• IN THIS SECTION

June 13, 2008

Exclusive: Friday, June 13

Presidential Watch

See a very amusing 3 minute mini-movie - Click here for WELCOME BACK, CLINTONS!

The Outrage Game Bites Obama

Michael Scherer, TIME.com

Politicians deploy righteous indignation like college students use credit cards-to excess and with abandon. For such seasoned performers, the emotion is easy to muster, and there are few upfront costs. Rail against powerful interests or the mendacity of your opponent on the stump, and the crowd goes nuts.

But there are sometimes hidden costs in the fine print, interest payments not due for months, especially when the outrage is calculated for maximum political effect. And that outrage came back to haunt Barack Obama Wednesday when Jim Johnson, the man running his vice presidential search team, stepped down after the Wall Street Journal reported that he had received preferential deals on mortgages because he was friendly with an executive at Countrywide Financial, which has been tied to the subprime foreclosure crisis. "Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept," Obama said in a statement.

The road that led to Johnson's withdrawal began back in February, when Obama and his Democratic allies started highlighting the many lobbyist ties that bind together the Republican campaign of John McCain. Read article.

Obama, Black Liberation Theology and Antisemitism

Kyle-Anne Shiver, American Thinker.com

As an American, who grew up in the two decades just after World War II, I have long had a strong repugnance for even the slightest hint of antisemitism. During my lifetime, and in my own experience, the American gentiles I've known have had only the most unabashed love and respect for Jews. To be perfectly honest -- though it may make me seem incomparably naïve -- I didn't really think antisemitism could rear its ugly head in our Country ever, ever again.

Until I started following the threads of Obama's Chicago history, his church, his other associations, especially the religious ones, I honestly didn't think anyone but the scantiest few fringe neo-Nazis or throngs of Middle-Eastern Muslims still harbored Jew hatred.

I assumed Farrakhan got his antisemitism from the Koran. The Koran, after all, is pretty explicit about Mohammed's hatred of the Jews, most likely because the Jews stubbornly clung to the wisdom of their own prophets and refused to convert.

But when I read the Black Liberation Theology books of James H. Cone, I saw a subtly disguised, resentful kind of antisemitism which I had never encountered before. power preachers who ascribe to Black Liberation Theology seem to be masters at provoking envy in the name of Christianity.

One of Cone's earliest books, Black Theology & Black Power, was first published in 1969, only 24 years after the end of WWII. At the War's end, photographic and cinematic evidence of the Holocaust was spread worldwide and was met with horrific incredulity at what the Nazis had done to the Jews. Yet, Cone embeds within his call to black liberation a diabolical resentment that Jews, not blacks, could lay claim to the Holocaust. When I first read his words, they caught in my throat and I could barely believe they were on the page before me.

Cone is writing of "negro hatred of white people" not being in the least "pathological," but a "healthy human reaction to oppression, insult, and terror." He remarks that white people seem surprised by this hatred, but that they shouldn't be, because it's just a natural response to the horrors black people face. Read article.

The Radical Takeover of the Democrat Party

Dale O'Leary, Life Site News.com

The Democrat party is in the midst of a great battle and while the pundits recognize that something is going on, none of them seem willing or able to explain the nature of the conflict. At root, the battle is a battle between Liberals and Radicals.

Take the issue of rights. Conservatives believe that everyone has equal rights, no matter their sex or race or ethnic background or religion. Liberals also believe in equal rights, but they believe that equal rights should lead to statistically equal outcomes. Conservatives accept that giving people equality of opportunity and rights does not guarantee equality of results, but Liberals see inequality of results and assume that there has been some injustice. Therefore, Liberals push for affirmative action, quotas, and other artificial mechanisms, which they hope will create statistical equality. This inevitably replaces one injustice with another.

Radicals are not interested in equality of rights or even statistical equality of results. Radicals believe that all history is the history of class struggle: the rich oppressing the

poor, those of European ancestry oppressing those of African ancestry, men oppressing women, heterosexuals oppressing gays, lesbians and transgendered, America oppressing developing nations.

It is not enough for the oppressors to stop oppressing and offer equality of opportunity and rights, or even equality of results. According to the Radicals, the oppressors have enjoyed "privileges" that the oppressed have been denied. This privilege consists in belonging to the privileged oppressor class. So even if you personally have never engaged in a single act of racism, sexism, or homophobia, the fact that you are a white, heterosexual male means that you have benefited from being a member of the oppressor class and therefore you are guilty and you deserve to pay. Read article.

Voting for Commander in Chief - There can only be one.

Frederick W. Kagan, Weekly Standard.com

It would be hard to design a better test for the job of commander in chief than the real-life test senators John McCain and Barack Obama have undergone in the last two years. As the situation in Iraq deteriorated during 2006 and the war reached its most critical moment, both senators served on national security committees: McCain on Armed Services, Obama on Foreign Relations.

From those positions, with access to classified situation reports as well as the public testimony and private advice of those who knew the situation in Iraq best, each man reached an understanding of the facts on the ground and the interests at stake. And each proposed a strategy. It was as close as a presidential candidate could get to showing how he would respond to a national security crisis without already being in the White House.

Both men's proposals are a matter of public record, available on the Internet. McCain set forth his in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute on January 5, 2007 (at an event marking the release of AEI's "Choosing Victory," which I wrote, outlining a strategy like the one Bush later ordered). Obama presented his in the "Iraq War De-Escalation Act of 2007 " (S. 433), which he introduced in the Senate on January 30. We also know the strategy the president chose--the surge of forces he announced on January 10, very similar to what McCain described--and the outcome it has brought. Read article.

Terrorist-in-Chief Barack Obama

Greg Lewis, NMJ.us

We face the prospect of electing as President a man who has never spoken directly with General David Petraeus, the U.S. commander who turned around the War in Iraq that has enabled us to cripple Al Qaeda and pave the way for the emergence of an incipient pro-American democracy in that country. Indeed, we face the prospect of electing a man who, if he ever does meet with General Petraeus, probably won't be able to look him in the eye, so devastating to U.S. security interests are the plans that Barack Obama has for decimating our military.

Before Obama gets done with his plans to undermine our country's interests, he'll be much more appropriately named Terrorist-in Chief of the United States Army. Obama's announced agenda of military cuts and negotiating unequivocally with terrorist leaders of every stripe brands him as someone only a card-carrying leftist Democrat could love.

Obama's position seems to be "negotiate from a position of weakness, or don't negotiate at all," because among the first things on his announced agenda are withdrawing our military forces from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, and decimating our military through drastic cuts in military spending.

Now, one of the difficulties we had in responding to the terrorist attack that killed some 3,000 Americans on our own soil on September 11, 2001, was that President George W. Bush's predecessor, Bill Clinton, had himself gutted the military and weakened us seriously during his presidency. It is widely acknowledged that Islamist terrorists read the Clinton administration during the 1990s as "weak on terror."

Obama plans to follow the Clinton blueprint for military weakness leading to terrorist attacks on the United States to the letter. Obama has promised to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful [military] spending." He has also vowed to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems," to "slow our development of future combat systems," and to "set a goal for a world without nuclear weapons." He vows that the U.S., under his watch, "will not develop new nuclear weapons," and that he will "negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert, and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenal." Read article.

Oklahoma Democrat Calls Obama Liberal, Declines to Endorse

NewsMax.com

Democratic Rep. Dan Boren of Oklahoma said Tuesday Barack Obama is "the most liberal senator" in Congress and he has no intention of endorsing him for the White House.

However, Boren will vote for Obama at the Democratic National Convention in Denver in August and will vote Democratic on Nov. 4.

"I think this is an important time for our country," Boren said in a telephone interview. "We're facing a terrible economic downturn. We have high gasoline prices. We have problems in our foreign policy. That's why I think it's important."

Boren, the lone Democrat in Oklahoma's congressional delegate, said that while Obama has talked about working with Republicans, "unfortunately, his record does not reflect working in a bipartisan fashion." Read article.

Hillary Still in the Game

Morris & McGann, NewsMax.com

Why won't Hillary just concede that she has lost and pull out of the race? Why does she persist in keeping her delegates in line for her and not releasing them to Obama? Why does she feign party unity while, in fact, undermining it?

The Clintons never do anything without a lot of thinking and planning. There is no benign explanation for her maneuvers. They have several options that they are deliberately keeping open by their increasingly awkward positioning.

Here's what they're up to:

1. The Obama Stumbles Option

As Hillary says, June is "early" in politics when the convention is not to be held until the end of August, unusually late for a Democratic conclave. And, as Tip O'Neill says "a week is a long time in politics." So is three months.

Rumors abound about incriminating material on Obama. The potential for misstep is amplified now that he adjusts to a new task of taking on McCain - who knows how many other preachers there are in the closet? Hillary's skilled force of private detectives, who we once called the secret police, are doubtless diving into garbage dumpsters all over America to come up with whatever they can.

Hillary wants to be there to exploit any mistakes. She will be watching and waiting. Suppose Obama flubs a line on the campaign trail or damaging material emerges from the Rezko prosecution?

Hillary will indicate her continued availability as an alternative. Remember that superdelegates can change their minds anytime they want. Now they are leaving Hillary to back Obama, the winner, but they could easily go the other way. Read article.

The McCain Doctrine for Mexico?

Johnnie B. Byrd

Lately, it is hard to ignore that Ciudad Juarez has become a literal war zone where unimaginable brutality has transformed this once sleepy tourist town into a living hell for its 1.3 million inhabitants. According to the El Paso Times, "The violence, which has included kidnappings, car-to-car shootings on boulevards and victims pelted by machine guns in broad daylight ...has Juarenses looking over their shoulders as they try to go about their daily lives."

The state of affairs can only be described as anarchy, with drug cartels brazenly fighting each other while intimidating and even assassinating police and government officials.

It's no wonder that Mexicans are openly asking if their country has descended into civil war. When polled, 53 percent of Mexicans said cartels are defeating Mexican forces engaged in a nationwide crackdown. Only 24 percent believed the government is winning. On our side of the border, 62 percent of El Paso voters believe the violence is spilling over into their city.

This indeed is an opening for McCain, especially considering that both U.S. Presidential contenders have already delivered their obligatory Latin America policy speeches-both devoid of any focus on Mexico. Yet, turning the U.S. voters' attention to Mexican issues might reopen a raging immigration debate. Will McCain play it safe and ‘leave this sleeping dog' alone? Read article.

Trap may await Obama

David Keene, The Hill.com

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) managers appear convinced that if they can just get Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) to agree to a series of "town hall meetings," at which both candidates will field questions from an audience, their candidate will do better than if he is forced to deliver his message via set-piece speeches. McCain has already participated in hundreds of such meetings this year and is comfortable with the more relaxed format. What's more, he can't really compete with the oratorically gifted Obama in the more traditional formal presentations one might expect to dominate the campaign.

They may well be right. McCain's speeches tend to read better than they sound. In fact, McCain's spin team has been unleashed after virtually every major speech he's delivered thus far in the campaign to focus reporters and others on what the man had to say rather than on his delivery. Obama's managers, on the other hand, seem to want

to do just the opposite: to get people to pay attention to their man's performance, as opposed to the substance of his remarks.

In a sense, this contrast mirrors real differences between the candidates. McCain is relatively comfortable down in the weeds discussing the substance of what he might do as president, while Obama is running a more thematic campaign but has yet to demonstrate an ability to handle substance in any truly in-depth way. He appeals to the emotion and, indeed, the hopes of his audience, while his GOP opponent directs his appeal to the voters' heads rather than their hearts.

What is surprising is that Obama seems ready to rise to the bait and meet McCain on the battlefield most feel will give the Arizonan an edge. Obama's people argue that the young senator has a short learning curve, will do well in any format and relishes the chance to appear side by side with the shorter, elderly and more stilted McCain. They may be right, of course, but their overconfidence could just as easily lead Obama into a trap. Read article.

Barack, Bobby, and Bryan

David R. Stokes, Townhall.com

Barack Obama's choice to involve Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late president, as part of a three-person team leading his search for a running mate is another not-so-subtle example of his very real desire to be seen as the present-day embodiment of Camelot. It may turn out to be a very effective strategy in a day and age when style and image trump just about everything else. His repeated vow to change this country, with its non-specific resemblance to JFK's 1960 rhetorical promise to "get America moving again," seems to resonate with crowds.

Change what? Move where? Such messages tend to resonate with people who are disaffected, and the hearer is free to insert his or her own hopes and fears into the narrative.

A closer look at Mr. Obama, however, will reveal that he actually seems to bear a closer resemblance to JFK's younger brother Bobby, who was tragically murdered forty years ago this week in a moment of violent insanity. Read article.

Stage Managing the Manchurian Candidate

Lance Fairchok, NMJ.us

It is tough being all things to all people and promising more entitlement and spending at every turn, and then talking about "fixing" government and "changing" how Washington does business. The contradiction takes real rhetorical acrobatics to explain away. It is even tougher to hide all the radicals and Marxists you associated with, supported and excused over the years, and the racist clergy that bellowed hatred to your children. Of course, it helps if the press covers for you, ignores the frequent absurdities and falsehoods and inflates your successes. It helps a lot.

Since critical analysis is not a skill widely found in today's newsrooms or in many voters' living rooms, Barack Obama, a man unqualified to lead a Labor Day parade not to mention the nation, has a shot of being president. At least the disastrous Jimmy Carter had been a governor with some fiduciary experience.

In Obama's case, it's all about managing the image and setting the stage. After all, sound bites and snapshots are what people remember, those annoying misrepresentations, and that blatant pandering are lost on them. Obama's campaign knows it, so you get "Change" and "Hope" repeated endlessly, in a crude brainwashing allegedly effective with the average voter or more accurately, simpletons, which the Democrats and particularly Obama believe the American people to be. It is an old technique, made more effective with modern media.

In times past, a few barrels of beer lubricated the pandering, but then a candidate could travel to only so many places and talk to only so many people. The substance of their words received detailed examination, as newspapers were the common method to gauge their message. You can put a newspaper on the coffee table and reread it; you can chew on a candidate's positions because the forum demands he actually have one. He was even expected to be able to convey his positions in readable English. Today the sound bites come at us at a furious pace, the speeches are bad theater, there is no substance found in either. In our double espresso, eat your lunch on the road world, it's all visual, few take the time to dig into a candidate and learn what he or she really represents. The Democrats count on it. Read article.

What kind of war crimes trials does Obama plan?

Thomas Lifson, American Thinker.com

Barack Obama's plan for imposing unity on the nation after he takes office apparently entails a close look at war crimes trials for Bush administration officials. He has even said so in an interview with Will Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News.

This kind of change -- putting your predecessors on trial for their conduct of policy -- may not be what most Americans really want or expect from someone with Obama's gauzy rhetoric of unity. But unity has a dark side in the hands of people who regard their opponents as criminals. America has two centuries-plus of history lacking the totalitarian practice of jailing the predecessors when a new president takes office.

This is the sort of proposal one might expect from a man steeped in Marxism at his church, from his friends like Ayers, and as a member of the Alinsky Left. Read article.

Print This E-mail This

Share It: