Obama: Teach sex ed in kindergarten

The depravity that these morons possess is staggering. When they're not writing about fellating Cambodian boys, these pervs are trying to get sex ed in kindergarten. From ABC:

ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."

"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.

"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."

"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."

"Age-appropriate" for five-year-olds, huh? I can see it now: "Little Johnny has a corndog, and he wants to put it in Little Suzy's lunchbox. Here, let's demonstrate!" Of course, the San Franistan edition would feature Little Adam and Little Nigel trying to roast weenies during a camping retreat, but I digress.

Scooter's sentence commuted because he's not black? Plus, more from Silky Pone-Pone

So sayeth (or implyeth) the LA Time's "Magic Negro"! From NewsMax:

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Thursday derided President Bush's commutation of former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby's prison term even as black men routinely serve time behind bars.

All eight Democratic hopefuls and a lone Republican candidate, Colorado Rep. Tom Tancredo, addressed the NAACP convention. The Democrats focused their criticism on the administration's record on race relations and poverty.

"We know we have more work to do when Scooter Libby gets no prison time and a 21-year-old honor student, who hadn't even committed a felony, gets 10 years in prison," Obama said to loud cheers.

Aides said Obama was referring to Genarlow Wilson, a Georgia man serving a 10-year prison sentence for having consensual oral sex with a 15-year-old girl when he was 17. A judge last month ordered Wilson to be freed, but prosecutors are blocking the order.

While I agree with Obama's take on the Genarlow Wilson incident (it's a crying shame what miscarriage of justice occurred there), I find it repulsive that he has to resort to race-baiting by comparing an unrelated case to Libby. Had Genarlow Wilson been white, would Obama have made that comment or analogy? Of course not, for it would not have had the same racial hysteria overtones.

By the way, Silky Pony must have another about face like he did with Iraq:

Edwards' call for felons' voting rights to be restored also received loud cheers, although as a North Carolina senator in 2002 he voted against a bill allowing felons the right to vote in federal elections.

Well, he was Waffles' running mate, so he must have learned from the best.

Obama is anti-Wally...except when it comes to his own benefit

Between Silky Pony's attempts to procure a Playstation 3 from the retail giant and this flap from the Barry O family, one has to wonder just how anti-Wal-Mart these idiots truly are. From the Telegraph:

As a fluent public speaker, independent-minded wife, devoted mother and professional woman, Michelle Obama has been hailed as an invaluable asset to her husband Barack's mission to capture the Democratic 2008 presidential nomination.

Yet, while her style and performance are winning plaudits on the campaign trail, a little-reported business interest of Mrs Obama's has opened her husband up to one of the criticisms that politicians fear most - the taint of hypocrisy.

Pfffffffff-bwahahahahahahahaha! Yeah, right...liberals lose a ton of sleep over being hypocrites! If you buy that, I've got some swampland here in fire-ravaged FL to sell you. Continuing:

She is taking a break from her main job, as a well-remunerated Chicago hospital executive, to campaign for her husband. But she has just been re-elected to the board of an Illinois food-processing company, a position she took up two years ago to gain experience of the private sector.

And the biggest customer for the pickles and peppers produced by Treehouse Foods is the retail giant Wal-Mart, the world's largest corporation and the bête noire of American liberals, including Sen Obama, for its employment practices, most notably its refusal to recognise trade unions.

As the Illinois senator prepared to join the presidential fray late last year, he threw his weight behind the union-backed campaign against Wal-Mart. He declared that there was a "moral responsibility to stand up and fight" the company and "force them to examine their own corporate values".

Because Wal-Mart's desire to make money while saving peope money is soooo un-American. Continuing:

According to the couple's tax returns, Mrs Obama earned $51,200 (£25,700) for her work as a non-executive director on Treehouse's board last year, on top of the $271,618 salary she was paid as a vice-president of the University of Chicago Hospitals.

She also received 7,500 Treehouse stock options, worth a further $72,375, as she did the previous year, when she banked a $45,000 salary from the company.
...
Joe Novak, a Chicago political consultant who runs an anti-Obama website, said: "The Obamas would have us believe that, when it comes to money and ethics and compassion, he is a different kind of politician.

"What's different here is that they actually seem to believe it. That's the only way they can justify the contradictions between what they preach and what they practice. Defending Treehouse while attacking Wal-Mart is a blatant example of personal hypocrisy."

Sen Obama's campaign team and Mrs Obama's spokesman did not respond to requests by The Sunday Telegraph for comment. But the senator previously told Crain's Chicago Business magazine that, while his views on corporate reform and social justice remained the same regardless of what happens at Treehouse, "Michelle and I have to live in the world and pay taxes and pay for our kids and save for retirement".

"I'm for the 'little guy', unless the peon gets in my way of making a buck." You duplicitous, self-righteous, hypocritical b@stard! My friends, that's the kind of hypocrisy that I truly loathe about the left and that I point out frequently about them: their "good enough for me, but not for thee" attitude. I have no tolerance for that pap, at all.

See, Barry O thinks that Wal-Mart is evil and is not good for America. However, he's not above getting a nice little chunk of change off of them. What's worse than that, though, is his self-serving justification that he needed the money to pay taxes, save for retirement, and raise his kids. Are we to assume that he's the only one that has to do all of that, that no one else is doing it? He seems to imply that while other people's reasons to earn money are tainted, his are pure and noble.

Sorry, Hussein, but that doesn't fly with me, and it sure as hell won't fly with normal America.

Barry O's gaffe

From Breitbart/AP:

Barack Obama, caught up in the fervor of a campaign speech Tuesday, drastically overstated the Kansas tornadoes death toll, saying 10,000 had died.
The death toll was 12.

"In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died—an entire town destroyed," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a speech to 500 people packed into a sweltering Richmond art studio for a fundraiser.
...
As the Illinois senator concluded his remarks a few minutes later, he appeared to realize his gaffe.

"There are going to be times when I get tired," he said. "There are going to be times when I get weary. There are going to be times when I make mistakes."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said later that the senator meant to say "at least 10," instead of 10,000.

Yeah, I do that all the time: overstate something by a factor of 1,000. Matter of fact, I drove in to work this morning at a speed of 65,000 mph. And yes, I was tired.

Obama bullies supporter out of MySpace page

Good to see that Barry O won't relent in his struggle to fight the little guy. Oops...I mean "fight for the little guy"! From Breitbart/AP:

Is MySpace always mine or can it belong to someone else?

At the cost of losing 160,000 friends, Democrat Barack Obama's presidential campaign has taken over control of the MySpace page listed under his name on the popular social networking site.

For the past two and a half years, the page has been run by an Obama supporter from Los Angeles named Joe Anthony. At first, that arrangement was fine with the Obama team, which worked with Anthony on the content and even had the password to make changes themselves.

But as the site exploded in popularity in recent months, the campaign became concerned about an outsider having control of the content and responses going out under Obama's name and told Anthony they wanted him to turn it over.
...
Anthony referred The Associated Press to his MySpace blog, where he has written that he is heartbroken that the Obama campaign was "bullying" him out of the page he built. He said the candidate has lost his vote.

Obama ticking off blacks for not stating the obvious

I've avoided the Imus flap for two main reasons: (1) it's getting enough coverage everywhere else that there's not much for me to add; and (2) it doesn't take a genius to see that the man said something so monumentally stupid.

Though I am obviously no fan of the empty suit from Illinois who'd like to be president (despite his pledge a couple of years ago to not seek the Oval Office), it seems to me that Sen. Barack Obama is catching hell for nothing. From the Boston fishwrap:

With the Rev. Al Sharpton leading calls Monday for radio host Don Imus to be fired over racially insensitive remarks, Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign avoided the controversy throughout the day.

Not until Monday evening, five days after Imus's comments were uttered and hours after CBS Radio and MSNBC announced a two-week suspension for the radio host, did Obama weigh in, saying in a statement: "The comments of Don Imus were divisive, hurtful, and offensive to Americans of all backgrounds." Obama did not address whether he thought Imus should be taken off the air.

The episode is the first test of how Obama -- who is of mixed-race background -- is handling the contentious issue of race in his presidential campaign. Even as polls have shown other Democrats attracting a large share of the black vote, Obama has steered clear of the kind of activism symbolized by Sharpton and the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who were both highly visible in the Imus episode but whose aggressiveness on race issues has alienated some white voters in the past.

Quick sidebar: Sharpton's and Jackson's race-baiting as alienated SOME white voters IN THE PAST?? Earth to Boston: their race-baiting alienates MOST non-black voters PAST, PRESENT, and foreseeable FUTURE! That racist Shartpon has yet to apologize or be held fully accountable for his actions that have led to the death and assault and smearing of others: falsely accusing Steven Pagones of rape and mutilation of little Tawana Brawley (a crime that never occurred and cost Al $345k in defamation damages); inciting murder of "white interlopers" and arson at Freddie's Fashion Mart in Harlem; inciting the Crown Heights Riot because a Jewish cabbie had accidentally killed a black youth (an innocent Jew was stabbed to death in Sharpton's incited riot); etc. Until such time as that son of a b#tch apologizes or is held fully accountable, I have little tolerance for his calls for an apology from anyone! Now, back to the main point...

But with Obama battling other Democrats -- most notably Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York -- for the support of black voters, the candidate's reticence on the Imus issue set off alarms yesterday among some black activists who are anxious to see him more forcefully push for racial justice.

Melissa Harris Lacewell, a professor of politics and African-American studies at Princeton University, said Obama missed an opportunity to prove himself to blacks and white liberals who would have wanted Obama take the lead in denouncing Imus.

Lambasting an easy target qualifies as "leadership" in liberal circles? Wow. Good thing they're not overly concerned with terrorism or defense matters, since they clearly have bigger fish (an idiot broadcaster) to fry.

Barry O must not be black enough, since he's not piling on Imus like everyone else is. I have little sympathy for Imus here, but why is it news for a politician NOT to say something that really doesn't need to be said? Is our society so driven by the sound bite that Osamabama's failure to follow the sheep is newsworthy? I suppose ALL politicians have to find a camera or microphone ASAP, so as not to give the appearance of condoning Imus' remarks? How ludicrous!

"The left blackballs the Black Caucus"

From Opinion Journal:

In the battle for control of the Democratic Party, the George Soros-MoveOn.org crowd is used to getting its way. So it's revealing to watch the consternation in those precincts to the Congressional Black Caucus decision to co-sponsor a pair of Presidential primary debates this year with Fox News.

Liberal activists are livid, to say the least, with one anti-Fox pressure group condemning the Black Caucus for "dancing with the devil." Color of Change, a coalition of black online activists, says the collaboration promulgates "bigoted, hate-filled worldviews." Markos Moulitsas, the DailyKos front man, calls the CBC "corrupt and compromised" for "doing Fox's bidding." His implication is that Black Caucus Members have somehow been bought off, though there is no evidence to support the slur. This is to say nothing of some of the more vicious blog chatter, much of it carrying racial connotations.

All of this induced Howard Dean's Democratic National Committee to announce last week that it won't "sanction" the CBC debates. John Edwards also repeated his profiles-in-courage act by announcing that he won't participate in the CBC-Fox debate. This follows last month's pander when he, the Nevada Democratic Party and Nevada Senator Harry Reid knelt before MoveOn.org demands that another scheduled primary debate co-hosted by Fox be called off. And yesterday Barack Obama bowed to the mob by declaring he also won't attend; so much for the Senator's promise to change the tenor of our politics.

The Internet vigilantes would like to drum Fox News out of polite society, but it's clear from the Black Caucus episode that this isn't really about Fox. This is about who runs the Democratic Party. Ever since they came close to nominating Howard Dean for President in 2004, left-wing Web activists have tried to punish any Democrat who dares to step out of line. They tried to run Joe Lieberman out of the Party for his views on Iraq, and they want to banish California Congresswoman Ellen Tauscher because she's voted for free trade agreements.

The pitchfork carriers now want to tell elected Democratic officials which journalists they can appear in public with. Messrs. Edwards and Obama are bowing to those orders because they've decided they can only defeat Hillary Clinton by running to her left. Of course if by some miracle one of them wins the nomination, he'll be known as the candidate from MoveOn.org in the general election too. Republicans will have fun with that one.

Yes, but as incompetent as the GOP is these days, I don't have any faith in their ability to parlay that alliance between the Dem nominee and their moonbat masters into electoral victory. Continuing:

The Black Caucus has a different agenda, which is to win elections and hold the Democratic majority in Congress. A spokesman for the CBC Institute, which organizes these educational functions, says the goal is to reach the "broadest audience possible." This seems sensible enough, especially because Fox's market research shows that more than half its audience is Democrats and independents.

So much for that "it's a Republican network" myth. Continuing:

In fact, the caucus went out of its way to be, well, fair and balanced. It is co-sponsoring two primary debates on Fox, one Democratic and one Republican, and is doing the same on CNN. In 2003, the CBC also joined with Fox News on two Democratic debates that came off successfully. (This page has its own weekend show on Fox.)

The CBC deserves credit for not capitulating to ideological intimidation--and for refusing to take orders from affluent and angry liberals who've never run for office. Too bad the candidates have weaker knees.

Too bad for the CBC that they're still seen as chattle by the moonbat plantation owners.

Obama & Edwards chicken out of debate

Not surprising that the Silky Pony chickens out. He's an empty suit with a French poodle's well-coiffed hair. But for some strange reason, I expected more from Obama. Don't ask me why, because I haven't a freakin' idea. Anywho, from the Politico:

Barack Obama has chosen not to attend September's Democratic presidential primary debate co-sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus Institute and Fox News, an aide said, effectively dooming the event.

Obama is the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus running for President, and his decision allows other candidates to skip the debate without facing criticism that they are turning their backs on a leading black institution.

Friday, John Edwards was the first candidate to announce he'd skip the debate. The CBC Institute is hosting one other debate, with CNN in January, in which all candidates are expected to participate.

"CNN seemed like a more appropriate venue," the aide said, adding that Obama himself had not called CBC leadership or Fox executives to deliver the news. "It was handled at a staff level."

The aide said that Obama will participate in the six officially-sanctioned Democratic National Committee debates, whose existence provided candidates a measure of cover to drop out of the Fox-sponsored debate.

Now there's a blow for the leftards who are dim enough to think that Fox News is conservatively biased but CNN is somehow "objective"! If Osamabama wants to debate through a CNN venue, are you stupid enough to think it's because CNN is "objective"? Sure, OK, whatever.

Oh, well. If Osamabama and the Silky Pony want to talk to a smaller audience, they're definitely going to the right place. What a couple of chickensh#ts!

UPDATE (04/09/2007 - 6:15 P.M. EST): Hot Air is reporting that Osamaba broke Senate ethics rules by using his Senate office for campaign purposes (he invited his campaign adviser into his Senate office, a big-time no-no). They wonder if he's backing out of the FNC-CBC-sponsored debate to assuage the nutroots over his Iraq funding comments. If true, he's more spineless than I even imagined. Plus, it shows just how leftist the supposed "moderate" really is.

Bush vs. Congress on pork-laden Iraq spending bill

From Dick Morris:

Democrats in Congress are heading into a game of chicken with the Bush White House akin to the Gingrich-Clinton government shutdown battle of 1995-96. The roles are reversed this time - so the Republicans are likely to prevail.

The consequences will be lasting. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will find their party shattered. Presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will be forced to choose sides in their party's schism.

The game will unfold predictably. The House and the Senate will compromise on the differences in their legislation funding the Iraq War; the end product, carrying poison-pill language that sets a deadline for troop withdrawal, will go to the White House to face an inevitable presidential veto. The Democrats' override attempt will fail - and a deadlock will ensue.

Then the Democrats will threaten to withhold funding for the war in Iraq unless the White House agrees to some form of deadline. The Bush administration will reply that it will never agree to a schedule for troop withdrawal - and both sides will glare at the other across an abyss.

But Bush will, inevitably, win the game of chicken. Pelosi and Reid have too much sense to be caught denying funding to troops in combat. Bush will make the price of obstinacy too great for the Democrats to bear.

Nobody will want to be in the position of cutting off funding and appearing to undermine the troops during a war.

But the consequences for Pelosi of a retreat will be serious: She'll leave behind her the party's left - who will never vote for funding without also mandating withdrawal. Pelosi will have to scramble and craft a majority with a combination of Republican votes and support from the center of her own party.

The speaker will probably wind up having to vote against the majority of her Democratic members. That spectacle won't be healthy for her future authority or control.

If the Republicans are smart, they will let Pelosi hang by her own rope and will force her to break her party apart by twisting arms for every last vote to pass a funding bill.
...
The left will not forgive a vote to fund the war without requiring a withdrawal date - but the general electorate will not look kindly on pulling back funds during a war.

For his part, President Bush needs to stand firm as this process unfolds. The split the funding resolution will catalyze in the Democratic Party may be his party's only hope of hanging onto the White House in 2008. He should resist calls for compromise, since any halfway solution or diplomatic wording that could appeal to both sides will rescue the Democrats from the horns of their dilemma - and run most or all of the risks for the troops and the mission in Iraq as the current bills present.

Bush should demand a clean appropriations bill or guarantee a veto. If he doesn't flinch and congressional Republicans don't defect, it will be bad news for the Democrats.

This is a rather rosy assessment by Morris that makes what I believe to be a very faulty assumption. The assumption is that if the Dem Congress sends Bush a pork-laden Iraq appropriations bill and Bush vetoes it, the Dems in Congress would look bad. With the MSM on the Dems' side? Pfffft! Puh-leeeeze!

I recall the government shutdown of 1995-96 quite well. Bubba's approval ratings were quite low before the shutdown, as evidenced by his party's monumental and wholesale electoral #sskicking in November '94. The new GOP Congress sent Bubba a budget that slashed federal spending on a plethora of wasteful (and unconstitutional) programs. The GOP banked on Bubba signing the bill to avoid risking the government shutdown, and since his approval ratings were already low, surely he'd sign it. They bet on the wrong horse.

Bubba got in front of his sycophants in the media and blamed the mean ol' GOP for wanting to shut down the government because he wouldn't let them starve kids and kick old people in the streets. Only a boob would believe that was the GOP's desires, but fortunately for Bubba, many a leftist boob work in the MSM. Bubba and the MSM successfully demonized the GOP Congress for shutting down the government, Bubba's approval ratings rebounded, and he went on to win a decisive re-election effort.

Shoe's on the other foot now. We have a Republican president and a Democrat Congress threatening a train wreck. Who would the MSM demonize? Morris seems to think it will be the Dems who get demonized. I'd like to think he's right on this, but I don't. The MSM is just too freakin' slanted to allow Mistress Nancy and Harry "Land Shark" Reid, not to mention Shrillary and Osamabama, to take a big hit on this. The headlines would read "Bush denies Iraq soldiers funds, food, weapons".

Miss dhimmi in Syria, but Mistress Chicken in D.C.!

Quotes of the day

I swear, the leftards give me a good dose of material with which to work. Shrillary and Osamabama never fail to disappoint, do they? From Breitbart/AP:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of pursuing a policy of "social Darwinism" that leaves every man and woman struggling.

"It's a strategy that we've seen this administration pursue over the last six years, that basically says government has no role to play in making sure that America is prosperous for all people and not just some," Obama said to applause during an appearance before the Communications Workers of America.

I don't know how to break this to you, Barry, but government does have no role in making America "prosperous for all people"! How, pray tell, can America be made prosperous for the uneducated, unmotivated, and unwilling? If you steal fruits from the producers to give to the non-producers, how long do you think it will take before the producers become non-producers? Socialism at its finest (or worst, hoever you look at it), and it's running for president. Great.

Anywho, Barry's not done:

The Illinois senator said the attempt to "divvy up the government into individual tax breaks" may be tempting, but government research and investment is what has made advances possible in the United States.

You heard it, folks. Government, not individuals or businesses, is what America great. Technological advances were sprung from Big Government, not from the fertile minds of American entrepreneurs. Thanks for the clarification, Barry. That sure was news to me.

Not to be outdone in the idiocy department, Her Highness weighed in:

Clinton said she wanted to return to a time when the country and it's leaders had big goals and achieved them—like improving civil rights or sending a man to the moon. She said she wished President Bush would have used the opportunity of a unified nation after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks to make the country energy independent or provide universal health care.

Good point. Why, I can remember it like it was yesterday! Staring at the TV, seeing the smoldering remains of the Twin Towers and the gaping hole in the side of the Pentagon, all the while I was thinking exactly what all Americans were thinking at that very moment of agony and despair: "Man, it's a damned shame we don't have universal health care!"

Seriously, while this nation was contemplating a proper reaction to the 9/11 attacks, do you honestly believe anyone thought of the socialist panacea at the time? "Console the nation...check. Prep the military...check. Come up with plans of attack...check. Finally get that universal health care thingy implemented..."

What.an.idiot. And women will vote for her for the simple fact that she has a vagina. Un-freakin'-believable.

Obama attack video: Hillary "1984"

Though I still maintain that Obama is nothing more than an empty suit who will hide his true colors from the electorate, I nonetheless am giddier than a patchouli vendor at a Kos convention whenever Osamabama attacks Her Highness.

Wait, wait...a clarification is in order. Technically, Osamabama didn't attack Shrillary by making this video, but one of his supporters did. Read into it what you will. Anywho, the details from San Fran-istan:

It may be the most stunning and creative attack ad yet for a 2008 presidential candidate -- one experts say could represent a watershed moment in 21st century media and political advertising.

Yet the groundbreaking 74-second pitch for Democratic Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, which remixes the classic "1984" ad that introduced Apple computers to the world, is not on cable or network TV, but on the Internet.

(To see the video, go to: www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo)

And Obama's campaign says it had absolutely nothing to do with the video that attacks one of his principal Democratic rivals, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Indeed, the ad's creator is a mystery, at least for now.

The compelling "Hillary 1984" video recently introduced on YouTube represents "a new era, a new wave of politics ... because it's not about Obama," said Peter Leyden, director of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco-based think tank on politics and new media. "It's about the end of the broadcast era."

But some say the ad is just the latest attempt by outside activists to influence political campaigns -- or the newest way for campaigns to anonymously attack their opponents.

The video is a sophisticated new take on director Ridley Scott's controversial Apple ad that caused shock waves with its premiere during the 1984 Super Bowl, and shows the same blond young female athlete running with a sledgehammer toward a widescreen -- where an ominous Big Brother figure drones to a mass of zombielike followers. (Isn't "a mass of zombielike followers" another term for "Democrat voters"? - Ed.)

But this time, the woman is wearing an iPod -- and has her candidate's slogan on her chest. And the Big Brother -- whose image she defiantly smashes with a wave of her sledgehammer -- is Clinton, the Democratic presidential front-runner.

The tagline for the attack: "On Jan. 14, the Democratic primary will begin. And you'll see why 2008 won't be like 1984."

An updated Apple symbol -- transformed into an O -- is followed by the dramatically emerging logo: BarackObama.com.

Veteran San Francisco ad man Bob Gardner, whose work has included political campaigns for former President Gerald Ford, said the video is "very powerful" in its efforts to call for a generational change in politics.

"It puts Hillary spouting cliche nonsense to the drones (better known as "Democrat voters"...hey, deja vu! - Ed.) -- while a fresh face breaks through," he says. "It's old versus new."

Someone pass me the popcorn (hold the butter), because this is more entertaining than a Kennedy doing a field sobriety test!

Not far off from the truth, is it?

Obama: Those poor, poor Palestinians

Here's leftard rag The Nation's puff piece on Obama kissing some Palestinian posterior:

Barack Obama did the unthinkable recently: he had the audacity to mention the Palestinians.

"Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people," Obama told voters in Iowa on Sunday. That remark hardly endeared him to the hawkish pro-Israel supporters at AIPAC, where Obama (and Hillary) spoke on Monday.

According to the New York Times, Obama and Hillary held dueling receptions to woo Jewish voters. Hillary offered the standard pro-Israel line, even displaying a sign spelling her name in Hebrew (can't imagine Barack translates very well).

In the past, Obama has spoken highly of the Palestinian people and the calamities they've faced. No doubt, his opponents will now try and use that against him.

Indeed I will. Here are these poor souls for whom Obama's (and The Nation's) hearts bleed:

Aw, aren't they adorable? I tell ya, those little jihadis blow up...er, grow up...so fast these days!

Obama: making friends and influencing people?

This may put a dent in the campaign plans of the "Messiah", right? From Drudge:

Less than two months after ascending to the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama bought more than $50,000 worth of stock in two speculative companies whose major investors included some of his biggest political donors, the NYT will splash on Wednesday Page Ones.

The paper claims, according to newsroom sources: One of the companies was a biotech concern that was starting to develop a drug to treat avian flu. In March 2005, two weeks after buying about $5,000 of its shares, Obama took the lead in a legislative push for more federal spending to battle the disease.

The paper's Mike McIntire and Chris Drew get front placement [side by side with Libby Coverage] for details of Obama's most recent financial disclosure:

It shows that he bought more than $50,000 in stock in a satellite communications business whose principal backers include four friends and donors who had raised more than $150,000 for his political committees.

A spokesman for Obama says the senator did not know that he had invested in either company.

Yeah, I make it a point to be clueless about where hundreds or thousands of my investment dollars go, too. Anywho, I'm sure this whole avian flu drug thing was just a big coinkidink.

In fairness (via Hot Air)...:

The fact that his broker was investing in companies in which his supporters owned shares and which stood ready to benefit from DHS pork is shady, but without some evidence that Obama was secretly steering him to do so there doesn’t seem to be much here. According to the Times, the pharmaceutical company never did get money for its avian flu drug (although it got money for other drugs) and the fact that Obama took a net loss on the investments is going to make it hard to sell to the public as proof of dirty dealings.
...
Still, though, it’s nice to see the hem of the Messiah’s garment with a little dirt on it, especially since this isn’t the first sketchy deal he’s been involved with. One more strike and Hillary’s people will have themselves a bona fide trend to work with. Then it’ll get nasty, and then it’ll get awesome.

As a sidebar, The Street.com had this story on Monday morning, and the NYT didn't pick it up until today.

It's Hillary, y'all! Plus, Obama pulls a "Hillary, as in Edmund" moment.

What fun. Her Highness decided to pander to us Southerners over the weekend (since she DID grace the great state of Arkansas with her presence for a few years, ya know), and decided to try and adopt a drawl so as to appear appealing to the masses. Well, yeee-freakin'-haw!

Not to be out-Hillaryed, Obama decided to one-up Hillary's since-discredited lie about being named after someone who had yet to achieve his fame. As Allah at Hot Air notices:

1) Obama claims that a Kennedy-sponsored airlift in Africa was responsible for bringing the Obama family to the U.S.

2) He claims that the events in Selma led to his parents getting together, and thus, to Obama being born.

Well...uh...

1) JFK didn't take office until two years after Obama's father arrived in the U.S.

2) Obama, Jr., was born four years before Bloody Sunday in Selma. Presumably, he wasn't born before his parents met.

At least he didn't claim that JFK helped him invent the Internet.

Billary: Mention Bubba's impeachment, and it's "Game on, b#tch!"

From the Washington comPost:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has a new commandment for the 2008 presidential field: Thou shalt not mention anything related to the impeachment of her husband.

With a swift response to attacks from a former supporter last week, advisers to the New York Democrat offered a glimpse of their strategy for handling one of the most awkward chapters of her biography. They declared her husband's impeachment in 1998 -- or, more accurately, the embarrassing personal behavior that led to it -- taboo, putting her rivals on notice and all but daring other Democrats to mention the ordeal again.

"In the end, voters will decide what's off-limits, but I can't imagine that the public will reward the politics of personal destruction," senior Clinton adviser Howard Wolfson said Friday, when asked whether the impeachment is fair game for Clinton's opponents. Earlier in the week, Wolfson dismissed references to President Bill Clinton's conduct as "under the belt."

But the reality, of course, is that the impeachment was conducted very much in public.

As Clinton aides spent several days batting down insults made by David Geffen, the Hollywood mogul who raised questions about the former president's personal behavior and praised Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a provocative interview, the intra-party brawl suggested that the scandal remains something of a tripwire for Clinton.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander, right? Apparently not:

And as she has invoked the good Bill Clinton, she has risked invoking the bad, several Democratic strategists said.

"She's using him in this campaign, so why can't somebody else use him?" asked a veteran of Democratic presidential politics who is not currently aligned with a candidate but who, like numerous other Democrats, spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering the Clintons. "She's just made him fair game. He's part of her strategy, so why can't he be part of one of her opponents'?"

And of course, Her Highness would never exploit a personal situation for political gain, right?

And Clinton advisers express confidence that any explicit attempt to revive the scandal would instantly backfire, particularly among Democratic primary voters who were outraged by the Republican investigation into her husband when it first occurred. (One Clinton official said donations to her campaign spiked when the Geffen interview was published.) The former first lady's popularity ratings have never been higher than when her husband's affair with a young intern burst into the open and cast her in the role of victim.

The "smartest woman in the world" didn't know what the rest of us knew in 1992, that her hubby was a philanderer? Right. And Mikie Moore is on Slim Fast.

Seriously, that whole "she's a victim" thing was phonier than a CBS memo. She knew damned well that Bubba couldn't keep Little Willie in his briefs (or was it boxers?), but once the public had irrefutable evidence (since Gennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Elizabeth Ward Gracen, Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, etc., were all obviously lying, right?), then she pretended like it was news to her. As they say in the Guiness commercials: "Brilliant!"

Continuing:

In his interview with Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Geffen, a onetime Clinton fundraiser, gave voice to fears privately held by some Democrats that Republicans intend to revisit past Clinton issues and try to dig up new ones.

"I don't think anybody believes that in the last six years, all of a sudden Bill Clinton has become a different person," Geffen said. Speaking of Republicans' view of the former first lady, he said: "I think they believe she's the easiest to defeat."

Geffen also attacked Hillary Clinton on other fronts, including her vote to authorize the war in Iraq and subsequent refusal to apologize for it, and he described the Clintons as deceitful.

This is a party loyalist saying this, not some Bu$hitler McRummyburton Rovian hack. Yeah, but what does he know?

Finally, Her Highness responds:

The Clinton campaign's response was fast and unyielding: Advisers issued a statement demanding that Obama renounce his ties to Geffen, who had just thrown the Illinois senator a $1.3 million fundraiser. When Obama refused, and an Obama spokesman issued a statement pointing out that Geffen had once been the Clintons' guest in the Lincoln Bedroom of the White House, Clinton officials pushed back once more. They accused Obama of failing to live by the principles of positive campaigning he proclaimed. Obama later said he had not authorized his campaign's statement.

Obama and Geffen should be thankful that they haven't wound up like Vince Foster for crossing Billary.

Pic of the day

I hope DirecTV doesn't sue over this:

Obama wants unions to do WHAT to America's middle class?

No surprise here: prez wannabe Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) is a functional economic illiterate like the others in his party. From economist Thomas Sowell:

Senator Barack Obama recently said, "let's allow our unions and their organizers to lift up this country's middle class again."

Ironically, he said it at a time when Detroit automakers have been laying off unionized workers by the tens of thousands, while Toyota has been hiring tens of thousands of non-union American automobile workers.

Oops. Talk about sucky timing. Continuing:

Labor unions, like the government, can change prices -- in this case, the price of labor -- but without changing the underlying reality that prices convey.

Neither unions nor minimum wage laws change the productivity of workers. All they can do is forbid the employer from paying less than what the government or the unions want the employer to pay.

When that is more than the labor in question produces, some workers who are perfectly capable become "unemployable" only because of wages set above the level of their productivity.

In the short run -- which is what matters to politicians and to union leaders, who both get elected in the short run -- workers who are already on the payroll may get a windfall gain before the market adjusts.

But, sooner or later, the chickens come home to roost. They have been coming home to roost big time in the automobile industry, where hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost over the years.

It is not that people don't want automobiles. Toyota is selling plenty of cars made in its American factories with non-union labor.

Sowell goes on to see where the same leftist claptrap has been tried and failed, yet these people who fancy themselves to be intellectuals are real 'tards when it comes to basic economics:

Senator Obama is being hailed as the newest and freshest face on the American political scene. But he is advocating some of the oldest fallacies, just as if it was the 1960s again, or as if he has learned nothing and forgotten nothing since then.

He thinks higher teacher pay is the answer to the abysmal failures of our education system, which is already far more expensive than the education provided in countries whose students have for decades consistently outperformed ours on international tests.

Senator Obama is for making college "affordable," as if he has never considered that government subsidies push up tuition, just as government subsidies push up agricultural prices, the price of medical care and other prices.

He is also for "alternative fuels," without the slightest thought about the prices of those fuels or the implications of those prices. All this is the old liberal agenda from years past, old wine in new bottles, a new face with old ideas that have been tried and failed repeatedly over the past generation.
...
But politics is not about facts. It is about what politicians can get people to believe.

Night and Day

Today's N&D brought to you by the letters M, S, and M again. From the Old Gray Hag's blog:

Ask most political analysts and they’ll tell you that at this point, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois and Mitt Romney, the former governor of Michigan –- oops, sorry, Massachusetts –- both have about an equal chance to win their party’s nomination and become president.

But that might be tough to tell by looking at the press contingent that showed up at each announcement.

Mr. Obama’s aides said that he had credentialed more than 600 media for his announcement in Springfield., Ill., on Saturday, and while campaigns are given to exaggeration, that sure seemed right: They were everywhere, filling platforms and hotel rooms. There were crews from Japan and England (foreign news crews are the first and surest sign of a very heavily covered event) as well as some of the bigger feet in the American political media: Joe Klein, Chris Matthews and our own Maureen Dowd among them. They had to rent a full-blown American Airlines jet to cart the candidate and his reporters around.

Guess who was not here this morning as Mr. Romney made his announcement? There were probably 200 members of the media; no Japanese crews in sight. Mr. Klein, Mr. Matthews and Ms. Dowd could not be spotted. And the transportation? We are writing this from a Dornier 328 commuter jet, which has been commandeered to carry Mr. Romney’s press contingent to Des Moines. And yes, there are empty seats.

Nope...no liberal media bias.

Obama: against running, before he was for it

He'll make a great Democrat candidate after all! Barack Obama officially announced his presidential candidacy over the weekend, despite this promise a mere two years ago:

I think I’ve been very clear, that there’s a Presidential election in four years, I’m not running for President in four years. I’ve been absolutely clear about it. I’ve said I think it’s a silly question.

Yeah..."silly question."

Obama: Did I mention I was black?

From Drudge:

Acknowledging that his presidential campaign has opened a racial debate, Sen. Barack Obama, who has a white mother and an African father, says if you look African-American, you are treated like one. Obama and his wife, Michelle, who also addresses the race issue, appear in an interview with Steve Kroft to be broadcast on 60 MINUTES, Sunday Feb. 11 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS television Network. If, as expected, Obama declares his formal candidacy for the Democratic presidential nomination tomorrow, it will be his first interview to be broadcast after that event.

When asked by Kroft if growing up in a white household had caused him to make a decision to be black, Obama replies, "I'm not sure I decided it. I think... if you look African American in this society, you're treated as an African-American.Ó "It's interesting though, that now I feel very comfortable and confident in terms of who I am and where I stake my ground. But I notice that... I've become a focal point for a racial debate," says Obama. (He has? What's the topic of the debate? I've seemed to have missed that. - Ed.)

Now, this is incredibly shameless and ignorant:

Obama's wife also addresses the race issue when asked by Kroft whether she fears for her husband's life as a black candidate. "I don't lose sleep over it because the realities are that... as a black man... Barack can get shot going to the gas station," says Michelle Obama. "You can't make decisions based on fear and the possibility of what might happen."

For the love of God (insert politically correct deity here)! Only black men get shot in public? Hell, I just watched the local news morning show and saw that an eight-year-old boy was shot in Jacksonville in a drive-by shooting. The weird thing was...the kid was white! Maybe the news got it wrong, since Mrs. Obama says that such an event only happens to black men.

Finally:

Will being African-American hold him back as a candidate? "No.... If I don't win this race it will be because of other factors --[that] I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go that they can embrace," Obama tells Kroft.

Obama is correct. His race will have nothing to do with his candidacy, in that virtually no one will refuse to vote for him due to his skin color. As for his "I have not shown to the American people a vision for where the country needs to go", he is correct...he hasn't come close to that in the whopping TWO WHOLE YEARS that he's been in the Senate.

But hey...vote for him, or you're a bigot. Neener-neener.