2008 US Demo Party Presidential Campaign thread

[color=#800000]UPDATE: 1030 hrs 30 Aug 2008 -[/color]
Its official now, Obama & Biden are the Demo candidates for POTUS - Let the thread now reflect the ongoing campaign.

Time to split for the respective party candidate campaigns.


To capture the Democratic Party nomination, New York Senator Hillary! Clinton, current wife of former U. S. President William Jefferson Clinton*, is making a bold move.

Clinton Announces Stimulus Package
in part:
[i]"Details of the plan have not been entirely released, although a preliminary outline has been discussed in focus groups.

“I have listened to the people of America,” Mrs. Clinton said, “and I have heard about your struggles and hardships, and I plan to do something about it.”

The general outline of the plan is for a stimulus package to be sent to most American households. This includes all households below $150,000 in income, which will literally see a package delivered to their door with the stimulus inside. Households with higher income may not receive a package, although it is not clear what the cutoff income will be.

Mrs. Clinton suggested that not all Americans will receive a stimulus package."[/i]

Can I get a stimulus package?
It sounds, er,… well,… stimulating… Can I get a discount if I buy in bulk?
Assuming these are quality stimulus packages, with proof of origin attatched!
One could break open a few niches with the right stimulus package…

The Obama Love Story continues in the media:

Obama as Cinderella in What Could Have Been a Rough Week.



Obama…Ooo Baaa Maaa…Ooooooo Baaaaa Maaaa…

A few nasty comments about the Clintons from an Obama supporter:

edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03 … =hpmostpop

OOOPS!..I musta mis-remembered!

“…that all this experience that shes been talkng about, is at least partly, her imagination”…Mike from Politico.com

CBS Exposes Hillary Clinton Bosnia Trip.

How could she be so stupid?
Especially when there’s actual news footage of her at the scene!
That’s just plain sloppy!

Well…Hillary! is …well…Hillary!

[quote]Hillary’s List of Lies
By Dick Morris, March 26, 2008

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were “honest and trustworthy,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won’t Confess To

• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie — that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain’s virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter’s simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush’s personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama’s patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a “strong, decisive leader,” 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama’s reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.
Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.”
Real Clear Politics.com[/quote]

Frankly, this is a very truncated list. And Morris is known to suffer from selective memory lapses, but you get the gist.

And from the former girlfriend of the husband of a Democratic Party nominee hopeful, we have…

On another thread Dr. McCoy wrote:

[quote]With all the talk about Rev. Wright, I finally got to hear more of the sermon. It is a work of art. I love to hear a good preaching. I don’t see anything wrong with it. I would be proud to have this guy as a spiritual advisor to my president.[/quote]bold added

Well, lets look a bit closer at this controversial ‘Pastor’:


[i]"Despite the efforts of most of the main stream media (and Obama himself) who are trying to spin the incidents regarding Barack Obama’s preacher and spiritual advisor into something acceptable to the American people, along with his speech regarding race, by doing some individual research it becomes clear that the spin will simply just not wash.

Let me preface what I am about to say by stating emphatically that I do not believe the teaching of Reverend Wright or Black Liberation Theology are at all subscribed to by most blacks in this country. I believe it is a minority of radicals whose voices are being given dispproportionate weight in our media. I have many friends in the black community who are traditional Christians who accept Jesus Christ and His aotnement and teaching for the love, long suffering, reason, and forgiveness that they represent to all of us, of all creeds and colors alike.

But the Trinity Church of Christ, to which Obama belongs, subscribes to Black Liberation Theology, which we shall see does not represent those things, and therefore gives voice to Reverned Wright’s and others hateful dialog.

I believe that Obama will not leave that Church for one simple and obvious reason. Despite his new found disgust in “some” terminology that Wright employed, Obama in all likelihood agrees with the theology that the church teaches. He is raising his kids in it, and intends to stay with it."[/i](discussion of Rev. Wright and his message at the link)

Obama’s Pastor Celebrates 9/11 (explicit)

Obama’s Racially-Divisive Pastor

Is Obama Wright? - Pastor Wright & Senator Obama

Obama’s Pastor - 9/11 Fault of Israel Association

Reverend Wright: The Bible and No Jews

Will the public accept such a figure as this as a ‘spiritual leader’ for the POTUS?

Obama’s pastor seems to me to preach hate from the pulpit. It’s, at least, the least Christian message I’ve ever heard in a Christian sermon. It’s just a bunch of politics driven by racial hatred.

And I am a white girl open enough to realize that there is a lot of truth to what the man says about a black American’s life. I just don’t agree with the undertones, overtones, really, of hatred. Taking a view like Rev. Wright’s, you can only focus on the wrongs done to you. That focus will never move you past the hurt and anger you feel, and is, in fact, meant to keep you angry and hurt. Not at all a Christan message, and not good for anyone, really.

[quote=“housecat”]Obama’s pastor seems to me to preach hate from the pulpit. It’s, at least, the least Christian message I’ve ever heard in a Christian sermon. It’s just a bunch of politics driven by racial hatred.

And I am a white girl open enough to realize that there is a lot of truth to what the man says about a black American’s life. I just don’t agree with the undertones, overtones, really, of hatred. Taking a view like Rev. Wright’s, you can only focus on the wrongs done to you. That focus will never move you past the hurt and anger you feel, and is, in fact, meant to keep you angry and hurt. Not at all a Christan message, and not good for anyone, really.[/quote]
I have enjoyed listening to some of his sermons. I haven’t heard the hate yet.

McCain has his own crazed pastor: John Hagee.

[quote=“Chris”]McCain has his own crazed pastor: John Hagee.[/quote]Chris -
And this has exactly what to do with Barry O & The Rev Wright?..which is the current topic?

I am not familiar, right now, with John Hagee and McCain, but there is a thread on the Republican nominees where info such as this could be posted. I’d be interested in seeing what you have.

Well…Hillary! is …well…Hillary![/quote]
She’s a politician, if that’s what you mean.
And she talks too much at that. Her staff is a bloated multi-tiered hierarchy not entirely dissimilar from the Sicherheitsdienst. II bet they record each other’s phone conversations for blackmail possibilities.
In any event, I was referring more to not being straight up when it comes to military/foreign policy issues. Especially as a Democrat. And especially when running against a far more experienced (in the above mentioned fields at least) Republican candidate.

[quote=“Dr. McCoy”][quote=“housecat”]Obama’s pastor seems to me to preach hate from the pulpit. It’s, at least, the least Christian message I’ve ever heard in a Christian sermon. It’s just a bunch of politics driven by racial hatred.

And I am a white girl open enough to realize that there is a lot of truth to what the man says about a black American’s life. I just don’t agree with the undertones, overtones, really, of hatred. Taking a view like Rev. Wright’s, you can only focus on the wrongs done to you. That focus will never move you past the hurt and anger you feel, and is, in fact, meant to keep you angry and hurt. Not at all a Christan message, and not good for anyone, really.[/quote]
I have enjoyed listening to some of his sermons. I haven’t heard the hate yet.[/quote]

The sermons at this link do not sound hateful at all. Good to see.

"Meanwhile , in the Iraqi election , al-Maliki and his campaign team from Dawa and ISCI have run into a tough contest in the crucial Basra caucuses.

“Clearly, al-Maliki is the best choice, and it’s all over. Sadr should drop out to unite the party” said one group of campaign workers who had travelled down from Baghdad in an armored Humvee to support their favorite candidate.

Nonsense, says a local Sadr supporter. “We expect to win here and other places in the South, and then roll onto victory in October” he told this reporter, punctuating his argument by firing his RPG at a group of opposition

Say, if Obama hasn’t won by the Democratic Convention, can he call in the Iraqi Armed Forces to launch air strikes against the Clintonistas?

Some further examination of Barry Husseins’ record…nothing that thrills this commentator…he sees nothing much beyond “…one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.”

Notice that the commentator uses the 'Imperial “we” '…so he’s one from the left side of the aisle…in case you were wondering…:smiley:

(it is a lengthy article…but its an important subject - as ‘we’ are constantly reminded)

So…lets look at a point-by-point examination of Barrys record.

[quote]The Obama Craze: Count Me Out
by Matt Gonzalez‚ Feb. 27‚ 2008

Part of me shares the enthusiasm for Barack Obama. After all, how could someone calling themself a progressive not sense the importance of what it means to have an African-American so close to the presidency? But as his campaign has unfolded, and I heard that we are not red states or blue states for the 6th or 7th time, I realized I knew virtually nothing about him.

Like most, I know he gave a stirring speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. I know he defeated Alan Keyes in the Illinois Senate race; although it wasn’t much of a contest (Keyes was living in Maryland when he announced). Recently, I started looking into Obama’s voting record, and I’m afraid to say I’m not just uninspired: I’m downright fearful. Here’s why:

This is a candidate who says he’s going to usher in change; that he is a different kind of politician who has the skills to get things done. He reminds us again and again that he had the foresight to oppose the war in Iraq. And he seems to have a genuine interest in lifting up the poor.

But his record suggests that he is incapable of ushering in any kind of change I’d like to see. It is one of accommodation and concession to the very political powers that we need to rein in and oppose if we are to make truly lasting advances.


Let’s start with his signature position against the Iraq war. Obama has sent mixed messages at best.

First, he opposed the war in Iraq while in the Illinois state legislature. Once he was running for US Senate though, when public opinion and support for the war was at its highest, he was quoted in the July 27, 2004 Chicago Tribune as saying, “There’s not that much difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who’s in a position to execute.” The Tribune went on to say that Obama, “now believes US forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation – a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration.”

Obama’s campaign says he was referring to the ongoing occupation and how best to stabilize the region. But why wouldn’t he have taken the opportunity to urge withdrawal if he truly opposed the war? Was he trying to signal to conservative voters that he would subjugate his anti-war position if elected to the US Senate and perhaps support a lengthy occupation? Well as it turns out, he’s done just that.

Since taking office in January 2005 he has voted to approve every war appropriation the Republicans have put forward, totaling over $300 billion. He also voted to confirm Condoleezza Rice as Secretary of State despite her complicity in the Bush Administration’s various false justifications for going to war in Iraq. Why would he vote to make one of the architects of “Operation Iraqi Liberation” the head of US foreign policy? Curiously, he lacked the courage of 13 of his colleagues who voted against her confirmation.

And though he often cites his background as a civil rights lawyer, Obama voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act in July 2005, easily the worse attack on civil liberties in the last half-century. It allows for wholesale eavesdropping on American citizens under the guise of anti-terrorism efforts.

And in March 2006, Obama went out of his way to travel to Connecticut to campaign for Senator Joseph Lieberman who faced a tough challenge by anti-war candidate Ned Lamont. At a Democratic Party dinner attended by Lamont, Obama called Lieberman “his mentor” and urged those in attendance to vote and give financial contributions to him. This is the same Lieberman who Alexander Cockburn called “Bush’s closest Democratic ally on the Iraq War.” Why would Obama have done that if he was truly against the war?

Recently, with anti-war sentiment on the rise, Obama declared he will get our combat troops out of Iraq in 2009. But Obama isn’t actually saying he wants to get all of our troops out of Iraq. At a September 2007 debate before the New Hampshire primary, moderated by Tim Russert, Obama refused to commit to getting our troops out of Iraq by January 2013 and, on the campaign trail, he has repeatedly stated his desire to add 100,000 combat troops to the military.

At the same event, Obama committed to keeping enough soldiers in Iraq to “carry out our counter-terrorism activities there” which includes “striking at al Qaeda in Iraq.” What he didn’t say is this continued warfare will require an estimated 60,000 troops to remain in Iraq according to a May 2006 report prepared by the Center for American Progress. Moreover, it appears he intends to “redeploy” the troops he takes out of the unpopular war in Iraq and send them to Afghanistan. So it appears that under Obama’s plan the US will remain heavily engaged in war.

This is hardly a position to get excited about.


In 2005, Obama joined Republicans in passing a law dubiously called the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits. Long a desired objective of large corporations and President George Bush, Obama in effect voted to deny redress in many of the courts where these kinds of cases have the best chance of surviving corporate legal challenges. Instead, it forces them into the backlogged Republican-judge dominated federal courts.

By contrast, Senators Clinton, Edwards and Kerry joined 23 others to vote against CAFA, noting the “reform” was a thinly-veiled “special interest extravaganza” that favored banking, creditors and other corporate interests. David Sirota, the former spokesman for Democrats on the House Appropriations Committee, commented on CAFA in the June 26, 2006 issue of The Nation, “Opposed by most major civil rights and consumer watchdog groups, this Big Business-backed legislation was sold to the public as a way to stop “frivolous” lawsuits. But everyone in Washington knew the bill’s real objective was to protect corporate abusers.”

Nation contributor Dan Zegart noted further: “On its face, the class-action bill is mere procedural tinkering, transferring from state to federal court actions involving more than $5 million where any plaintiff is from a different state from the defendant company. But federal courts are much more hostile to class actions than their state counterparts; such cases tend to be rooted in the finer points of state law, in which federal judges are reluctant to dabble. And even if federal judges do take on these suits, with only 678 of them on the bench (compared with 9,200 state judges), already overburdened dockets will grow. Thus, the bill will make class actions – most of which involve discrimination, consumer fraud and wage-and-hour violations – all but impossible. One example: After forty lawsuits were filed against Wal-Mart for allegedly forcing employees to work “off the clock,” four state courts certified these suits as class actions. Not a single federal court did so, although the practice probably involves hundreds of thousands of employees nationwide.”

Why would a civil rights lawyer knowingly make it harder for working-class people to have their day in court, in effect shutting off avenues of redress?


Obama has a way of ducking hard votes or explaining away his bad votes by trying to blame poorly-written statutes. Case in point: an amendment he voted on as part of a recent bankruptcy bill before the US Senate would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent. Inexplicably, Obama voted against it, although it would have been the beginning of setting these predatory lending rates under federal control. Even Senator Hillary Clinton supported it.

Now Obama explains his vote by saying the amendment was poorly written or set the ceiling too high. His explanation isn’t credible as Obama offered no lower number as an alternative, and didn’t put forward his own amendment clarifying whatever language he found objectionable.

Why wouldn’t Obama have voted to create the first federal ceiling on predatory credit card interest rates, particularly as he calls himself a champion of the poor and middle classes? Perhaps he was signaling to the corporate establishment that they need not fear him. For all of his dynamic rhetoric about lifting up the masses, it seems Obama has little intention of doing anything concrete to reverse the cycle of poverty many struggle to overcome.


These seemingly unusual votes wherein Obama aligns himself with Republican Party interests aren’t new. While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases means a victim cannot fully recover for pain and suffering or for punitive damages. Moreover, it ignored that courts were already empowered to adjust awards when appropriate, and that the Illinois Supreme Court had previously ruled such limits on tort reform violated the state constitution.

In the US Senate, Obama continued interfering with patients’ full recovery for tortious conduct. He was a sponsor of the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation Act of 2005. The bill requires hospitals to disclose errors to patients and has a mechanism whereby disclosure, coupled with apologies, is rewarded by limiting patients’ economic recovery. Rather than simply mandating disclosure, Obama’s solution is to trade what should be mandated for something that should never be given away: namely, full recovery for the injured patient.


In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872. The current statute, signed into law by Ulysses Grant, allows mining companies to pay a nominal fee, as little as $2.50 an acre, to mine for hardrock minerals like gold, silver, and copper without paying royalties. Yearly profits for mining hardrock on public lands is estimated to be in excess of $1 billion a year according to Earthworks, a group that monitors the industry. Not surprisingly, the industry spends freely when it comes to lobbying: an estimated $60 million between 1998-2004 according to The Center on Public Integrity. And it appears to be paying off, yet again.

The Hardrock Mining and Reclamation Act of 2007 would have finally overhauled the law and allowed American taxpayers to reap part of the royalties (4 percent of gross revenue on existing mining operations and 8 percent on new ones). The bill provided a revenue source to cleanup abandoned hardrock mines, which is likely to cost taxpayers over $50 million, and addressed health and safety concerns in the 11 affected western states.

Later it came to light that one of Obama’s key advisors in Nevada is a Nevada-based lobbyist in the employ of various mining companies (CBS News “Obama’s Position On Mining Law Questioned. Democrat Shares Position with Mining Executives Who Employ Lobbyist Advising Him,” November 14, 2007).


The New York Times reported that, while campaigning in Iowa in December 2007, Obama boasted that he had passed a bill requiring nuclear plants to promptly report radioactive leaks. This came after residents of his home state of Illinois complained they were not told of leaks that occurred at a nuclear plant operated by Exelon Corporation.

The truth, however, was that Obama allowed the bill to be amended in Committee by Senate Republicans, replacing language mandating reporting with verbiage that merely offered guidance to regulators on how to address unreported leaks. The story noted that even this version of Obama’s bill failed to pass the Senate, so it was unclear why Obama was claiming to have passed the legislation. The February 3, 2008 The New York Times article titled “Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate” by Mike McIntire also noted the opinion of one of Obama’s constituents, which was hardly enthusiastic about Obama’s legislative efforts:

“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

As it turns out, the New York Times story noted: “Since 2003, executives and employees of Exelon, which is based in Illinois, have contributed at least $227,000 to Mr. Obama’s campaigns for the United States Senate and for president. Two top Exelon officials, Frank M. Clark, executive vice president, and John W. Rogers Jr., a director, are among his largest fund-raisers.”


On energy policy, it turns out Obama is a big supporter of corn-based ethanol which is well known for being an energy-intensive crop to grow. It is estimated that seven barrels of oil are required to produce eight barrels of corn ethanol, according to research by the Cato Institute. Ethanol’s impact on climate change is nominal and isn’t “green” according to Alisa Gravitz, Co-op America executive director. “It simply isn’t a major improvement over gasoline when it comes to reducing our greenhouse gas emissions.” A 2006 University of Minnesota study by Jason Hill and David Tilman, and an earlier study published in BioScience in 2005, concur. (There’s even concern that a reliance on corn-based ethanol would lead to higher food prices.)

So why would Obama be touting this as a solution to our oil dependency? Could it have something to do with the fact that the first presidential primary is located in Iowa, corn capitol of the country? In legislative terms this means Obama voted in favor of $8 billion worth of corn subsidies in 2006 alone, when most of that money should have been committed to alternative energy sources such as solar, tidal and wind.


Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it. Single-payer works by trying to diminish the administrative costs that comprise somewhere around one-third of every health care dollar spent, by eliminating the duplicative nature of these services. The expected $300 billion in annual savings such a system would produce would go directly to cover the uninsured and expand coverage to those who already have insurance, according to Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, an Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School and co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Obama’s own plan has been widely criticized for leaving health care industry administrative costs in place and for allowing millions of people to remain uninsured. “Sicko” filmmaker Michael Moore ridiculed it saying, “Obama wants the insurance companies to help us develop a new health care plan-the same companies who have created the mess in the first place.”


Regarding the North American Free Trade Agreement, Obama recently boasted, “I don’t think NAFTA has been good for Americans, and I never have.” Yet, Calvin Woodward reviewed Obama’s record on NAFTA in a February 26, 2008 Associated Press article and found that comment to be misleading: “In his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent’s call for tariffs would spark a trade war. AP reported then that the Illinois senator had spoken of enormous benefits having accrued to his state from NAFTA, while adding that he also called for more aggressive trade protections for US workers.”

Putting aside campaign rhetoric, when actually given an opportunity to protect workers from unfair trade agreements, Obama cast the deciding vote against an amendment to a September 2005 Commerce Appropriations Bill, proposed by North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan, that would have prohibited US trade negotiators from weakening US laws that provide safeguards from unfair foreign trade practices. The bill would have been a vital tool to combat the outsourcing of jobs to foreign workers and would have ended a common corporate practice known as “pole-vaulting” over regulations, which allows companies doing foreign business to avoid “right to organize,” “minimum wage,” and other worker protections.


On March 2, 2007 Obama gave a speech at AIPAC, America’s pro-Israeli government lobby, wherein he disavowed his previous support for the plight of the Palestinians. In what appears to be a troubling pattern, Obama told his audience what they wanted to hear. He recounted a one-sided history of the region and called for continued military support for Israel, rather than taking the opportunity to promote the various peace movements in and outside of Israel.

Why should we believe Obama has courage to bring about change? He wouldn’t have his picture taken with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom when visiting San Francisco for a fundraiser in his honor because Obama was scared voters might think he supports gay marriage (Newsom acknowledged this to Reuters on January 26, 2007 and former Mayor Willie Brown admitted to the San Francisco Chronicle on February 5, 2008 that Obama told him he wanted to avoid Newsom for that reason.)

Obama acknowledges the disproportionate impact the death penalty has on blacks, but still supports it, while other politicians are fighting to stop it. (On December 17, 2007 New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine signed a bill banning the death penalty after it was passed by the New Jersey Assembly.)

On September 29, 2006, Obama joined Republicans in voting to build 700 miles of double fencing on the Mexican border (The Secure Fence Act of 2006), abandoning 19 of his colleagues who had the courage to oppose it. But now that he’s campaigning in Texas and eager to win over Mexican-American voters, he says he’d employ a different border solution.

It is shocking how frequently and consistently Obama is willing to subjugate good decision making for his personal and political benefit.

Obama aggressively opposed initiating impeachment proceedings against the president (“Obama: Impeachment is not acceptable,” USA Today, June 28, 2007) and he wouldn’t even support Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold’s effort to censure the Bush administration for illegally wiretapping American citizens in violation of the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. In Feingold’s words “I’m amazed at Democrats … cowering with this president’s number’s so low.” Once again, it’s troubling that Obama would take these positions and miss the opportunity to document the abuses of the Bush regime.


Once I started looking at the votes Obama actually cast, I began to hear his rhetoric differently. The principal conclusion I draw about “change” and Barack Obama is that Obama needs to change his voting habits and stop pandering to win votes. If he does this he might someday make a decent candidate who could earn my support. For now Obama has fallen into a dangerous pattern of capitulation that he cannot reconcile with his growing popularity as an agent of change.

I remain impressed by the enthusiasm generated by Obama’s style and skill as an orator. But I remain more loyal to my values, and I’m glad to say that I want no part in the Obama craze sweeping our country.
quartz.he.net/~beyondch/news/ind … temid=5413[/quote]

The Obamaistas might want to make this a ‘sticky’…it will be used in the future.

Looks like the Barry Hussein crowd is having a bit of fun at YouTube…

Obama Sex Tape - Larry Sinclair

…heh heh heh

More on the Rev Wright, who just got a US$1.6 million home in Florida with a US$10 il line of credit, and his relationship to Barry O…

[quote]Obama to Disown Pastor If Hillary Dumps Bill
by Scott Ott for ScrappleFace

b[/b] — Sen. Barack Obama, the Democrat presidential front runner, today reiterated his intention to stand by his controversial pastor despite his presidential rival’s remarks that she would have left the church where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached racially-charged, anti-American messages.

“I could no more disown my hateful, racist, self-aggrandizing, crazy uncle of a pastor,” said Sen. Obama, “than Hillary Clinton could quit her deceitful, adulterous, self-aggrandizing husband. But if a purging must happen to unite this divided party, I say to my esteemed opponent, ‘You first, Hillary. You first.’”

Sen. Clinton said this week that she would have quit Trinity United Church of Christ, noting that “you don’t choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.”

“Apparently, Sen. Clinton was not only victim of an unfaithful husband,” said Sen. Obama, “but also the victim of an arranged marriage — stuck with a husband she did not choose.”

Si…se puede!