Axelrove must’ve sensed a disturbance in the force because I believe the Blogzkrieg Bots are back at work in sites where the Obamessiah’s economic message has been questioned. Most of the frontpagers and bloggers that I know were chased off various blogs when they harshed the Obama mellow or dared suggest that Hillary’s campaign was better, not racist, and worthy of support. Recently, a set of anonymous email exchanges were released at Liberal Rapture. One writer of the exchange has self identifed themself (James Kunstler) and verified the authenticity of the exchange. Those of us who have dealt with the spam filter and comments in moderation can give our take on the Blogzkrieg under taken by the Obama campaign which apparently still is in full force to stop any potential anti-obama Buzzkill. Here’s the relevant exchange from a former Obama supporter that I’d like to reference.
I can also say how shocked I became at the really dishonest tactics he used, from race-baiting to caucus fraud to paying cyber stalkers to terrorize pro-Clinton writers and website owners.
The cyberstalking continues. Yesterday, I blogged about CNBC’s Kramer. I have to say that I’m a value investor, unlike Kramer, and do not follow any of his individual stock picks. I do think the man has an excellent grasp of and background in market psychology. I started listening to him more when he came out on Ellen as a Hillary supporter. He made it clear he thought she’d be best for the economy. So yesterday, I wrote on his rant on cnbc. This wasn’t his first rant but one the most eye-popping to date. All last week he was talking about Obama-proofing your investment portfolio.
Wouldn’t it be just wonderful to have all the answers without really knowing the questions or the facts before hand? It appears the we now have a replacement for the Great Karnak. Okay, for those of you, including my kids, that didn’t grow up with this hilarious Johnny Carson character, I’ve included a youtube below so you can get the drift of the rest of this post. For those of you that remember him, I’ve included the youtube below so you can get all nice and nostalgic and hopefully, be very afraid.
So, here’s my shot at the schtick.
The answer is: the Great Obama.
And the question in the envelope? Who thinks they have all the answers before knowing the facts or even the question?
I just made my post dinner, wine-thirty, rounds of favorite blogs. No Quarter is always high on my list. I did this right after speaking to my dad who lives in Seattle and is a true-red Republican, fox-watching, member of the greatest generation kinda guy. Maybe it was because we were just talking about my evolving attitude towards Fox News, but we were discussing Britt Hume’s coming retirement, media bias, and the election.
My dad insists that Obama has some kind of personality disorder that is causing him to think that he is already elected president.
So, this interview was posted at No Quarter. I started synthesizing all of these discussions into a more coherent framework since this is one of the occupational hazards of being a social scientist.
Does Obama really think it’s just a matter of waiting out a few inconvenient months? Has he become the Great Carnak or is he exhibiting some kind of personality disorder?
Here’s the interview that got me thinking that maybe my Dad wasn’t all that off base.
The Answer is: The Great OBAMA.
And the question in the envelope? Who thinks he’s already elected president AND knows all the answers to the questions that reporters may ask and concerns that generals may have.
Transcript . Barack Obama ABC Interview . July 21, 2008
ABC’s Terry Moran: “And then we sat down with [Barack Obama] to talk about what has become an open disagreement between military commanders here and Obama, over his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat troops from Iraq on a 16-month timetable. Did General Petraeus talk about military concerns about your timetable?”
Barack Obama: “You know, I would characterize the concerns differently. I don’t think that they’re deep concerns about the notion of a pullout per se. There are deep concerns about, from their perspective, a timetable that doesn’t take into account what they anticipate might be some sort of changing conditions. And this is what I mean when I say we play different roles. My job is to think about the national security interests as a whole, and to have to weigh and balance risks, in Afghanistan, in Iraq. Their job is just to get the job done here. And I completely understand that.”
Moran: “But the difference is real. Commanders here want withdrawals to be based on conditions on the ground. Obama emphasizes his timetable, but he insists he would remain flexible. I’m going to try to pin you down on this.”
Obama: “Here let me say this, though, Terry, because, you know, what I will refuse to do, and I think that, you know “
Moran: “How do you know what I’m going to ask?”
Obama: “Well, then if I don’t get it right, then you can ask it again.”
Moran: “All right.”
Obama: “Is to get boxed in into what I consider two false choices, which is either I have a rigid timeline of such and such a date, come hell or high water, we’ve gotten our combat troops out, and I am blind to anything that happens in the intervening six months or 16 months. Or, alternatively, I am completely deferring to whatever the commanders on the ground says, which is what George Bush says he’s doing, in which case I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”
There are two things I jumped on immediately. One is that Obama presumed to know what the Reporter was going to ask. The second is the all-telling “I’m not doing my job as commander-in-chief.”
My first instinct, was to think, this guy really does think he’s already got the presidency in the bag. I thought the seal was over-the-top. I really thought the entourage to Europe and the Middle East was a bit staged. The acceptance speech in the stadium is outrageous! The speech by the Brandenburg gate was trying to channel the Kennedy vibe. Michelle’s even been known to deck herself out like Jackie. But, sheesh, I’m beginning to gather enough evidence that I really think he MUST think he has this in the bag. He’s already president in his mind. It’s a done deal, in his mind. He even thinks he knows what other folks want and are going to ask now. I think that it’s gone beyond just staging Obama to look presidential and Kennedyesque.
The Answer is: The Great Obama
And the Question in the Envelope: Who believes his own hype beyond the point representing sanity and the safety of our country?
UPDATE: I guess even the candidate’s advisors think he’s already president too!
At a morning background briefing, reporters parried with senior advisers on the characterization of Obama’s speech Thursday in Berlin as a campaign rally. The outdoor speech at the Victory Column could draw thousands of people, similar to the size of Obama events in the United States.
“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.
“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.
“He is going to talk about the issues as an individual … not as a candidate, but as an individual, as a senator,” the adviser added.
EXTRA! WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS:
Bush’s Third Term
July 2, 2008; Page A12
“We’re beginning to understand why Barack Obama keeps protesting so vigorously against the prospect of “George Bush’s third term.” Maybe he’s worried that someone will notice that he’s the candidate who’s running for it.
Most Presidential candidates adapt their message after they win their party nomination, but Mr. Obama isn’t merely “running to the center.” He’s fleeing from many of his primary positions so markedly and so rapidly that he’s embracing a sizable chunk of President Bush’s policy. Who would have thought that a Democrat would rehabilitate the much-maligned Bush agenda?
Take the surveillance of foreign terrorists. Last October, while running with the Democratic pack, the Illinois Senator vowed to “support a filibuster of any bill that includes retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies” that assisted in such eavesdropping after 9/11. As recently as February, still running as the liberal favorite against Hillary Clinton, he was one of 29 Democrats who voted against allowing a bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee reform of surveillance rules even to come to the floor.
Two weeks ago, however, the House passed a bill that is essentially the same as that Senate version, and Mr. Obama now says he supports it. Apparently legal immunity for the telcos is vital for U.S. national security, just as Mr. Bush has claimed. Apparently, too, the legislation isn’t an attempt by Dick Cheney to gut the Constitution. Perhaps it is dawning on Mr. Obama that, if he does become President, he’ll be responsible for preventing any new terrorist attack. So now he’s happy to throw the New York Times under the bus.
Next up for Mr. Obama’s political blessing will be Mr. Bush’s Iraq policy. Only weeks ago, the Democrat was calling for an immediate and rapid U.S. withdrawal. When General David Petraeus first testified about the surge in September 2007, Mr. Obama was dismissive and skeptical. But with the surge having worked wonders in Iraq, this week Mr. Obama went out of his way to defend General Petraeus against MoveOn.org’s attacks in 2007 that he was “General Betray Us.” Perhaps he had a late epiphany.
Look for Mr. Obama to use his forthcoming visit to Iraq as an excuse to drop those withdrawal plans faster than he can say Jeremiah Wright “was not the person that I met 20 years ago.” The Senator will learn – as John McCain has been saying – that withdrawal would squander the gains from the surge, set back Iraqi political progress, and weaken America’s strategic position against Iran. Our guess is that he’ll spin this switcheroo as some kind of conditional commitment, saying he’ll stay in Iraq as long as Iraqis are making progress on political reconciliation, and so on. As things improve in Iraq, this would be Mr. Bush’s policy too.
Mr. Obama has also made ostentatious leaps toward Mr. Bush on domestic issues. While he once bid for labor support by pledging a unilateral rewrite of Nafta, the Democrat now says he favors free trade as long as it works for “everybody.” His economic aide, Austan Goolsbee, has been liberated from the five-month purdah he endured for telling Canadians that Mr. Obama’s protectionism was merely campaign rhetoric. Now that Mr. Obama is in a general election, he can’t scare the business community too much.
Back in the day, the first-term Senator also voted against the Supreme Court nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. But last week he agreed with their majority opinion in the Heller gun rights case, and with their dissent against the liberal majority’s ruling to ban the death penalty for rape. Mr. Obama seems to appreciate that getting pegged as a cultural lefty is deadly for national Democrats – at least until November.
This week the great Democratic hope even endorsed spending more money on faith-based charities. Apparently, this core plank of Mr. Bush’s “compassionate conservatism” is not the assault on church-state separation that the ACLU and liberals have long claimed. And yesterday, Mr. Obama’s campaign unveiled an ad asserting his support for welfare reform that “slashed the rolls by 80 percent.” Never mind that Mr. Obama has declared multiple times that he opposed the landmark 1996 welfare reform.
* * *
All of which prompts a couple of thoughts. The first is that Mr. Obama doesn’t seem to think American political sentiment has moved as far left as most of the media claim. Another is that the next President, whether Democrat or Republican, is going to embrace much of Mr. Bush’s foreign and antiterror policy whether he admits it or not. Think Eisenhower endorsing Truman’s Cold War architecture.
Most important is the matter of Mr. Obama’s political character – and how honest he is being about what he truly believes. His voting record in the Senate and in Illinois, as well as his primary positions, would make him the most liberal Presidential candidate since George McGovern in 1972. But he clearly doesn’t want voters to believe that in November. He’s still the Obama Americans don’t know.”
It’s getting surreal out there folks!!! Let’s just disinter Salvador Dali and let him explain it to us!!!
Source: source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121495450490321133.html
It’s just one Forrest Gump moment after another in Barrack Hussein Obama’s Life. You would think after so many instances of his ‘autobiography’ winding up in the urban myth sites that he’d quit making up details of his life. Well, folks here he goes again. This week’s selection from Moments of My Metaphorical Life by Barrack Obama is watching astronauts in Hawaii from Grandpa’s shoulders.
Obama said in his speech yesterday:
“One of my earliest memories is of sitting on my grandfather’s shoulders and watching the astronauts come to shore in Hawaii.”
Let’s talk about what is wrong with this memory. FIrst, the astronauts arrived aboard the USS Hornet in July 1969. Obama claims he moved to Indonesia at the age of 6 and returned to live with his grandparents in 1971. Unless Obama was spending summers with his grandparents there is no way he could have seen the USS Hornet arrive in Hawaii.
Second, I can’t imagine the petite me at 10 on my granddad’s shoulders. Obama’s grandfather must have been lifting weights for years to handle the slightly chubby Obama.
However, let me make my major point. This is just the latest in a series of stories that Obama weaves about his mythical childhood. Many of these stories are easily debunked by facts. His staff calls them metaphorical. While my mother would have rinsed my mouth out with soap for lying , my University would pull my job for publishing things as facts that are proven untruths. Remember this one?
“Selma got me born!” On the march anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, Obama fondly spun this yarn about his parents.
“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”
Uhhh, Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. His spokesman, Bill Burton, later explained that Obama was “speaking metaphorically about the civil rights movement as a whole.”
Then there was THIS whopper on Memorial Day Weekend.
Even the MSM didn’t let that one drop. There were two major problems. Obama has no uncle and Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviets.
Don’t forget this made-up memory. During the same ‘metaphorically’ enhanced March of last year, the Chicago Tribune reported another faked autobiographical detail in Obama’s “Dreams from My Father:” Obama says his racial awakening occurred at age 9 while reading Life Magazine. He described an article and two accompanying photographs of an African-American man physically and mentally scarred by his efforts to lighten his skin. Life magazine’s own historians say the article and the photographs don’t exist.
So, can some one with a background in psychiatry please explain these behaviors too me?
Well, here I am sucking up my morning coffee before heading to a frosh seminar to torture my students on the National Income accounts. I just finished responding to a friend supporting Obama that criticized my last post asking why Obama hates the constitution and decrying him as the real Dubya third term when this news pops up from the AP wire:
Obama to expand Bush’s faith based programs
“CHICAGO – Reaching out to evangelical voters,is announcing plans to expand President Bush’s program steering federal social service dollars to religious groups and — in a move sure to cause controversy — support some ability to hire and fire based on faith.
Obama was unveiling his approach to getting religious charities more involved in government anti-poverty programs during a tour and remarks Tuesday in, at Eastside Community Ministry, which provides food, clothes, and other services.
“The challenges we face today … are simply too big for government to solve alone,” Obama was to say, according to a prepared text of his remarks obtained by The Associated Press. “We need all hands on deck.”
Obama’s announcement is part of a series of events leading up to Friday’s Fourth of July holiday that are focused on American values.”
The Senior Lecturer on Constitutional Law (on Leave) appears to not respect the Establishment Clause of the first amendment. He just continues to make my arguments for me. This is like shooting fish in a barrel. I was heavily criticized for comparing Obama with Cheney. So, will some one explain to me how expanding Bush’s Faith-based Initiatives is not in keeping with my assertion that Obama is looking like the one that will be Dubya’s third term? This quote is from the same AP article.
Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of, criticized Obama’s proposed expansion of a program he said has undermined and .
“I am disappointed that any presidential candidate would want to continue a failed policy of the Bush administration,” he said. “It ought to be shut down, not continued.”
I have to tell you, that because of these kinds of things I have a difficult time voting for ANY Republican. Now I get to watch a Democrat trample the same First Amendment rights with no shame? I’ll just leave you with a Monte Python clip, because if the Obama campaign get’s any more surreal, I’m going to think we’re living a Monte Python Movie. What’s next? Bill Richardson as head of the Ministry of Silly Walks?
I want to add this quote because it seems so relevant on this still unfolding story.
Beliefnet gives Obama’s proposal a 9 out of 10 on its “God-o-Meter.” Editor Dan Gilgoff writes:
“That’s why Obama’s announcement today…is so significant. Not only is Obama showing how faith would shape policy in his administration, he’s being so bold as to criticize Bush’s faith-based program for not going far enough in opening the federal social services spigot to churches and other faith-based groups. In effect, he’s out-Bushing George W. Bush in one of the President’s specialty areas — connecting faith and public policy.”
I really need a new word for everything Barack Obama is doing these days. Obama’s positions change based on what will get him elected (flip-flop flop flips). I’m actually of the opinion he’s a pathological liar. His campaign is in some extraordinary phase of Darwinian Evolution. He’s devolving into something base and beyond trifling.
Today’s issue of the Black Agenda Report: Obama Tells Lies
So, please, try to convince me here, that the Black Agenda Report is being racist. Any time Obama’s lies find the light of day and we discuss them, the rest of us get thwapped with the race card. If you don’t think a white person can call Obama out on his lies, flip flops, gaffes and corporate shilling, then please, go there and take THEIR word for it.
Paul Street tells it like it is. Obama is not just another corporate shill. He’s raised corporate shilling to an artform. One of Obama’s favorite spiels is how his netroots campaign is full of little people giving little bits of money. Street makes it clear to us that Obama’s source of funds is not us little guys. Penny Pritzker, his finance committee chair, has churned up bundlers from a veritable who’s who list of bad guys in the Mortgage Meltdown. GIven Pritzker’s one of the alligators in this swamp, I shouldn’t be too suprised. It is also probably why you NEVER hear Senator Obama talk about some of the biggest rip-offs of poor folks (especially poor minorites and active duty military) these days: Subprime lending, Payday lending, and other predatory practices aimed at the unbanked. This would include making certain no bank branches are available in rural, urban, or other areas where many poor folk live so they are forced to rely on these loans sharks with legal status. If Senator Obama is concerned about inner city blacks, why is he taking so much money from the very people that fleece them every chance they get? This is consistent with his relationship with slumlord Rezko. Let the little people live in slums while Obama gets a sweetheart deal on a mansion and a sideyard.
The top contributors list also explains why Obama’s alternate energy polices frequently include nuclear energy (while he knew NOTHING of the Hanford site while campaigning in Oregon) and ethanol (a really, really inefficient alternative fuel that is a windfall for corporate farming). Obama’s progressive politics appear to be solidly based on the market. The highest bidder wins the Obama treatment.
“Too bad Obama is disproportionately funded by people from the top 1 percent of Americans, who own nearly 40 percent of the nation’s wealth and who account for more than 80 percent of campaign contributions above $250. Through April of 2008, the Campaign Finance Institute reports, Obama received more than $89 million in contributions of $1000 or more, just $8 million less than McCain’s total take ($97.3 million).
According to the Center for Responsive Politics Obama’s top contributors include Goldman Sachs (#1 at $571,000), UBSAG (#3 at $365,000), JP Morgan Chase (#4 at $362,000), Citigroup (#5 at $358,000), Lehman Bros. (#7 at 4319,000), Google (#8 at $318,000), multinational corporate law firm Sidley Austin LLP (#10 at $294,000)and nuclear energy powerhouse Exelon (#15 at $236,000}.
No wonder Obama doesn’t want $3 from each American Taxpayer. He can get a lot more for those Wall Street bundlers. For more information from Street, and more lists of lies, please go to the Black Agenda Report. Also, read his list of suggestions on what TRUE campaign finance reform would look like, why Obama lies and how this hurts the future of black political voices, and what authentic progressives and folks interested in poverty issues and providing opportunity to minorities really support. Here’s that link.
Oh, and all you trifilin’ people out there … stop playing that damned race card! You’re de-sensitizing folks to the REAL racial injustices that still exist in this country. Try taking on Subprime lending practices or predatory lending! Try asking for REAL UNIVERSAL health care instead of Obama’s watered down shill. Try equallizing resources among schools! This is just a suggestion from a teacher trying to keep it real in the Ninth WARD of New Orleans.
On so many levels, Obama supporters don’t get why so many of us refuse to consider Obama a ‘reasonable’ alternative to Hillary Clinton. Most of the arguments for Obama come down to the hopie changie equation or the similiarity in stated positions. I have to say that because the overwhelming number of not voting or present votes in his past leave you relying on his word.
I was sent to a link at salon.com to look at a long list telling me why I’m not supporting Obama. To my shock (not!), NONE of my actual reasons were listed. Also, NONE of the actual reasons that I hear from my Puma allies were listed either.
Here it is:
I’m amazed at how many younger women are turning on their mothers in an almost pathological way. It’s as if there’s another generation gap opening. It appears to be a different sort than I had with my mother when I was growing up in the 60s and 70s. I guess being called a ‘Pumateer’ is belittling. I’m going to ask my 18 year old or 25 year old daughter what being a ‘buzzkill’ implies. Here’s a sample quote:
“But why do you keep hearing all these stories about grumpy old ladies still hung up on Hillary Clinton, the ones who’re threatening to make a scene at the Democratic convention in Denver, or vote for John McCain in November?
To be fair, it’s not just women. There are plenty of Clinton supporters of every demographic description who are still ticked. But yes, it’s true that the Clinton base skewed female, and that women over 30 are the most vocal of the malcontents. Some of them are calling themselves “PUMAs” (as in “Party Unity My Ass”), an acronym that makes them sound, appropriately enough, like cougars in a very bad mood. Who are these women, and why are they such buzzkills?”
Why am I considered a malcontent? Why can’t I just be called a high information voter that likes to be told the truth every once in awhile?
Here’s her opined reasons why I’m not voting for Obama:
1. They are angry because their candidate lost a close contest.
2. They are angry because their historic opportunity is over.
3. They are angry about rumors that Obama may choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate.
4. They are angry that we started to talk about sexism only once Clinton stopped being a threat.
5. They are angry at the media’s repeated denial of sexism, and they are angry at Keith Olbermann.
6. They are mad at Howard Dean.
7. They are mad at Barack Obama.
8. They are mad at Bill Clinton. Um, obviously.
10. They are mad at Hillary Clinton for conceding and not taking their fight on to Denver.
11. They are mad that everyone believes them to be old, white and racist. They are mad at the people they thought were supposed to be progressives for treating them badly.
9. They are mad at Mark Penn.
12. And finally, they are angry because they feel they are held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs.
Ms Traister, I spend a lot of time with ‘Pumateers”. I’m sorry you consider me a “buzzkill” but you should listen up because I’m going to say this with the voices of 18 million voters (not all women btw) behind me. You’ll notice not ONE of my ten reasons is on your list.
Here are my top 10 reasons why I’m not voting for Barrack Obama:
1. His has specious pastors and associates (Rezko, Ayers, Wright, Farakhan, Michelle Obama …).
2. When he’s off the teleprompter and in a debate, he shows no understanding of policy–especially foreign policy and diplomacy.
3. Whenever there is a vote on something difficult, he doesn’t vote or he votes present so he says things but does nothing.
4. His list of achievements can be summed up in one bullet point: getting into office, jobs, and schools on something less than merit and hard work.
5. His demeanor reminds me of Dubya. He is smug, arrogant and when questioned comes off as some one whose entitled to NOT be questioned on anything.
6. He got his house and side yard in a sweet heart deal with his friend Rezko, the felon.
7. He got his two terms in the Il. state legislature by getting his opponents thrown out on technicalities and got the U.S. senate position when his Republican opponent quit when his supposedly sealed divorce records got opened mysteriously.
8. Michigan primary (sic): If he can get pledged delegates by not being on the ballot, then I want some Michigan pledged delegates too. Basically I hate injustice and every thing the RBC and the DNC did to rig the nomination for him falls into that heading.
9. He says he will negotiate with leaders of rogue nations which is just one of the reasons he’s been endorsed by the likes of Kim Jong Il, Khadafi, Hamas, Fidel Castro …
and the number 10 reason I’m not voting for Obama: