06/09/2008 - 4:51pm
I agree with Bay Buchanon that this election is not about John McCain:

John McCain is relevant only in so far as he is not Barack Obama. The
Senator from Arizona is incapable of energizing his party, brings no new people
to the polls, and has a personality that is best kept under wraps.


Barack, who his friends are, who he is and what he's done, those are the things that are in control of this election.

As a candidate Obama is bigger than life. Die-hard liberals are euphoric over his nomination. He is seen as the real thing -- a man who believes what he says and says what he believes. His candidacy has mobilized millions of new voters, held massive rallies, and raised money faster than Federal Reserve can print it. Obama is a gifted candidate who has that intangible quality most candidates only dream about -- he moves voters -- which gives his campaign enormous energy and excitement. And he did this all the while fighting and eventually slaying the dragon lady herself!


Well, okay, she's going overboard. But I do think that the election will hinge on whether Barack is credible enough to elect, which is why I feel strongly that he can't win. He's can be shown to be inclined toward separatism, anti-americanism, and other forms of radicalism that are easily seen when one examines his longterm political and personal relationships.

It's about Barack.

06/09/2008 - 1:20pm
Barack is the guy they love in France! He is the Good American of the era.

In recent decades, good Americans have included John F. Kennedy and his wife
Jackie (whose elegance betrayed a European sensibility), Woody Allen (of
European urbanity and wit), Michael Moore (of European vehemence on the Iraq
war) and Al Gore (of European environmentalism).



After Camelot, is there anyone on the list that would make an American's list of Good Americans?

But right now, in French eyes, there's a single good American: the
Democratic Party nominee, Barack Obama. His book, "The Audacity of Hope," is on
bestseller lists. His face is everywhere, sometimes in socialist realist images
evoking Che Guevara.

Just a reminder - Che was a Argentine Marxist revolutionary who became a commander
in Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement, playing a pivotal role in the successful guerrilla campaign to overthrow the U.S.-backed Cuban dictator Fulgencio Batista.[1] After the Cuban revolution, Guevara served in many prominent governmental positions, including president of the national bank, minister of industry, and “supreme prosecutor” over the revolutionary tribunals and executions of suspected war criminals from the previous regime.
It's a joy to know what the French want for the United States. They think we need a Marxist revolutionary, and they think it's possible, now that anti-french feeling has subsided and the neaderthal Republican years are over.
Four years ago, with post 9/11 nationalist sentiment still running high, John
Kerry had to hide the fact he spoke French and had French relatives. Republicans
liked to mock the then Democratic candidate by suggesting he began rallies with
a "Bonjour."

What I think this means for Obama is that French or European adulation for him
is no longer a political problem. It cannot be associated by the likes of Karl
Rove with wimpy Euro appeasement and "socialism." If anything, Americans are
looking to European health care and environmental measures as
possible models.

Wait until voters here discover just how strong Barack's revolutionary ties are.
06/09/2008 - 12:52pm
There's no question that when the people are listened to, the message is clear. Barack is the man they want. In Europe.

While the race between Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain remains
close among U.S. voters, Europeans have given their hearts to the likely
Democratic nominee.


And everyone knows, we should be more like Europeans.
A poll in late May of five major countries -- Britain, France, Germany, Italy
and Russia -- showed Sen. Obama getting 52% support, compared with 15% for Sen.
McCain. In France, 65% favor Sen. Obama, compared with 8% for Sen. McCain,
according to the poll for the United Kingdom's Daily Telegraph newspaper.

Maybe it's time for us to just ceed control over. The region is busily giving up their individual national differences in order to form the mighty economic entity known as the European Union - maybe we've just got to move the merger with Mexico and Canada along a bit quicker and see if they'll let our union join theirs.
Another poll published online Saturday in Belgium's Le Soir newspaper showed
Belgians prefer Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain 74% to 12%.
06/09/2008 - 4:11am
Sometimes the guys north of the border can see and say things that are obvious, unless, or course, if you're a member of the American media. Despite the focus on race here, Mark Milke correctly observes that Barack's skin color is not his big electoral problem.
Obama could fail because of his political leanings, inexperience on foreign
policy and because his claim to be engaged in a "new" style of politics has
already been undercut, by himself.
See how easy that was to say?
Examine Obama's voting record and he is more liberal than most of his colleagues
and significantly more than mainstream America. In 1999, in Illinois before
entering national politics, he was the only state senator to oppose a law that
prohibited early prison release for sex offenders.

It gets better.
Such liberalism doesn't harm him in Chicago, and wouldn't in Vancouver or
Toronto if he ran here. It is a handicap in most places south of the border,
especially when Obama insults some voters as he did with his San Francisco
comment in April, about how alienated working-class voters "cling to guns or
religion."

But does Barack have the experience to run the world's lone superpower?
Then there is Obama's foreign policy inexperience. True, such a lack of depth
didn't hurt George W. Bush in 2000. Also, with a minority of Americans in
support of the Iraq War, such inexperience might be spun to Obama's advantage.
Except, Americans trust Republicans more on foreign policy and things have
calmed down in Iraq as of late.

And most of all, of course, is the Obamafia.
It's laudable to try to unify a divided people, especially on matters that
shouldn't matter such as race. But being soft on the radicals in your own crowd
or those in other countries doesn't help. Problematically for a fresh face,
significantly late conversions look opportunistic. Obama's problem is there's
nothing new about that in politics.
06/08/2008 - 3:16pm
Why are American Jews and other supporters of Israel uncomfortable with Barack Obama? The Jerusalem Post lays it out nicely, including this:
The company Obama keeps: The concerns only begin with Obama's long association
with his America and Israel bashing pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama
counts a disturbing number of vocally harsh Israel-critics as high-profile
advisors on his campaign staff. (Just last month, Robert Malley, one of Obama's
informal foreign policy advisors, resigned from the campaign after acknowledging
repeatedly meeting with Hamas.)

Wait a sec. I thought that Barack had already put the Reverend Wright 'controversy' behind him.
Obama's friends include Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers and former
PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi, and Obama credits Khalidi with uncovering "my own
blind spots and my own biases." As a paid director of the non-profit Woods Fund,
Obama funneled $75,000 in grants to the Arab American Action Network (run by
Khalidi's wife, Mona), which refers to Israel's creation as the "Nakba"
(catastrophe).

You want to blame Barack for what a foundation that he just happened to be a director of did with it's money! That's guilt by association! Totally unfair! Can't we just focus on the issues?
Obama has additional connections to the Palestinian nationalist community. On
his popular pro-Palestinian website, Electronic Intifada, Palestinian activist
Ali Abunimah recounted meeting Obama at numerous Palestinian/Arab community
events at which, according to Abunimah, Obama called for a more "even-handed"
policy regarding Israel.

Is Barack honest about all this as he tries to court the pro-Israel vote?
At one such 2004 dinner, Abunimah "went up to greet [Obama]. He responded
warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine
right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down
I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was
contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, 'Keep
up the good work!'
06/08/2008 - 1:23pm
Who is Rashid Khalidi? He's an American historian of the Middle East, the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and the director of the Middle East Institute of Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs.

Here's an outline on his PLO background and association with Barack Obama from his Wikipedia page.

Khalidi has been accused of having ties to the Palestinian
Liberation Organization
, based on his work for Wafa in the late 1980s. Khalidi has
been accused of being “a director of the Palestinian press agency,” publishing
an "adulatory book" on the PLO in which he personally thanked Yasser
Arafat
,[15] and acting as an advisor to the Palestinian delegation during peace
negotiations.[16]
Khalidi denied the allegation that he served as a PLO spokesman.[17]
Khalidi explained that he often spoke to journalists in Beirut, and was usually
cited, without attribution, as a well-informed Palestinian source. He also said
that he was unaware of any misidentification as a PLO spokesman.[15]

How has Khalidi come to be relevant to Barack Obama?
The claim received renewed attention in 2008 when it was raised due to a
reported friendship between Democratic presidential candidate Barack
Obama
and Khalidi's family when Khalidi taught at the University of Chicago.
Articles by Aaron Klein and John Bachelor, writers respectively for conservative outlets World Net Daily and Human Events, were referenced by rival political campaigns and reprinted in wider-circulation media.

A recent Associated Press profile on the Obamafia had a section on Khalidi, but left out the alleged position as spokesman for the PLO.

RASHID KHALIDI: Khalidi is a scholar and author on Middle Eastern affairs
who has criticized Israeli policies and was part of a Palestinian advisory panel
to peace talks in the early 1990s. He's also a friend of Obama. They met while both were teaching at the University of Chicago and living in the same neighborhood. Obama and his wife sometimes had dinner with Khalidi and his wife, Mona. The Khalidis hosted a political fundraiser for Obama in 2000, and the Woods Fund charity gave money to the Arab-American Action Network, run by Mona Khalidi, while Obama served on the charity's board.


Khalidi and Obama have both said they hold very different opinions on Israeli issues, but their friendship has been used to raise questions about Obama's support for Israel — and to generate Internet headlines such as "Meet Obama's Terrorist
Friend."

06/08/2008 - 1:05pm
The RNC has released a good clarification of Barack's stance on lobbyists, putting into perspective the misleading nature of his many PR manipulations. Barack says:
"We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest
PACS - we're going to change how Washington works. They will not fund my party,
they will not run our White House, and they will not drown out the voice of the
American people when I am president of the United States of America."

Barack has even required the DNC to follow his policy now that he's the man in charge of the moonbat party. But is this restriction real, or is it Memorex?
The Lobbyist Ban At The DNC Does Not Apply To Former Lobbyists, Unregistered
Lobbying Firm Partners, Or State Lobbyists. "Sen. Barack Obama's decision to
tell the Democratic National Committee to stop taking money from lobbyists isn't
likely to dent fundraising efforts because the policy only applies to current
federal lobbyists, experts say. The presumptive Democratic presidential
nominee's decree doesn't rule out contributions from past lobbyists,
unregistered lobbying firm partners or statehouse lobbyists." (Jim McElhatton,
"Obama Decree On Funding Limited To Current Lobbyists," The Washington Times,
6/6/08)

Is Barack's approach a start? Sure. Is it more of a political trick than a meaningful shift in how money impacts politics? Sure. Will he use it to score undeserved political credit by conning voters into thinking that he really is pushing a new kind of politics? Sure.
06/08/2008 - 12:39pm
Hillary gave the big speech yesterday, a big transition from Tuesday night.
Just five days ago, when Mr. Obama secured the 2,118 delegates needed to clinch
the nomination, Mrs. Clinton defiantly told her supporters that she remained the
best candidate for the presidency, would stay in the race and that the 18
million people who voted for her should "be respected."

Lots of Democrats agreed with her.
But over the last few days, Democratic leaders pressured the one-time
front-runner to concede defeat and throw her support behind Mr. Obama, who has
just 150 days before Election Day to reunify his party in hopes of defeating
Republican Sen. John McCain.

It's a very strange thing about Democrats, party leaders, I mean, that they didn't do this pressuring routine to Barack over his inability to secure the nomination with pledged delegates.

After a divisive, five-month battle for the Democratic nomination, in which
the former first lady cast her opponent as a political neophyte woefully lacking
the skills and experience needed to handle the world's most demanding job, many
of her supporters were not yet ready to let bygones be bygones.


With Hillary as the nominee, they might have had a good chance at winning, and now, the only hope for a Barack victory is with Hillary as the VP. But is Barack going to see that?
06/07/2008 - 7:28pm
Hillary used the E word in her speech today, but she's not all the way out of the race for president:
"Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won
and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support
behind him. and I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama
as you have for me."

Yup. That's right. She's only suspended her campaign.

I'm at a talk radio conference in New York City today, and one of the panels was asked who they thought would win the election. Of the 7 or 8 talk hosts, 2 of whom were liberals, only one predicted Barack as the winner, and that was super-liberal Thom Hartmann.

Some in the audience I talked with speculated that Hillary is convinced that something will come out of Barack's history to upend his campaign - and that's why Hillary is ending her campaign, but not end her candidacy.

Meanwhile, it will take some time for the party to unite.
Sixty percent of Clinton supporters said they would vote for Obama, but 17
percent said they would vote for Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee and Obama's rival in the general election. Nearly one-quarter, 22 percent, said they would not vote at all if Clinton were not the Democrats' nominee.

But Hillary tried to calm raw nerves.
“I’ve had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and
determination, his grace and his grit,” she said. “We all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family … we may have started on separate journeys but today our paths have merged, and we’re all heading toward the same destination.”
06/07/2008 - 1:05pm
Barack did a flip-flop on Jerusalem this week, exactly not the way to engender confidence in pro-Israel voters who are concerned about his pro-Palestinian attitude and his desire to sit-down for a chat with the president of Iran.

Speaking to AIPAC early in the week, Barack said:

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

Then, on Thursday, he told CNN that that fate of the city would be up to Israel and the Palestinians to discuss.
A campaign adviser also told the Jerusalem Post that the U.S. senator from
Illinois would not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of the
disputed city. The clarifications came after Obama's remarks to the AIPAC confab in
Washington were met with harsh reaction from the Palestinians.

Instead of calming the situation, it has been exacerbated. Not good news for the guy with the best judgment for handling international affairs, as some speculate that this sort of mistake is a sign of inexperience.
Syndicate content