• IN THIS SECTION

May 29, 2008

Exclusive: Thursday, May 29

Presidential Watch

2004 Letter Defending Partial-Birth Abortions

Steven Ertelt, LifeNews.com

Michelle Obama, the attorney wife of pro-abortion Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, is coming under fire for a letter she wrote defending partial-birth abortions. The 2004 letter, written to help Obama in his campaign for his U.S. Senate seat, opposes the ban on the abortion procedure.

In February 2004, Michelle Obama penned a fundraising letter to help her husband Barack raise funds for his Illinois-based Senate seat.

The letter contends the federal ban on partial-birth abortions "is clearly unconstitutional" and "a flawed law."

Though the three-day-long partial-birth abortion procedure involves the partial birth of a baby during the middle trimester of pregnancy and the jamming of scissors into the back of her head to kill her, Obama's wife describes it as "legitimate" medicine. Read article.

The Last Debate

Maureen Dowd, NY Times.com

"What do you want? Please, Sweetie, would you just tell me what you want?"

"Don't Sweetie me, Twiggy. You know what I want."

"Besides that, Hillary. Seriously, you don't want your delusion to put John McCain in the White House. Or maybe you do. You have no shot. I'm 60 delegates away from nomination nirvana. You should stop stalking me. I come down to Florida for a victory lap and you follow me down here and call for a recount. Look what that did for Al Gore. If you show a shred of common sense and take a powder now, the party will put you on a pedestal."

"Pedestals are for losers. You're on a pedestal. I've never been a loser. I refuse to lose. I won the West Virginia and Kentucky derbies, and I'm not going to end up like Eight Belles."

"Hillary, you've been a great candidate, better than your train-wreck campaign. You're Churchillian in your indomitable tenacity. You've inspired women all over the country. In fact, you've inspired some of them to hate me. But now it's time for you to try to muster a gracious exit."

"Forget it, Bones. Once Harold Ickes works his dark magic on the delegate rules to count Michigan and Florida, I'll have the popular vote. And then the superdelegates will grovel back. They know in their hearts that they don't want to go on a blind date with a guy who's going to be BFF with Cuba, Hamas, Iran and retired Weathermen. You can bet your white turban that I'm not raising the white flag."

"Like hell you aren't, sister."

"Sexist!"

"Racist!" Read article.

Media ignores Obama concert negatives

Jeff Johnson, OneNewsNow.com

At least some members of the much-touted crowd of 75,000 people at a May 18 rally in Portland for Barack Obama may have been there, in part, to see a popular local band that normally opens its concerts with the national anthem -- of the former Soviet Union.

National media outlets have widely reported estimates of between 72,000 and 75,000 people in attendance at Obama's rally. What they have largely failed to report, however, is that many in the crowd may have attended as much for a free concert as to express their support for the Democratic frontrunner.

"The rally drew 75,000 people, but the media did not give any credit to the opening act, The Decemberists, who are wildly popular in Portland," says Robert Knight, director of the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center. "I'm not saying that Obama wouldn't have drawn a big crowd, but certainly when you have a band that popular opening for him on a beautiful day, that probably should have been mentioned [by the media]."

By not mentioning the band, Knight says, the media has been able to avoid a well-known fact about The Decemberists. "You'd think the media would find it interesting that a presidential candidate had a band open for him that typically plays the Soviet national anthem, the song that celebrates communism in Russia," Knight says. "But the media has taken no interest in it." Read article.

Some of the Lies of Barack Obama

Stephen Frank, CA Political News.com

The Left has said that Obama is a great speaker, better than Reagan. But Reagan never lied, while Obama can not find or tell the truth.

Step by step, a short list of the lies of Obama come alive in this story.

He lies about his past, his mentors, his friends and his values and views.

No wonder all polls show that the voters have problems trusting this man. If he ran against an honest person, instead of Hillary, he would not be the Democrat nominee-only the Clintons are bigger liars than Barack.

Would you trust this man to speak on your behalf with world leaders? Would you trust his words or actions on your behalf?

America is in trouble. Will it wake up before we have another Jimmie Carter in the White House, with the veracity of the Clintons? Read article.

Daily Kos Photochop Depicts Michelle Obama Being Tortured by Klan Members

Warner Todd Huston, American Conservative Daily.com

Yesterday, Barack Obama began crying again. Someone should remind him... there's no crying in politics. He has whined that we can't use his middle name, he has whined when we bring up his close relations with aging hippy terrorists, that we ask aloud about his "spiritual mentor, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and now he is crying that we are highlighting the anti-American statements made by his wife as she campaigns for him all across the country. So, on Monday he whined "lay off my wife,".

Well, fast on the heels of Obama telling us we can't use the anti-American statements of his wife as a campaign issue we get the kiddies over at the DailyKos doing their best to "help" Barack Obama by making an image of Michelle Obama hanging from a tree with robbed KKK figures torturing her with a branding iron and claiming that this is the "NEW IMPROVED" GOP strategy. So much for the subtleties and civility that Barack claims he wants, eh?

Even more damning, Kos pulled the entire post off the website, photochopped image of Michelle as KKK victim and all. Little Green Footballs has a great screen shot of the original post.

This whole thing of Obama constantly whining that everyone is "attacking" him makes him look like such a weakling. What does he think will happen? As the old saying goes, politics ain't beanbag. This is a tough fight for all the marbles, not a tea party.

First of all, Barack is seeming like the tiny fellow on the playground that has found out that if he always yells as if he was hurt by someone, he can get everyone else in trouble. This unseemly, spineless whining would be amusing were it not showing to a hostile world that one of our candidates for president can't take the heat of a campaign, much less the harsh world he'll meet should he become president. Barack's weakness reflects on us all and puts us all at risk in a dangerous world, unfortunately. Read article.

Obama to A'jad: Atomic Assist - Stiffs UN in Nuke Negotiations

Amir Taheri, NY Post.com

Ali Larijani, Iran's former nuclear negotiator and now a Majlis member, was arguing that the Islamic Republic would pay a heavy price for Ahmadinejad's rejection of three UN Security Council resolutions on nukes. Then the likely Democratic presidential nominee stepped in.

Obama announced that, if elected, he wouldn't ask Iran to comply with UN resolutions as a precondition for direct talks with Ahmadinejad: "Preconditions, as it applies to a country like Iran, for example, was a term of art. Because this administration has been very clear that it will not have direct negotiations with Iran until Iran has met preconditions that are essentially what Iran views, and many other observers would view, as the subject of the negotiations; for example, their nuclear program."

"Talking without preconditions" would require America to ignore three unanimous Security Council resolutions. Before starting his unconditional talks, would Obama present a new resolution at the Security Council to cancel the three that Ahmadinejad doesn't like? Or would the new US president act in defiance of the United Nations - further weakening the Security Council's authority?

President Bush didn't set the preconditions that Obama promises to ignore. They were agreed upon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran was in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. Acting in accordance with its charter, the IAEA referred the issue to the Security Council. Read article.

If We Could Talk to the Animals

Ann Coulter, Human Events.com

What Matthews and the Times are saying is this: We can have a Munich, but we promise to be tougher than Chamberlain was. Therein lies the flaw in their logic. Yes, in the abstract, it is technically possible to "talk" without giving up Czechoslovakia (or in today's case, Iraq or Israel).

But in reality, when talking to a lunatic without having first bombed him into submission, the only possible result is appeasement. Any talk with Hitler, or a McHitler like Ahmadinejad, that does not include handing over Czechoslovakia or Israel, like a game show parting gift, is going to be a relatively brief chat.

Churchill knew that before Chamberlain went to Munich. But a lot of Britons then, like a lot of Americans today, refused to see that blindingly obvious point.

Liberals think the way to deal with dangerous tyrants is to send in a sensitive president who will make Ahmadinejad fall in love with him. They imagine Obama becoming Ahmadinejad's psychotherapist, like Barbra Streisand in "The Prince of Tides." Read article.

Finding Appeasers in the Mirror

Jonathan Tobin, JWR.com

Not long before President Bush delivered a speech to Israel's Knesset last week celebrating that nation's 60th anniversary, the residents of the Jewish state's southern city of Ashkelon received a different sort of greeting.

An Iranian-made Grad model Katyusha rocket crashed into a mall in the city of more than 100,000, wounding four persons while several dozen others were treated for shock.

The missile, launched by the Islamic Jihad group from their safe haven in Hamas-ruled Gaza, served as an interesting counterpoint to Bush's tough talk about terror, which set off a controversy back home.

Bush's speech was noteworthy because it expressed a passionate support for Zionism in a way that only an evangelical Christian such as the 43rd president would find congenial. While some of his predecessors such as Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton ("Shalom, chaver") have spoken with affection of Israel, it was remarkable to hear a president describe the re-creation of Jewish sovereignty in terms that a religious, as opposed to a secular, Zionist would use.

It's one thing to talk about common values, but quite another to speak of Israel's independence as "the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David - a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael," as Bush did. Read article.

Obama misrepresented tie with Palestinian activist? - Claims only 'conversations,' but association includes fundraisers, testimonials, dinners

Aaron Klein, WND.com

Did Sen. Barack Obama misrepresent his relationship with a pro-Palestinian activist and harsh critic of Israel who has been described as a friend of the senator?

At a a Boca Raton, Fla., synagogue, Obama was asked about his association with Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, who has made repeated statements supportive of Palestinian terrorism. He replied:

"To pluck out one person who I know and who I've had a conversation with who has very different views than 900 of my friends and then to suggest that somehow that shows that maybe I'm not sufficiently pro-Israel, I think, is a very problematic stand to take," he said. "So we gotta be careful about guilt by association."

But Obama's relationship with Khalidi goes beyond conversation.

Khalidi's ties to Obama were first exposed by WND in February in a widely cited article.

Sources at the university told WND that Khalidi and Obama lived in nearby faculty residential zones and that the two families dined together a number of times. The sources said the Obamas even babysat the Khalidi children.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi, who spoke to WND in February.

As WND reported, an anti-Israel Arab group run by Khalidi's wife, Mona, received crucial funding from a Chicago nonprofit, the Woods Fund, for which Obama served as a board member. Read article.

Obama's Troubling Instincts

Karl Rove, Online WSJ.com

Barack Obama is ambling rather than sprinting across the primary-season finish line. It's not just his failure to connect with blue-collar Democrats. He has added to his problems with ill-informed replies on critical foreign policy questions.

On Sunday at a stop in Oregon, Sen. Obama was dismissive of the threats posed by Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, Cuba and Syria. That's the same Iran whose Quds Force is arming and training insurgents and illegal militias in Iraq to kill American soldiers; that is supporting Hezbollah and Hamas in violent attacks on Lebanon and Israel; and that is racing to develop a nuclear weapon while threatening the "annihilation" of Israel.

By Monday in Montana, Mr. Obama recognized his error. He abruptly changed course, admitting that Iran represents a threat to the region and U.S. interests.

Voters need to ask if Sunday's comments, not Monday's correction, aren't the best evidence of his true thinking. Read article.

GOP Senate Massacre of '08

Dick Morris, Vote.com

While Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) hangs in there, locked in a tough race with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), the Republican undercard is facing obliteration in the 2008 general elections for the Senate. Polling suggests that a massacre may be in the offing - and one that's possibly even greater than the worst of previous GOP years: 1958, 1964, 1974, 1986 and 2006.

Scott Rasmussen, whose site, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/, follows these races closely, is producing truly hair-raising polling data.

Of the open Republican Senate seats in contention, Democratic victory seems very likely in Virginia (Democratic former Gov. Mark Warner now has 55 percent, while fellow former Republican Gov. Jim Gilmore stands at 37) and New Mexico (where Democratic Rep. Tom Udall takes 53 percent to GOP Rep. Steve Pearce's 37 and 57 percent to Republican Rep. Heather Wilson's 36). In Colorado, Democratic Rep. Mark Udall has a narrow lead over Republican Bob Schaffer (45-42). Nebraska would seem safely Republican, but a humongous black turnout in Mississippi could elect former Democratic Gov. Ronnie Musgrove, just as it led to a Democratic congressional victory in a bi-election this month. Score them: two Democrat, one leaning Democrat, one leaning Republican, and one Republican. A net loss of two or three seats.

And then there are the endangered incumbents. Three GOP senators are actually behind their Democratic challengers. Alaska's Ted Stevens is behind Mark Begich by 47-45. Elizabeth Dole trails Kay Hagan in North Carolina by 48-47. And Jeanne Shaheen is well ahead of John Sununu in New Hampshire, 51-43. Stevens's legal problems and the likely huge black turnout in North Carolina make all three states lean Democratic at this point. Read article.

Our Moral Compass is Broken

Arnold Ahlert, Political Mavens.com

Whether it is the war on terror, the crisis in Burma or everything in between, it seems that Western civilization has lost its capacity to see things in terms of the "big picture." What is the "big picture?" The exact same one it's been since the dawn of civilization: good versus evil.

Unfortunately, recognizing the difference between good and evil has become Western culture's greatest liability. Nowadays it has become necessary to bring the "reasoning" of moral relativity, multiculturalism, and non-judgmentalism to every equation. The result? Moral paralysis.

Virtually every American politician in both parties talked about the necessity of removing Saddam Hussein. George W. Bush did it-and has been vilified ever since. Why? Because he dared to defy the moral paralysis that deems talking about wrongness, as opposed to acting against it, is sufficient.

In Burma, we see an "outraged" world and an "indignant" United Nations highly critical of the military junta's refusal to allow aid workers to reach the dead and dying. The cyclone hit on May 3rd. Fifteen crucial days later, everyone is still outraged and indignant-and nothing substantial is getting done.

Americans are of two minds regarding the confrontation of evil: some think the last remaining superpower should be the "world's policeman." Others believe whatever atrocities or calamities befall those beyond our borders should be left to someone else to alleviate, or that "throwing money at the problem" is a morally sufficient response. Read article.

Some Republicans sense disorder in McCain campaign

Adam Nagourney, IHT.com

John McCain's presidential campaign is in a troubled stretch even before his formal nomination, hindered by resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy, some Republicans say.

In interviews, some party leaders said they were worried about signs of disorder in his campaign and about whether the focus in the last several weeks on the prominent role of lobbyists in McCain's inner circle might undercut the heart of his general election message: that he is reformer taking on special interests in Washington.

"The core image of John McCain is as a reformer in Washington, and the more dominant the story is about the lobbying teams around him, the more you put that into question," said Terry Nelson, who was McCain's campaign manager until he was forced out last year. "If the Obama campaign can truly change him from being seen as a reformer to just being another Washington politician, it could be very damaging over the course of the campaign." Read article.