06/05/2008 - 1:11am
"no evidence surfaced in the courtroom to suggest that Mr. Obama was involved in any wrongdoing."
For the liberal media (this quote is from the New York Times), enough said. Never mind. Move on to the next story. A member of Barack's elite team, what I like to call the Obamafia, is found guilty on 16 counts in federal court, and liberals are feeling pretty good about it. He was, after all, acquitted on 8 charges!

On ABC World News Tonight, the story ran for about 20 seconds. "Barack Obama has not been implicated..."

But Tony Rezko is Barack Obama's money man.

How about a lead like this:
One of Barack Obama's closest associates was convicted of bribery today in a scandal that rocked the Governor of Illinois and threatens to do the same to the presidential hopes of that state's junior senator.

That sort of lead is hard to find. But it would be appropriate. The Times actually gave the story pretty fair treatment.
In the presidential campaign, Mr. Obama, whose name rarely came up during the trial, has been criticized for his involvement with Mr. Rezko in property transactions related to his home. As Mr. Obama was buying his house in 2005, Mr. Rezko’s wife, Rita, bought an adjacent empty lot. She later sold the Obamas a portion of the lot that enabled them to expand their yard. Mr. Obama has since called the transactions “boneheaded.”
Rezko raised loads of money for Obama starting at the earliest stages of his political career - going all the way back to the mid-nineties:
According to Mr. Obama’s campaign, Mr. Rezko may have raised as much as $250,000 for him over the years; the campaign has donated $159,085 in contributions from Mr. Rezko, his family and associates to charity, the amount the campaign says can be “reasonably credited to Mr. Rezko’s political support.”
This sentence is the one that kills me:
And while Republicans are likely to bring up similar questions in the general election, the trial’s absence of evidence against Mr. Obama could minimize fallout on his campaign.
Huh? Check out the land deal. Barack is guilty of more bad judgment, at best, in being involved with these folks. He is obviously being generous in calling his actions boneheaded.
06/04/2008 - 9:23pm
McCain is doing more clever stuff, trying to take control of the reformer/change image that got Barack to the general election.
Less than a day after Obama clinched the Democratic nomination, McCain delivered a letter to his campaign, formally proposing what he had raised last month. In the letter, he proposed that the two men fly to the first town hall meeting in the same plane as symbol that they are "embracing the politics of civility."
Now that is hitting Barack upside the head with himself!
"What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty soundbites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections," he wrote.
Not only that, McCain can claim "better on global warming" points for proposing that they follow a "green campaign" policy and share a plane for much of the time. Barack is not the only one who can be creative!
He said he envisions a series of town halls based on an agreement that Barry Goldwater and John F. Kennedy had to hold similar forums before Kennedy was assassinated.

"No process questions from reporters, no spin room," McCain said. "We're the world leader. And leaders don't hide form history. They make history. If we're going to lead, we have to begin by reforming the tenor of political discussion in our campaigns."
Nice touch there, trying to grab onto Barack's Kennedy torch!
In the past, Obama has said it was a "great idea." Today, his campaign manager David Plouffe reiterated the campaign's support for such debates in theory.
06/04/2008 - 4:53pm
The Wall Street Journal provides a little reality to the Barack fantasy today, providing one of what will be thousands of general election missives that will attempt to pierce the silliness bubble.
For all of his inspiring rhetoric about bipartisanship, his voting record is among the most partisan in the Senate. His policy agenda is conventionally liberal across the board – more so than Hillary Clinton's, and more so than that of any Democratic nominee since 1968.
Wait a sec... we're talking about the man whose middle name is change. How about some examples of where he's broken with his party's broken policies?
We can't find a single issue on which Mr. Obama has broken with his party's left-wing interest groups. Early on he gave a bow to merit pay for teachers, but that quickly sank beneath the waves of new money he wants to spend on the same broken public schools. He takes the Teamsters line against free trade, to the point of unilaterally rewriting Nafta. He wants to raise taxes even above the levels of the Clinton era, including a huge increase in the payroll tax.
As with most open minded observers, the Journal wasn't impressed with Barack's misrepresentations and manipulations regarding Revered Wright.
We were among those inclined at first to downplay his association with the Trinity United Church. But Mr. Obama's handling of the episode has raised doubts about his candor and convictions... Most disingenuously, he said on Saturday that the entire issue caught him by surprise. Yet he was aware enough of the political risk that he kept Rev. Wright off the stage during his announcement speech more than a year ago.
While being overly polite, the Journal raises good questions about Barack's "judgment" and "political character" as evidenced by his odd associations.
The point is not that Mr. Obama now shares the radical views of these men. The concern is that by the Senator's own admission they have been major moral influences, and their views are starkly at odds with the candidate's vision as a transracial peacemaker. Their patronage was also useful as Mr. Obama was making his way in Chicago politics. But only now, in the glare of a national campaign, is he distancing himself from them. The question is what in fact Mr. Obama does believe.
The concern is that he shared their views at one time, if not now. And if not now, why not. But if he shared them ever, that's one more nail in the coffin of the fraudulent and unelectable change candidate.
06/04/2008 - 12:21pm
One of the story lines that does have me smiling is the downward trajectory of Bill Clinton's legacy.
When Hillary Clinton launched her presidential bid 17 months ago, her husband -- with his formidable political talents and popularity among Democrats nostalgic for the 1990s -- was seen as her greatest strength.
In a few long months, he went from being the smartest politician in history (Democratic spin) to a self-destructive, Hillary-destructive, narcissist (Democratic spin).
By the close of the primaries yesterday, with his wife's White House hopes dashed by an unexpectedly strong challenger, Bill Clinton had become at least as well-known for his hot- tempered outbursts that hurt her candidacy and damaged his own legacy.
What's that old saying... familiarity breeds contempt?
Bill Clinton's own popularity has also taken a beating. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, he got favorable ratings from a plurality of voters, including 78 percent of Democrats. By April, more voters had a negative view of him than a positive one, and his favorable ratings among Democrats had dropped, including among black voters.
Let's take a walk down memory lane. Remember Bill saying that Barack's opposition to the Iraq war had been exaggerated?
``Give me a break,'' Clinton said of Obama's record on the war since he joined the U.S. Senate. ``This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I've ever seen.'' The remarks were widely misconstrued that he meant Obama's quest for the presidency itself was a ``fairy tale,'' and many blacks took offense.
That was a good moment. But not as good as this one.
Weeks later, Clinton compared Obama's success in South Carolina to Jesse Jackson's wins there in 1984 and 1988 -- a reference that was taken as dismissive of Obama's national reach and appeal to white voters.
Now that was a moment for the political ages. As was this:
In April, during a Philadelphia radio interview, he accused Obama's campaign of having played ``the race card'' against him over his South Carolina comments. Questioned later by a reporter about the broadcast remarks, he angrily denied having made them.
The contempt that Democrats themselves have for the Clintons was brought out of the closet for this campaign. The moment Barack started to happen, the zeal with which Dems started jumping off the Hillary ship was a delight.

Once Barack is defeated in November, this will be his greatest legacy - having disposed of the Clintons for now, and having destroyed Bill Clinton's illusion of greatness forever.

Ah, Bill. We hardly knew ye.
06/04/2008 - 11:41am
I know there's something wrong with me, but I'm not excited. I just don't care about the storyline that the media and the pundits are selling.

"A little over a hundred years after people of his race were treated as less than human in this country, it is truly astounding that an African American candidate has apparently secured the Democratic nomination for President."

It's not really astounding. It had to happen eventually, and what's weird is that it took so long.

And I'd like to remind those who are so obsessed with race that there is no other prism through which they view things (liberals), that this was not a campaign about a black guy facing a woman. It was a battle between generations, it was new guard vs old guard, experience vs inexperience, a liar vs a pretend truth teller - it was about so many things other than a black guy vs a woman.

That narrative is only important to those who decide it's important - people whose livelihood is furthered by our society being obsessed with race.

While I will be a happy conservative when we can draw our candidates from the largest pool possible and not be restricted to white men, I am a problem child, for I can look at Barack and not see a black man. I see a Harvard grad. I see a smart guy. I see a politician. I see lots of things. His race doesn't interest me.

Someday, everyone will be like me.

But that day won't happen until Democrats have ceased to be a force in American politics.
06/04/2008 - 2:38am
Dick Morris says Hillary can't be Barack's VP selection, because she comes with baggage. Specifically, Bill.
Putting Hillary Clinton on the ticket for vice president creates a ménage-à-trois. Bill will be the unexpected roommate. Even if a President Obama can discipline Hillary and get her to play second fiddle, there is not the remotest chance that he can get the former president to accept such rules.
Bill has come unglued enough that he seems unmanageable. But it's more than that, says Morris.
To put Hillary on the ticket is to confront nagging questions about donors to the Clinton Library and Bill’s refusal to release them. It would be to inherit a load of baggage that Obama does not need as he tries to position himself as the candidate of change, antithetical to the corrupt and corrupting ways of Washington.
But Morris makes a surprising argument:
Hillary’s recent backers have been downscale whites of both genders who were turned off by Obama’s pastor, wife and other associates and were afraid he might be a Muslim in disguise. Unhappy about voting for a woman, they never really liked Hillary but turned to her when the alternative was Obama.
He takes it a step further.
If Hillary had won the Democratic nomination, these latent backers of Hillary in the primaries might still have voted for McCain in the general. Their support of Hillary is purely linked to her opposition to Obama. Were she to join the ticket, they would vote for McCain anyway. After all, Obama will still be black and the Rev. Wright will still be nuts.
The stuff about Bill makes sense, but I'm not buying his analysis of Hillary being of no benefit. Hillary on the ticket offers something for everyone, and she would mitigate concerns over his lack of experience and the Obamafia.
06/04/2008 - 12:40am
Embarrassed, perhaps, by the Racist Reverend's newfound prominence, the Diocese of Chicago has suspended Michael Pfleger.
CBS 2 News has learned that Francis Cardinal George is temporarily removing Father Michael Pfleger from his position as pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago's South Side.
It's about Pfreaking time, isn't it?
"I have asked Father Michael Pfleger, Pastor of St. Sabina's Parish, to step back from his obligations there," the Cardinal said in a statement released Tuesday afternoon, "and take leave for a couple of weeks from his pastoral duties, effective today."

The order requires Fr. Pflger to at least temporarily leave the rectory he's called home for the past 24 years.
Pfleger was, apparently, not pleased.
"Fr. Pfleger does not believe this to be the right step at this time," the Cardinal's statement continued. "While respecting his disagreement, I have nevertheless asked him to use this opportunity to reflect on his recent statements and actions in the light of the Church's regulations for all Catholic priests."
Priests aren't supposed to be in the politics business.
06/03/2008 - 10:16pm
Folks on Wall Street don't seem to get it. Inexperience is a desirable credential!
There have been claims made by some that the rush of selling that hit the market in the afternoon came through when the Associated Press reported that Illinois Senator Barack Obama has enough delegates to claim the Democratic nomination for president.
Strategist Al Goldman, of Wachovia Securities, said the market seemed to be treating Mr. Obama as a relative unknown compared to his longer-serving rivals from the Senate, Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain. “Now, I don’t know whether he would be good, bad, or indifferent as president, but this uncertainty is what the market seems to be focusing on for now,” said Mr. Goldman.

Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
06/03/2008 - 10:07pm
There's more bad news for the Obama camp today:
Former President Carter says he'll endorse Democrat Barack Obama after the polls close on the final primaries.
Carter joins Fidel Castro, Robert Reich, Ted Kennedy, Tom Hanks, NARAL, John Edwards, Jane Fonda, The Teamsters and Steel Workers unions, Moveon.org, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Reggae Singer Cocoa Tea, and Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef, just to name a few of the most prominent of Barack's base.
Carter, a superdelegate, has remained officially neutral in the race but has offered high praise to Obama. Carter has noted that his children, grandchildren and their spouses back the Illinois senator.
It's just one of those campaign attack ads that writes itself.
06/03/2008 - 9:49pm
Sounding like the good team player that she is, Hillary Clinton told colleagues today that she's open to being Barack's running mate.

Clinton, a New York senator, made the comment on a conference call with other New York lawmakers Tuesday, according a participant on the call.

It just makes you love her more, doesn't it?

The senator's remarks came in response to a question from Democratic Rep. Nydia Velazquez who said she believed the best way for Obama to win over key voting blocs, including Hispanics, would be for him to choose Clinton as his running mate.

One thing about the Clintons - they're always ready to fall on their swords for the good of the Village.

"I am open to it," Clinton replied, if it would help the party's prospects in November.
This blogger believes Barack can't win without her, so it's pretty clear Hillary will be getting the offer.

Syndicate content