Obama Bin Lyin’

The Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/FISA Democratic? Party is trying to force feed an unqualifed, race-baiting, gay-bashing, woman-hating Chicago, friend to slumlord, flip-flop-flim-flam man, on the Democratic grassroots and later on the American people.


What the Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi/FISA Democrats refuse to admit is that Americans still don’t know anything about Chicago Obama and the little we do know disgusts us. This is why the cover of the current New Yorker magazine resonates. The cover does not include references to Rezko or bitter clingy small town Americans but the image (particulary “earings” Michelle) will once again remind us that:

Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.

* * *

The main reason American don’t know anything about the real Barack Obama is that (as the satirizing New Yorker might phrase it) Obama bin lyin’. When Obama is not lying Obama bin hiding.

The National Review last week echoed what we have been writing about for more than 15 months but Big Media has refused to discuss: Why Is Getting Obama To Disclose His Legal Clients Like Pulling Teeth?

The simple answer to the National Review question is that Obama has plenty to hide. Obama does not want to disclose his law firm client list nor his state senate records because it could be revealed that Obama received and ignored plenty of constituent complaints from angry, Rezko oppressed tenants (we’ll discuss this aspect below).

National Review:

Barack Obama has made some strange decisions regarding secrecy and records. His state legislative records are missing and may have been thrown out, there are questions about his answers to his application to the state bar (keep in mind the DSCC demanded George Allen release his in 2006), and he released a one-page letter from his doctor summarizing his medical history (contrasted with McCain allowing reporters to examine nearly 1,200 pages of health records). He and his former law firm say Obama only did a few hours of work for nonprofit firms connected to convicted donor Tony Rezko, but no records have been released to confirm that. (A Huffington Post blogger claims those records were released, but the link she cites doesn’t work.)

Like George W. Bush Obama will hide what needs hiding. Obama wll attempt to exhaust Americans looking for honest answers and only then release the most innocuous crumbs of information while still hiding what needs hiding. The goal is to exhaust those who want answers.

And The New York Times noted,

The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Mr. Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit.

But among the strangest is Obama’s refusal to specify who he worked for during his time in private practice with the firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Gallard (now known by only the last three names). In all of his statements of economic interests filed with the Illinois State government during his years as a state legislator, Obama listed every client of the firm. The result was a “disclosure” of hundreds of clients each year – from 247 in his 1997 filing to 448 in his 2002 filing – when he was only working for a handful of those.

Obama’s old boss, Judson Miner, said there were 30 cases to which Obama contributed in some way during his time there, full time for three years and seven years “of counsel.” How many clients could he have represented in those 30 cases over 10 years?

When the Chicago Sun-Times asked for a specific list of his clients in 2007, Robert Gibbs, communications director for the senator’s presidential campaign, responded, “The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation. If there are specific questions about specific representations, we will attempt to answer them with the assistance of the firm.”

Hide, hide, hide. Run, run, run.

That sounds very authoritative, but it’s also wrong. Attorney-client privilege covers the fact of representation only in extremely rare cases.

Beyond numerous citations of this, in 1996, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois*, which has jurisdiction over Chicago, ruled in Stopka vs. Alliance of American Insurers:

Fox & Grove’s general assertion that the billing statements and time records should not be disclosed because they are privileged is unpersuasive. Cohen and Pincus attest the billing statements and attorney time sheets maintained by the law firm “would reveal the Alliance’s motivation for seeking legal counsel and would reveal the nature of services provided by Fox and Grove to the Alliance in both this case and other matters.” Cohen Aff. ¶ 3; Pincus Aff. ¶ 3. “A client’s motive for seeking legal advice is undeniably a confidential communication.” Matter of Grand Jury Proceeding, Cherney, 898 F.2d 565, 568 (7th Cir. 1990); In re Grand Jury Witness, 695 F.2d at 362. Accordingly, the substance of those meetings is privileged. However, billing statements and time records are not privileged insofar as they state when, where and for how long Fox & Grove attorneys met with Stopka or other Alliance officials.”

Obama is hiding the most basic fact about his life. In 2007 we demanded that Obama’s billing records be released:

Obama worked for a politically connected law firm in Chicago. Obama, while at the law firm (and later) helped pump tens of millions of dollars – government dollars – to his friend and benefactor Rezko via Rezko’s company Rezmar. The tens of millions of dollars in government subsidies were for housing projects Rezko (via Rezmar) was involved in. Neither Rezko, nor his partners in the housing venture had any prior experience to in the housing field – but Rezko/Rezmar still got tens of millions in government money.

Some of the money in government subsidies went to buy tenements in Obama’s state senate district. Rezko treated the mostly African-American tenants with contempt. No heat, no hot water in at least one particulary cold winter. Rezko claimed he did not have money to provide the heat and hot water – but Rezko did have enough money to donate to Obama.


What value did Obama’s “community organizer” ties have if Obama did not know tenants in his state senate district were freezing in the Chicago winter?

If Obama did not know what was going on in his own senate district why didn’t he know?

Obama himself says the question is should he have known? Obama has never answered that question. Should state senator Barack Obama have known about his freezing constituents?

If Obama did not know what was going on in his small state senate district, in tenements his benefactor and slumlord friend Rezko owned, why is Obama ready to lead an entire, much larger country?

Did Obama know about his freezing constituents? Did Obama turn a blind eye, ignoring the freezing constituents and protecting his slumlord friend and fundraiser? Who was Obama really representing? [snip]

Has anyone in Big Media/Big Blogs interviewed the freezing tenants to discover if they did in fact complain to state senator Obama? [snip]

Did the former Obama law firm (also investors in Rezko schemes) ever turn over to the Chicago newspapers the (gasp!) billing records they promised (then reneged on)? These (gasp!) billing records would help clear up exactly what work Obama performed for Rezko/Rezmar. Are these (gasp!) billing records those Obama cannot seem to locate anywhere in his files?

Is Obama’s former law firm, hiding from the truth? Some of the partners in the law firm were also investors in Rezko schemes? Did Obama invest in Rezko schemes?

More National Review:

It’s hard to argue that the fact of representation is covered by attorney-client privilege, but the billing records aren’t. And fact of representation is exactly what the Sun-Times and other media organizations are asking for, not any legally sensitive material of any of Obama’s discussions with them.

And indeed, the Obama campaign is willing to confirm Obama’s participation in a case when the media brings the client to their attention — suing on behalf of ACORN, a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, a trader who reported his bosses for fraud, a psychologist fired by Cook County, etc. But they’ve turned the simple question of “who did Obama work for?” into a guessing game – they’ll only confirm or deny representation for that list of hundreds of firm clients.


National Review later updated on what Obama’s bin hiding:

UPDATE: A reader who is an Illinois lawyer asks if the Obama campaign is citing the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct. But while the rules prohibit disclosing “a confidence or secret of the client,” I don’t see anything that would cover the fact of representation. Note that the client’s hiring of the firm is already disclosed in his statements of economic interests Obama files because he served in the state legislature; the question is, which clients did Obama actually do work for?

Are we to believe that every client of Obama’s asked that he keep his work for them secret?

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another Northern District of Illinois case dealing with disclosing billing records, from a few years earlier:

“In their opposition brief, plaintiffs list six categories of documents they claim to be privileged. Category I consists of billing statements for legal services rendered on behalf of KRS by various attorneys, including a description of the type of service provided, the cost of such services, and the checks paying for such services. Such communications do not relate to confidential matters and are clearly unprivileged.” Schachar v. American Academy of Ophthalmology, 106 F.R.D. 187 at 192 (N.D. Ill. 1986)Recall Gibbs’ statement, “The rules of professional responsibility binding on the firm precludes its public dissemination of client-confidential information, including the fact of representation.” Too bad this ruling indicates that the billing statements are not confidential or privileged, much less the fact of representation.

Big constitution flim-flam man Obama needs a refresher course on basic ethics and case law. But we have been saying that for a long time. We said it in Obama Fights the Facts . We also said it in The Case of the Missing State Senator

What relationships did Obama build during his “community organizer” days that proved useless when he became state senator, and failed to keep him in touch with the community?

What was Obama doing in his plush state senator office that kept him too busy to know that these “struggling families” were without heat “For more than five weeks during the brutal winter of 1997″?

If Obama with all his “community organizer” experience did not know what was happening in his small district office in Chicago, how in blazes does anyone think he will respond to the needs of an American electorate that numbers in the hundreds of millions?

What was Obama doing in his state senate office while his constituents suffered due to now indicted slumlord Antoin “Tony” Rezko, Obama’s friend of 17 years? Well, Obama was busy writing letters to get even more government money for his friends, including Rezko.

Who did Obama take care of and who was he busy working for – his constituents or his now indicted friend Rezko who helped Obama buy a magnificent heated house?

We wrote about it in Obama – Turning Pages, Part II

Obama at the time was a State Senator representing the mostly African-Americans who lived in the Rezko owned tenements. These residents of the Rezko owned tenements presumably contacted elected officials when they found themselves living in substandard housing and freezing in the winter. Where was Obama with consitutent services? Obama should have known and it strains credulity to think he did not know. Obama had helped Rezko obtain government subsidies for these tenements and we presume some type of due diligence was performed by Obama in which he would uncover the nature of the Rezko housing.

Does anyone doubt that Obama bin flip-flopping?

Does anyone doubt that Obama bin flim-flamming?

Does anyone doubt why (as the New Yorker might satirically state) Obama bin lying and Obama bin hiding?


124 thoughts on “Obama Bin Lyin’

  1. Admin,
    Just skimmed through your latest amazing article!
    “The campaign on Monday barred cameras from a large gathering of African-American civic leaders Mr. Obama attended. It recently refused to provide names of religious figures with whom Mr. Obama met in Chicago and directed some of them to avoid reporters by using a special exit.”
    WOW! I’ll have to reread slowly!
    BTW, the bots are goin’ nutso at Tapper’s blog. Whassamatta wid dese people? Don’t they got no sense of humor? They should just ‘get over it.’ The New Yorker was ‘just messin’ with BO.” 👿

  2. PumaResponders.com — lots of good easy targets today, and fun:

    h t t p : / / clintondems.com/2008/07/pumaresponders-alerts-jy-13-easy-posting/

    Latest is at Tapper, bots going nuts over a New Yorker cover! Funny.

  3. I haven’t visited Taylor ‘flip flop’ Marsh’ site for a while. Gosh, it is pretty much an abandoned ghost town.

    Who is still footing her bill? Does anybody know. Obama campaign?

  4. That took guts and courage on the New Yorkers part. They would do that to the Clintons also. They don’t play favorites.

  5. NMF,
    It’s supposed to be satire but it rings so true to the non-koolade addicts, WOnder if NYorker expected that?

  6. basil9

    I would have like to have been in the board room when they discussed it. They certainly are political enough and have been around long enough to figure out this might upset people.

  7. I think the intent was satire but there’s a lot of resentment about the FISA flop……..
    Waffles isn’t the only one who can do a 180.

    I think it’s PRICELESS!

    ambien’s draggin me to bed, nite all.

  8. Please correct me if I am misremembering the primaries but most if not all of them that had BO at 45% or so but leading or tied with Hill, he lost. It makes me wonder when you see 46-42, 45-43 or any of those Obama leads, if he can get over the hump.

    The MSM keeps assuming that when more people get to know him, his numbers will rise — I’m not so sure. I would love to see an ad consisting only of BO’s statements and then his retractions or explanations — even on the small stuff.

    It could start with “I promise to speak with Ahmadinejad without any preconditions in the first year” to “I didn’t say that” to “Of course it wouldn’t be in the first year and we would insist on conditions”.

    It could revisit “I could never abandon my church” to “I have left my church”.

    Then there’s “I will oppose any attempt to pass the FISA bill” to “I voted for it because it was a compromise”

    And so on and so on…An 8th grade researcher could amass dozens of those. And at the end of the ad, a line like “What are YOU counting on Obama for? or “Why are YOU counting on Obama?

    I challenge everyone to add one flip-flop or one ‘no-longer operative’ statement from the past year here. You can start with my three and crib from the above post. I’m really looking for ones that don’t leap to mind right away (because of the volume)

    And at the end of the ad, a line like “For what are YOU counting on Obama?”


  9. The candidate for the Democratic party will be decided in Indiana, Oophs, Clinton won that. Indiana is not all the Important.

    So for what blue states are the DNC Counting on Obama winning? Oophs they were just not that important.

  10. WTG New Yourker Magazine! Especoa;;y like the flag burining in the fireplace and the ic over the mantle. Really get a kick out of MO with her Angela-Davis lookin’ self. Made my Day. Take that, Vanity Fair.

  11. I was just catching up on the posts in the previous thread. Apparently that PUMA guy Will Bowers said eight SDs have abandoned Waffles for HRC. Anyone know if this is true???




    Ya know, I received and email about an hour or so ago with the link to this story, went to h t t p : //


    (well worth the visit if you have not been!) and saw it posted there and could not believe my eyes! The persona who forwarded me the email had the subject line :Can this be fr real?

    After I saw the picture, my only reply was “I hope so”


    GREAT JOB ADMIN! Nutin’ like laffin’ out loud!





    Ya know, I received and email about an hour or so ago with the link to this story, went to h t t p : //

    (well worth the visit if you have not been!) and saw it posted there and could not believe my eyes! The persona who forwarded me the email had the subject line :Can this be fr real?

    After I saw the picture, my only reply was “I hope so”


    GREAT JOB ADMIN! Nutin’ like laffin’ out loud!

    here’s the link, I rolled back because I was cought in the BP filters!




  14. freckles,

    I don’t have exact words, but I think the best flip on FISA was something like “I will filibuster any bill that contains xyz.” Then he not only did not filibuster it, he voted to cut of the people who were trying to filibuster it! Then he vote for the bill itself.

  15. hey admin! I just posted but didn’t alter the url enough…

    perhaps you will approve?

    in the meantime, GREAT headline! LMAO!

  16. B Merry had a GREAT “Change you can Xerox” story today at therealbarackobama.wordpress.com

    this guy is SUCH a fraud.

    And MORE AND MORE Americans know it.

    GO BP!!!!

    GO New Yorker!

    GO PUMA AND Just Say No Deal!

  17. wbboei, kostner, grape, paul, admin…?

    I just posted over at Tapper’s about the NY cover:

    If you’re afraid too many people in Dubuque will take this seriously — maybe you should nominate a different candidate.

    THE NEW YORKER expects to be distinguished for its illustrations, which will include caricatures, sketches, cartoons and humorous and satirical drawings in keeping with its purpose.

    THE NEW YORKER will be the magazine which is not edited for the old lady in Dubuque. It will not be concerned in what she is thinking about. This is not meant in disrespect, but THE NEW YORKER is a magazine avowedly published for a metropolitan audience and thereby will escape an influence which hampers most national publications. It expects a considerable national circulation, but this will come from persons who have a metropolitan interest.
    -H. W. Ross, Editor

    Now shall we have a betting pool on how many bots flame Ross? 🙂

  18. check those photos, quite hilarious.
    h t t p : //www.redstate.com/diaries/wsjreader/2008/jul/13/michelle-baraks-jihad-style-fist-bumping/

  19. ROFL! Kostner!

    GREAT lead on the pics at Red State….


    Lots of fun tonight!

    Good to have jokes on Waffles. He takes himself SOOOOOOOOOO Seriously.

  20. Michelle, love the new leftist fashion statement… perfect for the Chicago workplace, or for nights on the town during the “Democratic” convention. One bit of advice, though. Leave the ammo belt, and the AK47 at home as that probably would not go over very well in most neighborhoods or places of business. Otherwise, you’re good to go, comandante!

  21. Obama supporters ARE making it a bigger story then it needs to be, go read the HuffPo comments and comments at Obama’s blog… they’re cancelling their subscriptions and calling, emailing and faing the guys at The NYer…boycotting left and right…..

    Gosh, I’d hurry up to buy one… lol… You can be rest assured the sales of New Yorker will just soar.

  22. The magazine says the cover art, featuring Barack Obama and his AK-47-toting wife in terrorist garb in the Oval Office, with a portrait of Osama bin Laden above the mantel and an American flag burning in the fireplace, “satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.” But the Obama campaign is denouncing the cover, saying The New Yorker’s editors might believe the picture is “a satirical lampoon of the caricature Sen. Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create,” but it is fact “tasteless and offensive.”

    On the record, the McCain campaign adds: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.” But privately, some McCain types admit they find the cover funny. And how bad can it be for your campaign when a national magazine, in an effort to take a shot at Fox News and talk radio, portrays your opponent like this? Some of Obama’s supporters are likely to go over the top in their defensive outrage, sending subtle reinforcements to viewers who already believe that McCain is stronger than Obama on the issue of terrorism. Maybe it’s funny, and maybe it’s tasteless and offensive — maybe all three — but it will be noticed.

  23. Yep. The more the Obamabots squawk about the New Yorker cover, the more press it will get, and the worse it is for Bambi. It’s amazing how thin-skinned Obama is: any time he gets vetted, criticized, satirized, lampooned, etc., his online army goes ballistic to the point of self-embarrassment.

  24. It’ll be funny if the New Yorker publishes the Obamabots’ letters to the Editor which will be filled with their usual vitriol; they’ll probably organize some sort of petition and boycott buying the New Yorker – like 10,000 adolescent-acting Obama supporters who never read the New Yorker in the first place! Scared?


  25. Bots’ letters to the New Yorker — what a thought!

    I hope all this fuss will make the NY see how stupid Obama and his supporters are, so they will really go after him.

  26. I just saw this written over on the messiah’s site by one of the culties:
    “I want Obama to be the next POTUS but…sometimes I think he is TOO GOOD for the ignorant people of the UNITED States!! He Michelle and the girls deserve so much more.”

  27. I wanted to let you guys know that Howard Dean designed a contest. He is asking to email him a YouTube video telling him “Why you are a Democrat in 2008”?

    Link: http://www.youtube.com/demconvention

    PLEASE send him a video. PLEASE tell him why YOU DON’T WANT OBAMA. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO SHOW HIM WHO WE ARE AND WHAT WE STAND FOR! You can also send this video to Donna Brazile.



  28. There is nothing about that New Yorker cover that is anywhere near as bad as all the sleazy cartoons of Hillary giggled over by a lot of limp-dxxx boys’ club bullies. Unlike this cartoon, there wasn’t even a grain of truth to the crap they threw at her. So, choke it down, Obama. It’s your turn.

  29. I guess the New Yorker did not get the email about laying off his wife, and Oh by the way, him too.

    You are right, he absoutely has no sense of humor. He could really have ignored it or turned it into an honor or a joke, but they get angry at everything, and so the important thing he should get angry about are lost.

  30. I also have to point out that McCain, when they brought out something on a women that worked for him, called a press conference, and stayed there until he answered every question. He even said are you sure you don’t have any more questions.

    Compare that to Os habit of taking very few questions, especially if he does not want to answer the questions. Sound like Bush? Maybe you got the wrong perception on who would be Bush III.

  31. Is Bam Bam aware of the fact that if he is elected president of the United States, he will be the subject of all sorts of tasteless political humor?

    He really does need to stay out of the kitchen because he can’t handle warmth, much less heat.

  32. Hey! Did y’all read this on the “Roolz” for the DNC Video?

    Looks like they are putting the FISA Bill into action POST HASTE!


  33. And besides that, Barky, Dean and the DNC wants the video

    “(vi) does not contain any content that is likely to be considered offensive by Convention Committee or could adversely affect the name, reputation, or goodwill of the Contest Entities.

    So, once again….another RIGGED SELECTION

    that is, unless of course, they want to SMEAR YOU in the BACKGROUND CHECK

  34. OK…these rules will then leave out, ALL Hillary supporters, PUMA’s, REAL Democrats, those who do not WANT Barky, those who say the selection was a sham, etc.


    So much for Democracy

  35. Even though, the New Yorker picture was satire, it does speak to some truth. Anyone else notice the American flag in the fireplace? Shades of Ayers.

    Admin: Another great piece of writing.

    The DNC is becoming more of a joke, with each passing day. Background checks for a video? They could easily review the tapes, and discard the “inappropriate” ones, without all this fanfare. Idiotic. What a waste of funds. If they want good bots, there are millions to choose from. It shouldn’t be that hard or expensive.

  36. Norma, vetting the people in the people, but not the candidate. Way to go DNC. The democratic? party is an embarrassment.

  37. Wonder if they ever DID or even CONSIDERED a “Background Check” on Obama bin Lyin’ ?

    Yes, Donna, Howie, the train has left the station. It got about fifty feet down the track and ran off the rails.

    Enjoy YOUR Democratic? Party. Because at this rate, it’s only gonna consist of you and Waffles, and all his other nefarious friends. Oh, and a few thousand YouTubers.

    Good Night and Good Luck.

    I have too g to work! See y’all later.

  38. Birdgal,
    I’m afraid the New Yorker cover is another strategically dropped bomb by the Odrama campaign; get the smears to the public now in time for everyone to forget by November. It’s just too friggin’ coincidental for me. First the JJ comments dominating the news for a couple of days and now the NY cover, each designed to elicit sympathy for poor innocent Odrama and keep at spotlight off his FISA flip-flop and all his other ever-shifting positions.
    How DARE the NEw Yorker slander him?
    How DARE JJ crticize him?
    Remember, the Fight the Smears site was launched just a couple of weeks ago. This is just another in a series of highly effective diversionary tactics, IMHO>.

  39. Count the Waffles.

    Waffles in today’s NY Times. See how many times he contradicts himself within his own op-ed piece:


    Op-Ed Contributor
    My Plan for Iraq

    CHICAGO — The call by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki for a timetable for the removal of American troops from Iraq presents an enormous opportunity. We should seize this moment to begin the phased redeployment of combat troops that I have long advocated, and that is needed for long-term success in Iraq and the security interests of the United States.

    The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president. I believed it was a grave mistake to allow ourselves to be distracted from the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban by invading a country that posed no imminent threat and had nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks. Since then, more than 4,000 Americans have died and we have spent nearly $1 trillion. Our military is overstretched. Nearly every threat we face — from Afghanistan to Al Qaeda to Iran — has grown.

    In the 18 months since President Bush announced the surge, our troops have performed heroically in bringing down the level of violence. New tactics have protected the Iraqi population, and the Sunni tribes have rejected Al Qaeda — greatly weakening its effectiveness.

    But the same factors that led me to oppose the surge still hold true. The strain on our military has grown, the situation in Afghanistan has deteriorated and we’ve spent nearly $200 billion more in Iraq than we had budgeted. Iraq’s leaders have failed to invest tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues in rebuilding their own country, and they have not reached the political accommodation that was the stated purpose of the surge.

    The good news is that Iraq’s leaders want to take responsibility for their country by negotiating a timetable for the removal of American troops. Meanwhile, Lt. Gen. James Dubik, the American officer in charge of training Iraq’s security forces, estimates that the Iraqi Army and police will be ready to assume responsibility for security in 2009.

    Only by redeploying our troops can we press the Iraqis to reach comprehensive political accommodation and achieve a successful transition to Iraqis’ taking responsibility for the security and stability of their country. Instead of seizing the moment and encouraging Iraqis to step up, the Bush administration and Senator McCain are refusing to embrace this transition — despite their previous commitments to respect the will of Iraq’s sovereign government. They call any timetable for the removal of American troops “surrender,” even though we would be turning Iraq over to a sovereign Iraqi government.

    But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

    As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

    In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments. As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected. We would move them from secure areas first and volatile areas later. We would pursue a diplomatic offensive with every nation in the region on behalf of Iraq’s stability, and commit $2 billion to a new international effort to support Iraq’s refugees.

    Ending the war is essential to meeting our broader strategic goals, starting in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven. Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been. As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won’t have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq.

    As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan. We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there. I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

    In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

    It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

    Barack Obama, a United States senator from Illinois, is the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee.

  40. At aol.com did you see the smiling picture of McCain, and the frowning stern photo of O.

    Nice when you see the media doing their thing.

  41. OBAMA’S PRIMARY GOAL IN JAN. 2009? WINNING RE-ELECTION IN NOV. 2012. Why Obama will be a right-winger’s dream for four years.

    Snippets of the Obama op-ed piece in the NY Times, and my $$$ responses to point out the waffling:

    The differences on Iraq in this campaign are deep. Unlike Senator John McCain, I opposed the war in Iraq before it began, and would end it as president.

    $$$ A war he opposed unambiguously at first, but now, he’s “refining” his position so often that we cannot tell what it is.

    But this is not a strategy for success — it is a strategy for staying that runs contrary to the will of the Iraqi people, the American people and the security interests of the United States. That is why, on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war.

    $$$ where’s the waffle???…waiting for the flip flop…

    As I’ve said many times, we must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in. We can safely redeploy our combat brigades at a pace that would remove them in 16 months. That would be the summer of 2010 — two years from now, and more than seven years after the war began.

    $$$ Starting to leave himself waffle room…

    After this redeployment, a residual force in Iraq would perform limited missions: going after any remnants of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, protecting American service members and, so long as the Iraqis make political progress, training Iraqi security forces. That would not be a precipitous withdrawal.

    $$$ So this “residual force”, it might be there one year? Two years? 100 years??? And the difference between you and McCain is….?

    In carrying out this strategy, we would inevitably need to make tactical adjustments.

    $$$ Syrup please, and another round of waffles.

    As I have often said, I would consult with commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government to ensure that our troops were redeployed safely, and our interests protected.

    $$$ Read: we’ll keep troops there as long as we have to. My primary goal after taking office in 2009 is ensuring that I will win re-election, so I will be pandering my ass off to the right wing. You can be sure of that. The lefties will just be happy to “have a Democrat in the White House”.

    I would not hold our military, our resources and our foreign policy hostage to a misguided desire to maintain permanent bases in Iraq.

    $$$ “Residual forces” would not be in permanent bases. They would have to hide behind jeeps when people fire at them.

    In this campaign, there are honest differences over Iraq, and we should discuss them with the thoroughness they deserve. Unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea, and would redeploy our troops out of Iraq and focus on the broader security challenges that we face. But for far too long, those responsible for the greatest strategic blunder in the recent history of American foreign policy have ignored useful debate in favor of making false charges about flip-flops and surrender.

    $$$ Or for falsely giving the impression that they’d “end the war” in a pander to the left, then promise to “listen to the generals” in a pander to the right.

    It’s not going to work this time. It’s time to end this war.

    $$$ …but potentially keep a “residual force” there indefinitely.

  42. Hi, Everyone: Great post, Admin! Methinks he doth protest too loudly… saw Kass’ column in yesterday’s Trib and thought you all might enjoy his latest on the great flip-flopper. “Obama cannot be trusted on any issue” – get a clue, ‘bots! Have a good day.
    * * * * * *
    Obama backers on the left are doing the wincing now
    John Kass
    July 13, 2008

    When Jesse Jackson’s Castrato-gate or the Barack Obama Nuts Controversy or whatever you want to call it erupted last week—as captured by the hot microphones of Fox News—terrible cries of pain went unnoticed.

    Not from Obama, who, as presidential historians will tell us after his inauguration in January, was the great beneficiary of the rhetorical (and never actually attempted) Jacksonian castration, and no cries from Jackson, either.

    Jackson’s too busy to shriek. He’s suffering the ambition of African-American politicos eager to replace him as America’s race broker. And he’s been hooted down in the style of pre-Revolutionary France, by white liberals who once feared him, though they no longer feel compelled to feign interest in Jackson’s ridiculous rhymes.

    The cries of pain came not from Obama or Jackson but from the American political left, from scribes and liberal editorial writers and broadcast analysts and eager bloggers. The true believers who evangelized that Obama would transcend politics as we knew it are suffering a Barackian hangover.

    Greedily, they drained the kegs once full of sweet Obama Kool-Aid, drained them to the dregs and mopped up the remains with stale crusts. The inevitable happened—the pain that comes as everything finally becomes clear, in the rosy-fingered light of a terrible dawn.

    Obama used them to crush the Clintons, but now the left is finally realizing it’s been betrayed, on issue after issue, with Obama changing his positions in order to defeat a tired and disillusioned Republican Party in November.

    They’re at the dance now and he’s the one with the keys and he’s the only ride they’ve got. And they don’t like it.

    He has flip-flopped again and again, on campaign finance, on government eavesdropping of overseas phone calls, on gun control and even Iraq. Future President Obama now says he’ll listen to his generals about when to withdraw. He didn’t say he’d listen to the commissars of the blogosphere.

    And his cheerleaders are beginning to realize that Obama may not be the Arthurian knight in shining armor, that he may not be Mr. Tumnus, the gentle forest faun of our presidential politics. Months after his inauguration, after he makes Billy Daley the secretary of the treasury and Michael Daley the secretary of zoning and promotes Patrick Fitzgerald to become the attorney general of Mars, the political left may figure out that Obama is a Chicago politician.

    “Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake,” wrote Bob Herbert in The New York Times. “But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader—more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most. . . . Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

    This panic of the left—particularly among many political media types—is profoundly instructive to foreigners seeking to understand American character. The American media elite chose to portray Obama as some kind of knight in armor. They’re analysts. Yet they were desperate to believe in a political fairy tale from Chicago. Somewhere in this desperate yearning is an answer.

    Obama is not their fool. And he’s not weak. He got down on one knee to the Chicago Democratic Machine and didn’t make any waves and asked that it make him a U.S. senator. He lectured the Africans about political corruption and kept his mouth shut about corruption in Chicago, and the national press ignored the inconsistency and pampered and protected him. He waited and he’s ready and now they’re worried? Too late, boys and girls.

    I don’t mean to pick on Mr. Herbert, an elegant writer. His is but one of many voices, stunned on the side of the road, wondering what happened. I felt the same Kool-Aid hangover, and the same whiplash, but from the opposite direction years ago, when I was run down in the middle of a paragraph by a clown car driven by Karl Rove.

    The Bush White House became the champion of big government, of big spending, of Jack Abramoff and of perjury under oath. The clowns boiled out of the car and I watched them go, taking the Republican Party with them, dragging it out into the desert, where they’d dug a big hole and stuffed it with Kool-Aid-addled conservatives.

    So I have some sympathy for those on the left when it comes to Obama. They feel jilted, and the story was of a growing sense of betrayal, until Rev. Jackson whispered his desire to remove Obama’s valuables.

    Then the left joined in with the right, and with the viewers of Fox News in the front row—representing those Reagan Democrat votes Obama will need in November—we all pounded Jackson, righteously, in Obama’s name.



    SDs are you listening. McCain has not lifted a finger, and they are tied. What happen to that big win projection in November. Don’t you think he should at least have double digits now. We saw double digit leads evaporate during the Primary, so if November is the same, he might lose by double digits.

    You need a candidate that can turn this around. Who did this during the primary, HRC.

    You need to rethink your vote before the cliff.

  44. Rick Lizza, author of the article “How Chicago shaped Barack Obama” in the current New Yorker…you know, the one with the great cover, is on NPR’s Fresh Air today. Very good interview. Very knowledgeable guy. Very even-handed hour. Our broadcast has just ended, yours may be coming up. If not, their podcast site is easy to use.

  45. Hello Admin and All.

    ‘Obama Bin lyin’ is a great and accurate moniker.
    It’s a keeper.

    Thank you admin for your great articles.
    You have been a lifeline during the ‘twilight zone’ period of this primary

    Thank you also, to all the commentators on this blog.
    Outstanding group of contributers.

  46. The MSM is now saying even if we elect a black president the country has a long way too go….the reverse discrimination never ends.

  47. I hope Bill had a few choice words for those turncoat Governors he addressed this weekend. Also, did anyone else submit their excess donations to Hillary’s senate race as I did?

  48. Things you never thought you’d see: Obama’s campaign manager begs for money

    h t t p : / / hotair.com/archives/2008/07/14/things-you-never-thought-youd-see-obamas-campaign-manager-begs-for-money/

    I saw and duly dismissed as wishful thinking Karl’s and Patrick Ruffini’s posts last week speculating that St. Barack hadn’t released his June fundraising numbers yet because his money machine had finally broken down. After watching this, I wonder if they’re right. The obvious spin is that the sluggish contributions are simply an artifact of summer doldrums, but (per Ruffini) Kerry took in $30 million in June 2004, which would be slightly better than what Obama’s rumored to have pulled last month. You’d expect even a weak stretch for Team Barry to improve significantly on what the Dems were doing four years ago.

    h t t p : / / http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1mNKEslXZ4w

  49. jbstonefan:

    No…I did not give the additionnal money to Hi9llaary’s Senate re-election. My reason is that is she has additional money she will be donating to other candidates a lot.

    At the moment, I refuse to give to other candidates..unless it is my choice. I sometimes disgaree with Hillary’s choices as well so I will not give her money now…later on I will do so but not now.



    has this comment:

    Comment by Betty | 2008-07-13 19:36:00

    I found out that “on the ballot” and name placed into nomination are two very different things. They (DNC) were just playing me when I called and asked for Hillary to be on the ballet – Bet they thought they were too cute. The Denver group explains the difference at their site.

    On the ballot is honorary with no chance to become the party’s official nominee. Name placed into nomination is a whole new ball game. That is what we must fight for if we are to remain in the Democratic Party, Hillary’s name placed into nomination with the same chance as Obama to win the nomination.

    That is the only fair way. And Obama renting the stadium is just another bulling tactic, this time against the super delegates and us, remember when we were frightened of the R68 group.

    I have heard that the local Democratic Party’s are very worried. Obama and the DNC can’t raise money, so there will be very little help in their local races since Obama will be eating up all the cash. Meanwhile the republicans are raking in the dough, enough to pass around liberally.

    So call you local Democratic Party headquarters and tell them you live in the same state and you are going to vote straight republican if the DNC does not give Hillary and her 18 million voters the respect they have earned – nothing less then her name placed into nomination and a equal chance at the nomination. After all wasn’t that what the primaries and caucuses were about – amassing delegates to take to the convention?

  51. Kostner, I think the Obama money machine is slowing down because of one simple reason: pure greed. How so, you ask? Remember during primary season, when Hillary’s campaign would send out an email every 10 days or so, updating supporters and asking for donations? Meanwhile, the Obama campaign was sending out similar emails DAILY. They were CONSTANTLY asking for cash from supporters. Who can forget Obama’s rude demand during one of his stump speeches, when he said (paraphrasing from memory here), “C’mon, send in 5 dollars. Everybody’s got 5 dollars.”

    The problem with a scorched-earth fundraising strategy like that is that you can only ask your supporters to donate so many times. After a while, they get weary and their bank accounts dry up. Especially when the candidate starts calling them “bitter” and “clinging to religion,” etc.

  52. I bet some “fudging of numbers” is going on behind the late june fundraising release….

    Some “early July” donations pegged onto June……..very easy to do….
    he is hoping that Clinton supporters will help to make up the rest in july!

  53. Berkeley Vox,

    Based on some analysis, Bambi + DNC have to raise $50 million per month to stay competitive with mccain +RNC. Bambi may flip flop again on his decision of opting out of public financing in GE.

  54. Yet more proof that the Obama campaign has zero sense of humor and no comprehension of what constitutes satire:


    The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

    An American flag burns in their fireplace.

    The New Yorker says it’s satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.

    The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama’s right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree.”

    McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds quickly e-mailed: “We completely agree with the Obama campaign, it’s tasteless and offensive.”

    The issue, which goes on sale Monday, includes a long piece by Ryan Lizza about Obama’s start in Chicago politics.

    At a press availability Sunday afternoon in San Diego, Senator Obama was asked, according to a transcript by Maria Gavrilovic of CBS News: “The upcoming issue of the New Yorker, the July 21st issue, has a picture of you, depicting you and your wife on the cover.

    “Have you seen it? If not, I can show it to you on my computer. It shows your wife Michelle with an Afro and an AK 47 and the two of you doing the fist bump with you in a sort of turban-type thing on top. I wondered if you’ve seen it or if you want to see it or if you have a response to it?”

    Obama, shrugging incredulously: “I have no response to that.”

    The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

    Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post said Sunday on his CNN media show “Reliable Sources” that the cover is arguably “incendiary.”

    “I talked to the editor of The New Yorker, David Remnick, who tells me this is a satire, that they are making fun of all the rumors,” Kurtz added.

    Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it’s just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

    The panelists agreed it would succeed in its goal of getting attention.

  55. Remember all that crowing from the Obama camp, after they won the Lousiana primary, about how they were “changing the electoral map,” blah blah blah, and would win the state in the fall? Well, today’s poll gives McCain a 20-point lead in the bayou state:


    Monday, July 14, 2008

    In the first Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Louisiana voters since Hillary Clinton’s exit from the Democratic race, John McCain leads Barack Obama 54% to 34%. When “leaners” are included, McCain is ahead 56% to 37%.

    In May, McCain had a 50% to 41% lead over Obama. The race was even closer between the Republican and Clinton, in which he lead 47% to 40%.

    McCain is backed by 87% of Republicans and 30% of Democrats in Louisiana. Obama earns support from just 57% of Democrats and 8% of Republicans. Among unaffiliated voters, McCain tops Obama 50% to 27%.

    McCain leads 68% to 19% among White voters while Obama is supported by 92% of African-Americans. McCain leads 60% to 30% among men and 50% to 37% among women.

  56. Hmmm, good point, I wonder if it is possible for him to opt back IN to public financing… that is, is there some deadline? Or is there some irreversible action, so that when he opted out, he could not opt back in?

    Granted, to do so would be an admission of weakness. They won’t do it. He’s too proud. He’d rather go down with the ship. Or do some unethical shell games with bundlers.

  57. Obama flip flops AGAIN!

    Obama: I Never Promised an Undivided Jerusalem
    Cross Action News ^ | 7-14-08 | Israel Today Staff

    Posted on Monday, July 14, 2008 3:16:42 PM by Victory111

    Ahead of an upcoming visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority-controlled areas, US presidential candidate Barack Obama reiterated on Sunday that he never intended to support Israel’s position that Jerusalem remain its eternal, undivided capital.

    Obama said in an interview with CNN that he had used “poor phrasing” in a speech last month that most took to be an unprecedented vote of support by a US presidential candidate for Israel’s refusal to surrender half of its biblical capital to the Palestinian Arabs

    This guy, just like George W. Bush, is simply an idiot. I remember back in 2000, some Indian newspaper s was aghast how George W. Bush could possibly be elected. They believed he was not fit in Indian to run a corner store. Bambi is just as bad as George W. Arrogant, babbling, empty suit . Teleprompter seems their shared must-have.

  58. Berkeley Vox ,

    The partisan breakdown seems to mirror exit polls. I trust Rassmussen’s numbers more. If this poll is of any indication, Bambi’s pipe dream of winning Southern states such as GA, SC, NC is just a stretch.

    No wonder some blue dogs are avoiding bambi like plague. Remeber Travis Childers who just won a special election, according to WSJ.
    Mississippi’s Travis Childers, who won a special election this spring to fill a historically Republican House seat, “hasn’t had time to be concerned with presidential politics” and won’t be going to the Democratic convention, his spokesman said. A conservative advocacy group campaigned against him during the special election by trying to tie him to Sen. Obama and tax increases it said the two men are planning

    GE is very different from special election, when those wingnuts come out in droves to vote against bambi, it’ll be very hard for guys like Travis to survive in Nov. The downticket is usually a afterthought for many people, and most of those wingnuts will probably vote along the party line.

  59. Not All Democrats Want
    To Ride Obama’s Coattails

    Barack Obama could have long coattails this fall. That doesn’t mean that every Democrat is going to want to grab on to them.

    The Illinois senator is likely to spur voter turnout among African-Americans and college students in some districts where Democrats hope to pick up House seats now held by Republicans or to fend off Republican challenges. But other Democrats facing tough re-election campaigns could see Sen. Obama’s politics and his weakness among working-class whites as a liability.

    “Some of these Democrats are trying to walk a fine line” between courting black voters and holding on to whites, said Nathan Gonzales of the Rothenberg Report, a nonpartisan political handicapper. Democratic candidates may embrace, ignore or run away from Sen. Obama, or perhaps some of each, he added.

    Meanwhile, vulnerable Republicans, many of whom are in closely divided or Democratic-leaning districts, could see John McCain, the Republican presidential candidate, as an asset because of his appeal to independents. If the Arizona senator runs a competitive presidential race, he “could provide air cover for our candidates” in what could otherwise be a difficult year for Republicans, said Rep. Tom Cole of Oklahoma, who heads the Republicans’ House re-election campaign.

    Operatives from both parties predict that there will be about 75 competitive House races in November. Among the most vulnerable are 26 freshman Democrats and one freshman Republican. But Republican retirements and several scandals have made dozens of other House districts fertile ground for Democratic candidates for the first time in years.

    A few of those Democrats facing tough races already have signaled their ambivalence toward Sen. Obama, the Democratic candidate. Florida’s Tim Mahoney, who won his West Palm Beach seat in 2006 after the district’s long-serving Republican congressman resigned amid a congressional-page scandal, is “supportive” of Sen. Obama, the congressman’s spokeswoman said.

    But Rep. Mahoney hasn’t endorsed him for president and isn’t going to the convention, where he has a superdelegate vote, she added. “He’s focused on work in the district.”

    Mississippi’s Travis Childers, who won a special election this spring to fill a historically Republican House seat, “hasn’t had time to be concerned with presidential politics” and won’t be going to the Democratic convention, his spokesman said. A conservative advocacy group campaigned against him during the special election by trying to tie him to Sen. Obama and tax increases it said the two men are planning.

    Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who heads the Democrats’ House campaign committee, said he is telling many of the party’s freshmen that “their constituents come first,” and that they should spend time in their districts instead of at the convention in Denver.

    But there may be more than busy schedules involved in some Democrats’ reluctance to be associated with Sen. Obama. The party’s most vulnerable House members took seats from Republicans in the 2006 Democratic wave. They now have to appeal to Republicans and independents to hold on to their jobs.

    In that climate, “being an Obama cheerleader may not be an asset,” Mr. Gonzales said

    The opposite is happening with Republicans, whose toughest races are in Democratic-leaning or closely divided districts. Nevada Republican Jon Porter, who represents a Democrat-friendly district in Las Vegas, supports Sen. McCain and will attend the Republican convention in St. Paul, Minn., even though he isn’t a delegate, his spokesman said. Minnesota’s Tim Walberg, the sole Republican House freshman, also supports the senator and may attend the convention, although he can’t vote there, said his spokesman.

    Sen. McCain “has a demonstrated appeal to the middle,” Rep. Cole said. “He helps us change our image and recasts us as a maverick party interested in change.”

    Sen. Obama also may not be a help to Democratic candidates in white working-class and rural districts. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won those voters by wide margins in primaries in Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky. Democrats face tough re-election fights or have a chance to take seats away from Republicans in all of those states.

    “Midwest freshmen probably would have been better off running with Clinton,” said John Fortier, who writes about Congress for the conservative American Enterprise Institute.

    But Sen. Obama’s coattails could prove helpful in many other House races. Democrats are hoping the senator’s appeal among college students will generate enough new-voter turnout to help them win an open seat in a Republican-leaning Columbus, Ohio, district that includes Ohio State University.

    They also are counting on high African-American turnout to help Democratic candidates win seats that now are occupied by Republicans in eastern Virginia, central North Carolina, Chicago and Cincinnati. The party says that blacks account for 20% or more of the voting-age populations in those districts.

    Sen. Obama additionally could shore up vulnerable Democratic incumbents, including some who seem wary of supporting him. In Georgia, Democrat Jim Marshall represents a solidly Republican rural district and typically neither endorses his party’s candidate nor attends its conventions.

    About 30% of his district’s voting-age population is African-American, and high turnout among them could make his race easier, Democratic strategists say.

    Democrats also are hoping that Sen. Obama’s popularity among college-educated and upper-income whites will help the party in some white-collar districts now held by Republicans. Sen. Obama’s coattails could be helpful to challenger Jim Himes in the Democratic-leaning Greenwich, Conn., district represented by Christopher Shays, a Republican. Political oddsmakers call the race a toss-up.

    btw, it’s crazy to believe bambi will have any coattail in CT. Shays survived 2006, hard to believe he’ll be detroned this year.

  60. John @ Liberal Rapture has got talent:

    This gospel which was rediscovered by a biker in a drug treatment center just south of Atlanta. It was wrapped tightly in a bong, that had been squirreled away beneath a sink in the basement. Sadly the Biker smoked most of this Gospel before long time counselor “Tiny” Gonzalez could taze and sit on him. The gospel, when smoked, is reported to have caused such incredible euphoria for the biker that he has never returned to sanity, and now sits bolt upright in his room all day – completly covered by a blanket he crocheted during an America’s Next Top Model marathon. When anyone approaches he says in a spooky little person voice: “Do not go into the light Carol Anne.” or, in the same spooky voice, “I’m not gay if I’m on top. booooooooo” and occasionally: “Mommy please don’t make me play naked air hockey with your boyfriend again tonight.”

    Here is all that remains of the lost Obama gospel written by Donna the Brazillian:

    In came to pass in those days that the Lord Obama’s money lenders had accomplished their goal.

    For they had given-eth all their cash-eth for to defeat-eth the “qualified one” named Hillary.

    And now they no longer cared.

    And The Lord Obama’s Cash Cow was sent out to be slaughtered.

    And the Lord went into the Lobby where the the People of the Money lingered and said:

    Why? Why have you forsaken me, money people? It is my hour of need for I have just bought a new plane for myself. To bring-eth the message of Hopey changey to all the 57 states.”

    The People of the Money in the Lobby said to the Lord Obama:

    Wow. Dude. You think we really cared about that hopey change schtick? That was crap for the potheads in Berkeley, stupid college kids, and the rich white liberal morons in Marin County. You did not think we actually LIKED you, did you? Come on. Take a look at yourself. You’re pathetic. You’re not even junior law partner material yet. And that shrew you married. Yikes! She makes the crazy cat lady on the Simpsons seem like Jackie Kennedy. Barry, dude, we just needed someone to defeat the Qualified One named Hillary. So thanks. Cheers!

    And they raised their Scotches in salute. Which is a great honor from the Gaseous Money Men of the Lobby. And then went back to watching Tiger Woods on the Big Screen-eth at the Country Club-eth.

    Then the money people laughed at the Lord, saying to him go ask David Geffen or Arianna Huffington for an advance on your allowance. The money people LOL-ed mightily at this. And then they hacked and coughed and turned away from the Lord.

    But the Lord did not leave for he was confus-eth and said:

    Money people, Money people, why have you forsaken me?

    One Money Person said to the Lord Obama – Shush, freak.

    For the money people were watching Tiger Woods Golf-eth and the Lord was being a Pest-eth.

    Yet the Lord would not leave.

    So one money person asked Barry for a light.

    And another asked him if he would do one of those hopey changy speeches at his daughters sweet 16 party in the Hamptons, offering him 1,000 dollars cash and a car for to pick him up at the JFK. And possibly a free night at the La Quinta just over the line in Connecticut.

    And another asked him to fix some drinks.

    And Barry was upset. For Donna, the beast like Brazilian, had told him that he was actually beloved by the money people.

    And the Lord went out back for a smoke-eth.

    And while he smoked he decided to blame the “Qualified One” for his problems. Because she was a female. and White. and it was easy to blame her.

    And the Lord decided to make-eth a speech about hope and change in a foreign land near a large gate.
    And the Lord decided to have Rev. Jackson say something stupid to all the land to make the Lord Obama look less Black.
    And the Lord decided to flip flop many times, for this will make them love me again, he thought.

    And the Lord tooketh a deep drag on his Camel Wide.
    And the lord was happy. So he went to Denny’s for a late night waffle.

    Labels: bikers, changey hopey, drugs, gospel, lord barry, Obama

    See ya later. Gotta get back to the magnum opus

  61. If the New Yorker cover is tasteless, then why am I eating it up?

    This is just a high tech lynching of an uppity cartoonist!

  62. Top Colorado Hillary supporter just on Fox News (first name Heidi; didn’t get last name). According to her, the Dem Party is in “disarray” and she is part of a group that intends to nominate Hillary as the Dem presidential candidate at the Dem convention. Reporter noted that ‘it would be great tv,’ to which she replied that ‘it would be good for the party and the country.’


    Craig Crawford (who apparently likes to wake up REAL EARLY) reminds of us of how Obama “won”, and why Obama & Cabal are still nervous:


    Dem Superdelegates Rule After All

    by Craig Crawford
    July 14, 2008 6:00 AM

    There was a time months ago — when Hillary Rodham Clinton led the Democratic nomination race — that party superdelegates were the bad guys according to the rhetoric coming out of Barack Obama’s camp.

    Obama supporters trashed the unelected, automatic and unpledged delegates as undemocratic autocrats when it looked as though they might put Clinton over the top. Not anymore.

    With the dust settled on the primary season, one thing is clear: Obama is the presumed nominee thanks only to superdelegates. He never did win enough pledged delegates to reach the winning number, falling about 350 votes short. His expected victory stems from beating Clinton among superdelegates 463-257, according to a tally on Real Clear Politics.

    All the more reason for Obama to make sure that there is no roll call including Clinton’s name on the ballot at the national convention — which a few die hard fans of the former First Lady are still clamoring for.

    Why highlight just how close the Democratic contest really was? And there is certainly no gain for Obama in dwelling on how he had to depend on superdelegates to win the nomination.

    (The Story of the 2008 Democratic Primary)


    The story of the 2008 Democratic Primary is a compelling one, and it must be told before it is too late. I am an unabashed supporter of Hillary Clinton, I served as an unpaid campaign volunteer for her in a number of states and I opine from that perspective. Over the years, I have been involved with both political parties and have no illusions when it comes to the competition for power. However, bad things happened in this primary, they have received little press coverage and few of us have the time and energy to ponder their implications. But sure as the earth turns this must be done. Why? Because as Jefferson said” the price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.

    I met with a young newspaper reporter recently to discuss this matter. She wanted to know why nine (9) million Hillary Clinton voters have drawn a line in the sand and refuse to support the presumptive nominee Barack Obama- despite joint calls for party unity. Are they just sore losers, or is there more to it? I told her there is far more to it. I explained to her how the election was rigged and the nomination was stolen from the candidate who won the most votes. I went on to identify the perpetrators, namely an Iron Triangle of elite interests consisting of the Democratic National Committee, Big Media and the Obama campaign. I even suggested their motive. I urged her to do the homework and write an article worthy of Joseph Pultizer because the subject is that important. Since I have no great confidence that she will write the story from that perspective, I have decided to take a stab at it myself. In doing so, I hope to rise above partisan rancor and focus on the systemic way our democracy is being hijacked because that is the ultimate issue at stake here.


    Thirty years ago, I was having dinner at the Yale Club in Manhattan with a senior partner of the Proskaeur firm. The founder of that firm, Joseph Proskaeur was legal counsel to President Franklin Roosevelt. At the end of the evening, I mentioned the association between the two men. It evoked a floodtide of memories in him. He spoke with great nostalgia about the end of World War II, the Golden Age of American economic power, the New Deal and youth’s magic horn. It was a wonderful timeless moment enhanced by good wine and good company.

    Meanwhile, an investment banker named Felix Rohatyn was meeting across town with a team of lawyers, financiers and creditors to find a solution to the financial crisis confronting the city. The solution they found was to restructure New York City’s debt, and to begin the arduous process of curtailing costly entitlement programs. Those programs were the centerpiece of Roosevelt vision, and they were supported by strong political constituencies. But the city could no longer afford them.

    Felix Rohatyn is a prominent Democrat with strong ties to Ted Kennedy and Nancy Pelosi. Thus, he applied the same logic to his own party. He asked them to reject the Roosevelt vision and adopt free market doctrine. He argued that this would give them access to Wall Street money which they needed to finance elections. There was initial resistance to this transition by party members who were old enough to remember the Great Depression when free markets failed and government was the solution. That solution entailed the regulation of markets and the establishment of certain entitlements for all citizens. But, as memories of those cataclysmic events faded they were replaced with the realities of a welfare state including high taxes, over regulation and perverse incentives. Thus, by the late 1970’s the Democratic Party had come around to his thinking.

    The transition began with the introduction of deregulation policies under the Carter Administration in the transportation and financial sectors of the economy. During the 1990’s regional free trade alliances like NAFTA were established to integrate national economies, to eliminate borders and to insulate capitalists from the voting power of domestic constituencies. Most favored nations status came later. In addition certain aspects of our sovereignty and economic destiny were ceded to multi-national bodies like WTO and GATT. Finally, a taxpayer revolt provided the final nail in the coffin for the Roosevelt vision. Free trade was orthodoxy.

    Has Free Trade doctrine been beneficial to the United States? If you had come with me when I travelled from state to state for Hillary you would have seen as I did the heaven and hell of NAFTA and MFN (China). In the Texas border town of Laredo, I saw an economy which benefitted from NAFTA albeit modestly. There was more work for the population but the wages were depressed due to competition from Mexico. However, in Pennsylvania, Indiana and West Virginia the opposite was true. I saw the ruins of factories and fine towns laid waste by the free market vision and off-shoring to China. To date 3 million jobs have been lost in the manufacturing sector and projections run as high as 40 million. Is free trade doctrine producing new jobs to offset them? Yes, in a manner of speaking. But typically they are not high wage jobs and there are not as many of them. Lori Wallach of Global Trade Watch has debated this issue with Wall Street proponents of free trade. They talk theory, she talks impacts and within two minutes it is game, set, match Lori
    That is as far as I have got so far. This turgid groundwork needed to be laid in order to answer more relevant questions.

  65. wbboei quoted content that stated in part:

    “That was crap for the potheads in Berkeley, stupid college kids, and the rich white liberal…”

    Hey, go easy on us! 😉

  66. Crowd erupts during Obama speech–but it’s over mention of Clinton”

    Barack Obama spoke “(in English) to the National Council of La Raza in San Diego,” reports the Los Angeles Times blog, Top of the Ticket. Obama rattled off some policy proposals:

    It was then that the crowd erupted in enthusiastic applause and warm cheers. But not over Obama’s policy proposal.

    What ignited that outburst was the mere mention by Obama of the name Hillary Clinton, his vanquished party opponent.

    She wasn’t there, of course. But in absentia the Democratic Party’s loser got a noticeably warmer response than the winner, perhaps a reflection of that lingering party unity thing that was taken care of up in Unity.

  67. wbboei,

    I got as far as the Yale Club, which sounded interesting, but sent me on to comment. This sounds like the beginning of a book, and a very good one. It reminds me of Adam Smith. One of his collections of linked essays I suppose they were.

    It might work as a set of blog entries. You could post one chapter/essay at a time and ask for feedback. Or submit them as a set of columns for some rational highbrow publication, if there are any left.

  68. kostner,

    It’s Heidi Li Feldman. See her blog Potpourri.
    Marc Rubin of The Denver Group also has details, though Heidi has more the last I looked.

    One thing we will all need to keep in mind, see Heidi’s for details. The DNC keeps happily saying “Oh, her name wll be on the ballot, she will get her roll call” — but Heidi explains that will not be ‘official’ such that she could really be nominated, without some other ‘official’ approval from the DNC. Heidi knows about this and is helping Hillary’s delegates get their paperwork together.

    Anyway we need to be set for more of the DNC/Brazile doubletalk, like their “Oh, of course the FL/Mi delegates will be seated and get to vote” when in fact they were planning to make it meaningless.

  69. Just had to share this comment from a poster at Daily Kooks:

    The NY cover is not just racist, it’s an incitement to violence. It has given every right wing freako a clear visual image to put on their wall. Remnick should pray every day nothing happens to Obama. If it does, Remnick will share the blame.

    LMAO!! Bet you didn’t know that every assassin since the dawn of time has been a right wing freako driven over the edge by satire, did ya? 😉

  70. turndownobama: yes, it may come to that. Sort of an installement approach. I worry about going into too much depth for the audience but I think it is important-where two ecomomic worlds collide provides the missing answer to several questions in this campaign–including the anti-Hillary animus. The overarching goal however is to get people beside us on this blog to appreciate what is really at stake here. If it is now 9 million I would like it to be 90million. And I do believe that if people knew the half of it they would turndownobama

  71. Is Fox the only network that has PUMA people on?? Sure looks like it.

    BTW, it never occurred to me that Waffles’ fundraising would decline precipitously after Hillary suspended her campaign, and the nomination was no longer up for grabs. Duh. It makes perfect sense.

  72. There is a problem with depending on Chrismatic new voters to spear head your Party candidate, they think the guy supports their views, and they will stop giving and be vindictive when he lets them down.

    Core party member usually do fold in, except when not only their popular vote has been ignore, but delegates have also been stolen.

    The DNC, lead by Dean, who never really won anything as a Candidate, has failed to take care of its Base.

    Donna is wrong if she thinks the new voters, and idealistic people will continue to support this candidate, as he moves toward the middle.


    Hillary base, are the core Democratic voters. This could be a fatal mistake for the party

    SDs 45 days until you vote the party into defeat, or you save the party.

  73. Two Things:

    1. They restarted the AOL presidential poll again. The Last one McCain won it by 28%, the highest % ever.

    2. During this restart McCain has 75% at this point, the highest restart % ever.

    If McCain leads before the Convention it will be interesting what will happen

    Last, did you notice the voting chart on the Wall behind Obama’s Financial Guy. It shows at least half the country, and every state is red except the West Coast States. I am not sure I would have had the chart behind me while I was asking for money.

  74. I met with the puma chapter here last night. We have an action plan for precious.

    Berkley: exceptions duly note.

  75. Am watching Newshour right now…Five words:

    Michael Dyson is an idiot.

    Didn’t have much respect left for him. Have none now.

    Dis-cussing the New Yorker right now.

  76. wbboei

    Two comments/questions:

    1- Do you have a deadline on making a decision about your HRC contributions? If it is not right now, may I add to the suggestions as to what purpose it should be put? Ask for refund and hold it until Halloween. The path may be better lit between now and the Fall campaign and the HRC will be glad to return it to you- then you have no worries about who it will eventually go to until you decide.

    2- Your article…another suggestion…don’t trick it up with “voices” and story boards. Your own voice is very compelling, even unto the wee hours of the morning. Many of us make it a point to ALWAYS read your notes.

    Make the exposition your voice and fill it with what you know, or suspect, or have researched, or have gathered-and-edited. It has worked in the past, in book form and in articles. It is your best suit.

  77. Oh how I wish I could be in Seneca Falls. Does anyone have an idea of how we could add our voices without actually being there?

    A mail-in perhaps? e-mail? snail mail (think of Mr. Smith goes to Washington except supportive mail)
    A $1 contribution? (to what?) something else????

    Who is organizing this and how can we reach them?




  79. Paula

    I don’t know much, but he strikes most academics as one of a class of itinerent professors, having, at about 50, held academic positions at DePaul, Univ of NC, Columbia, Chicago Seminary, Brown,
    U of Penn, and I think he is at Georgetown right now.

    Very much an Obamabot now. Doesn’t like Bill Cosby one bit. Graduated from Princeton, which is where MO rec’d her undergraduate degree I believe. I can only take him in 1 or 2 minute bites when I’m trying relly hard.

  80. wbboei

    wrote you a two para thingy, hit submit and I think it’s in cyber heaven. will redo if you are on.

  81. heheh thanks wbboei! (just messin’ with ya is all, as u know) 😀

    …McCain is making up a lot of ground on Bambi in Colorado, according to today’s new poll, and the two are essentially tied now:

    Thursday, June 19, 2008

    The Presidential race in Colorado has narrowed again, with Barack Obama dropping to just two percentage points ahead of Republican John McCain. One out of two Colorado residents say the Democrat is too inexperienced to be President.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Obama with 43% of the vote in Colorado and McCain earning 41%. Eight percent (8%) support a third-party candidate, and 7% are undecided. Support for both major candidates is down from a month ago when Obama led by six, 48% to 42%. (See Video)

    Obama registered a modest bounce nationally after besting Hillary Rodham Clinton for his party’s nomination early this month. But, the findings in Colorado show the narrowest gap between Obama and McCain since March when they were tied.

  82. Idunn

    I can remember when the bots were saying our girl should pray nothing happened to him or she would be blamed. Can’t remember the first spark, but the second was when she spoke of RFK’s June assassination. Same ole crap from a non-thinking mind.

  83. Heaven forbid the asshole gets cancer or something. Big Pink would probably get blamed for THAT. 🙄

    Anyway…I can’t get my mind off the fact that Bambi’s money seems to be suddenly drying up. Odd that. Makes me think that perhaps ALOT of that cash came from flush Repubs just trying to sink HRC. Now that Bambi is the “choosen one”, no need to “invest”.

    I dunno. But it sure as shit is weird if ya ask me.

  84. I met Michael Dyson’s wife while i was campaigning in Pa for Hillary. She was a strong supporter of Hillary. Not sure whoe she is supporting now. I would love to know.

  85. kostner Says:
    July 14th, 2008 at 4:02 am
    Carly Fiorina on Why She Supports John McCain

    kostner – thanks for the carly fiorina video. i had not heard her before viewing this. what a novel idea, ms.fiorina, representing john mc cain, approaching hillary supporters with dignity and respect.

    hhmm, my choices are: do i jump on the unity bandwagon with B-Ho while he and his supporters continue to hurl vile spume at me and my candidate? – or – do i consider JMcC whose agenda i may not agree with 100%, but who treats me and HRC as honorable human beings?

    tough decision.

  86. People stop funding a person they think will not win. I has been a long time since O has looked like a winner. Instead he has looked like a whiner, and a person with grand elitist plans.

  87. speaking of funding, received my “obama for america” request for donation today. enclosed is a flyer “in his own words” with snippets from various speeches..it’s a beauty. cannot wait to respond, postage paid!

  88. alcina,

    I got a call from the local Dems (I guess they have put a black mark by my name), asking that I protest with them against McCain visit. I told them I would be supporting McCain, and that I was upset with the Democrats of this state, and how they had treated Hillary, and how they had behaved at the State Convention, illegal assigning noncommitted people to spots when they knew that would rob HRC of a delegte, when she had won the State.

    He just hung up, and I feel better.

  89. IDUNN,

    do you think that this pelosi, dean, brazill unity pony, was a collaboration, between certain ‘one world dems’ and some lying

    and if so, that would mean, that dead horse got played…

  90. Freckles and everyone who can’t make it to Seneca Falls:

    I know some of the people organizing the Seneca Falls pro-Hillary events, and I am sure they would be very grateful for any financial support – even $5 as they’re out of pocketing their travel expenses, plus the expenses to hold the receptions.

    So, go to the pay pal button and help out. I am.


  91. okay- third time is a charm…

    Having just lost 2 submits in two hours, am outside to pick up a different signal, and a couple dozen mosquitos.

    here goes.
    AMB90 and wwoebi and Paddy

    Are you gentlemen, and lady, out there? I have things to discuss w/ each of you, and I am always a day late and a dollar short when it comes to finding you (sometimes weeks or more for Paddy, ni hou ma.) So if you are on here reading or lurking, send a signal back.

    I do know that if I stay up til 12 or 1 in the morning, ET I can sometimes find wwboei; and if I get up between 4 and 5 in the morning when they start milking around this county, I can sometimes find AMB90. Paddy comes in between, but more toward AMB.)

    Can’t do that anymore guys, getting too cranky and creaky, never mind witless, to do that very much anymore.

    So anyway, let’s each pair set up a meetup- you name the date and tme, I’ll confirm, and do my darndest to be here and have a signal.

    Course we will have lurking Pinkers just dying to know, so let’s just pretend we don’t now they are there, like we don’t know Dick Chaingang is checking this out cause I used his name in vain once.

    Whats say ya’ll?

  92. wbboei Says:
    July 14th, 2008 at 5:46 pm
    turndownobama: yes, it may come to that. Sort of an installement approach. I worry about going into too much depth for the audience but I think it is important-where two ecomomic worlds collide provides the missing answer to several questions in this campaign–including the anti-Hillary animus. The overarching goal however is to get people beside us on this blog to appreciate what is really at stake here.

    As an editor who has also been involved in teaching/coaching beginning creative writers, what I look at is nuturing the writer’s muse. I inquire about target audience, but when I see the muse targeting a different audience, I go with the muse. 🙂

    more later….

  93. wbboei,

    Dense dry information can be left out, but what’s better is what you did in this last one. It can be lightened by having other stuff added, like the dinner at the whosis club. So if something is called ‘too long’, the solution may be, not to cut or condense, but to ADD more juicy padding. Like when Adam Smith begins a chapter/essay saying he knows one Gnome of Zurich who often appears on his doorstep bearing toys for his children.

    Also, if what you’re wanting is a historical record, longer is a way to get all the important details in (padded if necessary). Then once it’s all there, you or someone else can easily make a shorter version, and one shorter yet — and make them ALL available on the web.

    You might be able to link out from the shortest to the longer at many points, so the reader can switch to the longer any time he likes.

    So my advice at this point is to go ahead and make this first draft as long as your muse feels like, putting in everything that occurs to you, rambling if you like. If it turns into a long thick heavy square book, so much the more impressive. Then lesser lights (like possibly me) can make various shorter versions for different audiences.

    Btw did you see the flap about the New Yorker cover? At Tapper I quoted Harold Ross on Dubuque, hoped the bots would start flaming Ross but I’m not sure if any of them bit.

  94. Emjay: Glad hearing from you.I am on Hill44 at random times.II would like to hear your side of things.At 90,i have so many early experiences and events that perhaps out of touch with the younger and more learned great folks that I am fortunate to swap thoughts and gripes.My goal in my life at the moment is to see that our Hillary is the 44th president of this rapidly being degraded and crippled by the likes ofObama,Donna,Howard,Pelosi and the rat pack at the DNC.For the moment,theMSM has accomplished it’s goal of marginalizing Hillary but THEY AIN’T SEEN NOTHING YET.18 millio plus people are ready to spring into action and place Hillary on the ballot.



  95. OMG! I can’t believe all the great posts here over the last few days! WOW!!

    I am going to have alot to read to catch up!!!

    I am still in the throws of moving 🙁 but am here at the old house “cleaning” YUCK!
    and will be here for a few days so will be in and out on the forum as i take breaks

    if someone would do a quick recap of all the important stuff from sat-monday for me i would love it! 😉

Comments are closed.