Superdelegate Governor Schweitzer of Montana gets it. The Big Blogs, the Palestinians, Israel supporters, gun control advocates, gun control opponents – don’t hold your breath.
* * *
Only now are some Obama supporters realizing what we wrote about hundreds of days ago. Back then, no one questioned why an Obama official, who started social website Facebook, stomped out a grassroots supporter on social website MySpace.
Some websites, at the time, did write about the ugly takeover of Joe Anthony’s Obama supporting website. Most Obama supporters were not troubled by the stomping out of a grassroots supporter. Joe Anthony, to his credit, stopped drinking the Obama Kool-ade.
Yesterday, reminiscent of Joe Anthony, Obama’s Astroturf campaign revealed itself as the total fake it is. Obama supporters, the poor dears, were dismayed.
The hypocritical saga of Obama once again talking out of both sides of his mouth was documented by Hillary supporter Campskunk. Campskunk quotes an Obama supporter surprised by reality:
“By dusk on Wednesday, the California Obama campaign had purged almost all progressive anti-war activists from its delegate candidate lists. Names of candidates, people who had filed to run to represent Obama at the August Democratic Party National Convention, disappeared, not one by one, but hundreds at a time, from the Party web site listing the eligibles. The list of Obama delegate hopefuls in one northern California congressional district went from a robust 100 to an anemic 23, while in southern California, the list in Congressman Waxman’s district almost slipped out of sight, plunging from a high of 91 candidates to 17. Gone were strong women with independent political bases.”
Marcy went on to state that the remaining candidates appeared to be mostly “bundlers and their girlfriends“.
Welcome to the real world kiddies. You just took the red pill.
The Obama campaign is backtracking after dumping 900 or so delegate candidates and is now making more excuses and handing out blue pills. Be not deceived dear Obama incense burners – he’s just not that into you. You will be the first to go at every turn. It’s the “new politics”.
* * *
It looks like Montana Democratic Governor Brian Schweitzer too just spit up the Obama Kool-ade because of two-face Obama. Montana votes on the very last day of the primary season and Governor Schweitzer is much loved in his state and in the Big Blogs. Let the Big Blog hatefest against Governor Schweitzer begin.
Some background on Superdelegate Montana Governor Schweitzer:
He owes the win in large part to his “regular guy” image and conservative stance on guns.
Now, with only three years in office under his belt, Schweitzer, who is neutral in the current presidential race, is sometimes mentioned by pundits as a possible running mate for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. Like the Democratic presidential front-runner, Schweitzer came out early against the Iraq War and has sworn off PAC money.
Despite a political profile that could help underscore the Democrats’ determination to win in traditionally Republican areas, it is easier to imagine the blunt-speaking Schweitzer making his own presidential run in 2012 than it is to see him playing second fiddle this year.
Governor Schweitzer, like Elizabeth and John Edwards, knows Hillary is exactly right on her healthcare proposal and that Obama will leave out millions of Americans from the weak Obama NOT universal health care scheme (Note: Don’t miss Paul Krugman today on Hillary and Health Care):
While Schweitzer has not proposed his own universal health care plan in Montana, he believes Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., is right to have endorsed a mandate on the national level.
By not requiring individuals to purchase insurance, Schweitzer believes Obama’s plan to forbid insurance companies to deny coverage because of pre-existing conditions will lead to healthy people opting out and sick people opting in.
“You’ve got to get everyone in the system,” said Schweitzer.
Oh, dear. The Big Blog boobs will clutch their pearls on this one:
He is dismayed that Obama cast a vote for President Bush’s 2005 energy bill while regularly criticizing the president on the issue.
“Sounds like Senate-speak,” said Schweitzer.
He also takes issue with Obama for his statement to environmental groups last year in which he pledged not to support the development of any coal-to-liquid fuels unless they emit at least 20 percent less life-cycle carbon than conventional fuels.
Schweitzer, who has focused on the development of clean coal as governor, believes the 20 percent benchmark might be achievable. But even if coal-to-liquid fuels cannot be made any cleaner than conventional fuels, Schweitzer believes Obama should embrace coal as a way to reduce U.S. dependence on imported petroleum.
If Schweitzer were running for president, he says he would spend $100 billion on research and development into carbon sequestration technology.
“It sounds like a lot until you consider that we’re spending $1 billion a day in Iraq,” said Schweitzer.
Oh, double dear. Governor Schweitzer is not even happy with Obama on Iraq policy:
Schweitzer supports Obama’s call for an end to U.S. fighting in Iraq. But the Montana governor disagrees with Obama on the wisdom of long-term bases.
While Obama opposes leaving U.S. troops in Iraq to blunt the influence of neighboring countries, Schweitzer sees long-term U.S. bases in Iraq functioning as a “tripwire” against a broader regional war.
As to Obama’s pie-in-the-sky hope to win the west, Schweitzer knows Obama can’t win Montana:
But don’t look for an endorsement until after June 3: Schweitzer plans to back the winner of Montana’s last-in-the-nation primary.
While he thinks either Obama or Clinton running on his or her own has a 50-50 shot of winning the White House against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, Schweitzer doesn’t think either Democrat can take Montana.
Asked why not, he had a one word answer: “Guns.”
Obama has been multi-faced on Guns too. Obama might have trouble winning a primary, not just in Pennsylvania, but in Montana too. Governor Schweitzer is is a Big Sky Democrat, not a pie-in-the-sky Democrat.
* * *
Palestinians and Jews have enough problems so we won’t mock or make light of their foolishness in trusting anything Obama says – too much. Obama can’t be trusted guys. As a president his foolishness and pie-in-the-sky lack of experience skullduggery and back stabbing would only bring you more grief. Haven’t you suffered enough?
Peter Wallsten has a really well-reported piece this morning on Obama’s relationship with Palestinian activists in Chicago, and in particular his friendship with Columbia professor Rashid Khalidi.
The story doesn’t provide any evidence that Obama ever expressed anti-Israel views, and in more recent years he’s been very publicly pro-Israel, as his campaign reasserted in response to the piece. But it does place him at events at which Israel is accused of “apartheid” and details his friendly relationship with Palestinian activist, and Columbia University professor, Rashid Khalidi.
At this point, I’d say the damage to Obama with a segment of the Jewish community is probably going to be very hard to reverse. This isn’t a huge percentage of the vote of a community that doesn’t exist in big numbers in most swing states anyway. But for pro-Israel Jews who, say, know of Khalidi and consider him a hostile figure, and for the people in their communities who listen to them, the damage that comes with Obama’s Hyde Park milieu is going to be very, very hard to repair.
“There is a segment of the pro-Israel community in which skepticism of Barack Obama is only rising,” said the unaligned Democratic consultant Ken Baer, who follows Jewish politics closely, and whom I called this morning to talk about the story. [snip]
The Jewish vote matters a lot in Florida (which some think is now safely Republican anyway); it matters less, but a bit, in Ohio, where several thousand votes can make a big difference. [snip]
And, while we’re doing the electoral math, the perception that he’s friendly to Palestine may help Obama with Arab voters in Michigan and elsewhere, if they were inclined to vote Republican.
Um, Florida and Michigan. Little wonder Obama does not want a revote in those states.
Excerpts from the Los Angeles Times article about two face Obama and why he can’t be trusted:
A special tribute came from Khalidi’s friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi’s wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been “consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It’s for that reason that I’m hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid’s dinner table,” but around “this entire world.”
Today, five years later, Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting in his presidential campaign. The dinner conversations he had envisioned with his Palestinian American friend have ended. He and Khalidi have seen each other only fleetingly in recent years.
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
Yes guys, keep listening to what he is not saying, that’s a real smart posture. Obama can’t be trusted. Part of the flim flam is to have people listen to what you don’t even say, to deceive them with winks and nods, to assure all sides you are on their side. But Obama is only on one side – his. Obama can’t be trusted.
Their belief is not drawn from Obama’s speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.
At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”
One speaker likened “Zionist settlers on the West Bank” to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been “blinded by ideology.”
Obama will say anything to anyone at any time. He can’t be trusted guys. He says one thing in public then another thing in public and then another thing in private and then another thing in private. He can’t be trusted.
“I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates,” said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a “moral imperative” in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.
“That’s my personal opinion,” Ibish said, “and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he’s said.”
Obama talks out of both sides of his mouth. Ask blogger Joe Anthony, asked the purged delegates, ask gun control advocates and opponents:
Last year, for example, Obama was quoted saying that “nobody’s suffering more than the Palestinian people.” The candidate later said the remark had been taken out of context, and that he meant that the Palestinians were suffering “from the failure of the Palestinian leadership [in Gaza] to recognize Israel” and to renounce violence.
Jewish leaders were satisfied with Obama’s explanation, but some Palestinian leaders, including Ibish, took the original quotation as a sign of the candidate’s empathy for their plight. [snip]
Among other community events, Obama in 1998 attended a speech by Edward Said, the late Columbia University professor and a leading intellectual in the Palestinian movement. According to a news account of the speech, Said called that day for a nonviolent campaign “against settlements, against Israeli apartheid.”
The use of such language to describe Israel’s policies has drawn vehement objection from Israel’s defenders in the United States. A photo on the pro-Palestinian website the Electronic Intifada shows Obama and his wife, Michelle, engaged in conversation at the dinner table with Said, and later listening to Said’s keynote address. Obama had taken an English class from Said as an undergraduate at Columbia University.
Ali Abunimah, a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, said that he met Obama several times at Palestinian and Arab American community events. At one, a 2000 fundraiser at a private home, Obama called for the U.S. to take an “even-handed” approach toward Israel, Abunimah wrote in an article on the website last year. He did not cite Obama’s specific criticisms.
Abunimah, in a Times interview and on his website, said Obama seemed sympathetic to the Palestinian cause but more circumspect as he ran for the U.S. Senate in 2004. At a dinner gathering that year, Abunimah said, Obama greeted him warmly and said privately that he needed to speak cautiously about the Middle East.
Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.
Poor Jews, Poor Palestinians, so tired, so desperate for hope, they listen to the flim flam man.
Poor Americans, so sick and tired of Bush, so desperate for hope, they listen to the flim flam man.
Obama, the flim flam man keeps talking out of both sides of his mouth:
Even as he won support in Chicago’s Palestinian community, Obama tried to forge ties with advocates for Israel.
In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama’s position paper “suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues.”
Obama can’t be trusted, by anyone.
Nationally, Obama continues to face skepticism from some Jewish leaders who are wary of his long association with his pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., who had made racially incendiary comments during several sermons that recently became widely known. Questions have persisted about Wright in part because of the recent revelation that his church bulletin reprinted a Times op-ed written by a leader of Hamas.
One Jewish leader said he viewed Obama’s outreach to Palestinian activists, such as Said, in the light of his relationship to Wright.
“In the context of spending 20 years in a church where now it is clear the anti-Israel rhetoric was there, was repeated, . . . that’s what makes his presence at an Arab American event with a Said a greater concern,” said Abraham H. Foxman, national director for the Anti-Defamation League.
Spare yourselves grief. Reject both, or rather all, of Obama’s many faces. Don’t listen to words that come from any side of Obama’s mouth.
Obama’s words can’t be taken at face values – any of his faces.
Obama can’t be trusted.