This ain't Hell, but you can see it from here

Category: Barack Obama/Joe Biden

  • How is this news?

    20080627-132015-pic-145681751.jpg

    Everywhere I look, I see these two hamming it up for the media in Unity, NH. And I see the media eating it up like it’s ice cream. I know there’s nothing going on in the news (the few weak things I wrote today are testament to that fact), but holy smokes, do we need to be bombarded with the seemingly staggering news that a Democrat supports another Democrat’s candidacy every damn minute? If ever there was a dog-bites-man story this election season, this is it.

     When it was Obama’s turn to pile on the plaudits, another voice in the crowd yelled, “She rocks.” Obama answered, “She rocks, she rocks. That’s the point I’m trying to make.”

    Oh, cheezum crow.

  • Obama’s confused on guns

    Associated Press steps out of their usual Obama-loving selves to recount an interview Obama did in February;

     The Democrat’s campaign said a spokesman made an “inartful” statement when he said in November that Obama believed the D.C. law was constitutional. But Obama himself did not correct a debate moderator who repeated the position in February.

    “You said in Idaho recently, I’m quoting here, ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns.’ But you support the D.C. handgun ban and you’ve said that it’s constitutional,” said the moderator, Leon Harris of Washington television station WJLA. Obama nodded as Harris spoke, nodding and saying, “Right, right.”

    “How can you reconcile those two different positions?” Harris asked.

    Obama answered that the United States has conflicting traditions of gun ownership and street violence that results from illegal handgun use. “So, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets,” Obama said.

    The Obama campaign argued that Obama was simply acknowledging the question by saying “right.”

    The DC ban MADE handguns illegal – guns that weren’t illegal before the law were the guns that were taken off the streets. Did the gun ban take guns off of the streets of DC? Nope. According to the DC cops statistics, about 2,000 guns are “recovered”  every year – that’s six guns every day.

    guns.jpg

    All the DC ban did was disarm law-abiding citizens.

    Of course, AP could be just trying to reassure Obama’s base that he’s still on their side.

    Me? I’m waiting for our resident law school grad, TSO, to tell us what the USSC really said in his promised long post on Monday when he’s done knocking his dimpled balls around in New England this weekend.

  • Rove: It’s all about Obama

    capt003d2c72499f41c39003beeac3b60770obama_2008_political_play_of_the_day_ilab102.jpg

    In what seems to be a weekly event, Karl Rove takes potshots at Barack Obama from the relative safety of private life in this morning’s Wall Street Journal ;

    Many candidates have measured the Oval Office drapes prematurely. But Barack Obama is the first to redesign the presidential seal before the election.

    […]

    …Mr. Obama, in his first national TV ad rolled out Friday, claims credit for having “extended health care for wounded troops,” citing the 2008 defense authorization. That bill passed 91-3 – but Mr. Obama was one of only six senators who didn’t show up to vote. This brazen claim underscores the candidate’s thin résumé and, again, his chutzpah.

    Mr. Obama has now also played the race card, twice suggesting in recent weeks that Republicans will draw attention to the fact that he’s black. Who is unaware of that? Americans overwhelmingly find it a hopeful, optimistic sign that the country could elect an African-American president. But they rightly want to know what kind of leader he might be. They may well reject as cynical any maneuver to discourage close examination of him by suggesting any criticism is racially motivated.

    The candidate’s self-centeredness has been on display before. Having effectively sewed up the Democratic nomination, he could have agreed to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations (states Hillary Clinton had carried). While reducing his lead by 50 to 55 delegates, it would not have altered the outcome. But Mr. Obama supported cutting these battleground-state delegations in half. At a time when magnanimity was called for, the candidate decided he’d strut.

    It’s become a sport among bloggers to guess the next person or group will be tossed under the Obama campaign’s bus. It seems no one is safe, not the Clintons, not even Michelle is safe since she’s been taken from the frontlines and placed in the role of a backdrop decoration.

    Apparently, the primary voters in Florida and Michigan aren’t safe from the view of the undercarriage of Obama’s bus, either. How many others will be sacrificed and martyred just so we can have a Black president.

    It seems to me that if the Democrats wanted a Black President so bad, they would have nominated someone just a little bit qualified, just a little bit more interested in bringing all Americans together – beyond just mouthing empty platitudes.

  • Nader on Obama “talking white”

    Ralph Nader, the thorn in the Democrats’ side at election time, has decided that his best shot at the Presidency is to become blacker than Obama. In an interview in the Rocky Mountain News, Nader questions Obama’s blackness;

    “There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”

    Of course, Nader is just an unreconstructed 60s radical who thinks every Black person lives in the ghetto and they’re all ignorant enough to be tempted by payday loan scams. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be white.

    I’m constantly amazed that the Left accuses Republicans of being racists, yet the Left are the only people who call attention to Obama’s race. The Clinton campaign at first, now Nader is picking up the call.

    Washington Post in a companion article to the one I wrote about earlier,  is about that bunch of morons at “Stormfront” (Google it, I’m not linking to it) who claim that they’re getting an increase in traffic since Obama’s nomination;

    Sen. Barack Obama’s historic victory in the Democratic primaries, celebrated in America and across much of the world as a symbol of racial progress and cultural unity, has also sparked an increase in racist and white supremacist activity, mainly on the Internet, according to leaders of hate groups and the organizations that track them.

    The part that leaps out at me, was how the Post referred to the groups in comparison to  the Obama campaign;

    “The Obama campaign isn’t going to let dishonest smears spread across the Internet unanswered,” Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement. “We have to be proactive and fight back.”

    But on a Web site run out of a house in West Palm Beach, Fla., the other side is also fighting.

    The “other side” is Stormfront, although it sounds like it’s all of the opposition to the Obama campaign. And of course no story about Republican racists is complete without mentioning David Duke;

    “One person put it this way: Obama for president paves the way for David Duke as president,” said Duke, who ran for president in 1988, received less than 1 percent of the vote and has since spent much of his time in Europe. “This is finally going to make whites begin to realize it’s a necessity to stick up for their own heritage, and that’s going to make them turn to people like me. We’re the next logical step.”

    I think the Washington Post’s time would be better spent on ferreting out the Left’s racists than trying to exhume the corpses of long ago forgotten white supremacists.

  • Sanity on a clueless planet

    We’ve all heard how the world stood with the US on September 11th, 2001, but somehow within a few days, George W. Bush had squandered all that goodwill and the entire planet turned against us. In less than two years, the French (who were dealing with an internal Islamic problem) turned on us, the Russians (who were also fighting Islamic terrorism) turned on us, the Spanish were frightened into turning on us by Islamic terrorism.

    Of course, it turns out that the Russians, French and Germans were profiting hugely for protecting Hussein’s regime and the only western news agency in Iraq, CNN, was purposely not reporting the truth from Iraq. The news reporting hasn’t changed – no news agency, outside of Fox wants to tell the public about the oil-for-food scandal (or as Hussein’s inner circle called it, the oil-for-palaces program).

    The American Left relishes the resulting hate for Bush’s United States, because they have no policy plans that they can tell Americans about that’ll get them votes. Clinton’s “third way” New Democrats are gone according to the Wall Street Journal‘s Kimberly Strassel last Friday;

    When Mr. Clinton left, so did the most prominent New Democratic voice. Party liberals have been reasserting control ever since. Howard Dean’s 2004 consolation prize was the Democratic National Committee. Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker in 2006, and gave back committee chairs to the old 1960s liberal bulls. And now comes Mr. Obama, the party’s most liberal nominee since Hubert Humphrey.

    So how does the world feel about Obama? They’re enthusiastic, according to Fouad Ajami in today’s WSJ;

    The Pew survey tells us that some foreign precincts show a landslide victory for Barack Obama. France leads the pack; fully 84% of those following the American campaign are confident Mr. Obama will do the right thing in foreign policy, compared with 33% who say that about John McCain. There are similar results in Germany, and a closer margin in Britain. The populations of Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan have scant if any confidence in either candidate.

    84% – that’s about the same as Washington, DC’s liberal community support for Obama. Why? Because, of course, the world wants our money. Envy is at the root of almost every policy towards the United States, envy and greed for the American taxpayers’ earnings.

    Look at the list of Obama supporters in COB6’s post below – every one of them has a vested interest in seeing America fail. Why would they not support a Obama candidacy since he’s the most likely to make us a failure like Europe, Asia, the Near East and Africa and hand out our taxpayer dollars and make us more dependent on our supposed allies.

    Who cares who the Euro-wienies want to be our President? Who cares that Turks support Obama? We Americans each support our candidates based on our personal values, what makes the outside world any different? Because they want to take smiling protraits with us? No. Because they want our money and Obama is more likely to hand over sacks full of cash to them.

    Europeans and Arabs are too damn lazy to earn their own way in the world (somehow they got it in their heads that the economy is a zero-sum game – that there are losers and winners), so they all want a piece of our country – they line up outside of our consulates around the world every morning hoping for a visa to get here, and then burn our flag either here or their own country, depending on the outcome of their visa application.

    It’s becoming more and more apparent that John McCain is becoming the torch bearer for the few remaining sane people on the planet. One final question; why would any sane American want to vote for a candidate that the French support by 84% when the French are on their fifth constitution and we’re still on our first one?

  • One More Obama Endorsement Just In

    You can’t make this shit up. Kim Jong Il just endorsed Barry!

  • Oh Yeah, Barry has Quite a List of Endorsers Too

    HAMAS
    The Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did Barack Obama no favor recently when he said: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”

    FARRAKHAN
    The Associated Press reports today that Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan “says presidential candidate Barack Obama represents hope that the United States will change for the better.”

    MICHAEL MOORE
    There are those who say Obama isn’t ready, or he’s voted wrong on this or that. But that’s looking at the trees and not the forest. What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change. My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate.

    CASTRO
    He’s “doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency.”

    JANE FONDA
    Jane Fonda has thrown her spandex behind the Senator from Illinois, and the Senator from New York couldn’t be happier.

    Go here for a thorough review of Barry’s many endorsements that include such luminaries as Marion Barry, Communist Party USA, The New Black Panthers and the Muslim American Society.

    After reading this, I searched for a quite a while and couldn’t find a single Communist or Terror-Supporting organization that supports John McCain.

    Don’t you find that just a bit unsettling?

  • WaPo; 3-in-10 Americans are racist SOBs

    waporace.jpg

    The Washington Post has decided the best way to mute discussion about Obama’s proposed policies is to call 30% of Americans racist right out of the gate on the front page of today’s paper;

    As Sen. Barack Obama opens his campaign as the first African American on a major party presidential ticket, nearly half of all Americans say race relations in the country are in bad shape and three in 10 acknowledge feelings of racial prejudice, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

    The Post goes on to tell us that McCain is old – a point I’m sure no one else but the Post noticed;

    Lingering racial bias affects the public’s assessments of the Democrat from Illinois, but offsetting advantages and Sen. John McCain’s age could be bigger factors in determining the next occupant of the White House.

    […]

    …just over half of whites in the new poll called Obama a “risky” choice for the White House, while two-thirds said McCain is a “safe” pick. Forty-three percent of whites said Obama has sufficient experience to serve effectively as president, and about two in 10 worry he would overrepresent the interests of African Americans.

    So, as you read further into the article, you’ll find that it’s really no different for Obama than any other Democrat candidate before him;

    But to win in November, Obama most likely will have to close what is now a 12-point deficit among whites. (Whites made up 77 percent of all voters in 2004; blacks were 11 percent, according to network exit polls.)

    This is hardly the first time a Democratic candidate has faced such a challenge — Al Gore lost white voters by 12 points in 2000, and John F. Kerry lost them by 17 points in 2004 — but it is a significantly larger shortfall than Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton encountered in their winning campaigns.

    Even further down, the Washington Post says that even among those professing a bias, Obama’s numbers aren’t affected;

    About a fifth of whites said a candidate’s race is important in determining their vote, but Obama does no worse among those who said so than among those who called it a small factor or no factor.

    Nor are whites who said they have at least some feelings of racial prejudice more or less apt to support Obama than those who profess no such feelings.

    So basically, the Washington Post is admitting that the most significant part of this article is their front page headline – that 3 in 10 Americans admit to race bias -I wonder how many of those who admitted to a race bias were Black and were admitting that they are more likely to vote for Obama just because he’s Black?

    It’s a bald-faced attempt by the Washington Post to shame us into voting for Obama MERELY because he’s Black and they’re anxious to have a Black president so the rest of the world will judge Americans less harshly.

    Meanwhile, we’ve got Spike Lee threatening that Obama will make DC a Chocolate City, according to Baldilocks. Bein’ that mine is one of the few white faces I see everyday, I’d say Lee doesn’t get out in DC that much. Oh, and it appears the guilt-ridden white liberals are harrassing Baldilocks, too. I wonder in what category the Washington Post would put Baldilocks’ political choice.

    Oh, if you’re wondering why I did a screen capture, it’s because three or four times, the WaPo has changed their headline after I criticized them for similar behavior.