Posts with the tag hypocrisy

You want it done right...? Do it yourself..........

Varun from Berkeley, CA — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:54:17 EDT

A Mandate for them.......not for change

What if I told you that we have government funded healthcare/insurance for some key Americans who love and even utilize such a benefit, but don’t want you to have it? Would you be shocked? Would you be confused? Would you respond by asking me if I was talking about Medicare? No, though Medicare is a successful form of government funded and run care-coverage, I’m not talking about it. I’m not even talking about Vet Care….I’m talking about a health plan/benefit plan that’s complete with great coverage, coverage that covers all Federal workers, including US Senators, members of the House, etc. It’s a plan that even includes pensions and other benefits. Read a summary here: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/congresspay.htm

Thus, I’ve never heard Mitch McConnell or the so called “Blue Dog” Democrats, or the usual talking head RNC mouthpieces in the Congress ever, ever, turn to the camera and say, “I will pay back what I took in health benefits...

On Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC)

Christina Marlowe — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:24:50 EDT

On Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC)

The facts that emerged today regarding the illicit and salacious adultery committed by Republican Governor of South Carolina, Mark Sanford, amidst the numerous other sex scandals within the (mostly) Republican party, seem to reflect a deep-seated and very obvious lack of any kind of self control. Hypocrisy comes to mind first, of course. The maddening fact of the matter is that this Sanford man, along with so many other smarmy and villainous characters in the Republican party, has/have this uncontrollable need to actually preach to us, the American people, about moral conduct and so-called family values; all whilst their own lives are utterly mired in turpitude, deception, lies, weakness of character, personality disorders, and general wickedness and/or stupidity.

It would not be nearly so bad for these bastards if they would only mind their own business and stop preaching to us about morality or anything else for that matter. Each one of these heathen is so pathetic in their busybody approach to life and to politics, telling us and everyone else in the world just what is "right" and what is "wrong."
Further, as observed in the 2008 election, almost a full half (50%) of all the (idiotic morons) in this country really want these twisted, loathsome "people" ruling us all and forcing on us their insane beliefs, laws and policies?!?!?
Incredible...horrifying and sickening, in fact.
Anyway, here is a list of the other top ten sex scandals in Washington DC:

1. Former Sen. Larry Craig (R-Idaho) for the "wide stance" excuse, the married-but-secretly-gay possibility, and the details of the bathroom stall.

2. Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL) whose instant messages to boys were so icky we couldn't stop reading.

3. Former Gov. Jim McGreevey (D-N.J.) for the wife who stood at his side during the press conference (until the book came out) and the unforgettable "I am a gay American" line.

4. Former Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D-N.Y.) because Mr. Rectitude was a hypocrite who had paid for a hooker.

5. Former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) for claiming he cheated on his wife only when her cancer was in remission and for apparently letting a loyal campaign aide pretend to be his girlfriend's baby daddy.

6. Former Rep. Don Sherwood (R-PA) for the 911 calls and police reports that alleged he'd choked his mistress, which Sherwood denied.

7. Former Rep. Vito Fossella (R-N.Y.) for his secret second family.

8. Former Senate candidate Jack Ryan (R-IL) for the pre-election bombshell that derailed his senate race and gave the country President Obama: Ryan's ex-wife reportedly accused him of trying to make her go to sex clubs, according records in the couple's divorce file. He denied the accusation.

9. Former Rep. Ed Schrock (R-VA) for an allegation by a gay activist that the congressman placed gay personal ads.

10. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) for his phone number in the D.C. Madam's black book and his admission of "sin".

Cheers,

Christina Marlowe

A Simple Question: Would God Condone Torture?

Eric from Covina, CA — Fri, 22 May 2009 18:05:14 EDT

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

A Simple Question: Would God Condone Torture?

Maybe I'm missing something but I find it uniquely ironic that some the same people who clamor for prayer in school, claim that same-sex marriage is an abomination under God,who insist that America is a Christian nation, and fight for the Biblical version of creationism over science, are also the very same people who demand the right to be armed to the teeth with some of the most destructive private weapons on Earth, the right to slaughter and bring the most excruciating kinds of death upon God's other creatures for nothing more than their own entertainment, and now, condone the torture of other human beings as a legitimate tool of government. Is it just me, or does anyone else see this as the very height of hypocrisy?

COLONIALIST MOUTHWASH

caring_independent — Tue, 19 May 2009 13:08:31 EDT

in the name of the fathers and their sons and the Colonialists
who proudly hailed toward some gleaming across the ocean
by Natives saved from death the first winter, leaving twenty-three
paternalists never owning the genocide of nearly an entire race
history not saying much different now, denying Native Sovereignty
while descended from the Daughters of the American Revolution
i'm still steeped in false prides and dreams, woman and subject
among slaves and Natives, would we comprise our own nation
indivisible in shame, doubt and fear within, overlapping virtues
one with no pride, lying under a Governor that would tax Natives
we shouldn't be prosecuting prostitutes for trying to earn a living
just working to get where you are with the little she's been given
that might be doubly enforceable if she had also been a Native
raised lost herself, from life removed by her relations' massacres
sorrows handed down with depressions, as legacies like wealth
as i strolled behind the scenes in the Museums of Natural History
not one pre-Colombian pottery piece, closets filled with the same
bear and animal skins collecting dust, spoils of hunts and safaris
hung on racks in rooms, like so many furs in a dry cleaning store
i guess there was some point of a brass tribute to Roosevelt there
when i and plenty of others with children cannot afford health care
in school taught history, lessons of law and what is right or wrong
insurance companies rape New York and politicians still get votes
call the system "Admitted Carriers" crowned like elitist princes
sixty-nine articles or rules open to the public, i'm just small league
collaring poor Martha Stewart, rich woman in the patriarch game
trying to make it through the meet, entrenched to keep her security
growing girls away from indiscretion like we are born little whores
do any damn newspapers print the true realities of life's hypocrisies
its been a man's world, and i am now told spirituality is on the rise
to see common bonds between Christianity and Native religions
been there before don't you think, twist stories to fatten their hides
we've seen worse than prostitution from the abbots in the abbeys
what more could we ask in lowering our commitment to this world
stewardship, self-determination, humbled by truths of generations
equality of birth; let no slave, Jew, Native or woman not earn honor
spirituality belongs to the individual and their sacred conjugal rights
as each seeks their proper balance and a peaceful place in Nature
to regain our status as human beings everywhere, perhaps in effect
permit globalization of the human society without a fear not to eat
while we are sent back to school to keep up with new developments
time has been calling us up, each and everyone to raise standards
small groups march from West to East coasts to open new life cycles
we comfort in soft chairs behind screens to seek play and distraction
while each have the power within to raise up our spirits' resurrection
redeem injustices suffered upon human beings, land and our future
we need all wear the grimaces of foolish shame and shut our mouths
same on all the faces of the leaders worn in a slide show i saw today
i'd never have thought i was good enough to run for elected office
that thought had left my mind some time just before my twelfth year
true leaders are born we are told, but heart can takes years to retrain
there is truly something on the rise, whether it be glorious or fearful
obviously we can't live under the crushing weight of our current lies
here comes the march upon each one, the place we meet our fate
i can't apologize for yesterday, because i was meant to be here now
but tomorrow will responsibility be sought for all that's yet to come
just what higher purpose may mean about grace and being reborn

reality is a hard habit to break - salamandra

Written March 11, 2008, copyright MEWilson

An Examination of Republican Talking Points

Donald from Bellevue, WA — Wed, 06 May 2009 12:37:03 EDT

An Examination of Republican Talking Points (YouTube video)

A few points about the racist UN - Durban "anti-racism" conference

Natalia from Acampo, CA — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 03:38:40 EDT

A few points about the racist UN - Durban "anti-racism" conference

1) When will Arab racists & Islamic bigots let go of the UN and stop hijacking it with it's lobbies (silencing Arab racist genocide in Darfur, yet daming innocent Israelis who merely try to survive)?

2) Why is Arab terror singling out Jews not racist?

3) Why is the essence of the entire "conflict'" in the M.E. not a form of bigotry by Arab Muslims who can't "accept" the non Arab non Muslim pluralistic democratic Israel?

4) Are Jews living, or even allowed to live in racist "Palestinian" controlled territories (Judenrein - ethnic cleaning)?

5) When will lefty radicals (Meretz/B'Tzelem) talk about preferential treatments to Arabs OVER Jews inside Israel, like in Hebron and in other cases?

6) Why are (Arab Palestinian or Hezbollah) the ones using its own kids as cannon fodders considered "innocent victims"?

7) Is Israel battling just terrorism or an ARAB MUSLIM CAMPAIGN OF GENOCIDE since the 1920's?

8) Since Muslim nations (OIC & Iran) push to criminalize criticism of Islamists' bigotry, doesn't it mean that anything being said in that conference is the opposite of tolerance and of truth?

9) How can the UN avoid the largest practitioner of racism, which is Arabism (against: Kurds, Berbers, Africans, Jews, Assyrians, Asians, etc.), but focuses on the so called "anti-Arab racism"?
[ http://geocities.com/panarabism - Arabism is racism! ]

10) How more racist can the Durban-conference get, If the two oppressive regimes: Libya & Iran are the "stars"?
Libya - whose Muamar Qaddafi (besides his own persecution of non-Arabs, especially blacks in his country) the one of the champions in today's racist Arabization, and Arabist racism against Africa (whose "vision" has been compared to Hitler's "lebensraum"), in: Chad, Nigeria, etc., ultimately his crimes in the Sudan region helped in leading the current Al-Bashir's genocide on Millions of Africans (financed mainly by Libya and S. Arabia).
Iran, the regime of Islamic bigotry's oppression on its own population with an added special persecution on all on-Muslims: Christians, Baha'i, Jews, etc. or on non-"pure-Persians" like: Ahwazi - Arabs, Kurds, Azeris, Baluchis, etc. now under the leadership of: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad [EichmannJihad - the Islamic Hitler] who plays as if he "denies" the holocaust only in order to prepare for (his wishful) the second, "wiping off Israel".
Thus, the shame of the UN, kidnapped by the epitome of intolerance today, the infamous twin fascism: Arab racism, as in Gadhafi, and Islamic bigotry as in Amadinejad, are going to be "preaching" (and determine) to the world on tolerance.

Right-wing Hangover

Douglas from South Gate, CA — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 11:43:41 EDT

The Right complaining about all the time, effort, and expense that will be required to clean up the mess left behind by eight years of their policies under the Bush administration is like a bunch of spoiled frat boys with hangovers complaining about all the noise from the cleaning crew and all the bills for the breakage left in the wake of one of their drunken bashes. A little less complaining and a lot more help would be sorely appreciated.

G&LBT Disgrace

David from Renfrew, PA — Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:51:35 EST

Now that Obama and Biden have ridden to a victory partially on the back of the GAY and LESBIAN community, he has chosen to kick all of us in the teeth before he is even president by having "Trick Warren" (disgraceful homophobe) give the invocation at the INAUGURATION?

Barack, C HOW U R ? You give us a MARCHING BAND for our work for the Party?

This is a good place for human beings affected by Obama's monstrous injustice to unite and share ideas on how to provide feedback to King Barack, the last. Something to share with his magnificent, all-hetero family over the holidays and in the months to come.

As I listened to his droning monotone, DEFENDING HIS BIGOTY CHOICE, I thought, O God, 4 or 8 years of this? This is why we united once more behind the Dems just to be slapped down?

WHO WANTS TO REGISTER INDEPENDENT WITH ME TODAY? Let's hear from you.

Fundraising Glass Houses

Henry M — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:53:13 EDT

Fundraising is a political necessity. ReDubyLickin alarm over Obama/Biden's fundraising success is nothing but sour-grape hypocrisy. Both parties accept large donations, but from predictably different interests:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/us/politics/21donate.html
The Times examination of donors who wrote checks of $25,000 or more through September found some notable differences in the industries from which Mr. Obama and Mr. McCain drew their largest contributions.
Compared with Mr. Obama, Mr. McCain drew a slightly larger percentage of his big-donor money from the financial industry, about a fifth of his total. The next biggest amount in large checks for Mr. McCain came from real estate and then donors who identified themselves as retired. With his emphasis on offshore drilling, Mr. McCain has also enjoyed heavy support from generous benefactors in the oil and gas industry, a group Mr. Obama drew relatively little from.
After the financial arena, Mr. Obama drew the most in checks of $25,000 or more from retirees and lawyers — Mr. McCain collected significantly less in large donations from lawyers — followed by those in real estate.
Mr. Obama also drew a significant amount from big givers in the entertainment industry, who contributed relatively little to Mr. McCain. In contrast, donations from the private equity and hedge fund industries accounted for a significantly greater amount of the giving from Mr. McCain’s largest donors, compared with Mr. Obama’s.

If you appreciaterd this message, then please have a look at my blog, http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/blog/henrymu and support and contribute to the campaign (it’s not over until the polls close): http://tinyurl.com/henrym4obamafundraising

Henry M

It's the Hypocrisy of the Right that Generates Distrust

Chuck — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 11:15:43 EDT

John McCain does not wear a flag pin, but there are no outcries as there were about Obama, who wears one now. It doesn't matter to me -- flag pin wearing is a silly issue. But this shows the hypocrisy of the right wing. Flag pins mattered when it was Obama, not when it's McCain. Having a rich heiress wife who hasn't released tax returns mattered when it was Kerry, not when it is McCain. Questionable military history is okay to attack when it's Kerry, not when it's McCain. Bill Clinton's marital indiscretions mattered, but McCain's affair does not. Being a strong Christian mattered for Bush over Kerry, but Obama's stronger Christianity than McCain's doesn't matter now. Experience matters when it's Obama, but not when it's Palin. See the pattern? This is why America does not trust the Republican Party anymore.

Unmarried Pregnancy And Stunning Hypocrisy: It’s Gotta Be GOP!

Vanessa Edwards from Houston, TX — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 13:55:57 EDT

Rumors were flying on the blogs recently about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin’s five-month old son actually belonged to her unmarried teenaged daughter. To quell the rumors that her son, Trig was indeed hers, she made public the announcement that her 17-year old daughter Bristol was indeed pregnant.

However, her quote and the response of the Republican pundits and evangelical supporters expose a glaring dual standard.

“Our beautiful daughter Bristol came to us with news that as parents we knew would make her grow up faster than we had ever planned. We're proud of Bristol's decision to have her baby and even prouder to become grandparents," Sarah and her husband Todd Palin were quoted in the released statement. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080901/ap_on_el_pr/cvn_palin_daughter)

Note the use of “proud of Bristol’s decision to have her baby”? That phrase begs the question: was there ever a decision? If so, why? Gov. Sarah Palin is proud to proclaim her right to life and elimination of choice. If there’s no choice, what is there to decide in the Palin family?

McCain killed Senate career of real "anti-pork" critic

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 12:28:40 EDT

Maybe one day before the election the mainstream press will revisit how John McCain killed the career of a Senate "anti-pork" activist, proving that the Arizona senator's reputation for fighting wasteful spending is much inflated, by McCain himself.

Details can be found at ...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_38_18/ai_93457386

Obama Should Strike Back!

Krystol from Saint Louis, MO — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 11:17:12 EDT

Someone needs to mention that Sarah Palin has links to the Alaskan Independence Party, a group whose goal is to secede Alaska from the United States. Her husband, Todd Palin has registered to the group in 1995 and 2000 and remained registered until 2002.

Details are included in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmYqRfp6-x8

Sarah Palin and Same-Sex Marriage

Brad Bentz — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 17:33:33 EDT

Someone should ask Palin about her stance on gay marriage now that she has argued in the Couric interview that the states should decide important social matters. If she says that gay marriage is up to the states, she risks offending her base, for whom same-sex marriage is anathema. If, on the other hand, she comes out in support of a federal ban on same-sex marriages, it exposes the hypocrisy of her earlier position. On this issue, you're either a Federalist or a social conservative, but you can't be both. So, which is it, Sarah?

Sticking to the Facts: The Burden of Integrity

William from Matthews, NC — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 14:25:05 EDT

I am a big fan of fact-checking. Skepticism has served me well and I am quite persistent in my attempts to instill a healthy inclination toward incredulity in my two young daughters. Some of my favorite websites, especially during election season, are Snopes.com, FactCheck.org, and Politifact.com. These and others do a fine job of wading through campaign rhetoric and analyzing claims with an academic discipline that includes actually referencing sources of information and quoting those sources in full context.

The Daily Show is good at fact-checking. John Stewart is quick to classify his show as a comedy not a news program, but I am consistently impressed by the quality of research that goes into many of the sketches. The ones that especially get me riled up are those that juxtapose video of politicians, pundits, or advisors making statements that blatantly contradict statements they made just a while ago. Don’t these people realize that they are being continuously recorded? I wish the real news shows were as diligent in questioning and then validating the words of our politicians and then confronting them with these “inconsistencies”.

One of the primary reasons I support Barack Obama over John McCain is that he has done a pretty good job of keeping himself and his words off of sites like FactCheck.org and out of The Daily Show episodes.

Hypocrisy at it's finest

Danielle from Odessa, TX — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 15:52:08 EDT

I was watching Morning Joe this morning and I heard Mr. Obama called a celebrity yet again. This after seeing McCain boarding a yaucht with Rick Davis (THE LOBBYIST), Anne Hathaway (THE CELEBRITY) and her ex boyfriend What's his face (Going to Prison) for 5 yrs. for his scams. I am not sure what the McCain camp thinks is an honerable campain is, but I'm too sure this is it...

The sad thing is, is that the average American doesn't pay enough attention to make informed decision about their own future and that of their young.

I am from Arizona and am from a fundamentally Republican family, I live in Texas, and work in the oilfield. My views are not so popular at this moment.

Republican Hypocrisy

Warren Jones — Mon, 15 Sep 2008 12:08:17 EDT

Here is a great clip featuring Carl Rove, Dick Morris and others showing the hypocrisy of the Republican Media Machine.

Thanks Wanza for forwarding this clip!

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

It's very unfortunate that the best, most accurate and hard hitting cable news is often on the Comedy Channel.

The "Lipstick on a Pig" Debacle is Masking a Larger Issue

Katie Loud — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 11:37:29 EDT

A political cartoon depicting Barack Obama as a mental asylum inmate appeared in my local newspaper yesterday. Restrained in a straitjacket, Glenn McCoy's Obama has clearly been writing the word "Sarah" with his foot all over the walls of his padded white room ... in lipstick. The clearly simian bend of McCoy's portrayal (the monkey-like face is overshadowed by the clenched ape foot clutching the tube of lipstick) is obviously a not-so-subtle jab at Obama's race. The cartoon is available at http://townhall.com/funnies/cartoonist/GlennMcCoy/2008/09/3

What I want to know is, where is the outcry? I mean, the chorus of dissent over Obama's use of a popular political phrase reached the rafters, but why are cheap shots about the fact that Obama is an African-American allowed to pass without comment? I'm a white female, and my increasing awareness of the double-standard allowing everything that might possibly be construed as anti-woman being blown out of proportion while blatant jabs at African-Americans are evidently fair game is starting to really make me angry.

If anyone hasn't heard about it, Senator Obama said, in reference to McCain's economic policy, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." For some reason, this was taken as somehow referring to Governor Palin and, faster than you can say hypocrisy, the word was out that Obama had made an anti-woman crack.

The phrase, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" is clearly another way of saying that, no matter what short-term appearance fixer you put on something ugly, it's still going to be ugly. In other words, you can't change what something is by playing with its outward appearance. A similar phrase involves the inability to make chicken salad out of chicken s***, but I digress.

The fact that John McCain said of Hillary Clinton's health care plan, "I think they put some lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig" in Iowa last October (that's less than a year ago) is for some reason not getting the same press. There was no feminist outcry last October, and there is very little mention of this in response to the public skewering Obama is currently taking. The ultimate irony, in my humble opinion, is that Hillary Clinton is a far greater champion of women than Sarah Palin will ever be.

A longtime part of used-car dealership jargon, the phrase was, according to Time magazine, first exposed to the public in 1985 when a news station said using its financial surplus to renovate Candlestick Park would be like "putting lipstick on a pig." Since then, the phrase has been used by (in no particular order) Elizabeth Edwards, Dick Cheney, Torie Clark (former Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs under Rumsfeld, former communications chief for the Pentagon for a portion of Bush's presidency, and former McCain press secretary), John Edwards, and House Minority Leader John Boehner as well as by John McCain and Barack Obama.

The overblown criticism Obama has taken for his use of a saying that has been used by a variety of people from differing walks of life is just adding to the surreality of this campaign. That direct cracks directed at Obama (a la McCoy's political cartoon) are somehow fair game only add to the bitterness that is starting to really bog me down and look at my country with a cynical eye.

Has anyone else noticed this, or am I just overly sensitive, cynical, or out-and-out wrong?

The Annotated Sarah Palin

♫Parodee♫ — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:41:19 EDT

Outrageous Hypocrisy: Celebrity Sarah's Experience

Katie Loud — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 18:49:37 EDT

Has anyone else noticed that, with the addition of Sarah Palin to their ticket, the McCain campaign has now effectively endorsed the very things he castigated Barack Obama for not so long ago?

Take experience, for example. John McCain stated at a California rally, “For a young man with very little experience, he's done very well. For his very, very great lack of experience and knowledge of the issues, he's been very successful.”

After graduating from Columbia University, Obama worked as a community organizer before attending Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a civil rights attorney and a law school lecturer on the subject of constitutional law before being elected to the Illinois State Senate in 1997. His keynote speech at the 2004 DNC catapulted Obama into the national spotlight, introducing him to the country as a unifier before becoming a United States Senator in 2005.

This little overview of Obama’s life shows someone willing to work hard to accomplish his dreams. His resume spans metaphoric miles—author, lawyer, business newsletter writer—in the way of most Americans. He has grown and changed over the years, willing to change positions when careful consideration convinces him that his way was not the best.

This is a stark contrast to Palin, whose “pro-life even in cases of rape or incest” stance is almost militant. Palin sees things as she sees them … and that’s that. No, being accused of “flip-flopping” will not be a serious problem for Palin. But maybe that’s the most frightening thing about her, beyond her lack of experience.

Sarah Palin’s experience begins with her third-place finish in the Miss Alaska pageant, a venture which more than likely prepared her for the cutthroat nature of politics if not knowledge that might prepare her for national office. Palin bounced around to four different colleges, eventually earning a degree in communications/journalism from the University of Idaho. She worked briefly as a sports reporter then for her husband’s fishing company before joining the city council then serving as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska from 1996 until 2002. Subsequent work included chairing the Alaska Oil and Gas Commission and co-directing a group championing Republican women in Alaska. Palin was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006.

Palin’s spotty employment record featuring virtually no substantive experience prior to her gubernatorial victory less than two years ago would mean little—she’s the veep candidate, after all, not running for president—if John McCain was a few years younger. And, of course, if the Republican party hadn’t based much of their criticism of Obama on his supposed lack of experience.

Then there’s the whole celebrity thing. According to Fox News, which of course has no reason to lie on this one, over 300,000 items featuring Ms. Palin have been put into circulation by internet t-shirt vendor Café Press as of yesterday. That’s just one company, too.

And it’s not just t-shirts. The Palin Parapharnalia has extended to bumper stickers, action figures, and—my personal favorite—thongs. Yes, I’m serious. The media is salivating over Palin, right-wingers and disgruntled Hillary Clinton supporters are writing blogs extolling her virtues, and her trademark glasses have led to a Kawasaki 704 frenzy (incidentally, this alleged “Mom-next-door” pays $700 a pair for those babies).

And I’m left wondering how the McCain campaign has gotten away with the blatant hypocrisy of praising to the sky Sarah Palin, who epitomizes the very things of which they criticized Barack Obama.

How to Test One's Own Patriotism

Ken in Squirrel Hill — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 15:21:29 EDT

I first wrote this in 2004. It still seems relevant today:

In the spirit of the election season, I would like to suggest a novel way to test one’s "patriotism":

First, agree that a good definition of patriotism is supporting policies one thinks are good for the country and opposing policies one thinks are bad, regardless of the political party responsible for the policies (i.e. putting patriotism ahead of politics).

Second, imagine that Al Gore, rather than George Bush, was elected in 2000 and all the policies and events that have happened since then have still happened.

Then, ask yourself if you would have the same attitudes about what has happened since Jan 20, 2001. For example, would you still favor or oppose the war in Iraq if Al Gore had been the one to initiate it? Would you still defend or attack the president’s record on terrorism, the economy, jobs, federal deficit, health care, etc. if this record was Al Gore’s rather than George Bush’s? (Would a movie critical of this record, like “Fahrenheit 9/11,” be a hit with Republicans rather than Democrats?)

If you (honestly) can say ‘yes’, that your opinion would not change, then you are putting patriotism ahead of politics. The vast majority would have to admit that the answer is ‘no’. If people say no, i.e. that their views on these policies would change based on the party of the person or people responsible for the policies, that would mean they are putting politics ahead of patriotism.

I would bet that right-wing talk radio and almost all politicians, among many others, would have to say no and admit that their views would change if Gore, rather than Bush, was responsible for these same policies.

This "test" might get people to think about what drives their opinions about government policies--their political affiliation, or true patriotism—and consider putting aside political biases for less partisan evaluations.

McCain and Palin can dish it out, but can't take it

Ken in Squirrel Hill — Thu, 11 Sep 2008 14:39:34 EDT

Palin and McCain can dish it out, but they can't take it. I guess Phil Gramm was talking about the McCain campaign when he said this was "a nation of whiners." Palin criticized Hillary Clinton for complaining about criticisms from Obama, and here the GOP campaign does the same, playing the gender card in a totally transparent ploy to try to gain advantage. Next, Palin will be saying she's a uniter, not a divider.

Even when the McCain campaign is called on their sleazy ads, they continue to lie. A McCain rep last night on the PBS Newshour continued to claim an ad on Obama's Education record was accurate and encouraged viewers to go online and find out about it. Well, a NY Times article examined it carefully and concluded it "seriously distorts the record." The ad talks about Education Week’s impressions of Obama without mentioning that they thought McCain was worse. As the article says, ‘Early this year, in an article titled “John McCain Where Art Thou?” it complained that he offered “a laundry list of fairly vague answers” on how to improve schools and did not make education a priority. “Education is not his thing.”’

As even many Republicans are now admitting, these McCain ads are all part of the distraction campaign by McCain to steer the discussion away from the issues, because he gets creamed if the campaign is about the issues.

So, Republican hypocrisy will be the norm from here on out, unless McCain is made to pay a price with dropping polls. Earlier this year, a woman at a McCain townhall meeting asked him, "What do we do about the bitch?", referring to Hillary Clinton. McCain smiled as everyone else laughed, and then addressed the question. Now his campaign is calling Obama "sexist". I've said this many times but I'll say it again, if hypocrisy was outlawed, Republicans would go mute. They would have nothing to say.

Welfare Queens in Caddies Move Over!

normal1 — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 18:19:59 EDT

So, there's going to be another government bailout, mostly due to the de-regulation free-for-all pushed forth by Republicans? Does anyone remember the constant preaching about responsible behavior, not relying on government for a hand-out, and the importance of a deterrance factor? And, of course, who could forget the infamous statement by Saint Reagan about welfare queens driving cadillacs. Well, now I guess it should be corrupt capitalists driving Hummers on the taxpayer dime once all is said and done. It's no wonder that Ron Paul got such strong support; I know a lot of Republicans who are disgusted with the current leadership and are jumping ship. What galls me even more is that Democrats aren't taking the opportunity to expose the hypocrisy of the Republican Machine. They proclaim themselves the overlords of family values, but they practice "do as I say, not as I do." They proclaim themselves capitalists and denounce our government, but when things aren't going their way, they expect that same kicked upon government to bail them out. Note: real capitalists don't need subsidies, tax laws rewritten in their favor, or taxpayer bailouts. They proclaim themselves as tough talkin' patriots willing to wear a flag pin in public or change the name of a popular American food in fierce retaliation against a wimpy ally. Anyone who questions their behavior is instantly branded a commie, hippie, or terrorist sympathizer, depending on what decade it is. I want to hear someone (Barack, are you out there?) ask their fellow Americans: How can our leaders offer up taxpayer money to bail out corrupt and or incompetent bankers while refusing to use that same taxpayer money to provide universal healthcare?

Here's a hint on how they can do it: it has to do with values.

Palin, Clinton, etc

Jim Dietz — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 11:51:57 EDT

Remember please, I am Republican. I also like much of what McCain has done in his years in the Senate.

But...this is nuts to have Palin as a VP. And worse is the way that Orwell is running the comments about her. I mean, having a h.s. daughter having a baby out of wedlock is suddenly a positive for family values. BWAH???? --that's not a comment on the daughter or the situation, but for a national party, how the heck do you spin this as a positive?

And beyond that--now the Republican party won't allow her to be interviewed until the media shows her deference. BWAH??? Where were the Republicans when the media grilled Hillary Clinton? What do the Republicans think about hostile questions towards nancy Pelosi or other Democratic women?

--I don't like Pelosi. I don't like Clinton. But I absolutely hate hypocrisy like that shown by current Republican campaign managers...it's pathetic.

My reactions to the Republican Convention Hypocrisy

Pivarunas — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 10:23:54 EDT

McCain and Palin use well-planned Machiavellian deception to attempt to attain and maintain power just as dictators would. Consequently, they are a danger to democracy. By analyzing their actions and policy, we can see that they do not respect the very moral codes they profess to hold, but instead use these values to advance their own careers. Their policies are riddled with hypocrisy. This deception may have been necessary for elitist princes in the religiously controlled, agricultural societies of the 15th century, where only the elite had access to education and information, but it is not appropriate today. McCain and Palin are minimally educated Americans seeking power in a very complex, highly educated and developed, global and secular world. They cannot be princes or dictators. This world requires a modern and truly democratic vision of leadership.

McCain and Palin publically claim a profound and devout respect of life in order to advance the anti-abortion cause. Palin has even gone as far as to parade her pregnant daughter in public and submit her five-month-old Down syndrome baby for hours to the loud screams of a political convention in order to appear “pro-life.” However, these candidates scoff at diplomacy and reduce international policy to the capacity to wage and win war. McCain parades American flags, the plight of young soldiers, and a 40 year-old experience of torture in front of the public, implying that this display somehow better qualifies him to lead a world power than the moderate thinking and the diplomacy skills of his well-educated and equally experienced opponents for office. While McCain and Palin claim to honor the lives of young Americans, they proclaim that their primary goal in international policy is not to lose a war. Therefore, they do not care how many Americans (and people of other countries) die in order to achieve their personal goal: power. It is also inconsistent with a profound respect for life to support capital punishment and the uncontrolled gun policies of the National Rifle Association that result in uncountable numbers of deaths in the United States every year. What is more, it is an attack on life to support ecologically damaging activities in Alaska such as snow mobile races, wolf hunting from helicopters, taking the polar bear off of the endangered species list. In addition, their plan to drill for oil in Alaska will further destroy the Alaskan ecosystem in order to advance the financial interests of oil companies who want to squeeze every last billion dollars of profit from a resource they control before new technology is developed to replace it. These positions betray the real values of McCain and Palin, which are no different from those of Bush and Cheney: power and money. However, not all people have been deceived.

McCain and Palin claim to uphold many other values in order to seduce supporters while their actions show that they are only using these values to deceive and manipulate. How can they value family and children while refusing to guarantee a livable wage and equitable benefits for all working families? How can they value education while ridiculing the law education of their opponents? How can they value non-partisan politics and working people while ridiculing citizen action and community organization? How can they value a government independent from lobbyists while hiring lobbyists to acquire millions of dollars in federal funds for use in a town of 8,000? How can they value small government while advocating government controls on abortion, book banning, and censorship, restrictions on science and sex education? In reality, McCain and Palin advocate the freedom to advance their personal agenda and the power to crush opposition. They will use any means necessary to reach their selfish ends: power and money.

If the United States will survive as a democracy, we need change from these deceptive and out-dated strategies. As with the previous administration, McCain and Palin are using deception to try to gain control of this country and dupe its citizens into accepting the status quo, which furthers their personal agendas. These are not the strategies of a democracy; they are the well-known trickery of dictatorship. In order to protect democracy, it is urgent to expose the fallacy in their propaganda which maintains that an unbridled free market is good for the middle class, for the working class, and for the country. Democracy does not require a free market. Furthermore, it is not un-American to control the market in order to tax profits so that the country’s programs, institutions, and infrastructure can be maintained and improved. In addition, it is critical to expose the lie which equates to communism a government which provides a living wage, health benefits, sick pay, holiday pay, vacation pay to all working Americans. It is not un-American or undemocratic to reduce the gap between the rich and the poor and to revitalize the middle-class through government mandate and taxation. Calling any criticism of the free-market economy and any proposal to control it communism and un-American is an unacceptable and dangerous. This scare tactic, which dates back to McCarthyism, destroys democracy and freedom. There is no place for this in American politics today. The enough people understand this to institute fundamental change in the way this country functions by voting for qualified, reflective leaders: Obama and Biden.

It is unacceptable that McCain and Palin want to keep the United States from going beyond such limited thinking. It is also unacceptable that they and their supporters ridicule the social solutions of European countries. Europe has proven that democratic nations can maintain a high standard of living and compete well in the global market while maintaining supportive social programs through fair taxation. In fact, Europeans have shown us that heavy taxation is accepted when citizens receive security (unlimited medical coverage, vacation pay, sick pay, family leave, retirement pension ...) European taxes also provide an excellent and well-maintained infrastructure that puts the American infrastructure to shame. Obama shows his capacity for intelligent leadership when he goes to see Europe in order to consider their solutions to social issues. McCain and Palin further show their incapacity to put citizens before their personal agendas and to work with other nations by ridiculing him.

We must end the fear of instituting government programs which provide safety, security, and equity for all responsible citizens. We must stop criticizing our neighbors and become open to working with them, sharing, and learning from them. I lived more than twenty years in France, half of which were under a socialist president. The lifestyle and security I enjoyed in France were far superior to those most people in America experience today. If McCain and Palin really “put this country first” they would be honest about their values and the needs of the American people and the world. They would expand their knowledge of domestic policy in other countries and of the values of other cultures before they claim to be ready to deal with the rest of the world.

Using dishonest and immoral Machiavellian strategies makes McCain and Palin no better than dictators from the Middle Ages. Through their ignorance, leaders like McCain and Palin will only further isolate and ridicule the United States in the eyes of the modern world. They will also endanger our civil rights and international security. We need the good judgment of diplomatic, moderate, tolerant, educated, culturally and internationally experienced leaders who value democracy. We do not need the old and unenlightened ways of McCain and Palin. The leaders who can best respond to the dire needs of the United States and of the world in the current economic and international conditions are not McCain and Palin. The vision of McCain and Palin favors only a few and favors the maintenance of a dangerous status quo. The leaders who will respond to these needs and conditions are Obama and Biden. Obama, Biden and their supporters have a vision compatible with a healthy future for all. Obama and Biden are gaining the support of the majority of the American people who look forward to exciting changes because they believe in them and they believe in working toward them.

Norwegian landslide for Obama

American in Norway — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 03:16:13 EDT

There was a poll in online version of Norway's largest daily newspaper, Aftenposten, on Wednesday. 3 September - Who would you vote for in USA if election were held today? Over 80% chose Obama.

The Daily Show clip showing Rove and O'Reilly's hypocrisy is making the rounds here via internet. Norway's national broadcasting network, NRK, airs the Daily Show on weeknights, one week after premiere in USA, so it'll appear on TV here this coming week.

My wife and I laughed until we cried. The segment is not only good comedy, but excellent journalism. My Republican sister in Oregon even sent us a link to the segment.

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

Must See...Funny But True

Mr. Mr. — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 19:27:52 EDT

Please watch and share

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=sarah-palin-gender-card

Republicans for Change

Brad Jarvis — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:41:07 EDT

If John McCain and his supporters were really committed to change, they would take a number of steps to prove it right away. Beginning with McCain, they would first fire every lobbyist that works for them. Second, they would pledge to support aggressive ethics reforms wherever they have power to do so, and agree to resign from whatever elected office they hold if they don’t. Third, they would publicly and contritely admit to the corruption they are responsible for in government. Fourth, and with any luck not finally, members of Congress would agree to take aggressive action to hold the executive branch equally accountable; this would include supporting active investigation of impeachment charges.

Since the GOP is responsible for most of the problems that Americans want a change from, its members have the burden of proof that they really intend to correct those problems. Rather than wait for their choice for president to take office, they should begin immediately to make the changes they are arguing for; to do otherwise is to add evidence to the suspicion that they are simply making a political ploy to keep power and maintain the status quo, a suspicion amplified by their acting far too happy.

Exposing the Hypocrisy - Courtesy of John Stewart

Reggie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:29:20 EDT

Pretty Funny Stuff

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=184086

John McCain, putting John McCain first

Reggie — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 18:14:37 EDT

I must say, the tools on this site are pretty good. Here is an except of a message I sent to the media. Read below:

How can you allow John McCain to go unchallenged on putting the Country first?

1. Is he putting the Country first by not changing the failed economic / tax policies of the Bush Administration?

2. Is he putting the Country first by running Ads about Barack being a Celebrity? Especially, when he has been in more movies, SNL shows (singing on SNL I might ad than Obama), or appeared on more late night shows than Obama.

3. Is he putting the Country first by catering to the base of his party?

4. Is he putting the Country first by hiring the political staff that defeated him in 2000?

5. Is he putting the Country first by making an audacious move to put Sarah Palin on the ticket, when everyone knows it is political?

Clearly, John McCain is about putting himself first.

Who'se not ready now?

the_right_is_wrong — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:09:13 EDT

As Sarah Palin tries to walk into the light that Hillary Clinton worked so hard to build, the Republicans have worked even harder to sell the idea that Palin has more executive experience than both Barack Obama, and Joe Biden.

The funny thing is that by this argument, she also has more executive experience than John McCain! Let us not forget that Obama's constituency alone is bigger than the population of her entire state. What's even more unfortunate is that she is not running for President. She is running for Vice President - a job that she had to have spelled out for her before she would even accept the nomination. But it's okay - she would only president of a legislative body that she's never had any experience in. Can Joe Biden slam dunk? If so, can we get a video clip of that?

John McCain and the Republicans will say anything to win this election. And what they don't understand is that they cannot buy what Hillary earned! Hillary wasn't selected at the last second by a man weary of his political weaknesses. She fought valiantly to the bitter end as a fierce contender for the Democratic Nomination. Like dogs, John McCain thinks he can wave a bone in the face of women and that they'll sit, upright and obedient, and do the will of their master.

I can't imagine a bigger insult than this, and that is at the root of the liberal frenzy over his pick. We'll see what it adds up to in November, and hopefully things will be fully spelled out for him over this shameful last minute Hail Mary. No pun intended...

What the Palin pick tells us about McCain: he lacks integrity

Christian Grostic — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 19:28:45 EDT

I'm not going to jump conclusions about Sarah Palin. It bothers me that so many people have already made up their minds about every qualification of someone 99% of them hadn't heard of three days ago, based on nothing more than which party she's affiliated with.

What bothers me very much, though, is that it tells us John McCain's primary attacks on Senator Obama's - his “readiness to lead” - are based on no principle at all, save that he thought it would help him win. It's the worst part of politics, if you ask me, and I hate that it's so blatant here and that we're apparently willing to put up with it.

A good article on the subject: http://www.slate.com/id/2199029/

Hypocrisy

Phillip Schloss — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:17:02 EDT

Much, but not enough, has been written lately concerning John McCain's hypocrisy in calling Obama an "elitest" who is out of step with ordinary Americans , , , Of all the rant-provoking claims, this page out of the Bush campaign (or the Karl Rove playbook) has been most effective. When I read it, I tend to turn into a gibbering fool, frothing at the mouth with the injustice of it all, of struggling to understand . . . How the Republicans managed in both Bush elections to convince the so-called everyday or average american that the Republican party was on their side and had their best interests at heart.

By constantly shouting a din of "No New Taxes!" "Government Bad!" "No Free Handouts" the Party of the Wealthy convinces the working man that they are on their side and that they have middle america's best interests at heart as they allow lobbyists to line their pockets and make the rich get riche and the middle class to stagnate. Nothing succeeds like hypocrisy. But is it in our best interests to respond to this hypocrisy with heated emotion, or better to respond to hypocrisy by taking a different approach? I have been left of center for my entire life, and thanks to this campaign, I have been engaged in the politics of change in a way that I never thought that I would see again in my life. Instead of leaving the conversation empty and angry, I want to stay with the conversation until we do something new.

Our mantra is often that things are not as they seem, that the true motives of the insiders in the GOP are to keep power at any cost to keep the gravy train rolling, with the idea being that they'll all have so much money and be so insulated that it won't matter when things fall apart, when social security fails, and when medicaid can no longer pay its bills. We sometimes turn politics into a struggle of the "haves" vs. the "have nots." The problem is that if a man is saving a dollar or five hundred dollars on his income tax it becomes a great deal more money because it's a tax savings, and a dollar saved in taxes is seen through a magnifying glass.

New Attack - Calling Obama's Tax Plan... Welfare??

Brian Sharma — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 03:15:54 EDT

New Attack - Calling Obama's Tax Plan... Welfare??

As you probably already know, the Republicans are always claiming Democrats want to "raise your taxes". Well, the TRUTH is, Obama's tax plan will actually LOWER taxes (more than McCains's plan) for 90% of Americans! That's right, 90% of Americans would pay LESS TAXES under Obama's plan than under McCain's plan.

SO now the Republicans have come up with another way to attack Obama's tax plan... calling it "welfare". So tax cuts for rich people are OK, but tax cuts for average Americans is "welfare"...?? Oh, the hypocrisy...

Obama's New Tax Plan Goes Under Attack (Video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV5QBpo407g

Do As I Say, Not As I Do

J.W. — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 16:01:19 EDT

Sunday, August 17, 2008 Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.

This is not 1968. And the invasion of Czechoslovakia, where Russia can threaten a neighbor, occupy a capital, and overthrow a government, and get away with it. Things have changed.

Above are two quotes. One from our President of the United States of America, Mr. George W. Bush. The other from our Secretary of State, Ms. Condoleeza Rice.

These are pretty strong statements, wouldn’t you say? Sounds like two people who are absolutely shocked and appalled by the actions of a country who decided that they could just invade a country and as Ms. Rice says, “get away with it.” Sounds like two people, standing up for justice, standing up for what’s right, standing up for what they believe in, doesn’t it?

The only problem is that these two statements are among the most hypocritical statements made by any two American political leaders in the history of our country (right along with Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” John Edwards’ "I've been in love with the same woman for 30+ years," and Larry Craig’s vote for a constitutional ban on gay marriage).

This is exactly what’s wrong with our foreign policy. And though we often don’t want to admit it, this is exactly why some people hate us. Because we say one thing and do another. Because we lecture other countries about their offenses, but fail to regulate ourselves. Because we fail to be the America that we claim to be. The world is tired of our hypocrisy, self-righteousness, and our indignation.

And that’s exactly why we need change in the White House. I certainly wish we had the moral right to tell Russia that they are wrong for invading Georgia and escalating what probably would have been a relatively minor crisis. But we don’t. Not only did we bully and intimidate, as President Bush put it, not only did we threaten, occupy, and overthrow, as Secretary Rice put it, but we did so preemptively, without being attacked first. At least Russia can try to claim that much.

America, it’s time for us to return to our ideals, to get back to being the America that we know we can be. And the first step is to elect a President that will restore our standing in the world, and act according to the principles of our founding fathers. We don’t have time for four more years of the same self-righteous, indignant attitude. We need a President with wisdom, intellect, judgment, and discernment to lead us through this treacherous 21st century. We need a President in the vein of JFK or (I can’t believe I’m saying this) Ronald Reagan who understands that wars aren’t always won on the battlefield through guns, missiles and tanks, but at the negotiation table through rational, logical, practical thought.

Peace,
J.W.

P.S. Check out this clip of the Daily Show with Jon Stewart talking about the Bush Administration's hypocrisy on this issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W2eqpDh2Ec

McCain Full of **It

Bill F — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 10:48:10 EDT

It seems John McCain's ever increasing list of criticisms about Obama just keeps reflecting back at him. Even the media is finally coming around to see the hypocrisy of most of McCain's attacks. Here's just a small sample...

McCain supported the Iraq War and is planning on staying there as long as necessary to "get the job done" -- even if the Iraqi government we created wants us out. Now he says, in support of Georgia, that in the 21st century no country can invade a soveriegn nation. Can't have it both ways Johnny. It probably doesn't help that his foreign policy advisor is on Georgia's payroll. Not only will a McCain presidency lead to economic depression and another war in Iran, but now we can add a nuclear standoff with Russia. It seems more and more that McCain is planning on ushering in the end of the world.
McCain claims Obama's "victory lap" around the world -- the one McCain taunted him into -- was presumptive and acting like the president already. Now we have McCain talking about Georiga and Russia as if he is already the Commander in Chief. He's even taken it upon himself to "disbatch" senators to the region. Talk about cocky! He just can't wait to fight!
This may not be McCain's fault, but many -- especially Republicans -- are saying John Edwards, knowing he cheated on his wife, should not have run for president. Well, let's not forget that Mr. McCain was courting Cindy McCain before he was divorced from his first wife. In fact, he began seeing Cindy while wife number one was severely injured from a car accident and laid up in a hospital bed. Of course he obviously doesn't think much of wives in general, as it is widely reported that McCain blew up publically (see McCain's temper) at her in front of reporters and said, and I quote, "At least I don't cake on the makeup like a trollup, cunt!" And now, Mr. Temper's wife has a ouchie hand after "shaking hands with a supporter". Sure. And I'm Barney Rubble. Could this have been a Tom Buchanon moment! (See The Great Gatsby) And talk about hypocritical -- McCain wears quite a bit of makeup to cover all his surgeries to remove cancer from his face. Hey, isn't that the same desease Liz Edwards has? Coincidence -- I think not! (I know, I know, I'm getting looney)
McCain claims all Obama will do is raise taxes and cut jobs. Well, if you're one of those amongst the most wealthy and greedy -- those who cause all the economic problems -- he will. If you're a normal to well-off person -- ya know, the ones we need to buy stuff to get the economy going but can't because WE HAVE NO MONEY -- those making under 200,000 a year, you're getting a MUCH better tax deal than with McCain's "plan". When the question comes up in debate, McCain is going to look foolish. "Uh, uh, if you raise taxes to the rich, they will cut employees to make up the difference, and uh, uh, jobs will be lost, unemployemnt, uh, uh, Regan, uh, huh, voodoo economics....uh...." SHUT UP JOHN. Say what you mean -- the rich folks are so damn greedy that if they have to personally pay a little more tax, they will make sure they make a gazillion dollars by screwing their employees and hurting the middle class! The same reason why cutting the tax on gas wouldn't help the consumer, because the GAS MEN would just see it as an opportunity to put more in their pockets and less into the governement AND RAISE PRICES. The rich, wealthy, and well-connected have one agenda, stick it to the regular guy as much as they can get away with so they can make the biggest profit possible without paying their share into our society through taxes. That is what McCain supports. Hard-working, white, working class voters -- PAY ATTENTION!!!! McCain would just assume you were homeless on the street selling crack as long as you don't touch any of Cindy's treasure! Hypocrite!
Last for today -- though there are many more examples (I just might give my self a stroke thinking about them) -- Mr. Drill-here-and-drill-now seems to think increasing the supply of oil by a bucket or two is going to help lower prices (see the previous point to see what will happen if that does happen). IDIOTS. We keep saying the same thing, most often in the summer. It's their way of robbing us blind. The oil companies jack up the prices immeasurably getting everyone in a tizzy, then roll them back a bit just as quickly, usually at the end of the summer (see current prices dropping). When it's over, we're thrilled we have these new low prices and completely forget just how low they were before the summer. Ex. we start the summer at say 2.99 a gallon (still way too high). Then, prices soar for this BS reason or that to 4.29. We all go nuts and say we're going to have to fix the system. Then, as summer ends, the prices "drop" to 3.85 and we're all happy and relieved -- AND TOTALLY FORGET JUST TWO MONTHS AGO IT WAS 2.99. I'm just saying. McCain and his oil buddies are hosing us at the pump! Don't forget that as soon as he became Johnny Hold me, thrill me, kiss me, DRILL ME McCain, he automatically got a 2 million dollar dump from oil companies. We see his base, and it's remarkably similary to Bush.

So, to recap, if McCain is elected, I predict...

The Second Great Depression, followed by...
WWIII with Western Countries taking on Iraq, Iran, Afganistan, Palestinians, and other Muslims we piss off, followed by...
A nuclear show down with Russia, as McCain, still trapped in the Cold War in his aging, alzhiemer's mind, tries to protect Georgia and all other countries who lobby him, followed by...
THE END OF THE WORLD by nuclear bombing from all parts of the globe to all other parts. There'll be so much war with McCain we won't even know who we're shooting at. Let's just help China's on our side... oh, wait, it doesn't matter -- THE PLANET WILL BE OBLITERATRED!!!

There's the new slogan -- "A vote for McCain is a vote for THE END OF THE WORLD". I see the commericial now, will the REM song in the background (with persmission of course -- RIGHT JOHNNY!). And McCain calls Obama "The One" AKA Antichrist. More hypocrisy!

****Today's blog was "catharsis" for me. If you were offended, sorry. Unless you were a Republican or rich, wealthy, or well-connected -- then -- TOO DAMN BAD!!!

******UPDATE********

I just read some interesting history I was unaware of. Go to Google or Wikipedia and plug in "Keating Five Scandal" and learn something new about our buddy Johnny McCain. Why this has not come up in the media, I have no idea.

Great video re: tire pressure

Samm319 — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 16:46:10 EDT

Great video courtesy of the Jed Report: http://www.jedreport.com/2008/08/mccains-austeri.html#disqus_thread

McCain apologists are a forgetful bunch. I have to wonder how this stuff goes largely unnoticed except by Jed.

And, why isn't Jed on the Oppo research staff for Team Barack? This stuff is pure gold. How do we get this stuff in front of the undecided?

Don't be Afraid/New Energy Policy & Campaign Strategy

WinBigBlogger — Tue, 05 Aug 2008 00:58:49 EDT

I thought it was a wonderful speech and showed real vision as well as an understanding of how the realities of the environment, energy, and economy all inter-relate.

Of course, Senator McCain immediately tried to characterize the plan as telling everyone to "inflate their tires" - taking a quote out of context.

A lot of the tactics being used by team McCain are very much out of a grade school bully's bag. They don't really have anything to say, so they fall back on name calling and CHILDISH arguments, hoping that no one is listening that hard.

My big concern is that we are not hitting them back hard enough and with full force. e.g., just coming out and calling them childish (though the new ad today is great).

Is Ferragamo More Expensive than Arugula?

Bill Marjenhoff — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 09:01:45 EDT

A recent McCain campaign memo said that only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew -- Black Forest Berry Honest Tea and worry about the price of arugula. Now we learn that John McCain has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA. The Calfskin loafers, with silver-tone "Gancini" buckles, are imported from Italy. Um, is Ferragamo more expensive than arugula? Just asking. More here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/isabel-wilkinson/a-week-in-john-mccains-sh_b_115692.html

I Am Socialist Scum

Jeff from Longwood, FL — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:20:44 EDT

I ask that all of you out there who are deadset against Barack Obama and his "socialist" plans for America kindly refrain from the following:

Phil Gramm was an investor in a 1970s porn flick called "Truck Stop Women"

William — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 10:40:37 EDT

Phil Gramm was an investor in a 1970s porn flick called "Truck Stop Women" starring Claudia Jennings. Perhaps this is how he plans to enlarge the party base?

John McLaughlin = Out of Touch

Fred - Team Liaison - Smyrna-Vinings — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 20:08:59 EDT

And that's putting it nicely! McLaughlin's comment on Sunday was way, way out of line. Luckily there were a couple panelists on the show to set him straight.

And, while I almost get tired of asking this: where is the "mainstream media" on reporting this?

Nevermind...I know the answer. :(

McCain Gets Another Free Pass from the Media

Fred - Team Liaison - Smyrna-Vinings — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 17:33:56 EDT

I never thought that John McCain could turn any aspect of his POW experience into a negative, but it appears he has done just that...

Peace and Love...

Enrico Tarantini — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:58:52 EDT

"These points need repeating time and time again until someone actually understands that it is our current administration's hypocrisy, bellicosity and downright dishonesty that is feeding the flames of this situation - and not Iran - despite Ahmadinejad being a sandwich short of a picnic."

Don't Pick Up the Phone--It's Just the Pot Calling...

signsSansSignifieds — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 08:41:48 EDT

The McCain campaign has been making a lot of noise lately, claiming that Barack Obama has been changing his positions, can't be trusted to keep his word, etc.

As Steve Benen demonstrates, that's a very interesting line, coming from McCain. Benen's post is a resource we should use to maximum advantage.

Barack and Michelle Get Friendly Media Treatment?

Fred - Team Liaison - Smyrna-Vinings — Mon, 07 Jul 2008 09:50:46 EDT

If it were true that Barack and Michelle get such friendly treatment from the media -- and evidently that claim has to be made relative to John and Cindy McCain -- then why is it that we're hearing so much about Michelle Obama's past and yet this -- http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/1994-09-08/news/opiate-for-the-mrs/ -- isn't getting much play at all.

Is it really the Obamas who "get a pass" from the media?

Why is it that Michelle Obama's Master's Thesis from decades ago is so interesting but Cindy McCain's drug abuse/addiction/theft and cover-up from 14 years ago isn't interesting?

It's even weirder still that the only time I think it ever did come up was when other Republicans were attacking John McCain.

Weird, huh?

McCain's arrogant hypocrisy

Ty — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:53:56 EDT

"Look, I respect and admire Senator Obama, and if I have ever treated him in a disrespectful way I don't know of it," John McCain said a couple of days ago in Ohio. "Americans want a respectful debate. They don't want us to finger-point and question each other's character and integrity."

But on Saturday McCain told a group of donors, "You know, this election is about trust and trusting people's word. And unfortunately, apparently on several items Senator Obama's word cannot be trusted."

Really!?!?! One's word is paramount to one's character. Apparently John McCain does not care what the American people want. Sounds like typical Rovian character assasination to me. McCain should accept both candidates are politicians, give up trying to say anything to win, and debate the issues.

McCain's Iowa Photo-Op

Bill Marjenhoff — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:26:56 EDT

Sen. John McCain opposed legislation last year that included money for flood control in Des Moines. McCain railed against the bill, claiming it was filled with pork. The bill passed despite McCain’s and Bush’s opposition. Every member of the Iowa congressional delegation voted to override Bush's veto, the first override of his presidency. "This legislation is fundamentally flawed, authorizing nearly 1,000 new projects without any method for prioritizing the needs of our national water infrastructure," McCain told the Senate. He added that the bill was "full of pork projects and unchecked government spending." As he did with the folks in New Orleans, McCain voted against any federal spending on improving the infrastructure there. Then, once disaster struck, he decided to visit Iowa against the request of the state because it could be a distraction and divert critical resources. Hypocrisy, McCain is thy name.

Obama Should Have Accepted Public Financing

Rufus J Squirrel — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 13:45:28 EDT

Unless I'm missing something here, the Senator has completely reversed himself on this issue for no other reason than personal gain. He obviously stands to raise exponentially more than McCain and when it (for some reason - why now?) came time to make a decision on public financing, to which he had previously committed, he cynically came to the conclusion that he would compromise his principles. I am somewhat dismayed by this development. It is as disappointing as it is hypocritical.

Who's Cheaping Who?

Bob for 'Bama — Thu, 22 May 2008 19:18:06 EDT

What has recently hit the press via CNN:

(CNN) -- John McCain on Thursday called Barack Obama's attitude toward veterans benefits "a convenient campaign pledge" and wrote off the Illinois senator's criticisms of him as "cheap shots."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/campaign.wrap/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

The Obama Quick Response should be: "If we're going to inject the word 'cheap' into this campaign, let's talk about Senataor McCain's refusal to adequately support our troops once they return from Iraq! Senator McCain's opposition to the new GI bill brings new meaning to the word 'cheap'!

McCain's Somersaults on Issues

Citizen — Sat, 17 May 2008 04:42:36 EDT

Admitted, this list is not comprehensive. However, it presents a good impression of the quicksand one must traverse to examine McCan'ts position on more than a dozen issues. Some of you might call them "flip-flops". In light of the acrobatic contortions McCan't has used to explain them, I prefer to label them as his somersaults.

1. Previously opposed a constitutional amendment on abortion. Now supports and "wants" a constitutional amendment.

2. Sponsored campaign finance reform. Then opposed his own bill.

3. Previously stated that Roe v Wade should never be overturned. Now says the Supreme Court should over the ruling.

4. After Jerry Falwell's 9/11 diatribe, McCan't called him "An Agent of Intolerance". Subsequently, he embraced Falwell.

5. Previously was Anti-ethanol. Currently is Pro-ethanol.

6. Previously was pro-confederate flag. Then switched to anti-confederate flag when running for President.

7. Previously opposed Bush Administration's use and definition of torture. Subsequently switched his position.

8. Critized Bush for campaigning at Bob Jones University. Subsequently McCan't campaigned at Bob Jones University.

9. Opposed the Bush tax cuts. Currently states Bush tax cuts should be made permanent.

10. Critized others for suggesting the need for a time table for withdrawal from Iraq. Then states he will bring them home by 2013.

11. "I've never supported amnesty." Opps, in his support of the LIFA, he stated the Act "makes meaningful ... progress on amnesty for those wrongly denied it."

12. When Colin Powell had discussions with Hamas, McCan't supported the discussions and stated they are necessary in the modern age. Now, critizes Jimmy Carter for meeting with Hamas.

13. On numerous occasions videotaped making statements that he doesn't understand Economics. Now states that he never made those taped statements.

14. Denies that any representative of Paxson or Alcalde & Fay personally asked him to send a letter to the FCC. However, in his sworn deposition of 9/25/2002, he testified under oath, "I was contacted by Mr. [Lowell] Paxson on this issue," Hey, he also apparently forgot about flying around in their corporate jet and taking a Twenty thousand dollar donation from them.

15. States that he voted for President Bush. Tells people that the did not vote for President Bush. Denies that he told people that he didn't vote for Bush.

Opps, the last three are more along the lines of what Hume of Faux News labeled as McCan'ts "Senior Moments". Technically, I still think they count as somersaults or flip-flops or hypocrisy.

Political Irony

Wm — Sat, 10 May 2008 19:39:01 EDT

I've just started a blog, called Political Irony, as a place for the more twisted side of Politics.

http://politicalirony.com/

I've wanted a place for both humorous and just plain hypocritical stories taken from current political events. If you see something I should post, please send it to me (iron@politicalirony.com).

Clinton Reaches out to Klan Members in West Virginia

Jack Nolan — Thu, 08 May 2008 19:43:40 EDT

Apparently the Carolinas bring out the worst in the Clintons. They've gone from flagrant race-baiting after South Carolina's loss to outright racism after their loss in North Carolina.
How far will the media let it go? Tomorrow will the AP headline "Clinton Courts Klan members in West Virginia"?
And isn't that what she's doing? From her comments yesterday, it's pretty clear that she's pinning her hopes on stirring white racial pride, pitting uneducated whites against blacks?
Only I think the media's terminology for "white racial pride" is racism. And from what I understand, stirring racism can be highly volatile.
It just absolutely amazes me that the media's PC movement has completely evaporated in the face of "special interest" infighting -
Where is the outrage? If McCain had made the same remarks Clinton spouted yesterday, how viciously would he be vilified?
I guess that's why most people have more faith in used car salesmen than they do in politicians or the lazy journalists who mindlessly deliver their "spin".
But nonetheless, the unrepentant pass the media have given the Clintons in making these remarks - and their complicity in helping spread these "messages" really needs to be called into question.

Or are we just going to blame the end result on the ignorance of the general public, rather than calling out the folks who kept telling them the theater was on fire?
Maybe the ensuing inner-city race riots, which may well spread throughout the South, present a situation where the ends justifies the means. I'm certain newspapers will be flying off the news stands - either that or burning down with them. It's all good for the elitist journalists and politicians in their protected, gated communities - "Oh dear, how did this happen? How tragic!"
Does that sound preposterous? Any more ludicrous than a DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE PROMOTING RACIAL DIVIDE as her only path to the party's nomination?
Who would have thunk? It just goes to prove - reality trumps fiction every time. To support/comment on this article, please visit: http://halfofftibet.blogspot.com/ I stopped blogging here because preaching to the choir is pretty much a waste of time :)

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR (MCCCAIN FRIEND ADVOCATED SHOOTING FEDERAL AGENTS)

Martin Edwin "Mick" from Churchton, MD — Mon, 05 May 2008 13:50:13 EDT

THE HUFFINGTON POST REPORTS ...

G. Gordon Liddy: John McCain Finds His Own Radical

... the Chicago Tribune is pointing out McCain's own radical associations with G. Gordon Liddy:

How close are McCain and Liddy? At least as close as Obama and Ayers appear to be. In 1998, Liddy's home was the site of a McCain fundraiser. Over the years, he has made at least four contributions totaling $5,000 to the senator's campaigns--including $1,000 this year.

Last November, McCain went on his radio show. Liddy greeted him as "an old friend," and McCain sounded like one. "I'm proud of you, I'm proud of your family," he gushed. "It's always a pleasure for me to come on your program, Gordon, and congratulations on your continued success and adherence to the principles and philosophies that keep our nation great."

For those who are unaware, Liddy helped plan the Watergate break-in that would cost Nixon his presidency and landed Liddy a four-year jail sentence.

But Liddy's career of inflammatory statements and actions exceed his Watergate actions.

Liddy, on Vitenam:

"I wanted to bomb the Red River dykes [sic]. It would have drowned half the country and starved the other half. There would have been no way the Viet Cong could have operated if we had the will-power to do that."

Liddy, advising Branch Davidians how to defend themselves from ATF agents during a radio show:

"If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head."

Liddy, on the impact Adolf Hitler had on him as a child:

When he listened to Hitler on the radio, it "made me feel a strength inside I had never known before," he explains. "Hitler's sheer animal confidence and power of will [entranced me]. He sent an electric current through my body."

President Clinton and Rev. Wright....sure look friendly

LuAnn in Indiana — Sat, 03 May 2008 19:21:39 EDT

Thought you all might enjoy this1 Can you believ it?

Why don't we share it with as many Hoosiers and No. Carolinians we can before our primaries?

http://www.ireport.com/docs/DOC-16982

Thanks, LuAnn

Rendell and Farrakhan

Steven — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 10:01:27 EDT

OK, so let us get a bit of the rank hypocrisy of Clinton's attacks on Obama on the table shall we? In the last (hopefully) Democratic debate, Clinton went hard at Obama for his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright's, praise of Louis Farrakhan, trying to create a suspicion of guilt by association. This game is despicable, but can be effective if you don't care about the truth of your assertions or their relative importance (win at any cost)--AND if you do not have similar problems. But for Clinton, there do seem to be similar problems. It turns out, as reported by the Huffington Post, that her star backer in Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, spoke with FULSOME praise of Farrakhan back in 1997. Here is the story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html

So does this mean that Clinton should renounce Ed Rendell?

The answer should be that it would be asinine of her to do so, given that Ed Rendell is such a good and popular politician, but, in this instance, clearly not perfect or completely averse to playing the political game (in this case in Philadelphia).

However:that I can even pose this question shows the stupidity of Clinton's whole campaign to this point.

If you read this and have any chance to influence Pennsylvanians to vote for Obama today, you might want to point out that the initial scaremongering about Farrakhan by Clinton is just that, demagogic scaremongering, and nothing that she herself believes. It is just "politics" but of the worst, most hypocritical type, as is so much of her campaign so far. That is the sort of politics Obama is against, and the fact that he stands the best chance in a generation to change the fetid political culture of this country is one of the main reasons I am such a strong supporter.

Go Obama!

Hypocrisy, McCarthyism and Fear Mongering in the keystone state.

Michael Tenery — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 17:09:32 EDT

In the last and final debate between Hillary and Barack we heard her attack by trying to link Obama to Farrakhan through a magazine and Rev. Wright, which was tenuous at best. Now we find out that Pennsylvania governor Ed Rendell not only met with Farrakhan but gave a speech praising him and the Nation of Islam. Bill spoke at the million man march. None of these things would matter accept that she is busy brining them up trying to win points. And there is her guys linked directly to Farrakhan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXum_-8I1TA&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/21/ed-rendell-clinton-surrog_n_97784.html

Now she has an ad in Pennsylvania in the theme of her 3 am ad, this time with high gas prices at the pump, World War papers, the great depression and a quote by Harry Truman about heat and kitchens and special action Osama Bin Laden! I guess it's part of the Kitchen Sink strategy. I didn't think I would ever see a democratic primary candidate attack another with fear mongering ads but she is bound and determined to do and say anything. I hope the good people of Pennsylvania see this for what it is. A last desperate attempt to win at all costs and barring that, leave no one standing.

The good news is the race for Pennsylvania tightened. The average of polls is somewhere around +6/7 for Hillary. Nationally, he is pulling away and is up by 7 at 49% to her 42%. Now for the predictions: he slightly outperforms the average polls so I am thinking she will still win Pennsylvania but only by 4%, far less than she needs. Worse she will have spent all her available cash to do it.

Her campaign is now 10 million in debt with 8 million in hand cash. The only way she can move forward is to continue stiffing everyone she does business with. Since she has been doing this since February it is hard to see how anyone will take her IOU's much longer. I am predicting that she runs out of money and tolerance from the Democrats and loses both Indiana and North Carolina and is out of the race by mid May, whether she accepts it or not.

Then we can focus on McCain and the general election. It is long overdue. And frankly listening to the Clinton campaign spew this toxic vitriol is tiring even for the most stalwart supporter. It is time to end this. Here is hoping the good people of Pennsylvania surprise us all.

Electablitity

Bruce — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:28:41 EDT

A couple of weeks ago, Hillary's hobbyhorse was experience. After a closer look to what she pretended her experience, it came to the conclusion that it was more verbal than factual. She now seldom mentions her experience. Now let's ask her a little about her electability.

I think that's very important, for it's the last grip she gets in her attack against Obama.

What's makes Hillary pretend she's more electable that Barack?

She alleges that Barack is more vulnerable? Is it that true? Because every

slip of the tongue from Obama is magnified by her, in such a way to make it look like a huge big mistake, and a pretext to try to make people believe she is better candidate for general election. She adopts this attitude, because she seems to be the only democrat candidate with a license to attack other democrats. But does that mean she won't be attacked hard by the Republicans, that she won't receive the same or worse treatments than she's doing to Obama? Can Hillary stand hard critics on her ethics, on her relation with doubtful people that surround her, on her huge amount of lies? Can she bear Republican attacks on all her scandals?

"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

What does Hillary reproach other candidates that we can't find worse on her side? Isn't her allegation about Barack's surrogate on NAFTA less grave that her chief campaign lobbying on Colombia free trade? Is the Obama trade with Rezko worst than Clintons' relationship with Peter Paul, an ex-con, and notorious swindler? What about Hsu? Who hasn't seen "Hillary, the movie"?

How can someone of this background pretends she's more electable that any other? How can a forgetful 60-year-old person -according her own husband words- who is too tired to tell the truth at 11PM, can pick up a 3-AM-phone call at the White house? What would she find to say at 3AM, if she loses her memory at 11PM?

I believe it's urgent that Obama's campaign does something about that electability matter, that the campaign makes people understand that this question isn't less capricious than any others. Let's silence Hillary on this, as well as it happened on her experience. Let's do it, but let's do it now !

Hillary's Hypocrisy

Joel L — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 22:45:30 EDT

The latest Clinton accusation – that Senator Obama and his campaign are trying to silence the voters in those states who have not yet held primaries – is the most egregious example yet of the Clinton campaign’s hypocrisy.

PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN GLASS HOUSES...

Super Sistah — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:12:36 EDT

People who live in glass houses SHOULD NOT THROW STONES !

There is something awful about the way that some people...particularly those pundents at FOX NEWS and other politicians have tried to degrade and slander Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He is a highly respected icon in Chicago and around the nation. Although some of us may not like the way he expressed himself...he did not lie about anything. By taking a few seconds of sound-bites from some videos and running them over and over...these hypocrites have tried to reduce Rev. Wright to some type of black villain. And then they have tried to distort and degrade Obama. This is especially SHAMEFUL coming from the inept, RIGHT-WING biased characters who have done this-- SEAN HANNITY, BILL O'REILLY, RUSH LIMBAUGH, GLENN BECK...and the like. And Rev. Wright was not speaking in a racist way...he was addressing INJUSTICES.

Finally, many people are coming forth to defend this man for telling the TRUTH.

WHITE CATHOLIC PRIEST SUPPORTS

Rev. Jeremiah Wright...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LjJlsGrlbUs

Watch this video

WHY WOULD ANYONE TRY TO DISTORT Rev. Wright or Barack Obama?

RELIGIOUS HYPOCRISY---

It is so hypocritical for Hillary Clinton, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh--- and most of the others who have criticized Obama's pastor to say a word, since they have strong ties to questionable right-wing fanatics, extremely controversial churches, racketeers...and worse.

THEY CONTINUE TO ASK..."Why did Obama stay at the church for 20+ years...."

This question comes--after they reduced the career of Rev. Wright to a 30-second sound-bite

of..."most controversial statements" .... AND without any review of the church's programs,

services or the 30 years of preaching and teaching of Rev. J. Wright.

WHAT ABOUT THOSE WHO CLAIM TO BE CATHOLICS? --- e.g. Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity

And I am happy that more people are starting to speak out about this DOUBLE STANDARD --

Keith Oberman on MSNBC gave SEAN HANNITY the "worst person in the world" -- for his double talking.

Bill Maher wrote a great article:

http://www.236.com/blog/w/bill_maher/new_rule_catholics_must_get_up_5510.php

Hannity and O'Reilly have not left the Catholic Church despite its horrible CHILD MOLESTATION scandals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE REAL QUESTION THAT SHOULD BE ASKED IS --

WHY DO THEY TRY TO HUSH UP THE SCANDALS SURROUNDING SEN. JOHN McCAIN? Not only does he have ministers who endorse him who have made controversial statements --- McCain has a long history of associations with "Mafia members" --people involved in crimes, embezzlement.... and other odd characters:

http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm#keating

Rev. Hagee and Rev. Parsley (John McCain supporters) are not the only pastors who have said made some very strange comments. Recently, Hillary Clinton has stated that -- "she...would not have stayed in Obama's church...."

This is a weird answer from a woman who has stayed with her unfaithful husband through numerous transgressions with other women...and a major embarassment after the Monica Lewinski mess. Hillary is a former Republican who supported some very questionable people.

Hillary Clinton and many others on Capitol Hill are members of a controversial church...

**known as: "The Fellowship" or "The Family"

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2007/09/hillarys-prayer.html

INTERESTING HOW THEY DON'T PUBLICIZE THE CONTROVERSIAL BELIEFS OF THEIR OWN CHURCHES (temples, mosques...faiths, etc.)

And Hillary's own EX-pastor --stated that people should quit mistreating this good man (creating divisions) via soundbytes which distort Rev. Wright's great service to the community, and he supports Obama's pastor Rev. Wright:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/25/pastor-of-clintons-forme_n_93418.html

Some of the same aforementioned right wing zealots are responsible for using the little sound-bytes to paint Rev. Wright in a bad light....the head imp being the big ego-trip SEAN HANNITY who has ties to Neo-Nazis.

Learn more at this site: http://mypages.blackvoices.com/museum/frequentquestions

IF YOU LISTEN TO THE ENTIRE SERMONS...you will hear Rev. Wright talking about many injustices dished out to people of all races...(Japanese prison camps, Vietnam War, etc.) If you listen to the entire sermons, there is deep knowledge there.

Why isn't Senator McCain held to the fire for the highly controversial words of Rev. Hagee?

Why does Sean Hannity have 2 TV shows and a radio show...but he isn't confronted about his ties to Neo-Nazis?

Obama did not make the statements any more than Hillary made the statements that her minister makes.

Rev. Wright's comments about the ugly history of racism and injustices appears to also apply to those who have unfairly attacked and demonized him.

REMEMBER-- It was the U.S. Gov't (FBI) ...which once proclaimed that DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING was the "...most dangerous negro in the country."

IT IS THESE TYPES OF HYPOCRITICAL ACTIONS that contribute to the "post JIM CROW syndrome" --which many older Black Americans suffer... and offer reasons for them to have a lot of bitterness and anger.

What Obama's largely white denomination thinks of Wright

Steven — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:39:30 EDT

I am heartily sick of the stupidities that have been spoken by far too many otherwise sensible people about the Wright affair. I think it is important to realise that the United Church of Christ, a denomination whose members are in the vast majority are white, is very much standing by Wright, putting his admittedly incendiary comments in context and perspective, and attacking the sheer hypocrisy of his detractors. Here is the link to the webpage of UCC.

http://www.ucc.org/news/responding-to-wright.html

The full text is as follows:

Responding to Wright controvery, Thomas asks, 'What kind of prophet?'

Written by staff reports
March 17, 2008The Rev. John H. Thomas, UCC general minister and president, released the following statement on March 17 on the rhetoric of preaching, in light of recent news coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., and Chicago's Trinity UCC.

What Kind of Prophet?
Reflections on the Rhetoric of Preaching
in Light of Recent News Coverage of Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr.
and Trinity United Church of ChristThe Rev. John H. Thomas
General Minister and President
United Church of Christ

Over the weekend members of our church and others have been subjected to the relentless airing of two or three brief video clips of sermons by the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ for thirty-six years and, for over half of those years, pastor of Senator Barack Obama and his family. These video clips, and news stories about them, have been served up with frenzied and heated commentary by media personalities expressing shock that such language and sentiments could be uttered from the pulpit.

One is tempted to ask whether these commentators ever listen to the overcharged rhetoric of their own opinion shows. Even more to the point is to wonder whether they have a working knowledge of the history of preaching in the United States from the unrelentingly grim language of New England election day sermons to the fiery rhetoric of the Black church prophetic tradition. Maybe they prefer the false prophets with their happy homilies in Jeremiah who say to the people: "You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you true peace in this place." To which God responds, "The prophets are prophesying lies in my name; I did not send them, nor did I command them or speak to them. They are prophesying to you a lying vision, worthless divination, and the deceit of their own minds. . . . By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed," (Jeremiah 14.14-15). The Biblical Jeremiah was coarse and provocative. Faithfulness, not respectability was the order of the day then. And now?

What's really going on here? First, it may state the obvious to point out that these television and radio shows have very little interest in Trinity Church or Jeremiah Wright. Those who sifted through hours of sermons searching for a few lurid phrases and those who have aired them repeatedly have only one intention. It is to wound a presidential candidate. In the process a congregation that does exceptional ministry and a pastor who has given his life to shape those ministries is caricatured and demonized. You don't have to be an Obama supporter to be alarmed at this. Will Clinton's United Methodist Church be next? Or McCain's Episcopal Church? Wouldn't we have been just as alarmed had it been Huckabee's Southern Baptist Church, or Romney's Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints?

Many of us would prefer to avoid the stark and startling language Pastor Wright used in these clips. But what was his real crime? He is condemned for using a mild "obscenity" in reference to the United States. This week we mark the fifth anniversary of the war in Iraq, a war conceived in deception and prosecuted in foolish arrogance. Nearly four thousand cherished Americans have been killed, countless more wounded, and tens of thousands of Iraqis slaughtered. Where is the real obscenity here? True patriotism requires a degree of self-criticism, even self-judgment that may not always be easy or genteel. Pastor Wright's judgment may be starker and more sweeping than many of us are prepared to accept. But is the soul of our nation served any better by the polite prayers and gentle admonitions that have gone without a real hearing for these five years while the dying and destruction continues?

We might like to think that racism is a thing of the past, that Martin Luther King's harmonious multi-racial vision, articulated in his speech at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963 and then struck down by an assassin's bullet in Memphis in 1968, has somehow been resurrected and now reigns throughout the land. Significant progress has been made. A black man is a legitimate candidate for President of the United States. A black woman serves as Secretary of State. The accomplishments are profound. But on the gritty streets of Chicago's south side where Trinity has planted itself, race continues to play favorites in failing urban school systems, unresponsive health care systems, crumbling infrastructure, and meager economic development. Are we to pretend all is well because much is, in fact, better than it used to be? Is it racist to name the racial divides that continue to afflict our nation, and to do so loudly? How ironic that a pastor and congregation which, for forty-five years, has cast its lot with a predominantly white denomination, participating fully in its wider church life and contributing generously to it, would be accused of racial exclusion and a failure to reach for racial reconciliation.

The gospel narrative of Palm Sunday's entrance into Jerusalem concludes with the overturning of the money changers' tables in the Temple courtyard. Here wealth and power and greed were challenged for the way the poor were oppressed to the point of exclusion from a share in the religious practices of the Temple. Today we watch as the gap between the obscenely wealthy and the obscenely poor widens. More and more of our neighbors are relegated to minimal health care or to no health care at all. Foreclosures destroy families while unscrupulous lenders seek bailouts from regulators who turned a blind eye to the impending crisis. Should the preacher today respond to this with only a whisper and a sigh?

Is Pastor Wright to be ridiculed and condemned for refusing to play the court prophet, blessing land and sovereign while pledging allegiance to our preoccupation with wealth and our fascination with weapons? In the United Church of Christ we honor diversity. For nearly four centuries we have respected dissent and have struggled to maintain the freedom of the pulpit. Not every pastor in the United Church of Christ will want to share Pastor Wright's rhetoric or his politics. Not every member will rise to shout "Amen!" But I trust we will all struggle in our own way to resist the lure of respectable religion that seeks to displace evangelical faith. For what this nation needs is not so much polite piety as the rough and radical word of the prophet calling us to repentance. And, as we struggle with that ancient calling, I pray we will be shrewd enough to name the hypocrisy of those who decry the mixing of religion and politics in order to serve their own political ends.

Jeremiah Wright was White House guest (LOL)

Soldierette!! (CENSORED) — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 20:33:39 EDT

March 20, 2008
Categories: Bill Clinton

Jeremiah Wright was White House guest

The recent coverage of Rev. Jeremiah Wright has often cast him as a marginal, almost fringe figure, but Trinity Church is a major Chicago institution, and Wright has long been a prominent pastor on the American scene.

And an anonymous blog set up to defend his church offers some compelling photographic evidence of this: A photograph of Wright and President Clinton, which it says was taken on September 11, 1998 -- the date of a White House gathering for religious leaders.

[UPDATE: The blog seems to have taken that item down; here's the full image that was posted.]

Hillary Clinton, according to her recently-released schedule for the day, was present at the gathering.

That's where Clinton reportedly told the assembled clerics, at the depth of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, that he had "repented."

As CNN reported at the time:

"I have been on quite a journey these last few weeks to get to the end of this, to the rock-bottom truth of where I am," Clinton said in his most emotional and dramatic statement since the affair with Lewinsky became public. "I don't think there is a fancy way to say that I have sinned."

Agreeing with his critics that he was not "contrite" enough during his initial Aug. 17 statement, Clinton said, "It is important to me that everybody who has been hurt know that the sorrow I feel is genuine. First and most important, my family, my friends, my staff, my cabinet, Monica Lewinsky and her family and the American people. I have asked all for their forgiveness."

His comments were the first time the president has publicly apologized to Lewinsky. Clinton went on to describe the journey he has been on during the weeks since his first public admission, saying that he has finally repented.

"I have repented," Clinton said. "I must have God's help to be the person that I want to be. A willingness to give the very forgiveness I seek. A renunciation of the pride and the anger, which cloud judgment, lead people to excuse and compare and to blame and complain."

By Ben Smith 07:49 PM

The Obama Standard

Mister Anderson — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 00:41:38 EDT

Every once in awhile, an individual will come along of such remarkable skill and character, that his/her admirers and opponents alike will have great difficulty in quantifying their success.

Brett Favre in football. Bill Clinton in politics. Michael Jordan in basketball. Michael Jackson in dance. Alexander the Great in military warfare. Tiger Woods in golf. Mother Theresa in religion. Muhammad Ali in boxing. Mahatma Gandhi in peaceful rebellion and revolution. Elvis Presley in music. And so on and so forth.

These men and women were so great at what they do, that the only way to quantify their success is to compare and contrast them against themselves.

Their abilities transcended their respective fields and they set their own standard!

And Senator Barack Obama may soon join the list.

Guess the National Guard wasn't "romantic" enough for GWB

Tracy — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 20:52:24 EDT

According to Reuters, in a video conference with US military and civilian personnel working in Afghanistan, Bush said

"I must say, I'm a little envious, if I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed. It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks."

Envious? Romantic?? His country did call him to be on the front lines when he was youger. Remember, they called it the draft? He chose to joint the National Guard instead, and couldn't even be bothered to show up for that! Hypocrisy at its finest.

Plagiarism, Chutzpah, and the Stink of Desperation

Jon Morgan — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 23:06:37 EST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CFb_KCbI2w

A rose by any other name

Tom Hayes, working for change — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 00:20:10 EST

The attempts to feign plausibility while employing "Hussein" to imply connections between Senator Obama and fundamentalist Islamic extremists fall apart when compared to behaviors by those writers and/or speakers in analogous situations. Political candidates are referred to by any serious commentator in whatever way the campaigns prefer. It's respectful to not refer to Senator Clinton as Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton even though she employed Rodham deliberately earlier this decade. Willard chose to be known as Mitt Romney, and that wish was respected. Some years back now, J. Danforth Quayle was greeted by the pundits and columnists on both ends of the political spectrum as "Dan" which was obviously a political decision to make him sound less snobbish (or more folksy and normal.) How many voters today know that Senator McCain's middle name is Sidney, or that he's John Sidney McCain III?

Why don't we hear these full names? Primarily because it's not respectful. We all know that.

SHAME ON WHO

Julie Hensley — Tue, 26 Feb 2008 00:15:49 EST

Almost 2 months (yes that is two months, not weeks) ago this article appeared in a New Hampshire paper discussing the mailers being deployed by the Clinton campaign and how the mailers were so far off that they offended Hillary's supporters there!

It is ironic to read this article and then consider Hillary's tirade the other day.. and certainly something we should know and keep in mind. By comparison with what is said in this article.. Obama's mailers were suitable for use in a classroom they are so accurate.

Check it out yourself. Share with others especially anyone moved by Hillary's display.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080106/NEWS01/801060396/1043

Shame on Barack Obama?? Oh PUH-LEEZE.

RenaRF — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 08:55:42 EST

Via kid oakland in a post over at Daily Kos (and he got it from JedReport from JedReport.com), I give you this "mashup" video that particularly highlights the level of hypocrisy achieved by Hillary Clinton with her "Shame on you" tirade.

A Few Obama Supporters Don't Get It

Vas Sudanagunta — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 13:34:33 EST

I've come across Obama supporters who clearly don't get Barack's message of change, who don't get that the core of the movement isn't all about policy. It is as much if not more so about a change of character. Not just the character of our president, but the character of America. A change in all of us, and how we go about working together to make a better society, a better world. I'm just a messenger, so let me get out of the way of the message:

We're up against decades of bitter partisanship that cause politicians to demonize their opponents instead of coming together to make college affordable or energy cleaner. It's the kind of partisanship where you're not even allowed to say that a Republican had an idea, even if it's one you never agreed with.

That's the kind of politics that is bad for our party, it is bad for our country, and this is our chance to end it once and for all.

We're up against the idea that it's acceptable to say anything and do anything to win an election. But we know that this is exactly what's wrong with our politics. This is why people don't believe what their leaders say anymore. This is why they tune out. And this election is our chance to give the American people a reason to believe again.

— Barack Obama, South Carolina Victory Speech

I don't want to catalog here the ways some Obama supporters have betrayed the above. I'll just discuss one example I've come across frequently: calling Mike Huckabee "crazy" just because they disagree with his religious convictions and points of view. I'm an agnostic and I am diametrically opposed to Huckabee on many if not most issues, but as far as I can tell, he is one of the more honorable politicians I've come across. I believe he truly cares about the poor, though I disagree with his economic policies. Democratic economic policies are far from perfect. Huckabee has taken a lot of flak from hardcore lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key Republicans because he has pardoned or commuted the sentences of convicts who he believed reformed themselves. Sure, there are questions about bias, that the way to get a Huckabee pardon was to show religion, but that doesn't take away from the fact that he does a better job of following Jesus's example of compassion and humanity than most other Republican Christians. He's also taken a lot of flak from his party for his policies to guarantee the children of undocumented immigrants the same access to good education as those of citizens. I could go on.

If you demonize people like Mike Huckabee, we're all back to square one. Might as well shut down the Change movement. Maybe Hope never made it out of Pandora's Box.

You must be the change you wish to see in the world.

— Mahatma Gandhi

Originally posted in my Newsvine column with a wonderful photo of Barack Obama.

Hillary Hearts Reagan (And Hypocrisy)

Brad — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 22:47:39 EST

From Meet The Press this week, in case any of you are pressed to explain Obama's comments on Ronald Reagan...turns out he isn't alone in his praise of the Gipper's leadership and communication qualities -- in fact, Hillary won a major newspaper endorsement in NH partly based upon her favorable views on Reagan, and Bill also (as far back as 1991) was saying that Democrats were fresh out of ideas, and that Reagan had turned the Republicans around in this crucial respect.

You could then point out that Obama is the only one of the three left standing who has any chance of recapturing those "Reagan Democrats" and reversing the tide of political history that has been ebbing since before Bill's time in office...

RUSSERT: And one of the things that happened this week was Barack Obama gave an interview to the Reno Gazette-Journal. And he began to talk about ideas, Ronald Reagan, Democrats. This is what Obama said.

(Videotape, Monday):

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom.

Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that, you know, Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it.

He tapped into what people were already feeling, which is we want clarity, we want optimism, we want, you know, a return to that sense of dynamism and, you know, entrepreneurship that had been missing.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: His opponents...

MR. RUSSERT: His opponents, John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, immediately pounced on those comments. Here's what they said.

(Videotape, Tuesday):

MR. JOHN EDWARDS: Senator Obama, when speaking, used Ronald Reagan, President Ronald Reagan, as an example of change. Now, my view is, I would never use Ronald Reagan as an example of change.

(End videotape)

(Videotape, Friday):

Senator HILLARY CLINTON (Democrat, New York): My leading opponent the other day said that he thought the Republicans had better ideas than Democrats the last 10 to 15 years. That's not the way I remember the last 10 to 15 years.

(End videotape)

MS. GOODWIN: You know, it's a sad point in our history when a presidential candidate cannot look back over the course of our history and show admiration for a president who did what he said. He didn't really say that he had better ideas, he said that he had transformed the country, created a conservative movement. Now, I can understand why Edwards and Hillary take that point up, but I think what's happening here is that Hillary has a sense of playing to the base, as Edwards was, and the base doesn't like Ronald Reagan. They don't like Bush. But what Obama was trying to say was, if you want a transformative presidency, if you want somebody who is going to be able, as Teddy Roosevelt was, as FDR was, as perhaps John Kennedy was, to inspire and move the country forward, you've got to have those skills that Ronald Reagan had. It's an historical fact! There was nothing wrong with saying that.

MR. RUSSERT: Interestingly enough, the Salmon Press in New Hampshire, which endorsed Hillary Clinton, cited as one of the reasons that, when they talked to her in the interview, she listed Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.

MS. NOONAN: That's right.

MR. BROKAW: May I have a cheap, self-serving moment? In my book, "Boom"...

MS. GOODWIN: Of course.

MR. RUSSERT: A best seller! "Boom," by Tom Brokaw.

MR. BROKAW: ...she says that Ronald Reagan plays the music beautifully, and she talked about how he balanced the interests of the middle class and took on the Soviets. What was also in that speech, or that remark that Obama gave, I thought didn't get enough attention probably, was how he dissed Bill Clinton.

MS. NOONAN: Yeah.

MR. BROKAW: And John Edwards may forget that what Ronald Reagan did was create a whole new class of voters...

MS. GOODWIN: Right.

MR. BROKAW: ...that Peggy, especially, is familiar with, called Reagan Democrats.

Later in the broadcast
MS. NOONAN: We haven't mentioned it, but there is this Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton--I've called it a sickness. It is an odd way for a great democracy to comport itself in this strange--we have dynasties now backed by lobbyists, backed by machines and machinery. The fact that America's doing this is giving so many people pause. It us unlike us. And I cannot help but think, as some people come forward and endorse on the Democratic side Mrs. Clinton, they must be thinking stop the dynasty. I know Republicans are thinking stop the dynasties.

Lastly ...something to think about on Tuesday, March 4th Primary
MR. RUSSERT: Jon, you made the comment earlier about Hillary Clinton unifying the Republican Party.

MR. MEACHAM: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: It's been striking, over the past couple of weeks, about endorsements for Barack Obama from the so-called red states. Hillary Clinton has the governor, senator, from one of her homes states, Arkansas, she has Evan Bayh from Indiana and Governor Strickland of Ohio. But Obama has trotted out, even after New Hampshire, some interesting names. He has Kent Conrad of North Dakota, Tim Johnson in South Dakota, Tim Kaine in Virginia, Governor Napolitano in Arizona, Claire McCaskill in Missouri and Ben Nelson in Nebraska. And not all of them considered wild-eyed liberals, red state Democrats who are saying that Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton. Tom, what's that about?

MR. BROKAW: Well, I think that she still does have very high negatives, and the big concern for the Democrats is can we win in the fall. And the lingering question for Hillary, no matter how well she has run so far, no matter how impressive her campaign machine may be, I think there's that lingering question in the back of the minds of a lot of Democrats, "Can she carry us through the fall?" There's this great unrequited hunger on the part of the Democrats to get the White House back. They want to do it this time, and that's the issue that she really, I think, has to resolve in the next several weeks. In addition to winning these primaries along the way, she also has to persuade people that she can win in the fall, and we'll have to see how all that plays out.

You know, I think Jon is quite right, she unifies the party more than anyone else, but that's why I really welcome this idea of having a long debate and dialogue. Let the process go on. Let the country get involved.

MS. GOODWIN: Yeah, you know, I think if the Democrats feel confident that their base can pull off a victory--if, for example, Huckabee were the nominee--then I think there'd be less concern about the independent vote that Obama can bring.

MR. BROKAW: Mm-hmm.

MS. GOODWIN: But to the extent that they're worried, as you were saying earlier, about the 50/50 election, what he's shown in every state so far, even those that he lost, was a much greater crossover possibility. Independents wanting him. So if they're running against McCain, who has that independent vote, then I think Obama's strength, stronger. So that's why, again, things are going to shift as we go along.

MS. NOONAN: (Unintelligible).

MS. NORRIS: When you're on the ground, also, you really hear the Republican operatives. I mean, this is a conversation that I actually heard in South Carolina talking about how much they really want a Hillary Clinton victory.

MR. BROKAW: Mm-hmm.

MS. NORRIS: I mean, they actually will talk openly about bringing Barack Obama down a few notches because they want to run against Hillary.

MR. MEACHAM: Because it's a known known, to give Secretary--former Secretary Rumsfeld his due. Hillary Clinton, they know what to do. Barack Obama, how do you run against the first African American nominee? It explodes all conventional campaign dogma in ways that completely will surprise and pleasantly and unpleasantly perhaps as they go forward. And I that that that's the--one of the things that's so scary about Obama to Republicans is they don't how to run against him.

The Gospel According To Hillary

Kevin — Fri, 02 Nov 2007 14:41:03 EDT

From boston.com:

SCOT LEHIGHThe Clinton gospel

By Scot Lehigh | November 2, 2007

THOU SHALT not criticize Hillary Clinton.

That may as well be the mantra of the Clinton camp.

Why, the way Clinton's campaign acts, you could be forgiven for thinking she was an absolute monarch, and not merely the Democratic front-runner.

Consider: Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, currently Clinton's chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, began his campaign on lofty themes of change and hope. But his effort has plateaued, and so Obama recently told The New York Times that he intends to confront Clinton more directly and draw more pointed distinctions.

Clinton's camp reacted as though Obama had sent a cow pie sailing her way.

"Senator Obama once promised Americans a politics of hope," said spokesman Howard Wolfson. "But now that his campaign has stalled he is abandoning that strategy and is engaging in the same old-style personal attacks that he once rejected."

Then, as the candidates prepared for this week's debate at Drexel University, the Times did a short piece suggesting that Obama planned to take Clinton on in the forum and noting that John Edwards had just criticized her.

"It's unfortunate that Senators Obama and Edwards have decided to revive their campaigns by abandoning the politics of hope," reacted Phil Singer, another spokesman.

There followed a memo from Clinton strategist Mark Penn with this subject line: "What Are The Politics of Hope?"

That sublime pursuit, it turns out, means doing what Clinton purports to be doing: "Outlining how our candidate will reverse the policies of the Bush administration and give America a new beginning for the 21st Century."

Penn then turned his gimlet gaze on Clinton's Democratic rivals.

"Considering that both Senators Obama and Edwards made their names by pledging to be positive, the last thing one would have expected was for either of them to go out and announce with pride that they were now going to go negative on a fellow Democrat," he wrote. "It's unprecedented in my experience."

Not in mine. I can recall a similar incident back in the murky recesses of the last century. A sunny Southern candidate - William Jefferson Clinton, I think his name was - was running for president on his plans to help middle-class America. But when Clinton hit turbulence and a Massachusetts boy scout named Paul Tsongas suddenly had a shot at beating him, the personable fellow from a place called Hope abruptly changed his tone.

Tsongas, who liked Clinton, thought he and the Arkansan had an informal agreement not to go after each other. But as the campaign moved south, Clinton's camp launched a sharp attack. Why after one candidates' forum, Clinton himself appeared in the press room and deftly sliced and diced the policy plans of his absent rival.

That's politics. And as long as a candidate isn't engaged in distortion - something the Tsongas folks thought Clinton was guilty of - it's a valid part of the process, one that gives voters a window into the different records and positions of the candidates.

The full story is here.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend

Kevin — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 00:14:45 EDT

From the Maureen Dowd column in the New York Times, September 16th. You have to give Rudy two points for this:

Enter Rudy...He put up an ad Friday on his campaign Web site slamming (Hillary Clinton) as a hypocrite for running an antiwar campaign after supporting the president on the authorization for war.

Obama has been trying to make this point for quite a while, but so gingerly that every time he sneaks up on it, Hillary surges ahead.

Rudy doesn’t do ginger.

...

But Rudy aims to de-Rudy her. His ad is an instant cult classic, with a solemn trumpet that is reminiscent of “Taps” and a narrator who sounds like the guy who does trailers for “In a World Gone Wrong” disaster flicks.

Just when Hillary was basking in her reinvention of herself, Rudy sprang out of the Republican primary shadows and shoved her back.

He ignores her attempts to be New Hillary, a senator who loves men in uniform, who is not afraid to use military power, and who is tough enough to deal with bin Laden. He recasts her as Old Hillary, a Code Pink pinko first lady and opportunist from a White House that had a reputation for having a flower-child distaste for the military, a left-wing shrew who made a secret socialist health care plan and let gays into the military and certainly can’t be trusted to fight the jihadists...

Hillary's Hypocrisy - The reBranding Of Hillary Clinton

Ricardo — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 00:35:09 EDT

It would appear that Hillary now is touting herself as not only the experienced candidate but also the candidate for change, (wait for it)and compromise.

I know that the Obama campaign team (our team) are focusing on the positives of our candidate but I am dying to have someone, anyone, take this flip-flopping candidate to task about her cameleon-like tendencies of ever changing colours.

How do you maintain an experienced and transformation footprint together? Put another way, a lion and an antelope in the same cage? I am convinced that the Hillary team do not comprehend the enormity of the task facing America and the scale of change required to pull the USA by the scruff of the neck back up onto the respected international stage, heal the internal divisions and make America work for the American people and not vested family and business interests.

We are talking the sort of change that, like a tsunami, sweeps everythng in its path and leads to a landmark and historic candidacy, which will be that of Barack Obama.

There are those who proclaim that the time is right to have a female president. Not necessarily one able to bring the American nation together and 'dry clean' its very stained reputation globally. To want a female president just for the heck of it, is to totally mis-understand America's problems domestically and on the world stage.

Besides, why must the first female president be a Clinton? I cannot believe that in a nation of over 300 million souls, two dynasties should hold the monopoly of office aided and abetted by the duopoly of the two mainstream political organisations and very serious vested interests. Will it be Jebb Bush next followed by Chelsea Clinton? God forbid!

Team Hillary must be worried sick that she tops most polls as not only the leading Democratic contender but also as the candidate with the most negetive ratings.

For those gripped by panic that the polls are not reflecting what they feel on the ground, I have this questions. When did those in power aided by their powerful vested propaganda machinery of media friends with very strong interests to protect ever detect the ground-swell of change before it happened? The answer is never.

One team though, does not believe in the polling figures that they so publicly always hawk in arguments for Hillary. That team is Hillary's own. If they believed she was doing so great, she would not flip and flop as much. She would not change her colors as readily and so unconscionably.

And fearing what Barak Obama stands for; the transformation of the USA and indeed the world, is anyone surprised that the otherside will do whatever to win? That the vested interests will not even allow him the light of day or space in their media for his arguments?

And if that require the rebranding of an establishment 'safe pair of hands' to keep business as usual, steady as she goes, then so be it. What the heck, it will be the Ordinary American that suffers and they have been suffering a very long time!

So Hillary has the experience to keep things as they are and the American voter has the experience of suffering and bearing it. Goes together doesn't it?

Hillary the candidate of experience, change and compromise? Do not make me laugh! Was Genghis Khan a Catholic?
Hillary the candidate for change who argues for business as usual?
Hillary the candidate for change who says a president should not be candid with the electorate, the long suffering American people?
Hillary the candidate for change who touts her experience yet there is no major legislation bearing her name?

Hillary the candidate for compromise who refused to change a single word in a healthcare Bill that was so dear to her heart but not near enought than her ego was so that her ability to compromise led to its failure?

A candidate for change whose sole purpose for running for president is not to transform America, but to score political points by ensuring there was a Democrat dynasty to rival that of the GOP and to settle a family bet with Bill? 'I can do what you can' sort of fued.

Somebody please start telling the story of Hillary....And I think someone started doing just that. Have a look for yourself titled
Hillary's hypocrisy by Dick Morris. It makes for compelling reading.
http://thehill.com/dick-morris/hillarys-hypocrisy-2007-09-05.html

The first attack, and Obama hits back hard

Marshagarsha — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 23:24:24 EST

As I expected, people are attacking Obama already. At this stage of the game, these kinds of attacks on his proposed plans and policies simply mean the attackers are at least intimidated by him and at best downright scared of him. The first attack comes from Australia's prime minister John Howard. This is a man who is known for being snuggled tightly in bed with Bush and Cheney, so it doesn't surprise me that he is spouting the same old tired rhetoric about how withdrawing from Iraq will breed further terrorism. It's the same old "you're with us or you're against us" routine that was worn out back in ~2002. That's neither here nor there though. The important thing is that Obama hit back fast and hard, with a smart and pointed retort that points out Howard's hypocrisy. Right on Barack....or, as they say down under, good on ya, mate!