Anyone Who Is Surprised By This Hasn't Been Paying Attention

In this case I don't mind saying "I told you so":

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday denounced inflammatory remarks from his pastor, who has railed against the United States and accused the country of bringing on the Sept. 11 attacks by spreading terrorism.

Oh, so this is the first time he's heard any of this crap? Bullshit. Complete...utter...bullshit.

As video of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright has widely aired on television and the Internet, Obama responded by posting a blog about his relationship with Wright and his church, Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, on the Huffington Post. Wright brought Obama to Christianity, officiated at his wedding, baptized his daughters and inspired the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope."

So are you gonna buy Obama's "I hardly knew the guy!"?????? If so then you are a chump....or an anti-Semite.

In a sermon on the Sunday after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright suggested the United States brought on the attacks.

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," Wright said. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Why didn't Obama just put Ward Churchill on his campaign staff and have done with it?

In a 2003 sermon, he said blacks should condemn the United States.

"The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

2003?????????!!!!?? And ALL of this is news to Obama???

Bullshit again.

He also gave a sermon in December comparing Obama to Jesus [ed. Gee, you don't say?], promoting his candidacy and criticizing his rival Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Barack knows what it means to be a black man to be living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," Wright told a cheering congregation. "Hillary can never know that. Hillary ain't never been called a nigger."

And, remember, it was the Clintons who were the race baiters.

And, even after all of this garbage is out there Obama has the audacity to say he won't "repudiate the man."

Obama told MSNBC that he would not repudiate Wright as a man, describing him as "like an uncle" who says something that he disagrees with and must speak out against. He also said he expects his political opponents will use video of the sermons to attack him as the campaign goes on.

You have listened to this man "preach" for TWENTY YEARS and you never noticed anything wrong????? In fact you made him a member of your campaign, which is disturbingly well stocked with Israel haters already, don't ya think?? And if any opponent mentions the anti-American hate the not-so-good Reverend is teaching as God's word it is an "attack"????

Well, you know what Senator Obama?? Reverend Wright is a hateful son-of-a-bitch and if you can't recognize that fact then you are unqualified to be President of the United States, or even a Senator from the great state of Illinois. The fact you are representing the "Land of Lincoln" now is quickly becoming a national disgrace.

You know, I've met plenty of people in my life who hold dodgy opinions and who wouldn't hold up well to public scrutiny. Funny thing is, I wouldn't make any of them my spiritual advisor.

I'm sorry, but anyone who still tries to claim that Obama is the "moderate" choice is an idiot.

UPDATE:

Here is an example of a completely wrongheaded apologia for Obama.

I tried to responded over there, but Donklephant is always buggy when I try to comment from home. Here is what I tried to post:

We are all being asked to believe that Barrack Obama listened to this man for 20 years, made him his spiritual advisor, gave him a role in his campaign, and had no idea he has been saying this type of stuff for at least 7 years??

Who is that stupid?

Does this mean that Obama supports every position Wright espouses? Of course not. But it does raise serious questions about Obama's judgement, and just what kind of garbage Obama is comfortable associating himself with. Wright's overt anti-Israel (and I feel anti-Semitic) feelings will certainly give Jewish voters pause coming as it does so hard on the heels of the Powers debacle.

And since we are going on about what the "Christian" response should be, it is also expected that those who have done wrong admit their wrongdoing in the presence of those whom they have wronged. It strains credulity that Obama knew nothing of Rev. Wright's "teachings". Sen. Obama has thus wronged us all by listening to it and staying silent. He has also wronged us all by claiming he never heard a thing.

I've found the following assesments to be more sensible:

Obama’s Albatross

The Audacity of Hate

Obama is still defending Wright, and very lamely (Wright's "on the brink of retirement;" he's made "some controversial statements" in the past; his statements are being "cherry picked"). Wright wasn't near retirement in 2001 when he blamed 9/11 on the U.S; nor was he near retirement in 2003 when he said God should "damn America." And the statements at issue aren't merely "controversial" or "just wrong"; they are deplorable.

Worst of all is Obama's suggestion that Wright is the victim of "cherry picking." Wright's statment span a full range of issues including (just to mention some that have come to light so far) America's treatment of its citizens (some are treated as less than human); America's overall approach to the world (horrible enough to deserve 9/11); Israel and Palestine (Israel commits war crimes with U.S. assistance); World War II (it was criminal for the U.S. to bring the war with Japan to a successful conclusion the way it did); and HIV (he suspects the U.S. government of helping to spread the virus). As ABC News said, its "review of dozens of Rev. Wright's sermons, offered for sale by the church, found repeated denunciations of the U.S." And let's not forget Wright's decision to honor Louis Farrakhan.

So there's no cherry-picking occurring here. Furthermore, the cherry-picking defense, even when plausible, has never been accepted when it comes to racism. Don Imus, for example, has received widespread condemnation for very occasional statements that showed racial insensitivity. Trent Lott was condemned for one statement praising Strom Thurmond's 1948 presidential campaign.

Plus, QandO discovers that Obama is indeed lying, or he is the victim of the worst coincidence in human history, when he claims he never heard any of Wright's "questionable" opinions before.

I Guess Every Cloud Really Does Have A Silver Lining

I thought there was no way one could spin everything, but I'm willing to admit I was wrong. Step one, take the news of the day: N.Y. Times: New York governor linked to prostitution

Gov. Eliot Spitzer has apologized to his family and the public, but did not elaborate on a bombshell report that he was involved in a prostitution ring.

Spitzer says he "acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family" and says he has to spend time with his family.

Spitzer's wife stood at his side, her hands behind her back and her eyes cast downward, as he made the statement. The New York Times reported earlier in the day that Spitzer told his senior aides he was involved in a prostitution ring.

Spitzer and his wife have three daughters.

The Times reported that a person with knowledge of the governor's role believes the governor is identified as a client in court papers. Four people allegedly connected to a high-end prostitution ring called Emperors Club VIP were arrested last week.

....

Spitzer, 48, built his political legacy on rooting out corruption, including several headline-making battles with Wall Street while serving as attorney general. He stormed into the governor's office in 2006 with a historic share of the vote, vowing to continue his no-nonsense approach to fixing one of the nation's worst governments.

Time magazine had named him "Crusader of the Year" when he was attorney general and the tabloids proclaimed him "Eliot Ness."

But his stint as governor has been marred by several problems, including an unpopular plan to grant driver's licenses to illegal immigrants and a plot by his aides to smear Spitzer's main Republican nemesis.

Step two, find a way to put some English into it. Now, the simple man I am, I wouldn't have even attempted to spin this into a positive. That just proves I do not have the "vision" of the folks at the Daily Kos, who truly put Pangloss to shame today:

At $5500/hour, the Emperor's Club prostitutes cost Spitzer approximately the same as Rudy's security detail cost the taxpayers of NYC every time that Rudy went to the Hamptons on a tryst with Judy. --Trapper John

That's right. Spitzer's whoring is to be preferred because it is more taxpayer friendly.

This Is Not An Intelligence Test

It's a typing contest:

68

But, its a fun typing contest.

The Problem With Communist Countries? They Are Incredibly Stupid

From the BBC: Pet hamsters banned in Vietnam

Vietnam has banned the sale and possession of hamsters, whose popularity has been soaring.

The Ministry of Agriculture says anyone caught with a hamster will be fined up to 30m dong ($1,900) - almost double the average annual wage in Vietnam.

The authorities say the creatures are a potential source of disease.

Well, then the "authorities" are retarded.

The only known hamster disease that can be passed onto humans is a kind of hamster meningitis that, while fatal to young hamsters, causes only mild flu like symptoms in humans. I know. I've had it.

A couple of years ago we got a little hamster we named Harrison. He was bright and active for the first two days we had him, but then he just grew listless and very quickly died. Given his age, he was only a few weeks old, it seemed likely he had meningitis which strikes only younger hamsters. A few days later I noticed I was a little under the weather, and I ran a low grade fever for maybe 24 hours. That was it. I'm not even sure I took a Tylenol for it.

But the government of Vietnam is encouraging a hamster massacre and using "health" fears as a cover, and let's make no mistake: the prohibitive fine will cause folks to "release" or outright kill the animals they already have. I'm sure the government policy is the result of complete and utter ignorance more than anything, but it is exactly the sort of ignorance you would expect in a country that doesn't allow for the free exchange of ideas and information.

A Big Swing To Hillary?

It might be harder to claim that Clinton did not pick up some much needed momentum after her three wins on Tuesday. Take a look at the last two Gallup tracking polls:

Feb. 21-24: Obama 51 Clinton 39

Mar. 3-5: Clinton 48 Obama 44

So that represents a 16 point swing in Clinton's favor in little over a week.

The other tracking poll, Rasmussen, has Clinton up as well (by 5 points).

Clinton has also gotten a bounce in Pennsylvania as well. She has also narrowed Obama's lead in North Carolina from double digits to only four:

“This isn’t actually particularly good news for Obama,” said Dean Debnam, President of Public Policy Polling. “He’s been leading in most North Carolina polls over the last three weeks by double digits. But as the national polls and last night’s results have shown Clinton inching closer, the same trend has occurred in North Carolina.”

For the moment, Obamania is stalling. It remains to be seen if Clinton can maintain her good run. Obama can try to hype Wyoming (which won't work), but if places like North Carolina continue to tighten up he will have a big problem on his hands.

And for all of us political junkies, the prospect of a brokered convention begins to loom large, since no one really believes either candidate will bow out now.

The Daily Kos Thinks You're An Idiot

On one level it is just another example of the "If you don't support Obama you are a racist" meme, but on another level it is the prime example of "If you are reading the Daily Kos website you must have an IQ so low you will believe any damn fool thing we tell you to believe."

I'm talking about this post where the "evil Clinton campaign" is supposedly out to make Obama blacker than he really is. Hmm...I thought the Obama camp wanted to do that as well....I digress:

First Kos notes the differences between these two images:



Ohmigod!!! Hillary must be a member of the KKK!! And to prove Hillary's connection to the ad they show us this screen capture from the Clinton website:



Ohmigodagain!! Confirmati.....wait a second. Notice anything unusual about the screen shot compared to the emblackened Obama above?




Hmm..seems that version on the Daily Kos is a hell of a lot "blacker" than the one on the Clinton website. (Does this mean the Daily Kos are bigger racists than the Clintons!? They probably are...but that is a different post.)

I've no idea if this represents deliberate fauxtography or not on the DK's part, but I'm not sure it really matters in this case. They are nothing but scumbags for presenting such material as being "true" in the first place. Considering the intent is to smear the Clinton campaign as being inherently racist, I'm not putting anything past them.

How Does One Figure This Exactly?

The headline says all you need to know about the media covering the Democratic candidates: Obama Regains Ground in Texas Caucuses

Barack Obama regained lost ground in the fierce competition for Democratic convention delegates on Wednesday based on results from the Texas caucuses, partially negating the impact of Hillary Rodham Clinton's string of comeback primary victories.

Uh...one little problem with this scenario: We don't have freaking results from the Texas caucuses!!! As of just about 1:00PM central time, according to CNN, a whopping 37% of precincts are reporting and Obama has a lead of 1405 votes...TOTAL.

Gee, think any sweeping pronouncement on the matter is premature?

Are People Really This Stupid?

You know, there are times when merely labelling someone a moron isn't nearly strong enough: Read a Book, Harass a Co-Worker at IUPUI

In a stunning series of events at Indiana University - Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI), Keith Sampson, a university employee and student, has been charged with racial harassment for reading a book during his work breaks.

Sampson is in his early fifties, does janitorial work for the campus facility services at IUPUI, and is ten credits shy of a degree in communication studies. He is also an avid reader who usually brings books with him to work so that he can read in the break room when he is not on the clock. Last year, he began reading a book entitled Notre Dame vs. the Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan. The book, which has garnered great reviews in such places as The Indiana Magazine of History and Notre Dame Magazine, discusses the events surrounding two days in May 1924, when a group of Notre Dame students got into a street fight in South Bend with members of the Ku Klux Klan. As an historical account of the students' response in the face of anti-Catholic prejudice, the book would seem to be a relevant and worthwhile read, both for residents of the state of Indiana and for anyone interested in this chapter of American history.

But others at IUPUI clearly did not see it that way. First, a shop steward told Sampson that reading a book about the KKK was like bringing pornography to work (apparently this holds true in his eyes regardless of the context in which a book discusses the KKK, the position it takes, and so on). Likewise, a co-worker who happened to be sitting across the table from Sampson in the break room remarked that she found the KKK offensive. On both occasions, Sampson tried to explain what the book was really about. Both times, the other individual refused to listen.

A few weeks later, Sampson was notified by Marguerite Watkins of the school's Affirmative Action Office (AAO) that a co-worker had filed a racial harassment complaint against him for reading the book in the break room. Once again, he attempted to explain the book's content, but Watkins too had no interest in hearing it. Despite his not being given a chance to defend himself, he subsequently received a letter from Lillian Charleston of the AAO, dated November 25, 2007, informing him that AAO had completed its investigation of the matter. The letter stated,

You demonstrated disdain and insensitivity to your coworkers who repeatedly requested that you refrain from reading the book which has such an inflammatory and offensive topic in their presence...you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black coworkers.

It went on to say that according to "the legal ‘reasonable person standard,' a majority of adults are aware of and understand how repugnant the KKK is to African-Americans..." As a result of AAO's findings, Sampson was ordered to refrain from reading the book in the immediate presence of his co-workers and to sit apart from them whenever reading it.

It beggars belief.

Anyone who can see any sense in either the response of the co-workers or the actions of the University is beyond help.

Please go over and read the whole post over at F.I.R.E.

Oh, It's Cause AND Effect!

In the dustup over the Obama camp's NAFTA duplicities something had been overlooked:

Need one add the monumental stupidity of promising to, in effect, first cripple the Mexican economy, and then throw open the border? Maybe someone in the press can find time to ask Mr. Obama about that...

Unfortunately, it seems to be a stupidity that Clinton is committed to as well.

Unprepared

Need more evidence that Barrack Obama is unprepared for the job of President of the United States? Look at this pitiful display:



Ed Morrissey, as he often can, gets it just right:

Hmmm. It appears that the local [Chicago] press has managed to do what the national media could not — treat Obama as a politician and not a secular messiah. They asked tough questions about Obama’s political connections to a fixer and his campaign’s outright false answers on an Obama adviser’s contacts with Canadian diplomats regarding Obama’s rhetoric on NAFTA. Instead of handling the questions calmly and patiently, Obama accused the media of having an agenda against him, and then angrily stalked off.

Compare this to the press conference John McCain held after the New York Times smeared him by accusing him of having a sexual affair with a lobbyist. Not only did McCain — whose temper has its own zip code, according to some Capitol Hill staffers — give a lengthy and reserved statement, but then stood at the podium until the reporters ran out of questions. In fact, at the end, McCain had to ask twice whether anyone had anything else to ask him before leaving the podium.

By my count, McCain answered 36 questions in this press conference. How many did Obama take before walking off in a huff?

In many ways the media, by not treating him like every other candidate running for the Presidency, has not done Obama any favors. If they had spent more time asking him tough political questions instead of fawning all over him, Obama may have been better prepared to deal with these big moments. Instead, he has had a horrible 48 hours than can only be wiped away with convincing victories tomorrow.

The truth is there is nothing in this video clip that seems even vaguely Presidential.

Someone Get Glenn A Tissue

Anything that begins, "CNN and Washington Post "media critic" Howard Kurtz -- who is a right-wing blogger disguised as a journalist," was never going to be taken seriously by anyone who possesses more than a functioning brain stem, but Glenn Greenwald's descent into Democratic self-pity is truly pathetic:

When vapid media figures like Kurtz complain that Barack Obama hasn't received the necessary "scrutiny," what they mean is that the real fun hasn't started yet -- they haven't been spewing all of the standard, entertaining, petty, personality-based smears from the right-wing sewers.

Mike Dukakis is an effete loser; Al Gore is a pompous, lying bore; John Kerry is an awkward, flip-flopping weakling; and Barack Obama is an America-hating, Terrorist-loving, angry radical racist coke-head. When Kurtz says he wants more "media scrutiny" of Obama, what he's really saying -- as today's column proves conclusively -- is: when are we going to start propagating the right-wing personality smears in earnest? What are we waiting for?

As Paul Krugman said today, quoting Bob Somerby: "Mr. Obama will be 'Dukakised': 'treated as an alien, unsettling presence." The same thing would happen to Hillary or any other Democratic candidate. It does in every national election.

The words "boo hoo" come to mind.

And, hey, none of you bullies better take Glenn's milk money this afternoon. He's had a hard day, what with being picked on and everything.

Laughable

Me thinks the Obama campaign is losing the magic touch:

Okay, scratch what I said about Goolsbee and Canada. I still don't think it's substantively a big deal, but between hearing CNN's reports from Ohio this morning, and listening in on a Clinton conference call just now (and hearing reporters' questions on the subject), I think they're getting some significant traction with this story today.

Two things make it problematic for the Obama campaign: 1.) The sudden appearance of this lurid-sounding memo written by a Canadian consular official. I don't think it's particularly revealing--as I said this morning, it reflects what the Canadians thought they heard from Goolsbee; there are, significantly, no direct quotes. But the term "memo" just sounds bad--as though there were some cover-up that's now falling apart. 2.) Certain Obama officials denied last week that there was any contact between the Obama campaign and the Canadian government about NAFTA. That's clearly no longer "operative," as Howard Wolfson pointed out on the call.

No longer "operative", eh? Now, there is a handy little euphemism. ("A lie?? Of course not!! It's merely a statement that is no longer operative. Call a repairman.")

I was in and out of the subsequent Obama campaign call, but campaign manager David Plouffe took 2-3 questions about this that I heard. The campaign's position is that Goolsbee was having a conversation with the Canadians in his capacity as an economics professor at the University of Chicago, not as a campaign adviser.

So, we have went from, "I wasn't even there!!" to "I was there, but they misquoted me!!" to "I was there, I wasn't misquoted, but I wasn't there for any particular reason. Why just the other day I wandered into the Belgian embassy to see if they needed anybody to muse about the Euro."

Stop digging already.

UPDATED:

No, they haven't stopped digging yet. They have called for a backhoe.

Canada on Monday denied it had tried to sway the U.S. presidential election by misrepresenting Democratic candidate Barack Obama with the suggestion that he didn't really believe his criticisms of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

...

The report was leaked to the U.S. media, prompting some Democrats to accuse Canada's right-leaning Conservative government of trying to interfere in the election -- a charge dismissed by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

"I certainly deny any allegation that this government has attempted to interfere in the American election," he told Parliament.

Yeah, right. So now this is Canada's fault.

And some complain that Bush has problems admitting to mistakes. Yikes.

Maybe They Should Book A Ride On The "Straight Talk Express"?

I am starting to wonder if Obama's closest advisers are having more trouble saying what they mean, or meaning what they say?

That these same people are on the top of the list for Obama administration jobs bodes ill for any possible coherency in the future. Joy.

An Interesting Tomorrow

"Alas, poor Hillary! I knew her Horatio..."

So the political stories of the day pronounce. It is certainly true that even if Clinton holds to win Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania tomorrow, because of the rules of the Democratic Party nomination process she has an uphill fight on her hands. It is also true, that even if she sweeps tomorrow the spin will be against her. "Oh, she barely held on to big leads! Obama's the real winner in spirit if not in fact. Obama won 10, 11 in a row, how can three measly wins for Clinton be considered a real set back? Besides, they really mostly split the delegates at stake evenly." etc.

Let's play a game of make believe. Let's say the world contained nothing but Democrats, and instead of a convoluted mish-mash of proportional representation and caucuses, we ran by Electoral College rules. Let us further say that in this fantasy disputed Michigan, egged on by "patriot" Michael Moore, has left the Union and joined Canada so the Electoral College had only 521 votes with 261 needed for victory. In such a land how would Clinton and Obama be doing?

Obama would have 154 EV's after winning 18 contests.
Clinton would have 193 EV's after winning 12 contests.

Were Clinton to sweep Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas she would have 268 EV's and the win. Were Obama to take Texas and Clinton the other two, Clinton would still lead 234 to 188. In such a scenario she would need 27 EV's out of the remaining 99 (or 27.27%) in order to sew things up.

In other words, if the Democratic nomination system looked anything like our actual presidential election procedure, Obama's campaign would be on life support.

If one is a Democrat the question arises, is it good to have a system that results in the less electable candidate winning?

Obama Lied: Confirmed

It must be a bitch that the foreign press isn't as, shall we say, "compliant" as the domestic variety:

After reporting on Barack Obama's dance with the Canadians on NAFTA yesterday, Canadian broadcaster CTV got accused of perpetrating a smear against the Democratic front-runner. They insisted that Obama meant every word he said about overturning the free-trade treaty, and that no one had contacted the Canadian diplomatic corps to reassure them that it was mere demagoguery. CTV responded today by naming names -- and suddenly the Obama campaign has grown quiet:

The Obama campaign told CTV late Thursday night that no message was passed to the Canadian government that suggests that Obama does not mean what he says about opting out of NAFTA if it is not renegotiated.

However, the Obama camp did not respond to repeated questions from CTV on reports that a conversation on this matter was held between Obama's senior economic adviser -- Austan Goolsbee -- and the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago.

Earlier Thursday, the Obama campaign insisted that no conversations have taken place with any of its senior ranks and representatives of the Canadian government on the NAFTA issue. On Thursday night, CTV spoke with Goolsbee, but he refused to say whether he had such a conversation with the Canadian government office in Chicago. He also said he has been told to direct any questions to the campaign headquarters.

Of course, the Obamaniacs won't care a whit, since they are buying "hope" and not anything more tangible.

For me, it is telling that Obama and Co. tried to evade their lies with further lies, like that helps or something.