• IN THIS SECTION

July 2, 2008

Exclusive: Thursday, July 3

Presidential Watch

Drudge Report Censors Ads on Reports about Obama-Communism Link GO HERE.

The General's Big Mouth

Marc Ambinder, The Atlantic.com

It could be the thin air up here; maybe that gives me the perspective equivalent to the astronomer who is looking into a black hole and sees the Democrats and Republicans slowly revolving around the event horizon, beneath which is total absurdity and oblivion. Ret. Gen. Wes Clark's remark -- in response to a question from Bob Scheiffer -- was a provocation; an insult. Critics of McCain have used the same verbiage before, and used it as an insult. Historians and journalists who study the events will first notice that McCain spent five years as a POW; surely, that is the relevant fact, not the way he became a POW.

One focuses on the means of his condition only to degrade the subsequent five years, as if to say, yeah, five years of torture was bad, but it was kinda dumb of him to get shot down. Referring to the shoot down strips away the relevant context: McCain was shot down on a daring combat mission whose target, as I recall, was strategically relevant. It wasn't as if he wandered into Viet Cong airspace and was hit by a stray piece of metal. (By the way - and this is important - McCain admits in both the books he wrote about his Vietnam experience that he wasn't a great aviator. So why even make the point?) Read article.

Does Barack Obama Stand For Anything?

Editor, Against Obama.com

What does Barack Obama truly believe? Does it depend on the day of the week?

True, candidates typically tack to the center after contentious primaries. But the "candidate of change" is taking that process to Twilight Zone levels.

* Last fall, a spokesman said of a controversial element in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act reauthorization bill, "To be clear: Barack will support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies."

This week, Obama declared his support for a FISA bill that included just such immunity.

* Last week, Obama switched his position on public financing of presidential campaigns.

* He's managed to switch his position on NAFTA twice: He supported it before the primary; said he wanted to renegotiate it while campaigning in Ohio - and now has told a magazine interviewer that his language during the primaries may have been "overheated." Read article.

So Tell Us, Sen. Obama, 'Who Else Sent You?'

Russ Vaughn, American Thinker.com

It was, of course, inevitable. How could any politician rise so quickly on the legendarily corrupt Chicago political scene and be as pure as Obama's devoted followers were purporting him to be? The question in the minds of skeptics was, "Who sent you?"

Well now we're beginning to find out and it ain't pretty. In a lengthy, and amazingly frank, Boston Globe article depicting the dismal results of Chicago's attempt to develop and manage low income housing through private developers, we see that the candidate of change is nothing more than another Chicago machine-generated pol with his feet firmly mired in the muck of corruption of the city he chose to make his political base.

From the Globe article we learn that Tony Rezko, FOB, (Friend of Barack's) whom we have known up to now only as a corrupt developer, was and is, in fact, a slum lord, although on a much grander scale than what we usually associate with that term. Using government subsidies which Obama helped them obtain, Rezko and other FOB's, some now actively associated with his campaign, developed low income housing with fancy sounding names and substandard construction within Obama's state senatorial district.

The article points out that it was Obama's law firm and Obama himself that represented these slum lords when angry tenants complained about overflowing sewage, inoperable heating units and rat infestations. And guess what? Just as we're expected to believe that Obama sat in his church for twenty years and never heard any of Reverend Jeremiah Wright's racist diatribes, now we're told Obama was unaware of the slum-like conditions his constituents were living in, conditions directly attributable to the thievery from public coffers of his political cronies like Rezko. Read article.

Dreams From His Grandmother

Ten general-election strategies Obama can use to disguise his hard-left views.

Victor Davis Hanson, NRO.com

I think we are beginning to see the full measure of the Obama general campaign strategy, framed along ten or so key directives that can allow the election of the most leftward candidate in American political history.

So far the candidate himself needs no coaching, inasmuch he has proved to be one of the most pragmatic, flexible, and ambitious figures in recent memory, with superb handlers who understand the challenge of getting such a hard leftist past the suspicious American electorate.

"Maturing" Views. Move to the center on as many problematic issues as possible - whether FISA, NAFTA, talking to dictators, the death penalty, etc. Disguise blatant flip-flops by talking about McCain's changes of heart - such as his opposition to tax cuts eight years ago. And just as dreams of Obama's father were once essential in cementing his questionable racial bona fides in Chicago, now the thing to do is drop most mention of the African connection, and instead resurrect his grandparents as proof of his more influential midwestern, working-class Americana credentials. Think "Dreams from My Grandmother." Read article.

Selling Race Bait II: The "R Word" Threats

No Quarter USA.net

Race baiting is branching out. Kathleen Sebelius, Governor of Kansas and possible Democratic VP contender, is now in on the game. She recently explained to us how Obama will be attacked; "I don't think anybody's going to go directly at the race issue, but that's going to be an underlying theme [by saying things like] he's not qualified, he's somebody who should scare you. He's too liberal." http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/12600

This statement echoes Obama's own warning that Republicans will use the race card in the form of trying to frighten people into believing he is inexperienced and scary.

Talk about trying to scare people! One trembles at the thought of being called a racist, so holding it out as a threat to supress candid, open discussion about Obama and his qualifications and actions amounts to nothing more than psychological thuggery.

However, this ruthless campaign tactic may well unravel like a cheap sweater.

A most curious thing is happening, and not only to me. The first time in my life that I was called a racist was about four months ago. I was on the sidewalk and a guy on a bicycle yelled out that "R" word as he raced by me. Why? I assume it was because I was wearing a Hillary tee-shirt. Yet this horrific slur lodged into my chest like a sharp knife. I wanted to chase him down and explain how my Mama raised me to never judge people by their skin color. I wanted to show him my family photo album-name a race, ethnicity, or religion, and we've got it. Read article.

Obama Camp Closely Linked With Ethanol

Larry Rohter, NY Times.com

When VeraSun Energy inaugurated a new ethanol processing plant last summer in Charles City, Iowa, some of that industry's most prominent boosters showed up. Leaders of the National Corn Growers Association and the Renewable Fuels Association, for instance, came to help cut the ribbon - and so did Senator Barack Obama.

Then running far behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in name recognition and in the polls, Mr. Obama was in the midst of a campaign swing through the state where he would eventually register his first caucus victory. And as befits a senator from Illinois, the country's second largest corn-producing state, he delivered a ringing endorsement of ethanol as an alternative fuel.

Mr. Obama is running as a reformer who is seeking to reduce the influence of special interests. But like any other politician, he has powerful constituencies that help shape his views. And when it comes to domestic ethanol, almost all of which is made from corn, he also has advisers and prominent supporters with close ties to the industry at a

time when energy policy is a point of sharp contrast between the parties and their presidential candidates.

Ethanol is one area in which Mr. Obama strongly disagrees with his Republican opponent, Senator John McCain of Arizona.

Mr. McCain advocates eliminating the multibillion-dollar annual government subsidies that domestic ethanol has long enjoyed. As a free trade advocate, he also opposes the 54-cent-a-gallon tariff that the United States slaps on imports of ethanol made from sugar cane, which packs more of an energy punch than corn-based ethanol and is cheaper to produce.

"We made a series of mistakes by not adopting a sustainable energy policy, one of which is the subsidies for corn ethanol, which I warned in Iowa were going to destroy the market" and contribute to inflation, Mr. McCain said this month. Read article.

Character judgment

Salena Zito, Pittsburgh Live.com

By all accounts, Barack Obama should win this election. He and his brand control the image, the message and, to a large extent, the media of this election cycle.

Yes, the media. He has enough money to buy ads every day from now to election day, glossy magazines cannot wait to put his image on their covers, Hollywood types are so smitten that they wear his image on their clothing and YouTube is bursting at the seams with homages to him.

It is definitely his to win -- or to lose.

It all hinges on two things: likability and character.

Obama certainly is likable enough; no one gives "speech" better than the Illinois senator.

Yet what about character? Because of Obama's newness and his lack of testing under difficult political circumstances, what do we know about his character? Read article.

Carter, Obama, and the Evangelicals

David R. Stokes, Townhall.com

As Barack Obama coasts to his coronation as the Democratic nominee in late August, he's managed to convince many that he wears the mantle of Camelot. Toward that end, he's been chasing Kennedy coattails every bit as much as he has delegates.

Some who are clearly less-than-enamored of Mr. Obama have tried to suggest that his candidacy looks more like George McGovern's in 1972 than that of Jack Kennedy in 1960, or brother Bobby in 1968. But that argument hasn't developed much traction. A closer look at current personalities and patterns suggests another comparison, one that may actually be the best political parallel between a past campaign and the current phenomenon.

Could the ascendancy and candidacy of Barack Obama be the second coming of Jimmy Carter? Consider these interesting parallels.

First, Jimmy Carter appeared from nowhere - he was an obscure, though fiercely ambitious, southern governor who, eighteen months before his juggernaut reached full and unstoppable speed, had been hardly noticed and was given little chance of success. But his carefully calculated message wrapped in a resonate promise, "I'll never lie to you," had a populist impact that was underestimated by party insiders.

Read article.

The Putrid Perfumed Prince

David Jeffers, NMJ.us

"What do you think of General Wesley Clark and would you support him as a presidential candidate," was the question put to him [General H. Hugh Sheldon, former Chief of the General Staff] by moderator Dick Henning, assuming that all military men stood in support of each other. General Shelton took a drink of water and Henning said, "I noticed you took a drink on that one!"

"That question makes me wish it were vodka," said Shelton. "I've known Wes for a long time. I will tell you the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote." - Los Altos Town Crier, October 1, 2003

I know that if I was to run for political office I could call on every senior officer I ever served under for support. General Sheldon's public statement of non-support for General Clark speaks volumes of "The Perfumed Prince" and the disdain with which most senior officers held the former NATO Supreme Commander. Read article.

Hillary's Price

Political Diary, Online WSJ.com

Hillary Clinton hasn't forgotten that her defeat came not at the hands of voters but because of her opponent's ability to out-organize her in caucus states. By some measures, she equaled or surpassed Barack Obama in the popular vote. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton has officially rallied behind Mr. Obama in hopes of giving Democrats their best shot to win a presidential election since 1996.

But she has a price. Mrs. Clinton showed up in Unity, N.H. for a symbolic event with Mr. Obama and the downpayment seems to begin with $10 million in cash - the amount her campaign still owes outside vendors. She has told Mr. Obama that unless he helps her pay off that debt, she just won't have the time to campaign for him this summer.

She also told him she needs a jet to ferry her about the country. Supporters even prevailed upon Mr. Obama to write a personal $2,300 check - the maximum legal limit - to Mrs. Clinton's campaign. Most of all, Mrs. Clinton wants him to open his innovative and powerful fundraising network to her by sending out an email blast to his million-strong donor list seeking contributions to retire her campaign debt.

Mr. Obama is resisting, of course. Read article.

Fairness Despotism

IBD Editorials.com

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi intends to restore the "Fairness Doctrine" regulating political speech - proof that in the Internet Age, Democrats have lost the communications war.

Forty years ago, Walter Cronkite could declare on the evening news that the Vietnam War was lost, and that's the way it was. Do Americans want to return to those days by reviving the so-called Fairness Doctrine?

Think of it in terms of consumer choice. You're on vacation, and you take your family into the $10.95 all-you-can-eat buffet. How would you like it if, when you walk up to fill your plate with lobster and ribs, you find the government has made the restaurant replace those with liver and brussels sprouts?

That's the approach the Democratic Congress is taking to political speech on the airwaves: You as an American don't know what's good for you. If you listen mostly to conservative talk radio, or watch Fox News, then you should be force-fed things you don't want. (It takes government force because, as the Air America debacle proved, people don't listen to liberal talk radio.)

Back when the Fairness Doctrine was enforced, radio and TV stations would have to broadcast sleep-inducing lectures by cranky middle-aged ladies, or rants from fringe-group agitators. But today, even the poorest among us can log onto our local public library computer and blog our views to millions.

Under a President Obama and Democratic Congress, a Fairness Doctrine could mean all three branches of government, plus the media, would be under the iron-fisted control of big-government, anti-national security liberals. Read article.

We'd Like To Teach An Old Dog Some New Tricks

No Quarter USA. net

The Just Say No Deal Coalition issues the following response to Governor Ed Rendell's counter movement HOUND (Hillary-Obama-United-Not-Divided). While we thank the governor for recognizing us as a fluid, viral, viable and ever growing movement- we PUMAs and members of the Just Say No Deal Coalition want to respectfully point out that Governor Rendell and his crew are missing the point.

In HOUND's credo Governor Rendell states, "PUMA advocated that Hillary Clinton supporters do not vote for Barack Obama just for the sake of party unity...We believe Sen. Clinton supporters should vote for Sen. Obama because, as Hillary herself said so forcefully and poignantly in her great speech a few Saturdays ago the best way to achieve the changes she has fought so hard to bring to America, and on which she based her campaign, is to support Sen. Obama..."

The philosophy on which the Just Say No Deal Coalition was founded is plainly stated as this:

We, as millions of disaffected voters or PUMAs have banded together to form a Coalition of the unwilling. We fervently believe in Country Before Party. If political parties won't uphold core democratic principles, who will? If the voters don't hold the parties accountable, who will?

The answer, "We (PUMAs) will at all costs!"

Governor Rendell went on to state:

"We agree with many of your grievances. For example, we, too, believe that the Democratic Party's nominating process is unfair and undemocratic. We must change the policy where some votes are more important than others and some areas receive more delegates than their number of voters would justify - it violates the spirit of "one person, one vote."

PUMAs again appreciate the heartfelt recognition of Just Say No Deal from Governor Rendell and his group, but it is too late. The damage has been done. We will not fall in line. We will not support a Democratic Party nominee that was selected with a flawed voting process. Reform the process and try to win us back in 2012 Governor Rendell.

Finally Governor Rendell states:

"So, we are asking all PUMA members to curb your disappointment, mute your anger and frustration and join HOUND to help change America. While the PUMA may be more swift and athletic, the HOUND is smarter and more perceptive."

Again Governor Rendell and crew- you have missed the point. Attempting to insult or undermine us by saying that we have less perception or smarts than you do is counterproductive. We are a diverse group of voters representing ALL ages. We come from all ethnic, socio-economic, religious, political and academic backgrounds; we unite to say (once again), "COUNTRY before PARTY!"

We will not support Senator Obama now or on November 4, 2008. Senator Clinton's vote is her own; our votes are our own and they will not be cast for Senator Obama. Read article.

Barack's America is Canada

Editorial, Washington Times.com

During the 2004 presidential campaign, the Democratic candidate, Sen. John Kerry, was dubbed a "Massachusetts liberal" and was compared to a foreign leader: "He will be an ideal president - of France," mocked his critics. Mr. Kerry lost the election. In a similar manner, Mr. Obama, too, is a great leader - of Canada. But Americans have repeatedly demonstrated that they prefer individualism and freedom rather than the failing Canadian model of collectivism and comfort.

What kind of "change" does Barack Obama want? He seeks to transform America into Canada. Mr. Obama is not proposing "new politics," but is a champion of the well-known, already enacted policies in the Great White North. His proposals are more reflective of Canadian values than American national ideals.

For example, Mr. Obama's economic plan consists of attempting to redress the disparities of wealth in the United States. He also wants to help the middle class, whom he states has been "squeezed" in the last decade. He rails against overpaid CEOs and an economy that is "out of balance."

He will therefore impose higher taxes on those who make more than $250,000 per year, he will increase the capital-gains tax, he will cut taxes for the middle class and ensure that low-income seniors pay no tax. In other words, he will make America a more temperate nation - one in which the lows for those who do not succeed on their merits are not so low, and the highs for those who soar, are not so high.

Mr. Obama's policies will result in stifling initiative and rendering America less meritocratic. This economic plan will have detrimental long-term effects, as has occurred in Canada. Canada suffers from a large "brain drain": Every year, many of the most talented, dynamic and enterprising individuals flock to America in order to escape the stagnation and limitations imposed on them by their government.

Mr. Obama is also proposing a host of government programs. Read article.

A silver bullet for Obama?

Jeff Jacoby, Boston.com

When it comes to gun control, the Democratic Party is a house divided against itself. That helps explain Barack Obama's dizzyingly inconsistent positions on District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Second Amendment case decided by the Supreme Court last week.

As a candidate for the Illinois Legislature in the 1990s, Obama had supported legislation to "ban the manufacture, sale, and possession of handguns," so it wasn't surprising that he endorsed the gun ban being challenged in Heller while campaigning for president. In November, for example, his campaign told the Chicago Tribune that "Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." In February, when a questioner during a televised forum said, "You support the D.C. handgun ban," Obama readily agreed: "Right."

By March, however, his spokesman would no longer say whether Obama considered the gun ban constitutional, and when the senator was asked about it in April, he refused to give a clear answer on the grounds that "I obviously haven't listened to the briefs and looked at all the evidence." Still, when the court issued its 5-4 ruling last Thursday, Obama claimed that his views had been vindicated. "I have always believed," his statement began, "that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms."

This is not just the customary political choreography whereby Democratic presidential candidates dance to the left during the primary election season, then pirouette back to the center for the general election. They nurse a singular loathing for the NRA. Read article.