, to chill out, to conform. Because, we are reminded, if we don’t the Republicans will win in November. And none of us want that so we tend to heed the call. Or rather, some of us do.

Doesn’t it strike you as odd that it becomes common knowledge that Obama has been a 20 year member of a church with a rabid racist for a pastor, someone that he calls his “spiritual mentor” and “moral sounding board”, and the story gets about a week’s airtime and then suddenly it is forgotten? Obama then delivers a speech about race and the majority in the press gush all over him, comparing him to Martin Luther King Jr. and Bobby Kennedy. And the very next day Obama calls his grandmother a “typical white person” and no where in the mainstream media do we sense ANY outrage. NONE. The heinous statement is simply glossed over and forgotten. The explained version of Obama’s comment from his campaign is substituted for fact and we go merrily on our way. Some of us do, that is. Never mind that if a white person had used the phrase “typical black person” the political walls would have come crashing down faster than you could say Jericho. And yet, that double standard also goes unreported. The voices have been silenced. The fix in.

Most incredibly, there has been a consistent and disturbing effort in the mainstream blogosphere to have voices silenced, to have boundaries narrowed and issues determined as fact long before all the evidence has come to light. And this is the worst of it. Because the blogosphere is the last refuge where we CAN examine the facts and report evidence. By silencing voices that discuss issues that NEED to be discussed the mainstream blogosphere has allied itself with the status quo. It is irony on steroids. But it is the truth.

I honestly don’t know what sequence of events brought about this phenomenon. People that label their selves “progressive” have become merely another part of the mainstream. And that is the very opposite of what being progressive is supposed to be all about. Blogs are starting to get the respect they deserve. But it seems to some that in order to gain that respect they must stifle dissent, censor radical viewpoints, gloss over the obvious lies and, in short, conform with the message of the mainstream media.

Everyone should follow their own conscience. And this particular individual will have no part of it.

Sunday, March 30, 2008


Do you remember Richard Mellon Scaife? He is the Pittsburgh billionaire who bankrolled The American Spectator and financed the "Arkansas Project."

The Arkansas Project, as you may recall, was the series of investigations that ultimately led to the impeachment of President Bill Clinton.  As David Brock, the founder of Media Matters for America, tells it in his memoir, Blinded by the Right, Scaife not only funded the investigation, but also paid off four Arkansas state troopers who had a grudge against Bill and made up stories about affairs that could never be corroborated. Scaife also happens to be the owner and publisher of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.

It would therefore be a reasonable expectation that Hillary Clinton would receive a rather chilly reception should she decide to visit the Tribune-Review's endorsement, right?  In fact, it wouldn't be unreasonable for Hillary to not even make that visit.

Well, Hillary went to the Tribune and showed them who she was, a smart, cool, self-assured and indeed, courageous woman.  She opened the interview with this "It was so counterintuitive, I just thought it would be fun to do."  

While Hillary did not walk out with an endorsement - yet - she certainly changed the mind of Scaife.  This is how he concluded the column:

Does all this mean I'm ready to come out and recommend that our Democrat readers choose Sen. Clinton in Pennsylvania's April 22 primary?

No -- not yet, anyway. In fairness, we at the Trib want to hear Sen. Barack Obama's answers to some of the same questions and to others before we make that decision.

But it does mean that I have a very different impression of Hillary Clinton today than before last Tuesday's meeting -- and it's a very favorable one indeed.

Call it a "counterintuitive" impression.

For those who are interested, here is the link to the full column in the March 31, 2008 Tribune. Hillary, reassessed.

What does this mean for Hillary? Well, whether Scaife likes her or not may not get her a lot of votes, and in fact, some supporters of the "Other Candidate" will paint it as a reason not to support her. It does, however, showcase her rare courage, and her ability to work and negotiate with those who oppose her and her ideas (certainly the opposite of the divisive figure some present her as.)

Undoubtedly, Sen. Clinton is the kind of person we need at the helm of this Country!

Open Thread

Since this is a pretty new blog, I would love to hear from you if you stop by and visit!  For old friends who don't blog often, all you need to do is click the little comment link (the word "comment") below this article, and write whatever you like (no profanity, please).  

For other people, who may stop by from MyDD or other blogs I frequent, you know what to do!



Saturday, March 29, 2008

Explain this - Sen. Obama!

In a new ad running in Pennsylvania, Sen. Obama claims that he does not "take money from oil companies or lobbyists."  Throughout his campaign, he has tried to differentiate himself from Sen. Clinton, because she does take money from PACs and lobbyists, stating that he doesn't take money from those sources because he doesn't want "any strings attached." 

Listen to the ad for yourself.

You heard it plain as day!  I hope you didn't take him at his word though.  According to the Center for Responsive politics Sen. Obama has, as of February 29th, taken in over $213,ooo from oil and gas companies, including but not limited to Exxon, Shell, BP and Chevron!   To be fair, Sen. Clinton has taken in over $306,000 from these same donors over the same period.

Hillary Clinton Press Release

MSNBC - First Read

The important distinction here is Sen. Clinton has admitted that she accepts money from many groups, and asserts, quite legitimately, that accepting these funds does not mean that she would act in any way other than in the public interest.

Sen. Obama, on the other hand, had consistently and repeatedly stated that he does not accept PAC money or money from federally registered lobbyists, but as you can see, this is not true.  

In 2005, Sen. Clinton opposed Dick Cheney's energy bill.

In 2005 , Sen. Obama supported the bill, despite having previously criticized Cheney's support for the oil industry and the bill and having decried the secret meetings that resulted in "energy laws that were good for Exxon-Mobil." 

So, when all is said and done, who do you support?  


From the Accountable Strategies Blog, there is an interesting article about the role of bundling with regard to evading campaign spending reform (Reining in the Campaign Bundlers).

The article advises that the loopholes in the campaign reform efforts

has led to the emergence of “bundlers,” who increasingly operate on behalf of businesses and wealthy special interest groups. While individuals are legally limited to spending $2,300 on a particular candidate, bundlers can round up contributions from numerous individuals from a single business or industry.

Currently, bundlers have to disclose their roles only if they personally hand over these checks to the campaigns, according to Public Citizen. The campaigns get around this rule by employing a tracking system that enables the bundlers to cover their tracks. Campaigns give bundlers a tracking number, which the bundler asks the contributors to write on their checks. This allows the campaigns to know who the bundler is, but keeps the public in the dark as to the bundler’s identity.

Interestingly, and as per the information available today at WhiteHouseForSale.org, Sen. Obama has raised $192,757, 721 with the assistance of 361 bundlers and 14 lobbyist bundlers, and Sen. Clinton has raised $152,751,856 with the assistance of 322 bundlers and 22 lobbyist bundlers.

The obvious conclusion to me is that Sen. Obama cannot legitimately use this as a point of distinction from Sen. Clinton.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Kudos to Jamie Rubin

for being an honorable advocate for Hillary Clinton, and effectively pushing back against the open bias of MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. His words speak for themselves.

Monday, March 24, 2008

Monica's Blue Dress - 2008

Cross-Posted at MyDD and at No Quarter

As I recall, Monica Lewinsky and her "blue dress" have not been an issue for about eight years. So, you can imagine my surprise when I check out The Page - by Mark Halperin - Time and read that Obama Senior Advisor Gordon Fischer decided that now would be a good time to remind us about it.

I followed the link and saw that this story has already been picked up by Jake Tapper at ABC. Tapper quotes Fischer as follows.

"When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently (sic), the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP. Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

Can someone please explain to me why rehashing an event from nearly a decade ago is at all relevant to bolster a stab at Bill Clinton that even Obama's own campaign has already denounced? If someone could, I would be greatly appreciative. The hypocrisy in Obama's campaign makes me feel like my head is about to explode!

Sunday, March 23, 2008

Hillary Clinton - Superwoman - Alicia Keys (my favorite HRC video)

Obama's Speech - Fool's Gold?

March 19, 2008
CROSS-POSTED AT MyDD and Hillary'sVoice

I just read through Sen. Obama’s speech two times although I will confess, I did not listen to it. To preface the remainder of my remarks, I tried to read it without any political agenda, and although I am a supporter of Hillary Clinton, I believe I was able to give it a fair reading. I found that as I read it, I agreed with the sentiments he expressed, and indeed found them quite eloquent and powerful, until he got to the end of the following paragraph.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes. Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I’m sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Although I do not know the content of private discussions my rabbis may have ever had with their friends and family, I can say unequivocally that I have never heard any of my rabbis ever say anything that could be considered politically controversial regarding American Politics, and with which I strongly disagreed, because American Politics is not discussed in synagogue! I suppose that is because there are people of differing political beliefs that have belonged to the synagogues I have belonged to (even though for the most part, the members are fairly liberal, at least on social issues) and political beliefs are individually formed and decided upon.

The sermons that I have heard tend to speak to the larger issues of our value systems and morality and the necessity to take responsibility for one’s actions and words. Although the values I have learned from my religion do not constitute my political identity, they have, together with my study of law, history, economics, political science etc… , and the fact that I live in this world with other people who do not all share my thoughts and beliefs or act the way I would, played a part in developing my political identity.

I also can state that if I ever heard, or heard of, any public statements that came out of my Rabbi’s mouth in synagogue, that were any way in the nature of words that Rev. Wright said, and if that statement was not quickly denounced by the leadership and members of my synagogue, I would leave and find a new synagogue, regardless of whatever other wonderful things my Rabbi may have said or done in the past.

It is not reasonable for individuals, not to mention political leaders, to sit by silently when hatred is freely and publicly expressed. The words used by Rev. Wright are at their essence, evidence of the hatred which is at the root of racism and are at odds with all concepts of equality. To remain in a community that allows the use of these words by its religious leaders to go unchecked, is in fact, tacit approval of those words, and thereby allows those words to slowly and insidiously poison people’s minds and beliefs.

It is not insignificant to note that Rev. Wright’s statements were loudly and visibly supported by many in his congregation. This message of hatred which was taught by Rev. Wright, and learned by many of his congregants, cannot be simply redeemed by the claim, which I will presume to be valid, that Rev. Wright has over the years, also taught positive messages and has done good and positive work for his community.

In light of this, it is fair to note that bad things can happen when good people do nothing. In the case of Sen. Obama, “doing nothing” includes being a member of that church knowing of all this going on, and continuing in his close relationship with Rev. Wright throughout these years.

It is also problematic to me that the above statement by Sen. Obama seems to presume that all religious leaders make or can be expected to make statements similar or at least parallel to those made by Rev. Wright. This seems to be a major weakness in his understanding of the world outside of his own community.

Sen. Obama, in his attempt to explain why he has continued in his relationship with his church and Rev. Wright describes the emotionally and spiritually compelling experiences he has had at Trinity and then states that
as imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

Obama concludes that this is sufficient justification to maintain his continued relationship with Rev. Wright and implicitly, with his church, notwithstanding Obama’s past awareness of Rev. public statements of hate and divisiveness, reducing their importance to mere “snippets” of Wright’s career, and asserting that they are being taken out of context.

I understand the need to find a religious community that speaks to your spiritual, emotional and familial needs. I agree that Wright has both good and bad in him as does everyone, but (and this is a big but) I do not believe that what we have seen on video are only occasional rants, nor do I believe that they can be overlooked by anyone, least of all, a candidate for President of the United States. Although I can understand Sen. Obama’s desire to maintain his friendship, I cannot understand his continued support and membership in his church, because as I have learned through my own travels, you can find welcoming and loving communities in many places.

The fact that Sen. Obama believes that these statements can and should be overlooked says a lot about Obama. What it says to me is that these are the lessons that live in his heart and have played a part in the forming of his political beliefs. The fact that he makes Wright comparable to his white grandmother who has “confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe” shows that he neither understands nor sees the difference between the two, and explains why his campaign keeps accusing Hillary Clinton of playing the race card. Furthermore, he fails to any way address the fact that the gender animus prevalent in this race and in American culture is a concern equally deserving of fairness and equality.

Although this speech has beautiful words and thoughts in it, once you get past the surface, what this speech says to me that Sen. Obama does not really have an understanding of the issues and concerns of the larger American community, and demonstrates why he is not ready to be President.