Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barack obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

My Neighborhood: Barak Obama's Hyde Park, Chicago

Here's a video highlighting my neighborhood and our next president's neighborhood, Hyde Park, Chicago.

Walked our dog past his house this morning. Found the whole block in front of it blocked off. Stopped to say a prayer for him and his family. Just missed them coming out to vote.

Here's a couple of videos highlighting our unique community.

NOW GET OUT AND VOTE!!



Sunday, November 2, 2008

A Conservative Republican Re-Assesses What This Election is About


This is a digression from the theme of this blog, but only slightly.  Written by a conservative Republican, it may be the most touching, truth-filled article I've seen anywhere about what this election is about.  

It's so good that I'm pasting it here in its entirely, but I do urge you to go to the Christian Science Monitor where it appears.  The link to the article is below.

From the Christian Science Monitor:

My wife made me canvas for Obama; here's what I learned
This election is not about major policies. It's about hope.

By Jonathan Curley

from the November 3, 2008 edition

Charlotte, N.C. - There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better "ground game" and superior campaign organization.

I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.

Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again.

I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins.

I am the dreaded swing voter.

So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told.

At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me.

Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood.

We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, "Who is it?"

"We're from the Obama campaign," we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk.

Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time.

Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted.

We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work.

I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the "big things."

It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected.

It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore.

I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.

I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.

My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me.

Jonathan Curley is a banker. He voted for George H.W. Bush twice and George W. Bush once.

FULL ARTICLE

The Tickets are on the Way!!

 It's official.  The tickets are on the way.  I'm headed to the celebration Tuesday night!!  Go Obama!!
------------

Jim . . . 

Thank you for signing up to receive a ticket for the Election Night event at Hutchinson Field in Grant Park, Chicago. 

Your ticket will be emailed to you on Monday, November 3rd, between 6:00 - 7:00 p.m. 

Each ticket is personalized for the ticket holder and is non-transferable. 

You must print your ticket and bring it with you to the event. Each ticket is valid for you and one guest. 

Thanks, 

The Democratic Party 


 
  



Thursday, October 30, 2008

Countdown to Election Day: What We Have Learned About Sarah Palin (part 3)



Top Six Reasons Why Sarah Palin is Not Qualified to be Vice President (much less president!)
****
Reason Number Four: She is a serial hypocrite. She can't be trusted.

The word "hypocrisy" comes easily to mind in reviewing what we've learned about Sarah Palin so far. It may be what is most definitive about her.



Here are a few examples:
  • Yesterday she launched into a tirade against Obama's supposed inability to meet a security threat, this, the most calming, thoughtful, steady-in-a-storm presidential candidate we've had for a long time.

And who is she? She is a person who touted her national security credentials on the basis of being governor of a state that borders Russia. Never actually met anyone from Russia. But there they are, right next door! She also went to the airport to send off a national guard contingent heading for Iraq. That qualifies her for "commander in chief."

America at crisis with Sarah Palin in the White House (horrors!) may signal the end of the free world. But we can't trust Obama . . .

  • She derides Obama (wrongly - as is true with most all of her accusations) of being a "socialist," when, in fact, she presides over the most socialist state economy in our country. But don't take my word for it. You can read it on Fox News: LINK.

The only truly socialist governor in our country attacks Obama for a socialism he has never espoused.

  • She touts her qualifications as a crusader against pork. But those who have watched her astonishing rise from small town mayor to governor of a small state, note that she has had her hand out for pork from the beginning. It's one reason she's been so popular. And then there's that bridge she was for before she was against.
She is against ear-marks except when she is for them.

Sarah Palin is a hypocrite. She cannot be trusted.

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

See What Sarah Hath Wrought

This may be the most disturbing video to come out of this election campaign - McCain supporters whipped into a frenzy of hatred. One can only wonder if we would be seeing anything like this if McCain had made a different choice for VP candidate. I don't think so. Sarah Palin has been McCain's attack dog. She has helped the dark side of the American psyche to rise to the top of a bubbling stew of now overt racism. And she's done nothing to tamp it down. McCain hasn't done much about it either as he is now so desperate to get elected that anything goes.


Tuesday, October 28, 2008

How Do You Know When Sarah Palin is Lying?



Of the many endearing traits of Sarah Palin that have been revealed to us in the two months she's been in the public eye, none is less attractive than her penchant for lying. And I'm not just talking about little white lies. I'm talking about the kind of whoppers that deserve a whole bar of soap.

What's most unnerving is how good she is at it; the kind of good that says "red" is "yellow"so convincingly that people actually believe it. She's sure got a lot of Republicans fooled. They not only listen to her lies. They repeat them as though they came straight from the mouth of God.

Her biggest whopper was when she was confronted with this:

For the reasons explained in section IV of this report, I find that Governor Sarah Palin abused her power by violating Alaska Statute 2952.110(a) of the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act. Alaska Statute 2952.110(a) provides

“The legislature reaffirms that each public officer holds office as a public trust, and any effort to benefit a personal or financial interest through official action is a violation of that trust.”

to which she responded with this:

"Well, I'm very very pleased to be cleared of any legal wrongdoing, any hint of any kind of unethical activity there. Very pleased to be cleared of any of that."

Then, confronted with the evidence of her excessive expenditures on clothing and accessories to the tune of 150,000 which broke down like this:

According to financial disclosure records, the accessorizing began in early September and included bills from Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York for a combined $49,425.74.

The records also document a couple of big-time shopping trips to Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis, including one $75,062.63 spree in early September.

The RNC also spent $4,716.49 on hair and makeup through September after reporting no such costs in August."

she responds with this:

"It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported," said Palin, saying the clothes are not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention.

She's also been telling some whoppers about Obama. True, they come mostly from her Republican handlers. But she says them with such relish that you know she's speaking from her heart.

There's the one about Obama being a Marxist (which was convincing enough that a dim-witted local TV reporter fed it back to Biden who was so astonished that he could only say: "Are you kidding?"). And, of course, the one she's been repeating over and over and over again: "He's paling around with terrorists!" (notice the plural). Even McCain found that whopper to be over the top. "Well, you know. Sometimes things get exaggerated in
a campaign."

Politicians, we're told, do this kind of thing. They lie. But this is the big leagues; humongous, hit em out of the ballpark lies; all told with such a straight face that some commentators have wondered if she isn't pathological.

The richest part of all this is to hear lying Sarah Palin say that Obama can't be trusted. Not her. Obama. He can't be trusted.

Which for some reason brings to mind that old lawyer joke:



How do you know when Sarah Palin is lying?

Her lips are moving.


Monday, October 27, 2008

Former Reagan Official Jumps Ship Because of Palin


It is now clear that Sarah Palin has become radioactive to the McCain ticket. McCain himself continues to defend her, blaming the press for her troubles (as though the New York Times forced her to spend $150,000 on clothes or use her governor's office to fire a police chief). But the evidence is mounting that she has become a huge liability to McCain.

The latest proof of this may be the most damning. According to the Michigan Messenger , former Reagan Justice Department official, Charles Fried, who served on McCain campaign committees, has voted for Obama by absentee ballot. When asked why, he made it clear that Palin was the reason. He couldn't vote for McCain because of Palin.

Here's the story:

Shocking endorsement of Obama by conservative legal titan Fried

By Ed Brayton 10/26/08 7:26 PM

In perhaps the most significant Republican defection yet, former Reagan Justice Department official Charles Fried, who had previously endorsed McCain and served on committees for the McCain campaign, has announced that he voted absentee ballot for Obama.

Fried also asked that his name be removed from McCain campaign literature. One of the primary reasons: Sarah Palin. From an article in the New Republic:

This week, Fried announced that he has voted for Obama-Biden by absentee ballot. In his letter to Trevor Potter, the General Counsel to the McCain-Palin campaign, he asked that his name be removed from the several campaign-related committees on which he serves. In that letter, he said that chief among the reasons for his decision “is the choice of Sarah Palin at a time of deep national crisis.”

FULL ARTICLE

Friday, October 24, 2008

Sarah Palin, Hypocrite


In recent interviews Sarah Palin has decried the abuse she has taken from the press over such things as her $150,000 wardrobe and the troopergate scandal. It's because she's a woman, she says, that she gets such negative press. She's "hurt" that they would treat her that way.

But then she turns around yesterday and says this about Obama's associations with Bill Ayers and Dr. Jeremiah Wright in an interview with the scurrilous Sean Hannity:

"What did those characters see in Barack Obama? Why would they have wanted to be associated with him?"

Note what she's insinuating here, that there must be something wrong not with Obama's policies, but with his character. It is character assassination of the most vile form. A man she labels a "terrorist" another "anti-American" are attracted to Obama because they see something of themselves in him. And then she repeats the canard that is patently untrue - that Obama launched his campaign in Ayer's living room as though Ayers himself was behind it.

So what are we to assume here? That it's OK for Sarah Palin to traffic in character assassination and National Enquirer-type slander, but not for the press to take a critical look at her own behaivor? Are we to do as she does - simply dismiss the finding of the investigative body that shows without a doubt that she was guilty of abusing her governor's office, or ask no questions about why it was necessary for her to use Republican campaign funds to buy an extravagant wardrobe for herself and her family while claiming middle-class angst?

The Obama campaign has studiously avoided engaging in the kind of spurious, slanderous attacks Palin and McCain have used to try to discredit their opponents. They have not questioned her character, even though there is good reason to do so. In fact, the one time Obama was asked to speak directly to the question of whether or not he felt Palin was qualified to be president, he did what he could to praise her. Her response has been to find more ways to slime Obama.

There is no reason whatsoever for anyone to feel sorry for what the press has done to Sarah Palin. If anything they've been far too lenient. It's time they took off the kid gloves to expose what she is really about -- pure, unbridled self aggrandizing power.

Thursday, October 23, 2008

The Polls


Since I got off topic on the last post, I need to follow up with this.  

Despite what you've heard about a couple of polls showing McCain making a move on Obama, they are not at all representative of what all the other polls are saying. 

Remember - trust the numbers.

-----------

The Latest Polls: Oct 23, 2008

Poll Date Sample MoE Obama (D) McCain (R) 

Spread RCP Average 10/16 - 10/22 – – 50.1 42.6 Obama +7.5

====
CBS News/NY Times 10/19 - 10/22 771 LV – 52 39 Obama +13
Rasmussen Reports 10/20 - 10/22 3000 LV 2.0 52 45 Obama +7
Gallup (Traditional)* 10/20 - 10/22 2384 LV 2.0 50 46 Obama +4
Gallup (Expanded)* 10/20 - 10/22 2299 LV 2.0 51 45 Obama +6
Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby 10/20 - 10/22 1208 LV 2.9 52 40 Obama +12
Hotline/FD 10/20 - 10/22 769 LV 3.5 48 43 Obama +5
FOX News 10/20 - 10/21 936 LV 3.0 49 40 Obama +9
ABC News/Wash Post 10/19 - 10/22 1335 LV 2.5 54 43 Obama +11
IBD/TIPP 10/18 - 10/22 1088 LV 3.0 45 44 Obama +1
GWU/Battleground 10/16 - 10/22 1000 LV 3.1 49 45 Obama +4
NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 10/17 - 10/20 1159 RV 2.9 52 42 Obama +10
Associated Press/GfK 10/16 - 10/20 800 LV 3.5 44 43 Obama +1
Ipsos/McClatchy 10/16 - 10/20 773 LV 3.5 50 42 Obama +8
CNN/Opinion Research 10/17 - 10/19 764 LV 3.5 51 46 Obama +5
Pew Research 10/16 - 10/19 2382 LV 2.5 53 39 Obama +14

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html

Revisiting 2004: Assessing the Polls


This represents a diversion from the normal topic of this blog. But it struck me that with all the back and forth on the polls - one suggesting McCain gaining, most not, that it would be good to re-visit an assessment that was done after the last presidential election. What they found is that a majority of the polls - the same ones that are showing Obama with commanding leads - were essentially correct within the margin of error.
But don't take my word for it. Check out it out below. And note, if you will, how close it was. The difference now is that Obama is polling far ahead of where Bush was at this time. Believe the numbers.
--------------

From the Pew Research Center:
November 23, 2004

Pre-Election Polls Largely Accurate

Lessons From Campaign '04

Facing an array of new and difficult challenges, the pre-election surveys performed fairly well in predicting the outcome of this month's election. Once again, the final surveys by most national polling organizations fell within the margin of error, in spite of widespread concerns over rising refusal rates, "missing" cell-phone-only voters and supposedly flawed likely voter screens. In the wake of such a demanding election, there are a number of lessons to be drawn from the performance of the polls in Campaign '04:

Follow the Data. The campaign showed the dangers of making a priori judgments about voter opinion. This concern arose, most notably, with the practice of weighting polling data to meet predetermined parameters of party identification. Until recently, this approach has been mostly used by partisan pollsters but it also has been adopted by some media polling organizations.

As we noted in an earlier commentary, weighting results on the basis of party in the same manner that pollsters weight data to meet demographic parameters is misguided for a number of reasons (see "Party Affiliation: What It Is and What It Isn't," Sept. 23, 2004). It represents a fundamental misreading of party identification, which is an attitude that changes over time and not a demographic characteristic.

The election exit poll underscored the problems inherent in weighting by party. According to the exit poll, the electorate had equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats (37% each). That represents a change from the past three presidential elections, when Democrats held a slight edge in party identification. Consequently, pre-election surveys that adjusted the partisan composition of likely voters to the exit poll results from 2000 would have misrepresented the partisan make-up of the actual electorate.

Follow the Data (Part II). Among the staples of conventional wisdom in this campaign was that, in an incumbent election, voters who are undecided in the late stages of the race break overwhelmingly against the incumbent. Historically, this so-called 'incumbent rule' has proven to be predictive.

But this year's exit poll showed that Kerry had only a modest advantage among the late deciders. Among those who decided in the final three days before the election, Kerry led by 53%-44%. That was a far cry from what many analysts and pundits had predicted. Pew's analysis of undecided voters for its final pre-election estimate which was based on statistical modeling and follow-up questioning of the undecideds predicted they would break about evenly with a small advantage for Kerry.

This proved more reliable than history in gauging their intentions. There is no doubt, however, that predicting the vote among the undecideds and estimating the final outcome are among the most formidable challenges confronting pollsters.

Cross-Pressured Voters Are Hard to Read. The national polls were fairly stable during the summer, with most showing the race about even or Kerry with a slight to modest lead. But in the wake of the GOP's successful convention in late August, voter opinion was less stable and much harder to track. Similarly, the polls fluctuated after the three presidential debates; most polls showed Bush with a lead, though they differed over its size.

Much of the movement in the polls came among cross-pressured swing voters. These voters, who still comprised about 14% of the electorate in Pew's final pre-election survey, were not happy with the president yet still could not comfortably support Kerry. And they wreaked havoc with the polls, as Pew Research Center Director Andrew Kohut observed in the New York Times (Oct. 21, 2004):

"The round of national surveys taken after the third presidential debate indicates that the polls are not going to give us a clear picture of who will win the election until the final days of the campaign, if then. This is not because polling no longer works it's because voter opinion is highly unstable."

This turned out to be the case. Pew and Gallup had similar pre-election results before making their final estimates Pew showed Bush with a three-point lead among likely voters (48%-45%), while Gallup had Bush up by two points (49%-47%). The CBS News/New York Times survey also showed Bush with a slight 49%-47% advantage.

Although the three polls ended up in pretty much the same place, they all got there differently. The Pew survey showed Bush gaining some ground since mid-October, while Gallup showed Kerry gaining over the same period. The CBS News/New York Times survey showed voter opinion as more stable. Consequently, one could draw very different conclusions about the direction of the race by looking at these polls over the last few weeks of the campaign.

State Polls: Helpful But... The number of horse race polls has been rising for the past several elections, and this year brought an increasing number of polls in the battleground states. Facing a difficult political terrain by definition, all of these states were closely divided the state surveys had varying degrees of success.

In Michigan, for instance, most of the final week polls showed Kerry with a slight advantage. Of the six polls conducted between Oct. 25 and Nov. 1, the website RealClear Politics found that, on average, they showed Kerry with a 3.5% lead; Kerry won Michigan 51%-48%.

By contrast, the polls did not fare nearly as well in Florida, which Bush won by a fairly comfortable margin (52%-47%). Four polls conducted in the campaign's final weeks had Bush ahead anywhere from a point to as many as eight points; three others showed Kerry leading, with Fox News showing Kerry with a five-point advantage. The main shortcoming of the state polls is that typically they have small samples. But even some that had sizable samples missed the mark in Florida. The highly diverse make-up of the Florida electorate may present special challenges to polling.

Cell Phones: Not a Major Problem Yet. Throughout the campaign, pollsters were frequently asked about the potential bias created by the fact that cell phones are not reached in telephone surveys. A growing number of people, especially young people, are believed to be relying solely on cell phones for phone service.

The exit polls indicated that approximately 7% of all voters are cell phone-only; this group skews heavily toward younger voters, with about half of them (48%) falling under age 30. But although cell-only voters were somewhat more Democratic than the electorate as a whole, the difference was relatively small. Cell-only voters went for Kerry by a margin of 54% to 45%, compared with Bush's 51%-48% advantage among all voters. This difference, and the relatively small size of the cell-only group, was not large enough to create an error in pre-election poll estimates.

Moreover, young voters with and without cell phones were virtually identical politically, suggesting that young people reachable by conventional land-line service remain representative of their cell-only counterparts. About one-in-five (19%) voters under 30 years of age indicated they relied solely on cell phone service. These voters favored Kerry by 58%-41%, close to the advantage he had among the rest of this age cohort (56%-43%).

Monday, October 20, 2008

Sarah Palin: Governor of the SOCIALIST State of Alaska


Last year Sarah Palin and her family got a check for over $1500 per person from the state of Alaska. What did they do to earn that money? Nothing. They got it simply for being Alaskans. It's their share of the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend which assures that all Alaskans get a cut of oil company profits.

That's at least part of what made Sarah Palin such a popular governor, the way she coerced the oil companies into spreading their wealth .It's socialism on a scale unknown in any other part of the United States.

Which means she was for it before she was against it.

Here's the point: Sarah Palin who is on the circuit decrying Obama's socialist agenda has been presiding over the biggest and most blatant socialist hand-out in American history. McCain applauds her for "taking on the oil companies," but, in fact, what she did was tantamount to extortion - holding them hostage for increased oil revenues that she could distribute to her fellow Alaskans as welfare whether they needed it or not.

The only socialist agenda in America right now is Sarah Palin's.

I believe that's called hypocrisy.

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

From historymania.com

Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend


The Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program was created by state legislation in 1980 to share the wealth of the Alaska Permanent Fund with the people of Alaska. The original program was to give each adult Alaska resident $50 for each year of residency, but this was challenged in court by Ron Zobel and payments were put on hold. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled the program unconstitutional, and the legislature authorized equal dividend payments to all people who had lived in Alaska at least six months. In 1989, the Legislature changed the residency requirement to 24 months, but that was challenged in court and dropped to one calendar year, which is still in effect.

The first dividend payment was $1,000 per person. The next year, the payment dropped to $386.15 and fell to an all-time low of $331.39 in 1984. It climbed the next year to $404.00 and enjoyed fairly steady growth to peak of $1963.86 per person in 2000. Low oil prices and a stock market recession caused the dividend to drop to $919.84 in 2004. The 2005 amounts will be announced in October. (2008: $3,200/person)

The dividend payments are based on a five-year average of the Permanent Fund's earnings, which helps to stabilize the dividends as the stock market and oil market changes from year to year.

The Alaska Permanent Fund Corporation has pushed in recent years for a change in the fund's management style to a Percent of Market Value approach, which is used by many other trust fund management agencies. Changing the fund's management approach requires a state constitutional amendment. This will also affect how dividends are calculated and is a subject of controversy in Alaskan politics. (See the article on the Alaska Permanent Fund.)

See Also:

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

From the Jackson Free Press:

Palin's Alaska: Funded by Oil Profits Tax


If Sarah Palin gets past this press cycle and remains the Vice Presidential nominee on the GOP ticket, there might be one interesting item from her brief tenure as governor of Alaska that would be worthy of discussion on the national stage -- her state's windfall profit sharing from oil leases. It turns out that every person who has lived in Alaska for over a year gets a $3,200 payout from the government thanks to taxes on oil companies; a family as large as Palin's would receive over $22,000 a year.

Sure, you'd be hard pressed to live off that. (Some might try.) But who wouldn't mind that scratch just because you live in an oil-rich state?

No wonder she is popular with voters in a state whose residents pay no income or sales taxes but are blessed with state coffers rolling in cash at a time when all other states are suffering. Indeed, when the oil companies pay more taxes to the state of Alaska, they get to write that off against their federal tax obligation, leaving the rest of us to make up the shortfall.

But wouldn't it be -- I don't know -- communism to take money from the oil companies and give it to citizens? Not according to Governor Palin. When John McCain says that she "took on" the oil companies as governor, what he means is just that -- she raised taxes on oil companies.

FULL ARTICLE


Sunday, October 19, 2008

Spreading the Wealth??












They're at it again. One more item to add to the growing list of distortions and half truths and, yes, LIES.

Earlier Palin accused Obama of "paling around with terrorists." Not "terrorist", but "terrorists." And not a "terrorist" that is on any list of "terrorists", but a "washed up old '60s radical" who is now a noted educationalist. Not exactly a lie, but about as close  as you can get.

Then came the troopergate report with it's  undeniable condemnation of Palin's abuse of office. Her response? To deny it. "I'm so glad I was vindicated," she said.   This was a bald faced lie. But she says it with such a lack of guile that the press lets it slide on by.

Now, she and McCain are on the trail claiming that Obama is a socialist who wants to "spread the wealth." They base this on the Fox News expose of Obama speaking to "Joe the Plumber" (who isn't - another lie).

Well, now it turns out that Obama wasn't suggesting this at all. The clip that Fox News used was a carefully edited attempt to smear Obama (surprise, surprise). And the McCain/Palin team carried the Fox football.

"He wants to spread the wealth!" they say. "He's a socialist. No, he's a Communist!" And the red meat crowd eats it up.

But here's what he actually said. Socialism? Not even close . .

From The New York Times:

“My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s going to be good for everybody,” Mr. Obama said, according to the transcript, adding that plumbers are better off when there are more customers who can afford to hire them. “And right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody, and I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” Mr. Obama said.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Palin and Ayers: Clueless Again

Buried on the fifteenth page of today's Chicago Tribune is an article by Eric Zorn that needs wide exposure. Zorn, it turns out, did an extensive historical fact check on the person Sarah Palin calls a "terrorist" and found, much to the surprise of no one, that whatever Ayers may have done in the past, he can no longer by any stretch of the imagination be called a "terrorist" today.

What continues to be puzzling to many is why the press hasn't pushed the McCain camp to explain how Obama's associations with William Ayers in the 1990's has anything to do with anything except what it was always about - working with someone who is a noted expert on educational reforms. "Paling around with terrorists" (note how Palin always uses the plural - as though Ayers is representative of a whole group of shady characters Obama consorts with) suggests at the very least that Obama and Ayers were hatching plots against America. If that were the case, if Ayers was, indeed, a "terrorist" when Obama was meeting with him, well, then our law enforcement officials have fallen down on the job. He should be in jail. He isn't because he isn't.

Here's just a few of the things Zorn turned up in his research:

  • The late celebrated Tribune journalist, Mike Royko, once wrote that Ayers was a jerk with a shady past. But now he ". . . is working for a good cause, improving public education. He's become a leader in the so-called school reform program."
  • Other articles written in the 90's did refer to Ayer's radical past, but most didn't. In fact, only two articles out of 60 mentioned it. Most referred to the books he had published on education reform and his laudable work to get grant money for schools which landed him the honor of being recognized as Chicago's "Citizen of the Year" in 1997 (the time when Obama was "paling around" with him).
Noting this, Zorn says:

Today, some would say that this was an outrage. Ayers should have been shunned and marginalized, loudly criticized, not embraced, by the city's political and academic establishment.

But the record shows he just wasn't a very controversial figure. Aside from Royko's "I still think he's a jerk" column in 1990, I found only two objections to Ayer's civic rehabilitation in the decade's news archives: a 1993 letter to the Tribune and a 1999 guest editorial.

Zorn goes on to describe McCain and Palin's attempts to smear Obama with Ayers as "revisionist history" of the worst sort, particularly in their use of the "implicit present tense" as though Ayers is still a terrorist, a charge that has not been challenged as it should be by the mainstream press. He is not, says Zorn. Nor was he a terrorist when Obama met him to discuss educational reforms in the 90s, he as well as many other prominent Republicans and Democrats who care about the education of our children.

Zorn's most cutting comment cuts right to the heart of the matter when he says:

If Ayers is a terrorist, then McCain is an adulterer and I am a 6th grader.

Which brings to mind another article that is worth reading - the Rolling Stones Magazine expose on a past that John McCain is desperate to keep buried.

You can read that one by clicking on the picture below.

From the Rolling Stone Magazine:


A closer look at the life and career of John McCain reveals a disturbing record of recklessness and dishonesty




Saturday, October 11, 2008

Sarah Palin: But I didn't break any laws (wink, wink)


Here's a headline from the New York Daily News:




This is Sarah Palin's defense in the face of the damning evidence of her abuse of office. "But I didn't break the law!"

What's disturbing about this is that she actually believes this exonerates her. Which only underscores a point many have made about her. She really is George Bush in a skirt. And not only because of the way she tortures the English language.

Here's the point: the Bush administration has made a fine art of skirting the edges of legality. Wire tapping? We didn't break the law. Torture? Where does it say we can't do that? Getting rid of lawyers we don't like? Can't convict us of anything here.
That, essentially, is Sarah Palin's defense. Can't convict me, so it must be OK. Never mind evidence of the abuse of power. In Palin's eyes its OK as long as she didn't "break the law."

It's George Bush in a skirt.

When Barak Obama says that John McCain means Bush redoux what he usually has in mind is the way McCain has walked in near lock step with the Bush agenda over the past eight years. We can now add another element to this. To elect a McCain/Palin ticket is to have a Bush clone a heart beat away from the presidency.

God help us if that happens.

Friday, October 10, 2008

She Isn't Like You and Me: Sarah Palin's Unpatriotic Associations

A friend of mine who is a lawyer here in Chicago, just sent me a piece he did on a tie Sarah Palin has to an organization which is far more troubling than any ties Obama may have to education professor William Ayers. In this case the association can be labeled seditious. Here's what he says (note also video following).

She Isn't Like You and Me: Sarah Palin's Unpatriotic Associations

by Greg Brownfield

Sarah Palin’s most recent stump speech includes two scathing guilt-by-association riffs. First she says that Obama is “someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists (William Ayers) who attacked their own country.” Second, she suggests sedition with: “this (Obama) is a man that does not see America as you and I see America.”

Apparently Sarah wishes us to forget her association with the Alaskan Independence Party whose convention she endorsed earlier this year. The Alaskan Independence Party sees America as far worse than imperfect. It's so imperfect that their ultimate aim is to secede from the union. Which means that they do not see America as you and I see America. This is clear when you go to the introduction page on their website where you read this from the late founder of their party:

"I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

Joe Vogler
A quick comparison of the two associations will show how much more troubling Palin's is. When Obama met Ayers the latter was a noted education reformer and professor. Should Obama have checked into his past and made judgments about working with him on that basis? Perhaps. But that's not what brought them together. It was a community organizer meeting a noted education expert. End of story.

On the other hand, when Sarah Palin gave her warm words of support to the Alaskan Independence Party she was well aware that it is what it always has been—a radical secessionist movement. And her husband was a member from 1995 until 2000 (talk about guilt by association).

The bottom line is that it’s clear that there is a radical anti-American candidate in this race. But it’s not Obama. In the well-traveled words of Shakespeare, “the lady doth protest too much, methinks.”


Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Is Obama in Danger from Palin's Words?

Here's something Sarah Palin and her neo-con handlers need to consider. The incendiary language Palin has been using to insinuate links between Obama and terrorists may be creating an atmosphere in our country similar to what was found in Israel just before a crazed right wing student murdered then Prime Minister, Yitzhak Rabin.

Is it perhaps time for her to cool the rhetoric? This is dangerous stuff.


From Andrew Sullivan's excellent blog, The Daily Dish, on the Atlantic website.

The Danger to Obama

An Israeli reader writes:

Your post on "The Danger of Obama" immediately brought to mind what happened here in Israel in the period leading up to Yitzhak Rabin's assassination. Even allowingfor the differences in political culture between the two countries, some of the sounds we're hearing in the public debate around the election have a haunting echo.

Here no one would have thought it possible that an Israeli Jew would take the life of a high official. There's little doubt that the crescendo of demonization toward Rabin – including accusations of treason, flyers picturing Rabin as an SS officer – and the difficulty, in a society guaranteeing free speech, of 'civilizing' the public debate before it creates a fertile bed for actual violence, all helped create the context in which Rabin's murderer decided to take matters into his own hands.

I'd like to see which Republicans will denounce this turn towards demonization. And if there are no takers – maybe Joe Lieberman?

My Tea with a 'Terrorist', or Yet Another Reason Why Sarah Palin is Clueless

So the second presidential debate is over. If anyone still thinks that John McCain is a compelling presidential candidate after this, well, they must have just arrived from Mars.

But this is a blog about Sarah Palin, so let me leave you tonight with a great piece from a man who . . . are you ready for this . . . . had tea with the notorious William Ayers. Yes, that's right. He had tea with a terrorist.

Are you listening, Sarah Palin??

From Seattlepi.com

Connelly: My tea with a 'terrorist'

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

AFTER HEARING the unleashed Sarah Palin accuse Sen. Barack Obama of "pallin' around with terrorists" -- and John McCain's brother call northern Virginia "communist country" -- this scribe is moved to a confession.

Onetime Weathermen leader William Ayers, the target in Palin's day of rage, was once a guest in my kitchen. Not only that, but I brewed him a pot of tea and heated up a bagel.

Ayers consorted with our family's standard poodle, S'Murphy Brown, after she extended a paw to the top of his knee.

Circumstances don't matter in wing nuts' land of guilt-by-association, but I had no choice.

The Hi Spot Cafe, notorious liberal hangout in Madrona -- Seattle's equivalent to Chicago's Hyde Park -- had just closed. We needed to do an interview about Ayers' memoir "Fugitive Days," a timely topic since the terrorist atrocity of 9/11 had taken place just 16 days earlier.

The 2008 presidential campaign has taken an ugly turn. In tones reminiscent of Joe McCarthy in the 1950s, John McCain's campaign seeks to tie Obama to Ayers. (The two men are Hyde Park neighbors.) Media have been targeted: An African-American journalist at a Palin rally was reportedly told by someone in the crowd, "Sit down, boy."

It represents an incredible turnaround for a candidate who denounced guilt-by-association just last March.

Asked about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, McCain said: "I think that when people support you, it doesn't mean that you support everything they say. I know that, for example, I've had endorsements of some people that I didn't share their views but they endorsed mine. And so I think we've got to be very careful about that."

McCain has since put his soul in blind trust.

Breathlessly, Tuesday, the McCain-Palin campaign put out a "damming" release confirming that Obama "continued to serve on a charitable board" with Ayers even while knowing he participated in such Vietnam-era actions as the "Days of Rage."

What they were doing was deciding how to spend an educational grant from Walter Annenberg, a Republican and Richard Nixon intimate who served as ambassador to Great Britain.

Of Ayers, I am reminded of an old quip by longtime University of Notre Dame President the Rev. Theodore M. Hesburgh, C.S.C. He reversed the adage about giving people enough rope and they'll hang themselves.

"If you give student dissenters enough time, they'll redeem themselves," said Fr. Ted.

FULL ARTICLE

Sarah Palin: Unleashed and Unhinged

I've been disturbed by a whole lot of things related to the Sarah Palin candidacy. But this has got to be the most disturbing. She's now inciting crowds with her mindless accusations and overblown, ill-informed rhetoric.

This woman is dangerous.

Here's why:

from a Washington Post report by Dana Milbank:

The self-identified pit bull has been unleashed -- if not unhinged.

Barack Obama, she told 8,000 fans at a rally here Monday afternoon, "launched his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist!" This followed her earlier accusation that the Democrat pals around with terrorists. "This is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America," she told the Clearwater crowd. "I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country." The crowd replied with boos.

McCain had said that racially explosive attacks related to Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are off limits. But Palin told New York Times columnist Bill Kristol in an interview published Monday: "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more."

Worse, Palin's routine attacks on the media have begun to spill into ugliness. In Clearwater, arriving reporters were greeted with shouts and taunts by the crowd of about 3,000. Palin then went on to blame Katie Couric's questions for her "less-than-successful interview with kinda mainstream media." At that, Palin supporters turned on reporters in the press area, waving thunder sticks and shouting abuse. Others hurled obscenities at a camera crew. One Palin supporter shouted a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network and told him, "Sit down, boy."

FULL ARTICLE

 
Pet Supplies
Pet Supplies