Ken Berwitz

In the previous blog I talked about the phony, invidious attack on Sarah Palin that was made because she agrees with some of what Pat Buchana says.   While reading it, I thought about what would happen if media went after Democrats the same way.

Well, here's a pretty good answer, courtesy of Jim Kouri, writing for www.canadafreepress.com:

Resume of a Terrorist: Obama’s Buddy Ayers

 By Jim Kouri  Sunday, August 31, 2008

While the likes of the New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and other news organizations have their reporters digging for dirt on Alaskan Gov. Sarah Palin, John McCain’s choice for vice president, their savior-in-waiting Barack Obama is getting a free ride at the expense of truth.

It’s no secret that the denizens of America’s newsrooms want Obama sitting in the Oval Office, but Americans are being purposely duped by the Democrat National Committee’s volunteer publicists, formerly known as the mainstream news media.

If it weren’t for talk radio and the blogosphere, even what is known about Obama and his friend, former Weather Underground domestic terrorist and leader William Ayers, would only be a paragraph or two in the backpages of most newspapers, or a sentence or two on most TV and radio news programs.

On Friday night, one of America’s top talk show hosts—who happens to be an attorney and worked in the Reagan Justice Department as chief of staff—recited a list of terrorist acts that would elicit envy from Osama bin Laden.  Mark Levin had his listeners glued to their radios or PCs as he read the resume of a man who should be serving life in prison instead of enjoying a tenured professorship at a major university and entertaining a possible US President in his home.

Because of so-called “prosecutorial misconduct” Ayers escaped what could have been a life-sentence.

As I write this “resume of a terrorist,” I find it difficult to understand how a man who is running for president of the United States would even know someone as anti-American and destructive as William Ayers. Plus, Ayers, his wife and their comrades at the Weather Underground are cop-killers.  And Obama doesn’t just know him personally—he’s a close friend with Ayers.

Here is the “resume” of an American terrorist:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage” riots in the city October 8-11, 1969. The Weathermen later claimed credit for the bombing in their book, “Prairie Fire.”

8-11 October 1969 – The “Days of Rage” riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they had did the explosion.

27-31 December 1969 – Weathermen hold a “War Council” meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).

13 February 1970 - Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department .

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – “bomb factory” located in New York’s Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members die . The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..

21 May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s (Ayers’ current wife) name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

9 June 1970 - Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters.

27 July 1970 - Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men’s Colony prison.

8 October 1970 - Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 - Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 - Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 - Bombing of The United States Capitol . “ [NYT, 3/2/71]

April, 1971 – abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 - Bombing of the Office of California Prisons . [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 - Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 - Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 - Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 - Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 - Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy . [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 - Bombing of the Department of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 - Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 - Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 - Bombing of the State Department in (AP. “State Department Rattled by Blast,” The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 - Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York .

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation .

October 20, 1981 - Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hel*. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in a New York Times article.

Message to the News Media: Instead of trying to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, why don’t you cover indepth stories such as the Obama-Ayers relationship just for starters. If you need more leads for stories regarding Senator Obama and other unsavory characters, contact me at this publication.

Months have gone by with Barack Obama's association with william ayers hanging in space.  WHERE are the media on this? WHY are they protecting Barack Obama this way?  WHAT does it say about them that they behave this way?  

You know the answer as well as I do.

Ken Berwitz

The latest attack on Sarah Palin and the super-fast debunking of it.  This one is the insinuation that she might be anti-semitic for ever having a good word to say about Pat Buchanan.

Now personally I think Pat Buchanan is an anti-Semitic weasel.  But liking some part of what he says doesn't make anyone an anti-semite. 

Here is a taste of reality to counteract the latest broadside:

Alaska - Chabad Rabbi: Sarah Palin a Great Friend To The Jewish Community

 

Rabbi Yosef Greenberg speaking on Jun of 2008 as Gov. Palin [seen in photo] signs bill on the 60th Aniv. of Israel

 

Alaska- In light of recent media reports attempting to connect Republican VP nominee Gov. Sarah Palin with controversial historian and Nazi sympathizer Pat Buchanan, VIN News has learned that the Alaska governor has demonstrated strong support for Alaska’s Jewish community. In particular, Gov. Palin signed a resolution in June of 2008 recognizing Israel’s 60th anniversary and the unique relationship between Alaska and the Jewish State, especially the fact that Alaska Airlines played a critical role in the rescue of 40,000 Yemenite Jews in 1948 and 1949.

Chabad of Anchorage’s Rabbi Yosef Greenberg had this to tell VIN News:

“Gov. Palin signed this resolution in the presence of Alaska’s Jewish community leaders. This bill was orchestrated by members of the Alaska Legislation and heavily supported by Speaker of the House, Representative John Harris…

Gov. Palin has established a great relationship with the Jewish community over the years and has attended several of our Jewish cultural gala events. Gov. Palin also had plans to visit Israel with members of the Jewish community, however, for technical reason, the visit has not occurred yet.

I was personally impressed by Gov. Palin’s remarks of hope and faith when she gave birth to a child with special needs. We all feel that the Governor is a remarkable, energetic, and good person.

Having said that I like to reiterate that As a Lubavitcher rabbi, I would like to note that we do not endorse any political candidate

For any members of the Lunatic-left And Mega-moonbat Brigade who are not persuaded, you might want to remember that Pat Buchanan is a regular guest on both Countdown with keith olbermann and Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Are they anti-Semites too?

What's next?  Do you think they have a shot at pinning the sinking of the Titanic on her?

God they are terrified of Sarah Palin.

Ken Berwitz

This morning I read Maureen Dowd's sneering, insulting commentary on Sarah Palin and Alaska, which she referred to as "an oversized igloo".  In it, I found the key talking point Dowd and numerous other Democrat partisans have used;  that Governor Palin has no foreign policy experience. 

As usual, I didn't know whether to just laugh out loud or be incensed, given the "experience" at the top of the Democrats' ticker.  I thought it must be either superseding obtuseness, ignorance or just flat-out dishonesty on the part of Ms. Dowd to attack the Republican running mate on this basis when the top of the Democratic ticket has no foreign policy experience at all.

Then I read Warner Todd Huston's matchup between Mr. Obama and Ms. Palin and felt a lot better. 

Here it is:

What about that ‘Experience,’ Barack?

August 30, 2008 

By Warner Todd Huston

Well, we keep seeing the Old Media blasting (or trying to) John McCain’s bold choice for his vice president, Sarah Palin. They keep pretending that Palin has no “experience.” Of course, they refuse to say a word about Barry Hussein Obama’s thin resume, but hey… THAT’S why they are the Media. To take the side of the far left.

Still, I thought it might be interesting to see Barry’s record next to Sarah’s. Now, remember, Barry is the guy that the extremists on the left say is “qualified” to be the actual president and Palin is only running for vice president.

Barack Obama:

Age: 47

Family:

• Wife: Michelle
• 2 Children: Malia, Sasha.

Education:

• B.A. Political Science/International Relations, Columbia University, 1983
• J.D. Harvard Law School, 1991
• Editor of Harvard Law Review

Political Experience:

• State Senator, Illinois, 1996-2004
• No initiatives or legislation of notice, many non-votes and little by way of a record
• U.S. Senator, Illinois, 2005-present
• No initiatives or legislation of notice, little time spent in Washington as he’s been running for president since 2004

Professional Experience:

• Senior Lecturer, Constitutional Law, University of Chicago, 1992-2004
• Never tenured and wrote no scholarly papers
• Attorney, Miner Barnhill & Galland, 1993-2004
• Never became a partner
• “Community Organizer”
• Responsible for no major initiatives or programs

Summary:

Never achieved any major accomplishment after Harvard. Was not a leader of extraordinary courage, did not reach across the aisle, and was responsible for no major initiatives that changed the corrupt Chicago way of business. Never owned a business, has no executive experience at all.

Sarah Palin

Age: 44

Family:

• Husband: Todd
• 5 Children: Track, Bristol, Willow, Piper, Trig

Education:

• B.S. Journalism, Minor Political Science University of Idaho, 1987

Political Experience:

• Former Council Member of Wasilla City Council, Alaska
• Fought wasteful spending and high taxes
• Former Mayor of Wasilla City, Alaska
• Led the fight against cronyism and wasteful spending
• Candidate, Lieutenant Governor, Alaska, 2002 (Came in 2nd)
• Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission 2003 - 2004
• Rooted out major corruption and fought party bosses (and won)
• Governor of Alaska, 2006-present
• Beat party bosses and incumbent Gov of her own Party, ran on an anti-corruption platform
• 2008, Negotiated Alaska natural gas pipeline deal between Canada and Alaska

Professional Experience:

• First Place, Miss Wasilla Beauty Contest, 1984
• Second Place, Miss Alaska Pageant, 1984
• Television Sports Reporter, 1987-1989
• Owns commercial fishing business with husband

Summary:

Achieved much in her family life. Took on corrupt party bosses in several capacities and won. Became Governor and gained executive experience. She’s had time to achieve all this before she is 50-years-old AND have 5 children! Simply astounding.

Obviously, I’d stack Palin’s far more extensive experience against Barry Hussein Obama’s any time. At LEAST Palin’s done something. Unlike Barry who has thus far wasted his potential.

Maybe Mr. Huston should send a copy of this "tale of the tape" to Ms. Dowd.  I assume she would ignore it anyway, but at least we'd know enough to rule out the obtuseness or ignorance.

Incidentally, speaking of the "oversized igloo":

-Alaska has 670,000 people and a land area of 572,000 square miles.

-By contrast Delaware, the state Ms. Palin's counterpart Joe Biden comes from, has a population of 850,000 on 2,000 square miles.

If Alaska is an oversized igloo, what does that make Delaware?  An undersized beltway suburb?

Ken Berwitz

This piece, from www.sweetness-light.com, speaks for itself:

Women At ‘Moderate’ Mosque: Kill Gays

August 31st, 2008

Let me ask you a question:  There is never a problem attacking and/or ridiculing Christianity in western countries.  But, with a very few exceptions, you can barely find any of the people who do this going after Islam, can you?

Why do you suppose?

Could it be anything other than that they are not fearful of what would happen to them if they attack Christians, but deathly fearful of Muslims?

You tell me.

Ken Berwitz

God how Sarah Palin must be terrifying the left.

Not that it takes terror for some on the left to be unspeakably despicable.  But this is really plumbing the depths.

Yesterday I blogged about the suggestion, minus any facts or evidence, that Ms. Palin's youngest child was not actually hers, it was her daughter's (as if that somehow constituted an attack on Ms. Palin herself. 

But it has gotten even lower than that.  Read this new account by Warner Todd Huston and see:

Democratic Claim of Palin’s ‘Faked Pregnancy’ Gaining Steam

August 31, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Media Bias, Morals/Sex, News, President, Publius Contributor, Society/Culture, Warner Todd Huston |

-By Warner Todd Huston

**Update: TV’s Alan Colmes Says Palin’s Neglect Caused Down’s Syndrome Birth Stress!!**

**Update #2 Below the Fold- Pregnancy Confirmed**

As I reported earlier, the scurrilous claim that McCain vice presidential pick Governor Sarah Palin faked her pregnancy with a Down’s Syndrome child is beginning to spread among the lowest of the nutrooters. Now, the unhinged, smear site DemocraticUnderground.com has boosted this lie to their front pages. Naturally, since these hate sites feed into each other, the spurious source of the DU story is another DailyKos story like the one I earlier reported upon.

Of course, this whole meme is nothing but a lie. Are we expected to believe an entire state, its hospitals, doctors and media establishment helped cover up this pregnancy story? And they all did this for a Republican, to boot? It makes little logical sense to believe a word of this black helicopter conspiracy theory. Next thing we know, the Kossacks and DUers are going to expect us to believe that Big Foot and some gray aliens were the attendants at the birth!

But, here is the thing. This hateful story about the birth of a child with Down’s Syndrome is exactly the sort of lowest, gutter ideas that float through the empty space in the voluminous heads of our friends at the lowest depths of the Democratic Party and the lefty movement. There are some sick, sick people over there and stories like this prove it.

Pile this on top of the low blow from TV’s Alan Colmes who claims that Palin didn’t practice proper prenatal care before she had the baby with Down’s Syndrome, blaming the Mother for her disabled child. Well, the lefties don’t know a low road they won’t take. (Colmes’ site has crashed right now, but this is the address if it ever comes back: http://www.alan.com/2008/08/30/did-palin-take-proper-pre-natal-care/)

Now, let’s take a looks at some of the replies on the DU garbage thread:

WARNING — As is common on leftist sites, some of the language that follows is profane. (Not to mention filled with bad spelling and grammar)

bobd0: It’s not an “accusation” and it isn’t “awful” Teenagers get pregnant. It isn’t awful. It just happens. It happens all the time. I’m not making accusations. I’m just looking at all the angles. You know, like those Republicans do. Look at that “breakaway” sect of Mormons in Texas. Who would have thought that sort of thing was going on in their backyard? And we’re talking Alaska here. Those long winters must get very boring. And Sarah is all for drilling in Alaska

DaLittle Kitty: That IS a little bastard christian grandchild… WITHOUT QUESTION! IGHT! It’s Da LYING STUPID! Da LYING!!! AllCFhristianed Out +LY’N DER ASS OFF! Why Was this same standard of which you speak NOT in play re: JOHN EDWARDS? The bulshite is unbelievable!!!!

Demeter: It Doesn’t Have to Be an Issue–Just a Rumor or Legend on the Internet. Like Obama is a Muslim==tit for tat.

enough already: Screw ‘em all! It’s time we started fighting back. We always show up at gun fights with knives. Knock Palin’s teeth out on this one. No backing down, no mercy.

marylanddem: I think this IS a an important issue. And commend Daily Kos for focusing on it. Fuck Sarah Palin if she’s the lying hypocrite she appears to be, the sooner this shit hits the fan the better.

progressivebydesign: How can she be the arbiter of all things HOLY and PURE if her daughter gets knocked up?? How would that play in Palin’s little circle of believers? Guess that shoots her ‘abstinence only’ stance, doesn’t it?

scarface2004: fuck that right wing piece of shit..if it belonged to her daughter and she covered it up to avoid embarrasment then fuck that piece of shit! republicans have asked for this…and now they are gonna get it. this is DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND goddammit, not mr rogers neighborhood!! its time to fuck them over with every rumor speculation bald faced lie whatever. reap what you sow assholes!!

Well, there’s more, of course, many more that are even more profane. Granted there are a few somewhat saner souls saying that they should leave this horrible story alone. But they are being widely abused and ignored.

This is the sort of hate that has developed into a pathology for the far left, folks. As distasteful as it is, we need to be aware of how low they will go.

Update #2- One Woman’s Eyewitness Account of Pregnant Palin

All the speculation on whether Governor Palin was pregnant is easily put to rest by the eyewitness account of Elizabeth Eubanks from April 29 of this year. Eubanks was in an airport in Fairbanks waiting for a flight when she unexpectedly saw Governor Palin in the airport also waiting for a flight.

Eubanks reports that she found Palin to be a wonderful person.

Of course I had to check out the “Hottest Governor in the US” and quickly turned to see her pregnant (she has since had her baby) with bags and daughter in tote. Then it struck me as odd. Why is the Governor of Alaska in the airport and preparing to get onto my commercial flight?

Well, why WAS the Governor waiting for a commercial flight? It seems as a cost cutting measure, Governor Palin sold the state jet on Ebay for 2.1 million dollars.

So, not only was she pregnant despite the claim of the jackasses in the Democratic Party, but we get to see another example of how fiscally responsible she is! Go ON with your bad self, Governor Palin!

As far as Alan Colmes goes?  I've always respected Mr. Colmes as a strong liberal/left voice (and a genuinely tough debater).  But he's lost about 80% of that respect with the comment he made, which suggests that Ms. Palin is responsible for her Down Syndrome baby.

If Colmes has any shame in his soul, this would be a very good time to show us all of it.

Now, grow old waiting for mainstream media to report almost any of this.

Ken Berwitz

This is for the poll lovers in the house.  It comes to us from www.newsmax.com:

Zogby: Palin Gives McCain Big Boost

Republican John McCain's surprise announcement Friday of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate - some 16 hours after Democrat Barack Obama's historic speech accepting his party’s presidential nomination - has possibly stunted any Obama convention bump, the latest Zogby Interactive flash poll of the race shows. The latest nationwide survey, begun Friday afternoon after the McCain announcement of Palin as running mate and completed mid-afternoon today, shows McCain/Palin at 47%, compared to 45% support for Obama/Biden. In other words, the race is a dead heat. The interactive online Zogby survey shows that both Obama and McCain have solidified the support among their own parties - Obama won 86% support of Democrats and McCain 89% of Republicans in a two-way head-to-head poll question not including the running mates. When Biden and Palin are added to the mix, Obama's Democratic support remains at 86%, while McCain's increases to 92%. After the McCain "Veep" announcement on Friday, Palin was almost immediately hailed as a strong conservative, and those voters have rallied to the GOP ticket, the survey shows. Republicans gather in St. Paul, Minnesota this week to officially nominate McCain and Palin as their presidential ticket. Overall, 52% said the selection of Palin as the GOP vice presidential nominee helps the Republican ticket, compared to 29% who said it hurt. Another 10% said it made no difference, while 10% were unsure. Among independent voters, 52% said it helps, while 26% said it would hurt. Among women, 48% said it would help, while 29% said it would hurt the GOP ticket. Among Republicans, the choice was a big hit - as 87% said it would help, and just 3% said it would hurt. Pollster John Zogby: "Palin is not to be underestimated. Her real strength is that she is authentic, a real mom, an outdoors person, a small town mayor (hey, she has dealt with a small town city council - that alone could be preparation for staring down Vladimir Putin, right?). She is also a reformer." "A very important demographic in this election is going to be the politically independent woman, 15% of whom in our latest survey are undecided." "In the final analysis, this election will be about Obama vs. McCain. Obama has staked out ground as the new JFK - a new generation, literally and figuratively, a new face of America to the world, a man who can cross lines and work with both sides. But McCain is the modern day Harry Truman - with lots of DC experience, he knows what is wrong and dysfunctional with Washington and how to fix it, and he has chosen a running mate who is about as far away from Washington as he could find. "This contest is likely to be very close until the weekend before the election - then the dam may break and support may flood one way or the other." The interactive survey shows that 22% of those voters who supported Democrat Hillary Clinton in their primary elections or caucus earlier this year are now supporting John McCain. Among those who said they shop regularly at Wal-Mart - a demographic group that Zogby has found to be both "value" and "values" voters - Obama is getting walloped by McCain. Winning 62% support from weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, McCain wins these voters at a rate similar to what President Bush won in 2004. Obama wins 24% support from these voters. Other demographic details are fairly predictable, showing that the McCain/Palin ticket heads into its convention on Monday with numbers that may fuel an optimism they may not have expected, and that many would not have predicted, especially after Obama's speech Thursday night. Still, storm clouds remain on the horizon for the Republicans, a four-way horserace contest between McCain, Obama, Libertarian Bob Barr and liberal independent Ralph Nader shows.

If these data are correct, they indicate that, by picking Governor Sarah Palin, John McCain not only blunted the impact of Mr. Obama's speech but may have seriously upgraded Mr. McCain's chances of winning the presidency. 

No one knows for sure if this has actually happened.  And even if the poll data are accurate things could change back in a hurry.  But this is the one and only snapshot we have so far, and it is looking very, very good for McCain.

Oh, one other thing:  before anyone assumes that a Republican-friendly poll cooked the books, be it known that John Zogby is a Democrat.

Ken Berwitz

Maybe you have heard of Barack Obama's www.fightthesmears.com web site.  Its purpose is to prevent "smears" from tarnishing the stellar image of Mr. Obama.

Well read this amazing blog by the invaluably talented Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com and see what its real purpose seems to be:

Who's Behind Anti-Palin Smear Site?

Sat, Aug 30, 2008 at 10:57:26 am PST

Suddenly appearing among the Google search results for “sarah palin gay,” a web site titled: Sarah Palin Supports Gay Rights.

Sarah Palin (GOV-Alaska-Republican), supports gay rights, says Anchorage Daily News.

Quote "Gov. Sarah Palin vetoed a bill Thursday that sought to block the state from giving public employee benefits such as health insurance to same-sex couples."

Quote ""It is the Governor’s intention to work with the legislature and to give the people of Alaska an opportunity to express their wishes and intentions whether these benefits should continue," the statement from Palin’s administration said."

Coghill said he’s interested in a new plan that would allow state employees to designate one person — maybe a same-sex partner, but also possibly a family member or roommate — who would be eligible for state-paid benefits. But the employee would have to pay to add that person to his or her benefits."

Sarah Palin’s veto gave gays the same rights as married couples in Alaska.

A vote for McCain/Palin is a vote for gay marriage.

Interesting. There’s nothing else on the page. This sure looks like the work of the dastardly right-wing anti-gay attack machine, doesn’t it?

But look who’s really behind this.

In the Linux console, if you enter the following commands, you can learn the secrets of a political dirty trick. First, look up the host of ‘sarahpalingayrights.com’ to get the site’s IP address.

host sarahpalingayrights.com
sarahpalingayrights.com has address 74.208.74.232

Then use the same command to look up the domain name pointer of that IP address.

host 74.208.74.232
232.74.208.74.in-addr.arpa domain name pointer obamadefense.com

Well, well. “Obamadefense.com,” eh?

And what happens if you enter obamadefense.com on your browser’s address line?

Why, you’re redirected to none other than FightTheSmears.com, the official Barack Obama site that’s supposed to be defending him against smears.

Looks like they may have a second purpose: to generate a few smears of their own.

(Hat tip: sk.)

UPDATE at 8/30/08 11:14:12 am:

Here's another site that traces back to obamadefense.com: ObamaTaxCut.com.

UPDATE at 8/30/08 11:24:46 am:

Two more web sites that share the IP address of obamadefense.com:

John McCain opposes the new GI Bill, but why?
John McCain Prefers War

UPDATE at 8/30/08 12:39:29 pm:

Please note that this is not proof that the Obama campaign is behind this deceptive web site; that's why the title ends with a question mark. But it's definitely not what it seems.

Bottom line: It appears that the "fightthesmears.com" site and other such pro-Obama URL's are using those names as cover to do exactly what they pretend to be against....as long as it smears the McCain Palin ticket.

The Sunday news shows are on tomorrow.  So how likely do you think it is that they will cover this unbelievably sick deception?  And how likely is it to be covered on the weeknight prime time shows?

I'm sure that keith olbermann and Chris Mouthews are hot and heavy on it already. 

Ken Berwitz

Some weeks ago I blogged a video of some idot from James Dobson's Focus on the Family, named Stuart Shepard, "facetiously" (not to me) asking people to pray for torrential rains on the day Barack Obama spoke at Saint Barac...er, Invesco Field in Denver.

I reamed him for it and he deserved it.  A lot of the mainstream media reamed him just as badly and they had every reason to.  His comments, whether "humorous" or not, were intolerant and imbecilic.

So now what do we have?  We have michael moore doing even worse while on (where else?) "Countdown" with keith olbermann.  Let me show you, via excerpts from an article by Jeff Poor of the Business & Media Institute:

Michael Moore: Hurricane Coming During GOP Convention 'Proof There Is a God in Heaven'
Controversial filmmaker admits he's delighted to see a natural disaster potentially interfere with the Republican event. 

By Jeff Poor
Business & Media Institute
8/30/2008 12:13:18 AM

     Sometime you really have wonder at what cost some are willing to see their political ideology advanced.

.

And there you see it.  One of the countless instances in which someone from the left says something absolutely despicable and - unless this is treated very differently than almost any other instance - the mainstream media ignoring it.

Unlike Stuart Shepard, michael moore isn't some nonentity from an evangelical group.  He is a nationally and internationally known filmmaker, an academy award winner.  Yet I doubt you will see or hear a word about this from the sources which excoriated Shepard.

And if you think keith olbermann had a problem with it, you are living in a parallel universe altogether.

Or, put another way, the game is much easier to play when the referee is rooting for your side.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I posted a blog by markos moulitsas zuniga, "kos" of www.dailykos.com, which talked about how much of a nightmare Sarah Palin would be for Barack Obama if she became McCain's vice presidential nominee.

Well, she did.

And here, via Warner Todd Huston of www.newsbusters.org, is round 1 of what they've decided to do about it:

Stay Classy Daily Kos: Accusations Palin 'Faked Her Pregnancy' of Down's Syndrome baby

And that, folks, is what you can expect from the LAMBs (the Lunatic-left and Mega-moonbat Brigade).  No proof, no supportive facts other than a flimsy circumstantial coincidence - and no mention of the fact that Ms. Palin's  Downs syndrome baby was not aborted, but lovingly brought to term.

Keep plenty of stomach medicine on hand for this campaign.  And think about what media would be saying if it were a hard right site attacking Barack Obama - or Michelle Obama or Joe Biden's wife.

Ken Berwitz

Here, via www.sweetness-light.com, is how a major group within the hardline Hillary Clinton base reacts to Sarah Palin's selection as Vice Presidential nominee:

Hillary’s War Room Says The Party’s Over

August 29th, 2008

You want dead-on honesty?  There you have it. 

And, in the bargain, that honesty tells you pretty much everything you need to know about why John McCain picked Governor Palin.

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest scandal (among countless others) from ACORN, the george soros-funded activist group that Barack Obama has been so deeply involved in.  This one comes to us via the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

10 more voter registration workers face investigation

By LARRY SANDLER
lsandler@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Aug. 29, 2008

Milwaukee’s top election official said Thursday she plans to seek criminal investigations of 10 more voter registration workers, including two accused of offering gifts to sign up voters.

 

Most of the suspect workers appear to have falsified driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers or other information on voter registration cards, Election Commission Executive Director Sue Edman said.

Counting the latest group, Edman will have referred 49 voter registration workers this month to Milwaukee County Assistant District Attorney Bruce Landgraf for possible prosecution. Milwaukee police are looking at the evidence to determine whether criminal charges are warranted against the workers, Landgraf said.

About 250 to 300 of the registration cards submitted by those workers are under scrutiny, Edman said.

All the workers were paid by two organizations running voter registration drives, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now and the Community Voters Project. Overall, 37 of the suspect workers were on the ACORN payroll, 11 were paid by the voters project and it’s not clear who employed the other one.

In many cases, the organizations said they caught the fraud, fired the workers and flagged the cards for investigation before turning them over to Edman.

They also have said the problems involve only a fraction of the hundreds of workers who signed up tens of thousands of new voters.

Among the latest group, two ACORN workers are accused of offering pre-paid gasoline cards or restaurant gift cards to people in exchange for signing up to vote.

Edman said she wants Landgraf to look into whether the workers violated a state law that forbids offering cash or gifts to sway voters.

Eight voter project workers are suspected of making up information on voter applications, Edman said.

Among the workers previously referred to Landgraf, two are accused of submitting cards for dead voters.

Others appear to have submitted cards for people who said they never filled out an application or who were already registered, signed cards themselves, or falsified driver’s license numbers.

The incident has revived partisan debate over whether photo identification for voters would help prevent fraud or discourage the poor and minorities from voting.

On Wednesday, the state Government Accountability Board refused to require voters to show photo ID at the polls if new database checks found discrepancies in their registration information.

If ACORN were involved in getting Republican voters instead of Democrats, this sorry, utterly corrupt, utterly fraudulent group would be an ongoing story in mainstream media.

However, that's not the way things are.  ACORN is involved in getting Democratic voters.  It only operates in places where they can be mined.  So the fact that ACORN is corrupt and fraudulent is ignored by mainstream media, along with Barack Obama's involvement with the group.  And that is a disgrace.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

Why Sarah Palin?

Here are a few questions that are being asked by media, that are likely to be asked by the public and that I myself would ask.  I've tried to answer every one as candidly as possible.  I hope this exercise is helpful to you:

---------------------------------------------------

Q:  Who the hell is Sarah Palin?  No one ever heard of her.  Is this a joke?  Is McCain that desperate?

A: Sarah Palin is a former small-city mayor and currently is the Governor of the state of Alaska.  She also participates in her husband's commercial fishing business and is the mother of 5 children.  I barely knew anything about her until the last 24 hours.  Even now, after just one day, I suspect I know more about her than 99% of the country.  It is true that, in this regard, she is out of nowhere.

But the selection is no joke, McCain had good reasons to decide on Ms. Palin.  Andwhile it does not show desperation (how could it, since he's neck and neck with Obama in the polls), it is clearly a choice based on political opportunism.

-----------------------------------------------------

Q. Good reasons?  Yeah, right.  What good reasons are there?

A. Ms. Palin has executive experience at both the small city and state government level.  She also has real-life experience, both as a participant in her husband's business (hands-on, not sitting in an office somewhere) and as a wife and mother, that no other candidate in this race comes close to. 

Politically, she is at least as conservative as John McCain is, probably a good deal more so.  But she shares his willingness to make "maverick" decisions, so there is no guarantee she will toe a party line like some kind of good soldier.  In that regard she is similar to a previous incarnation of Joe Biden who, until politics took over, was a supporter of the war in Iraq. 

And, of course, she is a woman.  This, I am sure, pushed her to the top of the list.  The obvious calculation was that it might generate significant female support for John McCain that he would not otherwise get, including a segment of  Hillary Clinton supporters looking for a way to "punish" Barack Obama for the way he has treated her and her 18 million primary voters.

----------------------------------------------------

Q. Ok, now you're talking.  If she were not a woman, someone with her résumé would never have even been considered by McCain.

A. I agree completely.  Further, I have no doubt that she wasn't even McCain's first woman preference.  I would think he'd have approached Kay Bailey Hutchison of Texas first.  Yes, Ms. Palin's political value - i.e., how many votes she might bring - is a huge part of this selection.  As it is for just about every other Presidential candidate's selection of a  running mate.

----------------------------------------------------

Q. Yeah, but what about this "change" jazz?  Are you trying to tell me Sarah Palin, an inexperienced politician from a completely atypical state, is some kind of agent of change?  That's ridiculous.

A. Is it?  That's funny, given that Barack Obama has a paper-thin résumé and is from Hawaii.  Think about it.

In reality, Mr. Obama, the guy being touted as an agent of change, is the only person on either ticket who doesn't show any capacity to depart from a partisan blueprint.  Look at his voting record in Illinois and in the senate.  You'll find that the one maverick position he has ever taken on any major issue (i.e. he bucked his own party) is on BAIPA, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, which passed the Illinois state senate with bipartisan support as soon as he wasn't in a position to be blocking it.  But don't expect Mr. Obama to be bragging about that position, because it is (and damn well should be) a political disaster for him.

--------------------------------------------

Q. Ok, Palin is certainly different.  But I have to keep coming back to the fact that she's a nobody from nowhere who is being put one heartbeat away from the presidency.  Forget the political value she brings to electing John McCain President.  If something should happen to him, she IS President.  This is not some stupid game, this is the future of our country and the free world we're talking about.

A. I agree again.  But there is also the fact that if Mr. McCain wins, she becomes Vice President and, from day one, starts gathering the exact experience you're talking about.  She will preside over the U.S. Senate - the one Barack Obama barely ever showed up in since being elected.  She will be in the security meetings.  She will interact with the people and the institutional entities a President does.  What better training for the Presidency is there than that?

Contrast her situation with Barack Obama who, if elected President, will be ridiculously inexperienced in the job itself, not in the #2 position. 

---------------------------------------------------

Q. What unbelievable hypocrisy.  How can Republicans have the gonads to attack Barack Obama as being inexperienced and then put Sarah Palin on the ticket? 

A. As a former Mayor and current Governor, Sarah Palin has MORE EXECUTIVE EXPERIENCE than Barack Obama.  As a working mother with five children, a union-member husband in a blue collar business (he's a member of the Steelworker's union) and a son about to deploy to Iraq, Ms. Palin has MORE REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE than Barack Obama.  And as someone with no foreign policy background or responsibilities, Ms. Palin has AS MUCH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERIENCE as Barack Obama.

If you are an Obama supporter who thinks it is a good idea to talk down Sarah Palin for her lack of experience, you better batten the hatches.  Because you are going to damage YOUR candidate every time you do - far worse than you will damage John McCain.

----------------------------------------------------

Q. One other thing.  Sarah Palin is a far right winger.  She is pro-life, she is a lifetime NRA member.  She is anti-gay.  What about that?

A. Sarah Palin is all those things.  That again speaks to the political calculation inherent in her choice.  She is definitely going to be presented as an answer to the right wing Republican base - the folks with misgivings about John McCain's loyalty to their positions. 

But Ms. Palin also was pragmatic and fair enough to sign gay rights legislation into law without using her veto pen.  This suggests that, like Ronald Reagan on abortion legislation, she has the capacity to accede to the wishes of people who don't share her views.  As pointed out earlier, she has a reputation as something of a maverick -- and it is well earned.

---------------------------------------------------

Whew.  Ok, there are the basics.  Any questions?  You ask and I'll answer.

Ken Berwitz

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is the congressperson from the 20th District in (southern) Florida.....Broward County.

I call her Robert Wexler with different plumbing because, apart from being a woman, she is very much the same as Mr. Wexler.  A nasty, vicious loudmouth with a supercharged attitude, who represents a district she cannot lose as long as she stays as far left as it is possible to be.

This afternoon John McCain announced that Sarah Palin is his running mate.  Wasserman Schultz's reaction to Governor Palin?  "She's inexperienced, she's unethical and she's wrong on every women's issue"

Lovely.

Sarah Palin has a huge reputation for fighting corruption - which, it so happens, appears to have been rampant in Alaska, and very much among her fellow Republicans.  Her whistleblowing against unethical behavior is what catapulted her to the Governor's mansion.  By contrast, how often have you heard about Debbie Wasserman Schultz speaking out against William Jefferson? 

Ms. Palin can't be wrong on every women's issue (translation:  abortion) because, despite the ridiculous assumption on the part of the Wasserman Schultz's of the country and their media cohorts, a great many women are every bit as pro-choice as Ms. Palin is. 

But my favorite line is that Sarah Palin is inexperienced.  Do Ms. Schultz and her fellow Democrats really want to get in to an "inexperienced" riff during this election?  How experienced is Barack Obama? 

I'll make this plain and simple:  Sarah Palin has as much foreign policy experience as Barack Obama (none).  And she has two years' more executive experience than Barack Obama has.  That makes her MORE experienced than Mr. Obama.

And, let's remember, Ms. Palin is running for Vice President, not President.  If she wins, the eminently experienced John McCain is President.  If Debbie Wasserman Schultz's preferred candidate wins, the wholly inexperienced Barack Obama is President.

If I were a Republican, I would go to bed tonight praying that Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Robert Wexler and every other angry leftist makes that argument every day of the campaign.

Ken Berwitz

This latest edition is from Agence France Presse.  Watch Steve Gilbert of www.sweetness-light.com take it apart.  How?  With facts, that's how:

Obama’s Incredible Background And Plans

August 29th, 2008

.

Asking again for the umpteenth time:  If a blogger has this information, don't mainstream media?  Do you think the network news shows and the New York Times, for example, have fewer information gathering resources than Steve Gilbert?

So why don't you see it from mainstream media?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

What a gutsy move!!!

She is a former beauty queen, basketball player, TV sports anchor and commercial fisherman.  She is married with five children.

Politically she came to prominence by whistle-blowing on members of her own Republican party for their ethical violations.  She was a two time city mayor before becoming the Governor of Alaska.  Her approval ratings are hovering in the 90% range.  She is strongly conservative on many issues -- but also signed gay rights legislation into law and created a sub-cabinet post regarding climate change. 

But, y'know what?  I'll show you the value of Sarah Palin to the McCain ticket by pasting the analysis of someone who desperately wants Mr. McCain to lose:  Markos Moulitsas Zuniga, better known as "Kos" of www.dailykos.com:

Sarah Palin: She's a very popular (80-90% approval rating), attractive, governor of Alaska. She has kind of an older Tina Faye thing going on. In 1984, Palin competed in the Miss Alaska beauty pageant after winning the Miss Wasilla contest earlier that year. In the Wasilla pageant, she played the flute and also won Miss Congeniality. Gov. Palin is known in her state as a Maverick, and has a reputation for being very anti-corruption. You know the stuff John McCain pretends to be. Sarah Palin is very popular having seemed come out of nowhere to completely destroy her rival, Republican Governor Frank Murkowski in their Primary!

The upside for us? She's a little inexperienced for the job since she's only been governor of Alaska since 2006. Other than that, theres not much. She's good on the Environment and good on Gay issues (though her hand was forced) she is however firmly "pro-life" which doesn't help McCain's case with woman at all.

The downside? Out of all of the VP choices for McCain she is the one who could really help McCain the most in my view. This woman is destined for higher office and McCain may be her ticket to the top. Hopefully she's smart enough to realize McCain's campaign is already dead in the water and will simply sit this one out. If so we will have dodged a bullet but one way or another we will have to face off with this woman someday. She's a rising star. Theres no getting around that.

Now you may think she's from Alaska which is about as Red of a state as you can get and McCain doesn't need her help. However, drafting her is about as safe as you can get simply because there is no way a Democrat is going to replace her. On top of that she's the first Woman ever elected as Governor of Alaska and she would be the first Woman ever elected as Vice President. Which despite her views on abortion; her charm and her potential to break glass ceilings could siphon off a good deal of female voters.

Also, unlike McCain her Maverick reputation is real. She signed Gay Marriage into law (though via Supreme Court Mandate) and vetoed legislation that would have barred the state from granting benefits to gay state employees and their partners. She also appointed a new sub-cabinet to address Climate Change in her state. You know what; let me just put it this way. If she were in virtually any other state she would be a Democrat. Shes even more progressive than some of our Democratic Senators.

Now while those things would be of some concern to Republicans the fact of the matter is they're virtually untouchable. Drawing attention to her left leaning record would simply re-enforce her Maverick Meme thus granting the media permission to re-proclaim McCain a Maverick for picking such a Maverick as his VP. And the last thing we want is to bring back that Maverick bullshit.

Bottom line is she's one to watch out for and one of my picks for worst case scenario simply because she should probably be on our side.

That description, more than anything else, tells you why John McCain made this pick. 

Wow, and double wow.

Ken Berwitz

I'll turn this one over to Mark Finkelstein at www.newsbusters.org.  Please be sure not to be drinking anything while you're reading it....it's not easy to clean liquid off a keyboard:

Olbermann: Obama Nomination Like Fall of Soviet Union, Apartheid

No need to tell you what I think about this.  I have a feeling you're thinking the same thing. 

Yeesh.

Ken Berwitz

The stadium was packed.  Stevie Wonder and other top acts were performing.  Their were fireworks.  The crowd was rockin'.

And Barack Obama gave them exactly what they wanted, too.  Over a half hour of beautifully delivered rhetoric, great punch lines, youth, energy.....and virtually nothing of any substance.

Yes, that must be exactly what they wanted.  Because that is all Barack Obama ever gives them and they came to hear him so they must have wanted it.

Charles Babington of the Associated Press put it this way:

DENVER (AP) - Barack Obama, whose campaign theme is "change we can believe in," promised Thursday to "spell out exactly what that change would mean."

But instead of dwelling on specifics, he laced the crowning speech of his long campaign with the type of rhetorical flourishes that Republicans mock and the attacks on John McCain that Democrats cheer. The country saw a candidate confident in his existing campaign formula: tie McCain tightly to President Bush, and remind voters why they are unhappy with the incumbent.

Of course, no candidate can outline every initiative in a 35-minute speech—especially one that also must inspire voters, acknowledge key friends, and toss in some autobiography for the newly-interested. And Obama did touch on nitty-gritty subjects, such as the capital gains tax and biofuel investments.

He said he would "find ways to safely harness nuclear power," a somewhat more receptive phrase than he typically uses for that subject.

But most of his address echoed and amplified the theme that dominated the four-day Democratic nominating convention here: George Bush.

Ken Berwitz

We've all heard the philosophical question about what happens when an irresistable force meets an immovable object.

Well what happens when unsurpassed egos meet....er, other unsurpassed egos? 

This, courtesy of Noel Sheppard of www.newsbuster.org, appears to be the answer:

Is MSNBC Feud More Serious Than Management Admits?

.

There's lots of stuff here.  But the one thing that jumps out most prominently is how much keith olbermann appears to be hated by the people on his own network. 

I remember when Jimmy Breslin, the rancorous (though Pulitzer prize-winning) writer, moved out of New York City to the suburbs.  He got into fight after fight with the people in surrounding houses and was utterly despised.  When he moved back to the city, the neighbors literally had a block party to celebrate.

I wonder how big the party will be when olbermann eventually becomes over-mann.

Ken Berwitz

No wonder Democrats hate Karl Rove.  Look at how completely he debunks their fraudulent claims about Barack Obama.

No excerpts on this one:  Here is the entire article, straight from www.weeklystandard.com.  Read it and marvel at what dishonesty you were treated to about Mr. Obama and how easily Mr. Rove disposes of it. 

Pay special attention to the two paragraphs of summation and analysis at the end, which I've put in bold print.  They put it all together beautifully:

Biden's Exaggerations
Inflating Obama's record will not resolve doubts.
by Karl Rove
08/28/2008 2:30:00 AM

THE DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION exposed the central defect of Senator Barack Obama's candidacy: the absence of compelling evidence he is up to the job of president. The exposé comes courtesy of a bad habit of his running mate, Senator Joe Biden. When in doubt, Mr. Biden exaggerates. And in the past week, he did a lot. Voters expect candidates to embellish, but only so much. Go beyond acceptable stretching and a candidate may squander his most precious political possession: credibility. Mr. Obama may be on this perilous path. Last Saturday, America heard Mr. Obama's new running mate exclaim, "I watch with amazement as he came to the Senate. I watch with amazement!" Mr. Biden's hyperkinetic praise is what we expect a running mate to offer his benefactor at the top of the ticket. But Saturday and again Wednesday night, Mr. Biden also praised Mr. Obama for three specific legislative accomplishments. One of them was an ethics bill, called by Mr. Biden in his acceptance speech "the most sweeping in a generation." However, many critics--including Hillary Clinton--criticized it as weak. For example, under Mr. Obama's bill, lobbyists may buy politicians meals if they are eating standing up but not if they're sitting down. Mr. Obama's bill didn't ban privately funded travel for congressmen or authorize an independent investigation office. But Mr. Obama did help draft, negotiate, and push the legislation that passed. The other two supposed accomplishments are more problematic. Saturday, Mr. Biden asserted Mr. Obama "made his mark literally from day one, reaching across the aisle to pass legislation to secure the world's deadliest weapons," a claim similar to one Mr. Obama made earlier in the campaign. Wednesday night, Mr. Biden was more expansive, claiming Mr. Obama was a leader "to pass a law that helps keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of terrorists." This implied a big, important controversial measure, passed with difficulty after the intervention of an extraordinary leader. In reality, the Lugar-Obama Bill was passed on a voice vote on December 11, 2006. It was so routine, there was no recorded vote. The media didn't consider it important or controversial. Neither the New York Times nor the Washington Post reported its Senate passage, though the Post ran a 798-word op-ed by Senators Lugar and Obama the week before it was approved. It was not the subject of a story on the CBS, ABC or NBC evening news--not when it passed, not when it was signed, not ever. No story about it appeared in Roll Call or The Hill, the daily newspapers that cover the minutiae of Congress. It drew only one squib in Congressional Quarterly--and that story didn't mention Obama, just Lugar. The Bush administration supported it. The legislation required the administration to report to Congress within 180 days "on proliferation and interdiction assistance" to secure the mostly conventional weapons stocks littering the nations born from the collapsed Soviet empire. It created a new State Department office to support the Bush administration's "Proliferation Security Initiative" aimed at interdicting weapons of mass destruction and conventional weaponry. And the bill authorized $110 million in funding. But this legislation didn't require a profile in courage to co-sponsor or hard work and powerful persuasion to pass, as Mr. Biden implied. Saturday, Biden proclaimed: "But I was proudest, I was proudest, when I watched him spontaneously focus the attention of the nation on the shameful neglect of America's wounded warriors at Walter Reed Army Hospital." The problem for Mr. Biden (and the object of his praise, Mr. Obama) is the problems at Walter Reed were revealed in articles in the Washington Post, starting February 18, 2007. Unless Mr. Obama writes for the Washington Post under the nom de media of Anne Hull or Dana Priest, he didn't "spontaneously focus the attention of the nation." The two reporters did. The legislation to correct the shortcomings emerged from a Senate committee Mr. Obama doesn't serve on and he played no significant role in drafting or pushing it through the legislative. Mr. Obama is not the real hero of the Walter Reed turn-around, despite Mr. Biden's extravagant claims. Like Mr. Biden, Michelle Obama's speechwriter could not resist hyping her husband's work. Monday night, Mrs. Obama talked about "what he's done in the United States Senate, fighting to ensure that the men and women who serve this country are welcomed home not just with medals and parades, but with good jobs and benefits and health care--including mental health care." This is an apparent reference to the Dignity For Wounded Warriors Act, a bill Mr. Obama introduced that never made it out of the Senate Armed Services Committee, despite its Democratic majority. Americans missed the spectacle of Mr. Obama "fighting to ensure" because he was missing for that particular battle. And if he was fighting, he must have been ineffectual because fellow Democrats didn't think this bill was worth passing. When candidates lack real accomplishments, they and those around them exaggerate what they have done, puff their performance, hype the difficulty of their activities and depict their work as far more substantial than it really is. But if you describe yourself as something you're not, or as having done things you haven't, a critical press corps may be aroused and the contrast with what people believe to be true may be jarring. Mr. Obama should be way ahead in the race for the presidency but this week has seen five polls showing the essentially race dead even. Deep doubts remain about whether Mr. Obama is up to the job. His running mate and his handlers know this. So they are puffing his résumé, padding his accomplishments and claiming the work of others to reassure voters he is up to the duties of the Oval Office. It may work. But the American people are particular about who they elect as president. And voters do not tolerate candidates whose opinion of ordinary citizens is so low they think they can get away with misleading them.

Ken Berwitz

As readers of this blog know, I have determined that the Obama people have come up with a new wrinkle on the "fairness doctrine".  it is called "fairness doctorin'".  Simply stated, fairness doctorin' is when you don't like the truth so you do whatever you can to avoid having people here it.

With this in mind, the following account by Warner Todd Huston of newsbusters.org and conservablogs.com will make all the sense in the world:

Obama Campaign Tries to Shut Down Chicago Radio Show

August 28, 2008 | Filed Under Democrats/Leftists, Elections, Media Bias, News, President, Publius Contributor, Security/Safety, Society/Culture, Warner Todd Huston |

-By Warner Todd Huston

Members of Barack Obama’s campaign HQ in Chicago tried to shut down a local radio show on the City’s most powerful radio signal, WGN 720, because they didn’t like a conservative guest that was on going on the air to discuss Senator Barack Obama’s ties to local terrorist William Ayers. This is a shocking attempt at stifling political free speech and a bald attempt to quash debate by the office of the Democratic Party’s nominee. The funny thing is, WGN is the most liberal station in the City with every host but one slavishly supporting the junior Senator from Illinois.

Show host Milt Rosenberg, the station’s only conservative leaning host (probably to be considered more libertarian than Republican), had on short notice asked conservative writer Stanley Kurtz to come on the air to discuss his work on uncovering Obama’s ties to terrorist Wiliam Ayres and the Annenberg Challenge project. Kurtz was just in Chicago for his investigation and Rosenberg contacted Kurtz only that morning to appear. At the same time, Rosenberg’s producer contacted the Obama campaign’s HQ — which is but blocks from the radio station in downtown Chicago — to offer some time on the air with Kurtz to debate Kurtz’ claims about Obama and Ayres. The campaign, however, flatly refused the offer of the equal air time and instead tried to drum up via email a protest of the show, trying to get it stopped.

After the refusal of host Rosenberg’s offer to appear on the air with Kurtz, the Obama campaign issued an extensive email (The Chicago Tribune has the full text) to drum up protests of the radio station, which said in part…

In the next few hours, we have a crucial opportunity to fight one of the most cynical and offensive smears ever launched against Barack.

Tonight, WGN radio is giving right-wing hatchet man Stanley Kurtz a forum to air his baseless, fear-mongering terrorist smears. He’s currently scheduled to spend a solid two-hour block from 9:00 to 11:00 p.m. pushing lies, distortions, and manipulations about Barack and University of Illinois professor William Ayers.

Tell WGN that by providing Kurtz with airtime, they are legitimizing baseless attacks from a smear-merchant and lowering the standards of political discourse.

The email gave the Rosenberg show contact info and told people to call and protest Kurtz’ appearance. The email also lied to its supporters by acting as if the Obama campaign was not offered fair rebuttal time.

It is absolutely unacceptable that WGN would give a slimy character assassin like Kurtz time for his divisive, destructive ranting on our public airwaves. At the very least, they should offer sane, honest rebuttal to every one of Kurtz’s lies.

I happen to live in Chicago and by chance was listening to the Milt Rosenberg show and heard for myself the host assure listeners that he offered the air time to the Obama campaign, an offer that was refused. Rosenberg even went so far as to offer any other show date for the Obama campaign’s rebuttal to Kurtz’ work.

Then, in compliance with the Obama campaign’s email instructions, a parade of callers was aired all telling Rosenberg to shut down the Kurtz interview. Each caller was quite insensible to the unAmerican reaction in which they were indulging and each one was entirely unreasonable and uninformed on the facts. Sadly, this anti-American attitude seems typical of Obama supporters nation wide.

Now, Dr. Rosenberg’s show is one of the most intelligent, even high brow, shows on the radio, so schmaltzy, exploitation radio is as far from his style as one can get. Rosenberg interviews authors of the highest standing and show topics range from philosophy, to Opera, to physics and political science. He even does a delightful yearly show on the misuse of the English language as well as one on the year’s best literary offerings. Like I said, exploitation radio he ain’t.

So, for the Obama campaign to act as if this particular show is an affront to reasoned debate is an outrageous charge. Just as outrageous is the Obama campaign’s obvious desire to destroy free political speech. It makes one quake to wonder what sort of oppressive climate an Obama presidency would impose on the country?

That, folks, is fairness doctorin' in all its glory.  If you don't like the facts fight tooth and nail to suppress them so that the boobs...er, voters won't get wind of what they are.

Do you like fairness doctorin'?  I hope so.  Because if Mr. Obama is elected be assured that you will get four, maybe 8, years of it.

Ken Berwitz

The definition of a recesssion is when there is negative growth for two consecutive quarters. 

For a year or more now, Democrats have done everything short of  hiring Barack Obama's pal william ayers to bomb a few corporate headquarters, to talk down the economy.  Presumably this is because the worse the economy is the harder it will be for a Republican to win the presidency.

But, despite the lousy housing market and major mortgage loan problems, the economy is not only not receding, it is growing.  Strongly.

Here are excerpts from today's Associated Press article, which tell the tale:

WASHINGTON - The economy shifted to a higher gear in the spring, growing at its fastest pace in nearly a year as foreign buyers snapped up U.S. exports and tax rebates spurred shoppers at home.

The rebound comes after two dismal quarters. The economy actually shrank in the final three months of 2007 and limped into the first quarter at a feeble 0.9 percent pace. The 3.3 percent growth in the spring was the best performance since the third quarter of last year, when the economy was chugging along at a brisk 4.8 percent pace.

Looking at these data, I can't help thinking back to the year 2000, the last year of Bill Clinton's presidency (plus 20 days in 2001). 

Clinton had spent years bragging about his great economy, based on a dot.com bubble that made things appear dramatically better than they actually were.  The bubble burst in late March of that year, and the economy went into free-fall.

Then, during the 2000 presidential campaign, every time candidate George Bush pointed out that the economy was in trouble, he was blamed for the downward slide.  "He's talking down the economy" was the line Democrats used then, and it was dutifully, relentlessly repeated by a media intent on electing Al Gore. 

Bush was literally being blamed for an economy he had nothing whatsoever to do with, based on a blatantly fraudulent talking point. 

Eventually the economic blow-down resulted in a recession - a real one - for 6 months.  And, again, with copious help from an in-the-tank media, it was referred to as the Bush recession (note:  Not one day of those 6 months was under a Bush budget.  The first day of the first Bush budget was October 1, 2001).

Now fast-forward to the present.  Democrats have gone out of their way to "talk down the economy" in dramatically more ominous terms than George Bush ever used in 2000.  But have you seen this same media villify them for doing so, as they were happy to do when it was Bush?

And here's the kicker of them all.  Because Democrats have put all their eggs in one basket - trying to win by claiming everything is wrong - strong economic growth presents a problem for Barack Obama.  A huge problem.  Conversely, it is a genuine boon for John McCain. 

Since this 3.3% growth rate is the last data that will be released before the election.  It is therefore what John McCain will use to bolster his relatively positive comments on the economy and Barack Obama has to explain away as a "recession". 

Which of the two sounds like it makes more sense?  See the problem?

Ken Berwitz

I've been asked why I have not commented on Bill Clinton's speech.

Here's why:

"Everything I've learned in eight years as president and the work I've done since, in America and across the globe, has convinced me that Barack Obama is the man for this job":  Bill Clinton last night

Those were the words uttered by a man absolutely dedicated to defeating Barack Obama and installing his wife into the White House throughout the entire campaign.

A comment like that reduces anything Mr. Clinton said down to boilerplate BS - the stuff he had to say or they won't let him on the podium.  It has all the honesty of a car salesman claiming that the Hummer he's trying to sell you gets 35 miles to a gallon - in town.

Any other questions?

Ken Berwitz

I never knew I was a genius this morning.  I never thought of myself that way - and, god knows, no one else did either.  But this morning I was apprised of my elevated status;  by none other than Matt Lauer of the Today show.

Now I do not know Matt Lauer and have never spoken with him.  So how could he have told me this?

It happened during Mr. Lauer's interview of David Plouffe, Barack Obama's campaign manager.

I only caught about a minute of the interview.  But what I heard was Mr. Lauer extolling Mr. Plouffe and stating that he is thought of as a genius in political strategy.  That was the word Mighty Matt used:  genius.

Then, to demonstrate Plouffe's genius, Lauer explained that he had uncovered 18 states which he deemed battleground states.  And he even named two of them:  Ohio and Pennsylvania.

That's when I realized I was a genius.  You see, even before I found out about David Plouffe's impossibly amazing analysis I, too, uncovered a great many battleground states.  And - this is where it gets truly astounding - two of the states were Ohio and Pennsylvania!!!

Can you believe it?  I looked at these two states, both of which have a large number of electoral votes and were close in the last presidential election, and concluded that they were battleground states.  On my own.  Just me.  BEFORE  I heard from Mr. Plouffe or found out what a genius this made him in the eyes of Matt Lauer.

I thought I was the only one to be this smart, and there's a genius saying the same thing.  It's hard to explain how wonderful that makes me feel.

I wonder if David Plouffe is as impressed with my analysis as I am of his.  I wonder if Matt Lauer will call or e-mail to confer genius status upon me the way he did for Mr.Plouffe.

After all, as they say, birds of a feather............

Ken Berwitz

For the most part I thought the Biden speech - in fact, other than when he went into his attack mode, the entire Biden segment (beginning with his son's introduction and ending with his family coming to the stage) was terrific. 

Biden has a very compelling personal story.  He grew up without a lot of money (not poor, but far from on the economic A-team).  He got his family through a horror of all horrors - his wife and one of his children tragically being killed in a car crash.  He claims (and, I assume he is telling the truth) that after a day's work in the senate he commutes home by train, just like a "regular" Joe.  

Truthfully, Mr. Biden seems less like a senator and more like the kind of guy you want living next door to you, someone you'd count on if you needed a helping hand.

Politically, however, you get a very different Joe Biden. 

As a politician, Mr. Biden is a hard case liberal/leftist with a vicious, sarcastic streak;  one who can be counted on to make rash, unthought-out comments which he then has to (or at least should) apologize for.

That said, however, none of Mr. Biden's downside was in evidence last night.  Politics aside, as a human being Joe Biden is inspirational.

Does this translate into votes?  Is it nothing more than a one day snapshot immediately superseded by the head of the ticket, who is speaking today at the Colosseu....er, Partheno.....er, Lincoln Memoria...er, Invesco Field?

Time will tell.

Ken Berwitz

Was this arrest of an ABC reporter the doing of the Brown Palace Hotel?  Or was it orchestrated by the Democratic party, so ABC viewers would not know about their meetings with "corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention"?

You decide:

ABC Reporter Arrested in Denver Taking Pictures of Senators, Big Donors

Asa Eslocker Was Investigating the Role of Lobbyists and Top Donors at the Convention

By BRIAN ROSS

Aug. 27, 2008—

DENVER--Police in Denver arrested an ABC News producer today as he and a camera crew were attempting to take pictures on a public sidewalk of Democratic Senators and VIP donors leaving a private meeting at the Brown Palace Hotel.

Police on the scene refused to tell ABC lawyers the charges against the producer, Asa Eslocker, who works with the ABC News investigative unit.

(Click here to watch video of the arrest.)

A cigar-smoking Denver police sergeant, accompanied by a team of five other officers, first put his hands on Eslocker's neck, then twisted the producers arm behind him to put on handcuffs.

A police official later told lawyers for ABC News that Eslocker is being charged with trespass, interference, and failure to follow a lawful order. He also said the arrest followed a signed complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel.

Eslocker was put in handcuffs and loaded in the back of a police van which headed for a nearby police station.

Video taken at the scene shows a man, wearing the uniform of a Boulder County sheriff, ordering Eslocker off the sidewalk in front of the hotel, to the side of the entrance.

The sheriff's officer is seen telling Eslocker the sidewalk is owned by the hotel. Later he is seen pushing Eslocker off the sidewalk into oncoming traffic, forcing him to the other side of the street.

It was two hours later when Denver police arrived to place Eslocker under arrest, apparently based on a complaint from the Brown Palace Hotel, a central location for Democratic officials.

During the arrest, one of the officers can be heard saying to Eslocker, "You're lucky I didn't knock the f..k out of you."

Eslocker was released late today after posting $500 bond.

Eslocker and his ABC News colleagues are spending the week investigating the role of corporate lobbyists and wealthy donors at the convention for a series of Money Trail reports on ABC World News with Charles Gibson.

Which is more plausible?  That the Brown Palace Hotel would shoo away national coverage, thus free publicity?  Or that Democrats are terrified of their faithful base finding out that, despite all their condemnations of lobbyists and rich donors, and all the insinuations about what these people demand from Republicans, they are perfectly happy to do business with the same people - as long as no one finds out about it?

Not a very hard question........

Ken Berwitz

As things now stand, I am voting for John McCain for President. 

I am not voting for Barack Obama.  But maybe you are.  And, if so, you certainly have reasons for doing so.

If you want to post an essay on why you prefer Barack Obama (or Bob Barr or Cynthia McKinney) to John McCain, please use the "comments" link below and submit it with either your real name or a "pen name" that you want to use. 

Unless it is intentionally offensive, I will happily post it word for word under the name of your choice. 

I want both sides to be heard, and your side is 100% welcome here. 

Be my guest..................

Ken Berwitz

Hey, while we're at it, here is ANOTHER testy exchange (also found at www.crooksandliars.com) among MSDNC....er, MSNBC personnel.  This time it is between keith olbermann and Joe Scarborough (olbermann in the middle of another one?  What a shock).

In the course of disagreeing with Scarborough's analysis of McCain's chances, olbermann sneered that he should "get a shovel", presumably to dig himself out of the excrement olbermann decided he was immersed in.  "Silent Patriot" at crooksandliars thinks he hears olbermann say "Jesus Joe.  Why don't you get a shovel?" (and, while I didn't hear it distinctly, he may be right).

Then, after olbermann's broadside, Scarborough answers him, adding his own "dig" at the end:

   Download | Play

Y'know, a fella could get the impression that these guys aren't just nasty and abusive for theatrical purposes, they're nasty and abusive for real.

Ken Berwitz

Wow, it is starting to get genuinely testy at MSDNC...., er, MSNBC.

Yesterday morning Joe Scarborough literally blew up at David Shuster after Shuster referred to him as a partisan Republican (Scarborough sees himself as a former partisan Republican who dances down both sides of the aisle these days....and seems to have some merit to his claim based on the increasing frequency with which he takes non-Republican positions).

But, though shorter in duration than the Shuster/Scarborough dust-up, this angry exchange between Chris Mouthews and keith olbermann is even better.  And I got it, of all places, from my "friends" over at www.crooksandliars.com.

I left in their commentary, because it's fun to see Nicole Belle sneer at Mouthews - a man the crooksandliars crew derides as something of a rightwinger, despite his lifelong allegiance to the Democratic party.

Here it is:

Chris Matthews Needs A Nap, Gets Snippy With Olbermann

This, folks, is not happy-talk.  Two super-egos who don't like each other in the same place at the same time rarely is.

I wonder what will happen next.

Ken Berwitz

Have you seen the backdrop Barack Obama is going to make his acceptance speech from?  The one they are hurriedly building at Mile High Stadium?

Remember, this is the same Barack Obama who, until he was ridiculed into removing it, had been standing in front of podiums with a version of the presidential seal and his name on it, as if he'd already been elected.  It is also the same Obama who had the American flag removed from the tail of his campaign plane and substituted with an Obama logo.

Well take a gander at his podium for the acceptance speech and see what you think:

Omigod.  A TEMPLE??????????

Is there something wrong with this man?  When he was elected a U.S. senator did he think he was also elected a senator from Rome? 

Iin fairness, I suppose there is room for confusion -- given that, since being elected, he has spent about as much time in Rome as he has in the U.S. senate.  But even so.......

Can Barack Obama possibly be this full of himself?  Can anyone?

---------------------------------------------------

NOTE:  I have been advised that the backdrop may not be that of a Roman temple.  It may be a Greek temple (that's what Charles Krauthammer thinks) or even the Lincoln Memorial. 

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, however, other than the references to the Roman senate any one of those three would have generated the same commentary.  Hubris is as hubris does.

Ken Berwitz

As Barack Obama's people desperately try to hide his long, deep association with william ayers, two things are happening:

1) The truth about their deep, extensive relationship is coming out despite legal and punitive threats from Obama's thugs....er, supporters;

2) The truth about william ayers -what he did and why he did it - is coming out as well.

How bad is this for Obama?  Read Andy McCarthy's piece from today's edition of "the corner" from National Review and see for yourself:

Bill Ayers: Unrepentant LYING Terrorist   [Andy McCarthy]

In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people — the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, "by design"; they only wanted to cause property damage:

Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed — save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely. Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermen’s actions was “by design.”

In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: “How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse.… I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so — restrained. And I don’t see it as a big deal.

Right.

First of all, "that moment in the townhouse" he's talking about happened in 1970.  Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction.  As noted in Ayers' Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb.  Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:

That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, "tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too."

In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder.  Again, from Discover the Networks: 

Characterizing Weatherman as "an American Red Army," Ayers summed up the organization's ideology as follows: "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents."

Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes.  But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he "participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972," he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon:  "Everything was absolutely ideal. ... The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them."

And he wasn't singular.  As I noted back in April in this article about Obama's motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers' fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others:  “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!”  And as Jonah recalled yesterday, "In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered 'fork' gesture its official salute."  They weren't talking about scratching up the wall-paper.

A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself "the Family" colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered.  (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old.  In fact, it continued well into the eighties.)  Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive. 

On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.  At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people.  They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices.  Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges.

When she was sentenced to 58 years' imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police.  Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg.  Not to worry, though.  On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg — commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.

These savages wanted to kill massively.  That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design.  They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want.  But those are the facts.

willam ayers is a USA hating terrorist scumbag.  So is his wife.  Their ties to Barack Obama are devastating to his campaign.....if the public finds out about them. 

That is why the Obama thugs...er, supporters (why do I keep making that mistake) are doing everything and anything they can to hide this from you. 

Ken Berwitz

You can't say Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo isn't entertaining. Heck, look at what she's done just this week!

Only days ago she gave us a lecture on why we have to start using natural gas instead of fossil fuel.  Sounds great, except it somehow eluded her that natural gas IS fossil fuel.  How's that for a barrel of laughs?

But on Sunday, during her interview with Meet The Press, Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo truly outdid herself.  She decided to teach the Catholic church what it believes.  

If you haven't heard about this over the past couple of days (and anyone who relies on mainstream media probably hasn't), Pelosi-Ricardo informed the Catholic church - HER church that she has been in all her life - that it does not know its own teaching on abortion. 

Here, courtesy of excerpts from the article by Bob Cusack, writing for www.thehill.com, are the particulars.  Read the entire article by clicking here:

Pelosi’s feud with archbishop escalates

By Bob Cusack

Posted: 08/26/08 09:09 PM [ET]

The public feud over abortion between the Speaker of the House and the archbishop of Washington intensified Tuesday as Rep. Nancy Pelosi responded to his recent criticism and the archbishop fired another salvo at the California Democrat. The latest development came Tuesday evening, when Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl issued a statement to The Hill that brushed aside Pelosi’s explanation of her comments about conception on Sunday’s edition of “Meet the Press.” Wuerl on Monday rebuked Pelosi for suggesting that the Catholic Church has long debated the moment of conception. Wuerl said that the church has taught that life begins at conception and has thus opposed abortion as a “moral evil” since the 1st century. Pelosi’s office initially didn’t comment on Wuerl’s remarks. After getting questions from the media, Pelosi spokesman Brendan Daly issued a statement on Tuesday that cited St. Augustine: “Her views on when life begins were informed by the views of St. Augustine, who said, 'The law does not provide that the act [abortion] pertains to homicide, for there cannot yet be said to be a live soul in a body that lacks sensation.' ” Wuerl swiftly denounced Pelosi’s statement, saying, “As the Catechism and early Church documents make clear, abortion is always an evil. That is an unchanging teaching. The question on when the soul enters the body was a philosophical question that grew out of a lack of scientific data at the time of St. Augustine. We have the data today which shows the embryo is human. There no longer is any discussion of whether the unborn is human and so the philosophical discussion of St. Augustine’s time is not relevant today.” The conflict with Wuerl comes as Pelosi is chairing the Democratic convention and trying to unify the Democratic Party behind Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). In the statement issued Tuesday, Daly said that not all Catholics believe that life begins at conception, which is what Catholics are taught.

Isn't that special?  Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo knows better what the church position on abortion is than the church itself.

Look, this is the United States of America.  Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo is 100% free to invent whatever politically opportune definition of abortion and conception she can dream up. 

But for her to instruct the church that her politically opportune version is the TEACHING of the church?  This is straight out of the Lucy Ricardo playbook.  Zany and irrational to the max (and you can add incredibly offensive too - something Lucy never gave us.  Think of it as an extra bonus).

I've given up on asking how many more buffoonish idiocies Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo can come up with before mainstream media finally take her apart.  Because the answer appears to be infinity.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

While we're waiting for McCain to have a field day with Hillary Clinton's "No way, nohow, no McCain" softball, his campaign has put out a powerful, disturbing assessment of Barack Obama's ignorance regarding foreign policy - specifically his incredibly naive dismissal of the threat from Iran. 

Here it is.   (If you have trouble clicking on it, click here instead):

Ok, who does this ad target?  Obviously it is targets anyone who disagrees with Mr. Obama's assessment of Iran and anyone who is concerned about his naivete about foreign affairs.  But it most specifically targets supporters of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

The ad works because it draws its strength from Barack Obama's own words.  It makes him sound ridiculous.  

John McCain sounded ridiculous a few days ago when he stumbled and bumbled over how many houses he owns.  But that's the kind of ridiculous we can laugh at.  Sounding ridiculous about a nuclear threat against the USA's single most reliable ally is no laughing matter.

If I were the McCain people this would be airing most heavily in Jewish areas, especially Jewish areas within swing states (e.g. Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio). 

I suspect John McCain is going to get the greatest number of Jewish votes for any Republican since Ronald Reagan.  Maybe even more than Reagan.  Partly it is because he has been such a steadfast supporter of Israel.  But, fascinatingly, it is also because of how much help he is getting from....Barack Obama.

Ken Berwitz

Sometimes a negative is a positive.  That was proven by Hillary Clinton last night, in her "vote for Obama" speech.

In all the years I have seen and heard Ms. Clinton, I have almost never found her to be sincere.  She comes across as devious and calculating to me.

And yesterday was a situation in which she had to convince a convention full of Democrats that she sincerely wants Barack Obama to defeat John McCain - which, if it happens, effectively ends any realistic chance for her to be President.

I do not for one second believe Ms. Clinton has any less ambition to be President now than she did at the beginning of her run (which, arguably, dates back to 1992). 

And I have no doubt whatsoever that she resents Mr. Obama and hopes that he loses in November so that she can be the "I told you so, here's your chance to get it right" candidate in 2012.

With this in mind, the question becomes "how did she do it"?  How did she get up there and make that go-Obama-go speech?   The answer, in my opinion, is that the fact that she never sounds sincere was her savior.

If Ms. Clinton typically came across as sincere, I don't think she could have pulled it off.  I can't imagine her sounding as if she really wanted Barack Obama to win. But since she never comes across that way (at least not to me) it sounded like just another speech, no different than any other.  So that's how she squared the circle.

The speech itself?  Pure boilerplate stuff.  There was virtually nothing in it other than what she had to say to be on the podium at all.

And her dramatic "No way, no how, no McCain" line the morning shows were all playing?  That might be the best tip-off that she wants Obama to lose.  Because, in reality, it was a tremendous softball tossed to the McCain people.

Why?  Because Ms. Clinton stated during a nationally televised debate that, based on the fact that McCain has enormous experience and Obama has just about none, McCain was a superior candidate to Barack Obama.  Do you have any doubt at all that the McCain people will put out an ad juxtaposing those two statements?  I would be surprised if it isn't already in production.  What a gift from Hillary Clinton to John McCain!

Bottom line:  The net result of Ms. Clinton's speech, I suspect, is nothing.  No gain, no loss.  This is because some Hillary people will come over to Obama, some will be unpersuaded but will vote for him anyway because they feel any Democrat is better than a Republican, and some will jump to McCain. 

That probably would have happened if she hadn't made the speech at all.

Ken Berwitz

This little compendium is from ABC News.  I saw it at www.sweetness-light.com, with the comment that it is so unflattering it comes across as "throwing more dirt on her coffin".

You decide:

.

Ken Berwitz

This one is for the poll lovers in the house, and is brought to you by www.gallup.com:

Gallup Daily: No Bounce for Obama in Post-Biden Tracking

McCain creeps ahead, 46% to 44%

• USA
• Election 2008
• Gallup Daily
• Americas
• Northern America

This, of course, is before the Michelle Obama speech is taken into account, so you may yet see a bounce.  But it ain't gonna be from Joe Biden.  Not nohow.

The one thing I dispute in Gallup's analysis is that the data are not appreciably different from what we have been seeing.  While the difference is not statistically significant, this is the first time that John McCain has been ahead of Barack Obama for at least the two weeks shown on the accompanying chart. 

This means that not only did Biden fail to give Obama a bounce, he actually lost ground.

There's something for Barroom Joe to mouth off about.  I bet he will too.

Ken Berwitz

That zany comedienne, that doyenne of ditz, Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo has struck again.

I call her Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo because her comments are often so out of whack that she reminds me of Lucy Ricardo from the I Love Lucy show.  Usually, though, she isn't funny, just out of whack.  This time she's funny too.

Here is a commentary by John Hinderaker of www.powelineblog.com, on Ms. Pelosi-Ricardo's understanding of the energy issue - as she singlehandedly prevents a vote on additional drilling in the House of Representatives:

As we've often said, the Democrats prey on ignorance. Often they know better and are being cynical; sometimes it's because they are ignorant themselves. A shocking example of the latter case was revealed yesterday when Nancy Pelosi appeared on Meet the Press. Mrs. Pelosi declared herself a major advocate of natural gas as an energy source, but then revealed that she is ignorant of the fact that natural gas is a fossil fuel.

This wasn't just a slip of the tongue; Pelosi repeated the error several times. From the transcript of her appearance:

BROKAW: Well, I think most people understand that, but at the same time, if we work our way off carbon-based fuels, in the meantime, this is not going to happen overnight.

PELOSI: No, it isn't, but you could -- again, you could reduce the price at the pump immediately with (inaudible). You can have a transition with natural gas. You can have a transition with natural gas. That is cheap, abundant and clean compared to fossil fuels.
***
PELOSI: I'm -- I'm investing in something I believe in. I believe in natural gas as a clean, cheap alternative to fossil fuels.
***
PELOSI: Well, that's not -- that is the marketplace. The fact is, the supply of natural gas is so big, and you do need a transition if you're going to go from fossil fuels, as you say, you can't do it overnight, but you must transition.

These investments in wind, in solar and biofuels and focus on natural gas, these are the real alternatives.

So it's beyond dispute: Nancy Pelosi really does not understand that natural gas is a fossil fuel. This is truly shocking. Pelosi is one of the principal people responsible for setting the nation's energy policy. In the House of Representatives, she has blocked exploration and development of natural gas resources as well as other fossil fuels, thereby raising the price of gasoline at the pump and energy costs across the board. And she has wielded this immense power while being ignorant of the most basic facts about energy. She is not qualified to carry on an intelligent conversation about energy, let alone set the nation's energy policy.

The folks at the Institute for Energy Research have prepared a primer on energy for Mrs. Pelosi's benefit:

Natural gas is colorless, odorless fossil fuel that is prized for its cleanliness and its many uses - including energy. It is produced in much the same way as oil – by drilling for it – and is often produced in conjunction with oil.

Pelosi's ignorance is deadly; she says she is a big booster of natural gas, but she literally fails to understand that to get natural gas we have to drill for it, onshore and off. Hence this exchange yesterday:

BROKAW: Sounds like we’re going to have offshore drilling.

PELOSI: No, no, no.

Nancy Pelosi's ignorance is costing every American money, impairing our economy, depriving us of untold hundreds of thousands of high-paying jobs, and endangering our national security. One wonders how long voters will be willing to put up with Democratic control of Congress.

That's right comedy fans.  Nancy Pelosi-Ricardo, that human wall of obstruction against increasing energy production, does not even know WHAT the energy is.  But there she is, preventing the entire house of representatives - Democrats and Republicans alike - from voting on it.

Based on what?  Her understanding of energy and what it comes from?

If you can't laugh at this, you have no sense of humor.

Laughing through gritted teeth, however, is both acceptable and understandable.

Ken Berwitz

So I'm reading the Washington Post this morning, and what do I find?  An article that suggests Michelle Obama may have used her position/influence at the University of Chicago Medical Center to, in effect, "pay off" a major contributor to her husband's political career.

Not good.

Here are the particulars:

 Contracts Went to a Longtime Donor

Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008; Page A04

This connection between the Obamas and the University of Chicago is getting curiouser and curiouser all the time.

We already know that Michelle Obama got a huge, six-figure raise in her job after hubby Barack earmarked funds far in excess of that amount for the school.  We already know that Barack Obama and william ayers, who teaches there, have a dramatically closer association than Mr. Obama wants the public to know about.  And now this.

You've heard the expression that "It's an ill wind that blows no good"?  It seems like every time the University of Chicago comes up, that ill wind starts to blow for the Obamas

Ken Berwitz

If you forget that Michelle Obama is in the process of being "made over" - i.e. being made more palatable and salable to general audiences - she made a damn good speech last night.

Do I think it will sell some people on the premise that the Obama's are some kind Leave It To Beaver clone?  Nope.  But it might sell some people on the premise that they are a good deal more mainstream than previously thought.  That, in itself, is a political triumph.

But, in reality, the best part of the speech was not Ms. Obama herself.  It was Barack and Michelle Obama's sweet, beautiful daughters and the obvious love they have for both mom and dad.

In (and out of) politics, a loving family is a very powerful asset.  And it is clear that the Obamas are one.  That sincere "I love you daddy" from the younger daughter, right at the end, was the best line of the night -- in no small part because no one had to feed it to her.  It just came out.

Ken Berwitz

I guess this is what Democrats mean when they demand a "Fairness Doctrine"

The doctrine appears to be that if it embarrasses Barack Obama it cannot be seen by the public.

I've already shown you the threats being made to media venues which dare to run an ad detailing the ties between Barack Obama and william ayers.  Now these wonderful protectors of free speech are also trying to prevent you from seeing how the roll call vote for President comes out.

That's right.  No joke.  The Obama forces are moving heaven and earth to have the roll call done when the TV cameras won't be on so you can't see it. 

Why?  Because when Hillary Clinton gets the hundreds and hundreds of she is sure to get, it indicates that the Democratic Party is a house divided.  A house in which significant numbers do not want Barack Obama as their standard-bearer and - in a good many cases - believe Hillary Clinton was unjustly denied the nomination.

Here are the specifics, straight from the Denver Post.  The censorship attempt is from the Obama camp.  The bold print is from me:

Supporters of Hillary Rodham Clinton are furiously circulating petitions on the floor of the Democratic National Convention tonight, hoping to stave off a plan to hold the convention's roll call at breakfast Wednesday — out of the public eye — sources inside the delegations say.

Maybe it's just a spelling issue.

Maybe when the Obama people use that term they really mean "Fairness Doctorin'"  Because it seems that every time something might come out that embarrasses their candidate they try doctorin' it to keep you, the voter, ignorant and uninformed.

And the saddest part is that, for many, it's going to work. 

But not if you read this blog.

Ken Berwitz

Just how terrified is Barack Obama over being tied to unrepentant domestic terrorist william ayers? 

Terrified enough to try desperately to censor the airwaves so that you can't find out about it.  And terrified enough to threaten punitive action against anyone who runs an ad that connects the two of them. 

Now those are pretty strong charges.  Do you think I'd ever make them without specific proof?  Of course not.  Here it is, via Ben Smith of www.politico.com:

By BEN SMITH | 8/25/08 5:19 PM EST

One large group of network affiliates, the Sinclair Broadcast Group — which aired an documentary attacking John Kerry in 2004 — has been running the ads, Obama aides said. The campaign has launched a special effort to pressure Sinclair.

“Obama supporters have now sent more than 93,000 e-mails to the Sinclair stations that have decided to run the ad,” said Obama’s spokesman Tommy Vietor. “Other stations that follow Sinclair’s lead should expect a similar response from people who don’t want the political discourse cheapened with these false, negative attacks.”

Spokesmen for Sinclair, CNN and Fox didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The ad focuses on Obama’s relationship with Bill Ayers, a Hyde Park acquaintance at whose home Obama attended a gathering early in his political career. Ayers is a complicated figure: professor and adviser to the mayor of Chicago despite not having repented his past as a domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground.

"How much do your really know about Barack Obama? What does he really believe?" asks the ad, which also uses imagery from the Al-Qaeda terror attacks on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Why would Barack Obama be friends with someone who bombed the Capitol and is proud of it?" asks the ad’s narrator.

Its financier, Simmons, who made his first fortune in chain pharmacies, was a major donor to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that damaged Kerry in 2004 by questioning his patriotism. He has raised more than $50,000 for Obama's rival, Sen. John McCain, though there’s no evidence that his anti-Obama effort has McCain’s explicit blessing.

Obama has launched a response ad, which addresses McCain directly, and will air in Ohio, Tracey said.
"With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the '60s, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers?" says Obama’s ad. "McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers' crimes, committed when Obama was just 8 years old."

McCain’s camp, meanwhile, appears to welcome the controversy.

“The fact that [Obama] is launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn't bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight's speeches will,” said McCain spokesman Brian Rogers.

Memo to the Obama people:  It ain't gonna work. 

Barack Obama's deep, and recent, association with this USA hating scumbag is getting out.  Just like his despicable opposition to BAIPA (the Born Alive Infant Protection Act) which was created to prevent infanticide. 

Mr. Obama is a product of, and slave to, the hard left segment of this country.  That is why he had no problem consorting with william ayers and his equally sickening terrorist wife bernardine dohrn, and it is why he fought against BAIPA.  It also probably explains why he was perfectly content to attend a USA hating, Israel hating racist church for 18 years and subject that filth to his children for their entire lives - until it was politically advantageous to do otherwise.

USA Today has a huge feature story on the Obama/ayers association today.  Better late than never, guys, the story was always there.  But the point is that this will come out whether the Obama people like it or not.

Good.  For the voting public, forewarned is forearmed.

Ken Berwitz

It's coming.

That mushroom cloud is on the horizon.

And Mr. Obama knows it.  Which is why he is trying to pre-emptively neutralize it.  Not a chance.

Here is Jennifer Rubin's take on the ayers nuclear bomb:

Obama’s First Defense: I Was Eight Years Old

Jennifer Rubin - 08.25.2008 - 4:39 PM

Barack Obama’s staff seems to be distracted or confused.  Or maybe they have some revealing poll results available only to them. How else to explain them airing this ad?

Barack Obama: I’m Barack Obama and I approved this message.

ANNCR: With all our problems, why is John McCain talking about the sixties, trying to link Barack Obama to radical Bill Ayers?

McCain knows Obama denounced Ayers’ crimes, committed when Obama was just eight years old.

Let’s talk about standing up for America today.

John McCain wants to spend $10 Billion a month in Iraq, tax breaks for corporations that ship jobs overseas, selling out American workers.

John McCain, just more of the same.

A McCain spokesman fired back: “The fact that Barack Obama chose to launch his political career at the home of an unrepentant terrorist raises more questions about his judgment than any ad ever could. And the fact that he’s launching his own convention by defending his long association with a man who says he didn’t bomb enough U.S. targets tells us more about Barack Obama than any of tonight’s speeches will.”

What would possess the Obama camp to go down this road? Obama’s lame defense of the relationship–that he was eight when Ayers committed his crimes–is, of course, entirely irrelevant. His association with Ayers, as Hillary Clinton pointed out in the Philadelphia debate, ran deeper than he has tried to present it and it began and continued when both men were adults, long after Obama had become acquainted with Ayers’s past.

Soon enough everyone will learn that Ayers donated money to Obama, held a fundraiser to launch his first political race in his home, served on the board of the Woods Foundation with Obama, and headed the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (the records of which Stanley Kurtz will gain access to tomorrow), an organization which Obama supported and for which he may have approved grant money. We are off to the races on this. It’s unclear why Obama opened the door.

Perhaps realizing it all will inevitably come out, he wanted to begin trying to shape the public perception of this relationship. But he has just begun setting out to convince Americans that he is a patriotic, non-radical, non-exotic guy just like them, so the timing could not be worse. After all, how many of us are friends with unrepentant former terrorist bombers?

It's not just the deep association Barack Obama has had with william ayers (and presumably his equally despicable wife, bernardine dohrn).  It is the flat-out lying he has done about this association.

It's hard to imagine this not hurting the Obama candidacy.  The question is how much and how permanently.

Ken Berwitz

I started watching the convention.  And what did I see?  I saw Chris Mouthews and keith olbermann co-anchoring.  And Mouthews was in the middle of giving a love-speech about Ted Kennedy.

But when he was finished, they started interviewing another commentator. 

Ahh, this must be the one who somehow balances out Mouthews and olbermann, right?

In a way the answer is yes.  It was Bill Maher who, if anything, is even further left and hates Republicans even more than Mouthews and olbermann.  So they balanced two hardline Democrats with an even harderline one.

These are the people who sneer at Fox's claim of being fair and balanced, folks.  You can't say it isn't entertaining.

Ken Berwitz

If you want to know how low politics can get, consider the "key rattlers".

This is a ploy by some Democratic hardliners, in which they try to get near John McCain at campaign events and loudly rattle keys, to make him think of the jailers who tortured and otherwise tormented him during his 5 1/2 years as a P.O.W.

Do you think I'm kidding?  Do you think this is too depraved for even a hardline political operative to sink to?   Well then....

CLICK HERE AND FIND OUT FOR YOURSELF

What you will find is a Democratic operative with a conscience who is condemning this unbelievably repulsive "strategy".  And beneath his commentary are hundreds of reactions to it --- which both agree with him and do not.  You have to read some of the comments to believe them.

This is not even beneath contempt.  It is beneath the beneath.  But there it is, plain as day, for you to see. 

I wonder what else these wonderful folks have in store.

Ken Berwitz

In case you're wondering about the Obama/Biden team, the one that is supposed to bring us all together, there is a compilation put together by (neutral) National Journal, which rates U.S. Senators by how liberal or conservative their voting records are.  (You can see a more extensive chart by clicking here ).

Here are the five most liberal-voting (i.e. partisan left wing) members of the U.S. Senate:

NAME                                          % OF TIME VOTES LIBERAL

1.   Barack Obama (D-Ill):             95.5%

2.  Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.):    94.3%

3.  Joe Biden (D-Del):                   94.2%

4. Bernie Sanders (I-Ver):             93.7%

5. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.):         92.8%

Does that look like a team that will be inclusive?  One that will bring us all together?

Just asking......

Ken Berwitz

Yeah, I know it's snide and low class.  But I just saw this and couldn't help laughing. 

See if you feel the same.  And don't forget to notice who the driver is...and is that granny under the front of the bus?:

Ken Berwitz

Here is a report from KWTX TV, Denver:

(August 25, 2008)—A Fox News crew setting up to cover the DNC in Denver got an unexpected shower early Monday after a sprinkler system discharged its water all over their equipment.

Sprinklers went off in the Fox Network convention broadcast booth as the crew was setting up its equipment.

Firefighters who responded believe the news crew’s broadcast lights were too close to the sprinkler heads and set off the system.

The incident was caught on tape.

The booth is now back up and working after the soggy incident.

Now for a short Q & A:

-Q:  Did you ever hear of anything like this happening before?A:  I don't recall even one such instance.

-Q:  Don't you think that Fox, like every other TV venue, knows to be careful near the sprinkler systems where it sets up?  A:  Of course they do, which is why you never heard of this happening before.

-Q:  Which is the one network most disliked by Democrats?  A:  Fox.

-Q:  Am I suspicious?  A:  Answer that one yourself:  would you be?

Hmmmmm..........

Ken Berwitz

Here, courtesy of www.littlegreenfootballs.com, is a pictorial chronicling of what one side wants from the Democratic Party and what another side thinks about it.

Take a good look and decide which of the two you would be more comfortable with:

Although the Democratic National Convention doesn't start until today, Monday, August 25, the protests against the convention started the day before on Sunday.

The PJM/LGF/zombietime photo team had not yet arrived in Denver, but luckily fellow photojournalist and LGF/zombietime stringer "El Marco" was on hand to record the day's goings-on.

(For this one report, all the photos are courtesy of El Marco; captions and layout are by zombie.)

Let the games begin!

The day's theme was "End the Occupations" (yes, that's occupations with an "s," since anything the US does counts as an "occupation"). Recreate 68 -- the organization formed specifically to protest this convention, using as their guiding principle a desire to recreate the riots outside the notorious Democratic National Convention in Chicago in 1968 -- were the primary instigators, with various radical, anarchist and left-wing groups joining in. Later in the day was a more loosely organized "Reclaim the Streets" protest (shown here) which basically entailed anarchists confronting the police for the sake of confronting the police.

A banner from the "End the Occupations March." It is truly astounding that people can openly support Muqtada al-Sadr (depicted on the left of this banner), the hard-line Shi-ite religious leader, especially in light of recent revelations that his "Mehdi Army" operated a torture chamber inside a mosque and routinely executed people. Keep in mind that these are the same kinds of protesters who endlessly whine about Abu Ghraib. If opposing and defeating people like al-Sadr's torturers counts as "imperialism," I'll take imperialism any day.

The march kicked off with a rally in front of the Colorado State Capital, with various left-wing celebrities such as Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill and Cynthia McKinney speaking while standing next to this banner, which purports to merely make a case for moral equivalence (bad enough), but which is actually pretty obviously anti-US and pro-Saddam.

Yes, Virginia, there really are communists in this day and age. And most of them seem to have convened in Denver, as this banner from the "End the Occupations" march attests.

Later in the day, the Reclaim the Streets protest arrived at the state capital, where a series of heated but essentially fruitless confrontations between the protesters and the police ensued.

The police did their best to try and keep a lid on the proceedings.

When they needed to rapidly reposition themselves at the protest, they hopped on these specially modified "troop transport" SUVs.

Wait -- is this a protest, or a fashion show?

The communists shown in the earlier picture protested against capitalism as a concept. And here we the see the anarchists doing the same. This is in fact their only point of agreement: otherwise, the communists want to institute total state control of society, whereas as the anarchists want, well, anarchy. But hatred of the United States makes strange bedfellows, and for now the natural enemies -- communists and anarchists -- seem to have set aside their differences and agreed to bring down capitalism together.

Shades of what is likely to happen throughout the week: counter-protesters showed up to voice their opinions as well.

I just love the sign on the right: "Hey Liberals: Can't get no satisfaction? Try liberating an entire nation from tyranny." Ouch -- that's gotta sting.

I must say, the messages put forth at this counter-protest were extremely astute, and highlighted the greatest weaknesses in the left-wing protest philosophy.

That's it for our first report! Thanks to El Marco for capturing some excellent images while we were still en route to Colorado.

The convention itself kicks off today, and the protests are sure to escalate.

Any questions?

Ken Berwitz

I've always liked Ed Rendell.  I think that, as politicians go, he is a pretty honest one.  He's also a scrappy guy who managed to become Philadelphia's DA, Mayor and now Governor of Pennsylvania, by talking straight and actually caring whether he follows though on campaign promises.

So it is with great enjoyment that I see Mr. Rendell speaking out with characteristic honesty and grit about MSNBC's supersedingly biased coverage of the 2008 election.

Here is an article by Noel Sheppard of www.newsbusters.org, which brings this home:

Rendell: 'MSNBC Official Network of the Obama Campaign'

By Noel Sheppard

August 24, 2008 - 21:18 ET

Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell had some harsh words for members of the media today, especially those associated with the cable network MSNBC.

Speaking at a discussion put together by the Joan Shorenstein Center on Press, Politics and Public Policy, he called the coverage of Barack Obama "embarrassing," and accused MSNBC of being "the official network of the Obama campaign."

As reported by Michael Calderone at Politico Sunday (h/t NB reader Wisdom6773, file photo courtesy USA Today):

Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell was supposed to give “closing remarks” during this afternoon’s Shorenstein Center-sponsored panel discussion with all three Sunday show moderators — NBC’s Tom Brokaw, ABC’s George Stephanopoulous and CBS’s Bob Schieffer — but instead, he opened up a can of worms about bias in 2008 election coverage [sic]

"Ladies and gentleman, the coverage of Barack Obama was embarrassing," said Rendell, in the ballroom at Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. "It was embarrassing."

According to Calderone, Rendell started debating Brokaw about this issue, and when MSNBC came up, said the following:

“MSNBC was the official network of the Obama campaign," Rendell said, who called their coverage "absolutely embarrassing."

Chris Matthews, Rendell said, "loses his impartiality when he talks about the Clintons.”

Read the whole thing.

As you may have guessed, Mr. Rendell did not support Barack Obama in the primaries, he was a Hillary Clinton man.  But every word he said about overall coverage of Mr. Obama and especially the amazingly biased love-fest foisted on MSNBC viewers is true.

Good for Mr. Rendell.  It's always a treat to hear this kind of honesty from a major political figure.  And shame on MSNBC for giving him a reason to speak out.

Ken Berwitz

That title is lifted from the Washington Times article written by Andrew Breitbart.  Other than getting the affiliation of Mr. Obama's former(?) church incorrect, Breitbart is right on target. 

Here, see for yourself.  The embarrassing truths are Mr. Obama's.  The bold print is mine:

'The Inconvenient Obama'

Andrew Breitbart
Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama has a problem. And it lives in a hut.

His name is George Hussein Onyango Obama, and he is the 26-year-old half brother of Mr. Obama, the multimillionaire autobiographer who neglected to write that his paternal sibling lives on less than a dollar a month in the outer slums of Nairobi, Kenya.

They have met twice.

Unearthed by Italian Vanity Fair and virtually ignored by the American press, the inconvenient George Obama could emerge as a compelling character in the freshman senator's carefully edited road-to-the-White-House narrative - especially now that his campaign has unleashed a personal attack on Sen. John McCain's station in life.

The Obama hit job on Mr. McCain seizes on his clumsiness in answering a reporter's question about how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own. "I think - I'll have my staff get to you," Mr. McCain fumbled. In a well-funded nationally televised ad spot titled "Seven," Mr. Obama's messenger twice repeats the correct answer as the words on the screen reinforce the meme of class warfare.

"Seven. Worth $13 million."

The Sunday morning shows parroted Mr. Obama's shocking discovery that the McCain family is well-off. Smarting Obamaniacs campaigning for their messiah are now scripted to ask voters in battleground states how many houses they own and participate in an official campaign contest, "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire: McCain Edition." Winners receive hope, change and fist bumps - spoils of the "new kind of politics."

Someone who made $4.2 million last year and lives in a mansion that a mobster helped pay for should not be throwing stones. When Mr. Obama's flesh-and-blood lives in squalor, raising the standard of living of his opponent's extended family is probably not a smart idea.

It's scary to think that this could be a preview of an Obama presidency in which attacking the rich is all the rage, and the rich in the news media pretend it's OK. Hugo Chavez is having a helluva run bringing down his formerly prosperous nation of Venezuela with that formula.

Mr. McCain, of course, would be publicly eviscerated if he funded an ad campaign called "12" - as in the amount of dollars a year Mr. Obama's half-brother subsists on. The message also could accurately point out that Mr. Obama and his wife, Michelle, have consistently fallen short of the national average in charitable contributions since they entered the highest income bracket - despite their ballyhooed "progressive" religious faith that touts "economic equality."

It would also be fair game now to point out that preaching "social justice" pays better than being a United States senator. The Trinity Baptist Church is building a mansion for the Rev. Jeremiah Wright that includes an elevator, a butler's pantry, a bar, a rubberized exercise room - and the 10,000-square-foot estate backs up to the Odyssey Country Club. (Memo to wealthy Caucasian Republican members of the golf club: "Fore!")

Attached to Mr. Wright's church-funded property is a peculiar $10 million line of credit - presumably, none of which will be given to George Obama.

Mr. McCain's ad also could highlight that Michelle Obama is on leave from her $317,000-a-year job at the University of Chicago Medical Center, which is now under scrutiny - along with Obama campaign chief David Axelrod and two other staffers - for a scheme that, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, "steers patients who don't have private insurance - primarily poor, black people - to other health care facilities."

"The medical professionals who have come to me are accusing the university of dumping patients on its neighboring institutions," Toni Preckwinkle, alderman for the 4th Ward, told the paper.

Patient-dumping poor blacks may be interesting, but not quite as newsworthy as John McCain marrying a beer heiress 28 years ago.

Does anyone think if Mr. McCain had a sibling living in a trailer park making minimum wage (892 times more than Mr. Obama's half brother's yearly income) that the mainstream media and the Obama campaign wouldn't notice?

In fact, last week National Public Radio ran a piece titled, "Cindy McCain's Half Sister 'Angry' She's Hidden," highlighting that Mr. McCain's wife's half sister was left out of her father's will. The piece was duly filed under the publicly funded network's "conservative compassion deficit" media template.

Yet Mr. Obama has a half brother who lives in Africa on three cents a day, and the story breaks in an Italian magazine and is picked up by a London newspaper and a few others in Australia. Perhaps the story would be carried widely in America if they could figure out how to blame President Bush. But as Bob Geldof pointed out, he "has done more [for Africa] than any other president," and of the press harshly judged, "You guys didn't pay attention."

Nor will they pay attention that the McCains have adopted a poor Bangladeshi child and done untold amounts of humanitarian and charity work.

What makes this story newsworthy for Italians, Brits and Aussies, but not Americans, is that the U.S. free press is free to ignore stories that could take down their preordained president. And after the Internet and talk radio-driven "Swift Boat" story unexpectedly sank their last guy, the mainstream American press is taking extra precautions this time around.

If for some inexplicable reason the media are forced by their online and talk radio betters to run with this outrageous and creepy story, key Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey can come to the rescue at the Democratic National Convention. On Night 3, the billionaire television hostess can synthesize her two best show archetypes: the heart-wrenching family reunion and "Oprah's Favorite Things," the giveaway of material goods.

Imagine the emotional fireworks when 75,000 Obama supporters at Invesco Field witness Barack Obama reconnecting with his destitute half brother as is he lavished with Kai Body Butter & Buffer, Perfect Endings Cupcakes by Williams-Sonoma, Hand-Blown Crystal Champagne Glasses by Deborah Ehrlich and a Pure Simplicity Pumpkin Purifying Mask.

Controversy averted. Because Democrats care more.

Every one of the facts cited in Mr. Breitbart's article have been out there for weeks - in some cases, months.  Have you seen/heard them in national mainstream media?  I bet you've seen/heard about John McCain's houses, though, haven't you?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

With thanks to www.sweetness-light.com for bringing it to my attention, here are Joe Biden's comments about the difference between Black and White students, taken straight from a Washington Post article dated October 25th, 2007 (please click and read the entire article, there's plenty more to see there):

After a lengthy critique of Bush administration education policies, Biden attempted to explain why some schools perform better than others -- in Iowa, for instance, compared with the District. "There's less than 1 percent of the population of Iowa that is African American. There is probably less than 4 or 5 percent that are minorities. What is in Washington? So look, it goes back to what you start off with, what you're dealing with," Biden said. He went on to discuss the importance of parental involvement in reading to children and how "half this education gap exists before the kid steps foot in the classroom."

Nice.

The article goes on to say that Biden's people - scared excrementless, I have no doubt - immediately tried to make this sound as if it had nothing to do with the relative quality of Black and White students or their parents' interest in making sure they are prepared for school.  It didn't work.

And let's remember that this is the same guy who said  "You cannot go to a 7-11 or a Dunkin' Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent...I'm not joking..." (click here for the video).

Does Joe Biden think Black people are inferior?  Does Joe Biden (in trying to say something nice about them, incidentally) stereotype Indian Americans as the only people you come across in 7-11's or Dunkin Donuts stores?

In my heart of hearts I don't think he is either of those things.  But three points have to be made here (with special attention to the third):

1. While I do not think this is the kind of man Joe Biden is, I don't know for sure.  When someone makes statements like these you have to at least wonder;

2. Even if he is not, comments such as these demonstrate Mr. Biden's propensity for acting like a barroom loudmouth instead of thinking about what he says before he says it.  That is not a quality you want in someone first in line to the presidency;

3. If John McCain were the one making these statements instead of Joe Biden, what would the mainstream media be saying about him?

Regarding point #3:  You know the answer as well as I do.  Just as you know why, in the three days they have had to report it, you almost certainly have not seen any coverage of either statement in mainstream media.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

I am happy to report that not all Muslims live within the culture I am about to show you, any more than all Muslims would kill a female in their family for reasons of "honor".

I am horribly sad, however, to note that what I am about to show you does happen and apparently is far from unusual among Islamic cultures.

From BBC News:

Saudi child 'files for divorce'

Young girls are sometimes given away in return for large dowries A court in Saudi Arabia is reported to be preparing to hear a plea for divorce from an eight-year-old girl who has been married off to a man in his 50s. The Saudi newspaper al-Watan said the girl had been married off to the man by her father without her knowledge. The child's mother is thought to be pushing for the marriage to be annulled - though the father opposes the move. In April, a court in neighbouring Yemen annulled the arranged marriage of another eight-year-old girl. She had been married to a 28-year-old man. Child-protection groups say children are often given away in return for hefty dowries, or as a result of old customs in which a father promises his infant daughters and sons to cousins out of a belief that marriage will protect them from illicit relationships. Activists have called for an end to the practice.

It is hard not to conclude that, in a large segment of the Islamic world, females have little or no value other than as baby bearers and money-making opportunities.

Changing this requires changing the culture.  But with most Muslim countries under military or monarchal dictatorship, often religious dictatorship, that isn't going to happen any time soon.

Ken Berwitz

This comes under the heading "as if we didn't know anyway".

Just a few minutes ago Andrea Mitchell was on the Today show, reporting from the Democratic convention site in Denver.

Ms. Mitchell was asked what Barack Obama had to do at this convention.  Here is what she said (I think the quote is verbatim.  I know the thought is):

"He has to show the country who he really is, despite the Republican ads...."

Translation:  He's telling the truth about himself, the Republicans are not telling the truth about him, so he has to figure out a way to overcome the Republican lies in order for the country to get the truth that he is providing.

Thank you Andrea.  If we had any doubts about where you stand, thus what informs the way you report, they are gone now.

Ken Berwitz

William Kristol, of all people, makes the case for why Hillary Clinton supporters should be angry better than anyone else I've seen so far.

Here it is:

Kristol: The Democrats' Glass Ceiling

Denver
So Hillary Clinton gets about 18 million votes in 2008, and isn’t even considered for--she apparently isn’t even given the courtesy of being consulted--the vice presidential pick. Joe Biden manages to persuade a few thousand (if that) Iowans to support him. And Barack Obama selects Biden? Normally, if the VP pick came from that year’s presidential field, it's the runner-up (Kerry-Edwards in 2004, Reagan-Bush in 1980, Stevenson-Kefauver in 1956). (Lyndon Johnson in 1960 hadn’t entered the primaries.) And Biden wasn’t even the third most successful candidate this year (hi, John Edwards!), or fourth (Bill Richardson, I suppose), or fifth (Dennis Kucinich!).

What’s more, Biden and Hillary have basically comparable foreign policy “experience” (such as it is in either case). Nor is Biden clearly more knowledgeable in foreign affairs than Hillary. And they have pretty similar foreign policy views. So no advantage to Biden there. And, unlike Jack Reed, for example, Biden didn’t serve in the military. So no advantage over Hillary there. Nor does he outshine her in executive experience (unlike Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or Kathleen Sebelius)--neither Biden nor Hillary has any.

Also, if the VP is supposed to handle the Democrats’ populist economic message: after the last few months of the primary campaign, it would be hard to say Hillary hasn’t proven herself an awfully good carrier of that message. And Hillary can perform the attacking functions of the VP nominee as well as Biden.

Will the Democratic party, which is committed (to say the least) to gender equity, and which in fact has a 50 percent quota for female delegates, accept Obama’s imposition of a glass ceiling at its convention?

A modest suggestion to my justifiably outraged Democratic friends: Hillary’s name should be placed in nomination not for the presidency (Obama won that more or less fair and square)--but for the vice presidency. It would be an interesting roll call vote.

One can only guess what is going to happen at the Democratic convention, when the Hillary folks have a chance to speak their mind.

We'll be watching.....

Ken Berwitz

Until I read this through and checked the links, I couldn't believe it.

Rachel Maddow, the super-hard leftist Air America host and suckup to keith olbermann, who has been rewarded for her fealty to olbermann and the left with her own show on MSNBC, was shopped to Fox News Channel last year.

Incredible, isn't it? 

Well, here are the specifics from Brian Maloney of www.radioequalizer.blogspot.com:

MADDOW MADNESS

Libtalker's Attempt At Fox Gig Raises Questions

Though it was just a minor point (and exclusive scoop) made in our piece on Rachel Maddow's move to a full-time position at Keith Olbermann's MSNBC, word that she lobbied for a similar position at the Fox News Channel has raised eyebrows in cyberspace.

That proved especially true as another inside source independently confirmed our report, which then appeared in Jossip and TVNewser:

Was Rachel Maddow being shopped to Fox News? That's what Radio Equalizer hinted at, and Jossip confirms from a "reputable insider" today.

"Maddow's agent, Jean Sage at TV Talent (also Keith Olbermann's agent), asked to send her tapes over to FNC's head of programming, Bill Shine, we're told by a reputable insider," writes Jossip. "But Shine declined."

Jossip does point out this very easily could have been, "negotiating tactics"...but FNC?

Maddow's bizarre interest in Fox News raises many questions, so many that it's hard to know where to begin.

How about here: what in the world was she thinking? Did Maddow wonder for even a moment about how all twelve of her Air America listeners would react?

What if they had actually hired her? Would the left be so quick to shower her with praise?

And if Fox is so evil, as Air America hosts are constantly maintaining, why is it okay to work there?

Another consideration is the embarrassment this has caused her deranged mentor, Olbermann himself. As he brags about his ability to dictate MSNBC programming, how does it feel to know she could have just as easily left for the network he so despises?

Especially considering how Olby attacked Rush for calling Maddow a "failed radio host", what kind of loyalty is that?

As with much of Air America's programming, Maddow is still a broadcast rookie. That she's been elevated so quickly is no substitute for a lack of experience on the playing field. In the coming months, watch for additional blunders from someone who may or may not be ready for primetime.

I can't wait to hear Ms. Maddow's explanation on MSNBC tomorrow...and keith olbermann's reaction, which is sure to rival that of, say, Rumpelstiltskin. 

Someday olbermann is going to do that "I'm so furious my head is going to explode" routine one time too many, and his head really will explode.  Now that would boost ratings.

Ken Berwitz

This scandalous demonstration of intentional censorship on behalf of the Obama candidacy comes to us from Tom Blumer of www.newsbusters.org: 

More Biden Wiki Wackiness: A Whole Year Disappears

Can anyone give me a single reason for this except to prop up the Obama campaign by making Joe Biden less embarrassing to him?  I didn't think so.

This is what I mean by news (and in this case pseudo-informational) venues being in the tank for Barack Obama.

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

You could see this one coming a mile away:

SEE AD BY CLICKING HERE

Obama announced Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential pick Saturday, following reports that Clinton was not even vetted for the job.

McCain’s ad capitalizes on the lingering tension between Obama and Clinton’s supporters, with just one day remaining until the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

“She won millions of votes. But isn’t on his ticket. Why? For speaking the truth,” the narrator in the ad says.

The ad then quotes Clinton criticizing Obama for being vague and “increasingly negative.”

“The truth hurt. And Obama didn’t like it,” the narrator says.

Click here to view the ad.

Clinton’s supporters have had mixed reactions over Obama’s selection of Biden, but some felt flat-out dissed – even though in recent weeks, few insiders believed Clinton to be a realistic choice for Obama.

Some Clinton supporters even speculated that the Obama campaign delivered the text message announcing his decision at 3 a.m. as payback for Clinton’s primary-season “3 a.m.” ad questioning his judgment in a crisis.

McCain’s ad not only targets Clinton’s disenchanted supporters, but it also plays into his theme that Obama is a fussy celebrity.

The Arizona senator’s campaign has gone after Obama hard for his selection of Biden, underscoring Biden’s own criticism of Obama, and the experience gap they allege Obama was trying to fill by choosing the seasoned chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as his running mate.

The Republican National Committee even posted a “countdown” clock on its Web site ticking off the “time until Biden’s next gaffe.”

The Republican Party claimed Biden’s first gaffe came when he called Obama “Barack America” during their appearance together in Springfield, Ill., Saturday.

But McCain also told CBS News he thinks Biden is a “wise selection” and “very formidable.”
Speculation turned instantly to McCain and whom he would choose as a running mate to counter Biden.

Most experts consider the leading contender to be former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who dropped his presidential bid earlier this year, and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty.

His campaign claims Obama’s selection will having no bearing on its own running-mate decision.

McCain is expected to make the announcement at a rally on Friday, Aug. 29, one day after the Democratic convention ends, potentially minimizing Obama’s post-convention bounce in the polls.

Meanwhile, the Clintons, who are both set to speak at the Denver convention, swiftly issued statements in support of Obama after his running-mate decision was made.

“Senator Biden will be a purposeful and dynamic vice president who will help Senator Obama both win the presidency and govern this great country,” Hillary Clinton said.

Bill Clinton’s office released a statement saying the former president “continues to be committed to doing whatever he can to ensure that Senator Obama is the next president of the United States.”

But with a roll-call vote for Hillary Clinton set for the convention, the spectacle could revive some of the divisiveness that characterized the Democratic primary season.

Biden was not a favorite among Democratic delegates to be Obama’s vice presidential pick.
In a CBS News/New York Times poll from Aug. 18, 28 percent of those surveyed said Clinton would be their top choice.

Biden trailed at 6 percent.

This is politics.  You give your opponents an opening and they'll drive a truck through it.  There's the truck.

Will it win retain or win over Hillary supporters for McCain?  That, of course, is the idea, along with the ads reminding us that Ms. Clinton had plenty to criticize Mr. Obama for.

We'll see......

Ken Berwitz

A couple of blogs ago I laughed at how partisan Newsweek magazine is in its fawning over Joe Biden.  While writing the blog I wondered if any other member of the media would be this biased.

That was before I went to the driveway and picked up today's New York Times.

Here is the lead headline for today's Times, and a couple of other headlines inside the news section:

FRONT PAGE:  "OBAMA SELECTS BIDEN, ADDING FOREIGN EXPERTESE TO TICKET"

Page 18:  "In 'Very Personal Decision,' Aides Say Obama Chose a Partner in Leadership"

Page 20:  "A Democratic Leader on Foreign Policy, in Iraq and,Earlier, the Balkans"

Page 22:  "A Senate Stalwart Who Bounced Back From Campaign Struggles"

Let me remind you that those are not headlines from the Times' editorial page.  Those are headlines from its news section.

On the other hand, I suppose you can argue that the two are identical, can't you?

Ken Berwitz

I am posting, without further comment (because you don't need it), a blog from www.sweetness-light.com, which has a video and transcript of Joe Biden's interview with the late Tim Russert on Meet The Press less than a year ago.  In it, Mr. Biden expresses his opinions on the war in Iraq, General David Petraeus and the troop surge. 

Read it and understand what a great foreign policy thinker Mr. Obama has selected:

Biden: Petraeus ‘Dead Flat Wrong’ on Iraq

August 23rd, 2008

Ken

I just finished reading a hagiograph...er, a hard-hitting neutral piece about Joe Biden.  It is in the latest issue of Newsweek, otherwise known as "Keith Olbermann Magazine"

You can read this love-fest by clicking here.  Among the things you'll find out are:

VP candidate Joe Biden's foreign-policy experience is helpful, but what's more important is his scrappy instincts and ability to connect with Hillary Clinton's supporters.

Obama's aides admire Biden's skills as a debater and chief surrogate who can fillet the Republican ticket in speeches and media interviews. For all his problems as a verbose questioner in the Senate, he proved he could turn a one-liner and land a zinger better than almost anyone campaigning for president this year. Biden's abilities to play the role of attack dog was a winning argument for his selection, allowing Obama himself to remain above the fray.

...the campaign points to Biden's record of working to put 100,000 new cops on the streets, to his ability to talk freely and easily in union halls, and to his limitless supply of stories about his humble Irish-American roots.

"I can tell you that Joe Biden gets it. He's that unique public servant who is at home in a bar in Cedar Rapids and the corridors of the Capitol; in the VFW hall in Concord, and at the center of an international crisis," Obama said. "That's because he is still that scrappy kid from Scranton who beat the odds; the dedicated family man and committed Catholic who knows every conductor on that Amtrak train to Wilmington. That's the kind of fighter who I want by my side in the months and years to come."

Within minutes of taking to the podium, Biden was showing his scrappiness and his folksy style. "Ladies and gentlemen, your kitchen table is like mine," he said. "You sit there at night … after you put the kids to bed and you talk, you talk about what you need. You talk about how much you are worried about being able to pay the bills. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a worry John McCain has to worry about. It's a pretty hard experience. He'll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at."

I especially enjoy that last one.  When the media were waiting outside of Mr. Biden's home to hear from him, Fox news had a helicopter view of where he lived.  It was a "compound" (i.e. some number of houses).  The house in front, which was huge, had parking for something like a dozen cars.  But it turned out that was not Mr. Biden's house, it was his mother's house.  His huge house was elsewhere on the private property.

Yep Mr. and Mrs. "I'm barely making it", there's a guy who lives just like you.

John McCain is a rich man through his wife (although there is a pre-nup in place).  He doesn't pretend otherwise. 

But if Joe Biden, the pro-abortion guy who lives on a "compound" lays political claim to the Catholic working-class, he is not only misrepresenting himself, he is doing so in a way that assumes you are an ignoramus who doesn't know any better.

Well if you just read this, you aren't.  Sorry Joe.

Ken Berwitz

Here is a compendium of the wit and wisdom of Joe Biden, as compiled by Jim Geraghty of National Review.  Every is one a verbatim quote.  Every one is referenced and dated:

Enjoy:

On McCain:
 Biden, on a post-debate appearance on MSNBC, October 30, 2007: “The only guy on the other side who’s qualified is John McCain.” 

Biden appearing on The Daily Show, August 2, 2005: “John McCain is a personal friend, a great friend, and I would be honored to run with or against John McCain, because I think the country would be better off, be well off no matter who...” 

On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “I’ve been calling for more troops for over two years, along with John McCain and others subsequent to my saying that.”

On Obama:
 Reacting to an Obama speech on counterterrorism, August 1, 2007: “‘Look, the truth is the four major things he called for, well, hell that’s what I called for,’ Biden said today on MSNBC’s Hardball, echoing comments he made earlier in the day at an event promoting his book at the National Press Club. Biden added, ‘I’m glad he’s talking about these things.’” 

Also that day, the Biden campaign issued a release that began, “The Biden for President Campaign today congratulated Sen. Barack Obama for arriving at a number of Sen. Biden’s long-held views on combating al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” That release mocked Obama for asking about the “stunning level of mercury in fish” and asked about a proposal for the U.S. adopt a ban on mercury sales abroad at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.

 Assessing Obama’s Iraq plan on September 13, 2007: “My impression is [Obama] thinks that if we leave, somehow the Iraqis are going to have an epiphany” of peaceful coexistence among warring sects. “I’ve seen zero evidence of that.”

 Speaking to the New York Observer: Biden was equally skeptical — albeit in a slightly more backhanded way — about Mr. Obama. “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” he said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

 Also from that Observer interview: “But — and the ‘but’ was clearly inevitable — he doubts whether American voters are going to elect ‘a one-term, a guy who has served for four years in the Senate,’ and added: ‘I don’t recall hearing a word from Barack about a plan or a tactic.’”

 Around that time, Biden in an interview with the Huffington Post, he assessed Obama and Hillary Clinton: “The more people learn about them (Obama and Hillary) and how they handle the pressure, the more their support will evaporate.”

 December 11, 2007: “If Iowans believe campaign funds and celebrity will fix the debacle in Iraq, put the economy on track, and provide health care and education for America’s children, they should support another candidate,” said Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro. “But I’m confident that Iowans know what I know: our problems will require experience and leadership from Day One. Empty slogans will be no match for proven action on caucus night.”

 Also that night, Biden said in a campaign ad, “When this campaign is over, political slogans like ‘experience’ and ‘change’ will mean absolutely nothing. The next president has to act.”

 September 26, 2007: Biden for President Campaign Manager Luis Navarro said, “Sen. Obama said he would do everything possible to end the war in Iraq and emphasized the need for a political solution yet he failed to show up to vote for Sen. Biden’s critical amendment to provide a political solution in Iraq. 

December 26, 2006: “Frankly, I think I’m more qualified than other candidates, and the issues facing the American public are all in my wheelbarrow.”

On Iraq:
 Biden on Meet the Press in 2002, discussing Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

 Biden on Meet the Press in 2002: “Saddam must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” 

Biden on Meet the Press in 2007, on Hussein’s WMDs: “Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them. The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued — they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued.”

 Biden, on Obama’s Iraq plan in August 2007: “I don’t want [my son] going [to Iraq],” Delaware Sen. Joe Biden said from the campaign trail Wednesday, according to a report on Radio Iowa. “But I tell you what, I don’t want my grandson or my granddaughters going back in 15 years and so how we leave makes a big difference.” Biden criticized Democratic rivals such as Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama who have voted against Iraq funding bills to try to pressure President Bush to end the war. “There’s no political point worth my son’s life,” Biden said, according to Radio Iowa. “There’s no political point worth anybody’s life out there. None.”

 Biden on Meet the Press, April 29, 2007: “The threat [Saddam Hussein] presented was that, if Saddam was left unfettered, which I said during that period, for the next five years with sanctions lifted and billions of dollars into his coffers, then I believed he had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it. I also believed he was a threat in that he was — every single solitary U.N. resolution which he agreed to abide by, which was the equivalent of a peace agreement at the United Nations, after he got out of — after we kicked him out of Kuwait, he was violating. Now, the rules of the road either mean something or they don’t. The international community says “We’re going to enforce the sanctions we placed” or not. And what was the international community doing? The international community was weakening. They were pulling away.”

 Biden to the Brookings Institution in 2005: “We can call it quits and withdraw from Iraq. I think that would be a gigantic mistake. Or we can set a deadline for pulling out, which I fear will only encourage our enemies to wait us out — equally a mistake.”

 Analyzing the surge on Meet the Press, September 9, 2007: “I mean, the truth of the matter is that, that the — America’s — this administration’s policy and the surge are a failure, and that the surge, which was supposed to stop sectarian violence and — long enough to give political reconciliation, there’s been no political reconciliation... The reality is that, although there has been some mild progress on the security front, there is, in fact, no, no real security in Baghdad and/or in Anbar province, where I was, dealing with the most serious problem, sectarian violence. Sectarian violence is as strong and as solid and as serious a problem as it was before the surge started.”

 Biden in October of 2002: “We must be clear with the American people that we are committing to Iraq for the long haul; not just the day after, but the decade after.”

 On Meet the Press, January 7, 2007, assessing the proposal of a surge of troops to Iraq: “If he surges another 20, 30, or whatever number he’s going to, into Baghdad, it’ll be a tragic mistake, in my view, but, as a practical matter, there’s no way to say, ‘Mr. President, stop.’”

 On Meet the Press, November 27, 2005: “Unless we fundamentally change the rotation dates and fundamentally change how many members of the National Guard we’re calling up, it’ll be virtually impossible to maintain 150,000 folks this year.” (The number of troops in Iraq peaked at 162,000 in August 2007, during the surge.)

Having said all that: “There’s something decent at the core of Joe Biden.” — Jim Geraghty, December 13, 2007

Ken Berwitz

Wasn't that Barack Obama railing against lobbyists and the money they spend to procure favorable treatment from politicians?  I could have sworn it was him.

Well, if so, what about this report from Ed Morrissey of  www.hotair.com?  The hypocrisy is Obama's.  The bold print is mine:

Biden’s lobbying ties

posted at 9:30 am on August 23, 2008 by Ed Morrissey

How thoroughly did Barack Obama vet Joe Biden?  After months of demonizing lobbyists, Obama selected a running mate who has taken millions in contributions from those same lobbyists Obama supposedly eschewed, at least until the DNC started running out of money.  In fact, Biden’s son works as a lobbyist on Capitol Hill, accruing the kind of earmarks that Obama has both decried and pursued:

Biden has accepted $5,133,072 in contributions from lawyers and lobbyists since 2003. Obama does not accept contributions from federally registered lobbyists.

And he has one other weakness that hasn’t received much attention to date. One of Biden’s sons, Hunter, is a registered Washington lobbyist in a year in which Obama has been excoriating lobbyists and the culture of corruption in Washington. The younger Biden is a name partner at the firm Oldaker, Biden & Belair, LLP, and seems to have specialized in lobbying for just the kind of earmark spending by Congress that Obama has vowed to slash. Republican insiders say the party is likely to make an issue of Biden’s family lobbying ties.

Also expect to hear more about Biden’s close ties with credit card companies. His largest contributor (based on total contributions by employees) over the past five years has been MBNA, the Delaware-based bank aquired in 2005 by Bank of America than until then was the world’s largest independent credit card issuer and a major supporter of the 2005 bankruptcy bill that Biden crossed the aisle to support.

Once again, I want to point out that lobbying is a Constitutionally protected exercise.  The First Amendment gives Americans the right to petition Congress, and nothing prohibits or even discourages citizens from organizing in that effort to harness the power of numbers.   Run ethically, the practice of lobbying fills an important role in politics.

Of course, I’m not the one declaring lobbyists persona non grata in the Democratic Party.  That was Barack Obama, who declared just two months ago that lobbyists would not fund “my party”:

"The Democratic National Committee will uphold the same standard: We will not take a dime from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. … They will not fund my party!"

Take a look at the top five industries that donate to Biden as well:

• Lawyers/law firms
• Real estate
• Retired
• Securities & investment
• Miscellaneous finance

Real estate and miscellaneous finance — wouldn’t that figure into the credit crisis and the housing market collapse?

It looks like Obama didn’t just throw Hope and Change under the bus, but himself right along with it.  Whether this is hypocrisy or incompetence, it’s stunning either way.

Is this a joke?  Can Obama and his people be this incompetent?

Or is it just a cynical assumption that, no matter what they do, the mainstream media will be running interference for them?

What a sad, sorry pair of options.

Ken Berwitz

We owe Michelle Malkin a major vote of thanks for digging out and compiling the evidence that deeply connects Barack Obama with the thoroughly corrupt, thoroughly lunatic-left ACORN (The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). 

Since Ms. Malkin's exposé is longer than the usual posts here, I won't say any more.  And since every word is worth your time, I am putting nothing in bold print.  Read it all for yourself:

ACORN Watch, Pt II: Obama hid $800,000 payment to ACORN through “Citizen Services, Inc.”

The closer you look at Barack Obama's background and associations the more sickened you get.

But, then again, what would you expect from a Chicago Democratic machine politician without any discernible accomplishments, who is selling the utterly meaningless premise of "change we can believe in"?

That's something to think about on election day.

Ken Berwitz

Does a candidate's vice president selection really help or hurt him that much? 

Here are data compiled by the Zogby organization a month ago that give us a bit of insight (or, at any rate, as much insight as a political poll can give):

If Obama were to choose Powell, 42% of likely voters nationwide said it would make them more likely to support the Democratic candidate - as did 42% of Democrats and 43% of political independents. The Zogby International telephone poll of 1,039 likely voters nationwide was conducted July 9-13, 2008, and asked respondents how the selection of certain vice presidential candidates would affect their likelihood to vote for the two leading presidential candidates. It carries a margin of error of +/- 3.1 percentage points.

Likelihood to vote for Barack Obama if he chooses ... as his Vice President
	Likely Voters		Democrats		Independents
	More Likely	Less Likely	More Likely	Less Likely	More Likely	Less Likely
Colin Powell	42%	10%	42%	12%	43%	9%
Hillary Clinton	30%	25%	47%	15%	33%	26%
Bill Richardson	15%	10%	9%	13%	12%	9%
Joe Biden	11%	16%	6%	22%	11%	13%
Kathleen Sebelius	7%	11%	10%	11%	7%	9%
Tim Kaine	7%	11%	8%	10%	8%	8%
Evan Bayh	6%	12%	9%	9%	7%	9%

While just 10% of likely voters said the selection of Powell would make them less likely to vote for Obama - giving him a net positive of 32% - Obama's former challenger for the Democratic nomination, Sen. Hillary Clinton, fared less positively overall. Even though 30% of likely voters would be more likely to support Obama with Clinton on the ticket, 25% would be less likely - giving Clinton just a 5% net positive rating among likely voters. Clinton fares much better with fellow Democrats, as 47% said they would be more likely to vote for Obama if Clinton were his running mate, for a net positive of 32% among Democrats.

Former Republican rivals Huckabee and Romney could give McCain a boost

Among McCain's potential vice presidential picks, former Republican nomination challengers Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney earned the strongest support from likely voters overall, as well as from Republicans and political independents. Among likely voters, 27% would be more likely to support McCain with Huckabee on the ticket, and 26% said the same if Romney were selected. A Huckabee pick would cause 13% of likely voters to be less likely to support McCain, while 11% would be less supportive of the presumptive Republican nominee if he were to choose Romney as his running mate. Among Republicans, 40% would be more likely to support a McCain/Huckabee ticket, while 11% would be less likely - a 29% net positive for the choice of Huckabee. If Romney were to be chosen, 41% of Republicans would be more inclined to vote for McCain, compared to 8% who would be less likely, for a net positive of 33%. Both fare well among political independents, with a 15% net positive for Huckabee and a 17% net positive for Romney if chosen as a running mate by McCain.

Likelihood to vote for John McCain if he chooses ... as his Vice President
	Likely Voters		Republicans		Independents
	More Likely	Less Likely	More Likely	Less Likely	More Likely	Less Likely
Mike Huckabee	27%	13%	40%	11%	29%	14%
Mitt Romney	26%	11%	41%	8%	30%	13%
Joe Lieberman	20%	17%	26%	16%	20%	22%
Charlie Crist	5%	10%	8%	12%	5%	9%
Bobby Jindal	5%	9%	7%	9%	6%	9%
Tim Pawlenty	3%	8%	3%	5%	1%	7%
Mark Sanford	3%	9%	3%	9%	2%	10%

McCain's selection of Sen. Joe Lieberman would create a 3% net positive among likely voters and a 10% net positive among Republicans. Choosing Lieberman would create a 2% net negative on their likelihood to vote for McCain among independents. Florida's Republican Gov. Charlie Crist - often mentioned as a potential McCain running mate - shows net negatives among likely voters, Republicans and political independents, as does Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford.

Interesting, to say the least.

If these data are correct, they indicate that Barack Obama's two best running mates were a Republican (Powell) and the one person he clearly had no intention of considering (Clinton).  But the four worst performers (Sebelius, Biden, Kaine and Bayh) were all on his short list right to the very end.

This is the sound judgment we keep hearing about?

On the Republican side, the two big winners are Mike Huckabee (who Mr. McCain appears to not be considering at all) and Mitt Romney (who is a finalist).  Tim Pawlenty's numbers are so low that the real finding about him, I suspect, is that no one knows who he is.  That, of course, would change if he were Mr. McCain's selection.

One last point.  Look at that disparity on more and less likely to vote when Democrats are discussing Joe Biden.  6% more likely to 22% less likely!  The single worst showing of the entire field, and by plenty.

If Barack Obama wants to energize his base, picking Joe Biden may well do so.  But I doubt that it is the way he had in mind.

Ken Berwitz

Since I made a passing reference to Joe Biden's plagiarism in the previous blog, I thought I would give you a more complete look at what I'm talking about.  Here are the specifics, from the rruly fascinating web site www.famousplagiarists.com:

Joe Biden’s history of plagiarism and “stressless scholarship” gave plenty of ammo to his enemies, one of them choosing to circulate a so-called “attack video” to demonstrate Biden’s outright plagiarism of a British politician’s speech. But this appropriation from Neal Kinnock was not the first occurrence of unacknowledged lifting by the senator from Delaware.

In 1965 Biden plagiarized while writing a paper as a student at the Syracuse University Law School in a legal methods course which he failed because of that copied paper. Such “stressless scholarship” as it is euphemistically called has become all too common in the modern Internet era with countless cheatsites and “research services” offering to sell students papers on topics from A to Z.

Biden’s case demonstrates that student plagiarism is nothing new. Only the methods of cheating have changed. Today, cheating has gone digital with the proliferation of Internet based paper filing and distributions systems, but the principles—or lack thereof—are the same. And as the Biden case illustrates, getting caught for such academic dishonesty may have serious ramifications for one’s political career. Joe Biden’s failed bid for the Democratic ticket is a case in point.

“Stressless scholarship” may seem like a pretty good idea at the time that many students make that decision to ‘crib’, copy, or dowload a paper off the Internet, but in Biden’s case the plagiarism of his student days came back to haunt his bid for the democratic presidential nomination like a spectre from his past.

In an article entitled “Biden’s Belly Flop”, Newsweek printed Joe Biden’s yearbook picture from his college days and a copy of his law school transcripts with the big “F” in his transcripts circled. Biden was given a chance to repeat his legal methods course, and above the “F” his retake grade of 80% was eventually penciled in. Being a repeat offender when it came to plagiarism made things much, much worse for Biden than they might have been otherwise in his failed bid for the Democratic presidential ticket in 1987.

Senator Biden’s plagiarism of a speech by British Labor Party leader Neal Kinnock took place at a campaign stump at the Iowa State Fairgrounds. In closing his speech, Biden took Kinnock’s ideas and language as if they were his very own inspired thoughts, prefacing Kinnock’s ideas with the phrase “I started thinking as I was coming over here . . . “. Little did Biden suspect that video footage of this speech would be spliced together with footage of Kinnock’s speech in an “attack video” which would be distributed by members of the Dukakis campaign.

Making the headline news in the New York Times, and the evening news on TV, the video was a stab in the back for Biden by his democratic competitor, and although he insisted that “I’m in this race to stay. I’m in this race to win,” the resulting publicity surrounding his unacknowledged use of Neal Kinnock’s speech was what eventually forced him out of the race. Name recognition was no longer a problem for Biden, but not the kind of name recognition which would assist his campaign for the democratic presidential nomination. His name was now a byword for plagiarism. His situation became a classic example of plagiarism for high school teachers and college instructors across the nation lecturing on the evils of unacknowledged source use.

Biden initially denied any wrongdoing, claiming that this was just an inadvertent lack of acknowledgement. Yet there were other instances of rhetorical borrowing from speeches made by Robert F. Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. And the fact that Biden had given other speeches using the Kinnock passages without acknowledgment suggested that the lifting was more than just an inadvertent oversight.

As with Al Gore’s case, the perception existed in the public mind that Biden just wasn’t the real thing. He wasn’t authentic, didn’t have thoughts and ideas of his own, and was a malleable piece of clay being molded by his handlers to suit the political whims and fancies which they thought would appeal to voters. A Time magazine article by Walter Shapairo was pretty much on the money in offering the speculation that “In the end, Biden may be remembered as the candidate who truly offered the voters an echo and not a choice.”

William Safire, former speechwriter for Richard Nixon, gloated in the New York Times over Biden’s demise, quoting a supposedly “embittered Democrat” who said, “I’m going back to Gary Hart . . . At least he didn’t steal that girl from some far-lefty in England.” And he concluded his op-ed column with a swipe at Biden’s ability to think apart from his speechwriter: “So my advice to candidates like Joe Biden is this: Do justly, love perorations and walk humbly with thy speechwriter. (I forget where I got that, but it has a nice ring to it.) ”

With all the press he was receiving over his Neal Kinnock plagiarism courtesy of the Dukakis “attack videos”, Biden was quickly becoming the “most famous political plagiarist of our time”, as Thomas Mallon describes the unfortunate Delaware senator. It was just a matter of time before Biden would have to bow out of the democratic primary.

Biden himself thought that all the attention to his rhetorical borrowing was “frankly ludicrous”, and the media analysts generally agreed, stating that is was “hardly a capital offense”, but as William Safire put it, “times have changed; you can’t get away with borrowing anything these days – not even an oratorical technique, much less a phrase or paragraph – unless you are willing to give the attribution.” If Gore’s loss of the presidency to George W. Bush in 2000 was more indirectly related to plagiarism, it is evident that Biden’s case is without question a direct result of his unacknowledged use of Kinnock’s speech as if it were his very own. This instance of plagiarism and the public exposure it received cut short the presidential aspirations of an otherwise gifted orator and statesman.

References

Let's put it this way:  If Mr. Biden begins his acceptance speech at the convention by saying "We have nothing to fear but fear itself", he's back to his old tricks.

Ken Berwitz

The good news for Barack Obama is that, in Joe Biden, he has someone who has been in the senate for a long time, has worked hard as a senator and has undeniable experience in foreign affairs.  Since Mr. Obama has none of these attributes, Biden's addition certainly enriches the ticket.

But here is the bad news.  And, unfortunately for Mr. Obama, it is far more extensive.

-Joe Biden, like Barack Obama, is a senator.  That means there is no executive experience on the ticket.  Even if John McCain also picks a career senator or house member as his running mate, the worst he comes out on this dimension is dead even;

-Joe Biden is a Washington insider of the first order.  The moveon.org/george soros hard leftists, and the people who are mesmerized by Barack Obama's meaningless slogan of "Change we can believe in", can't be happy with Mr. Biden being one heartbeat from the presidency.  He isn't change we can believe in, he is establishment that we can count on;

-Joe Biden is a genuinely dangerous running mate.  If there is one thing we know about Mr.Biden it is that he has a penchant for shooting off at the mouth and then regretting what he said afterwards.  That is bad enough when you're speaking for yourself, but 100 times worse when you are supposed to be subordinating your positions to a running mate who then has to explain your big mouth away afterwards. 

One example (among a great many) is when, in 2006, he said that, in Delaware, “you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.” .  Can you imagine what would happen if John McCain said "In DC you can't go to a ribs place unless you have a slight Black accent"?  But, of course, John McCain didn't say something that offensive and stereotyped.  Biden did;

-Joe Biden cannot bring his state over to Barack Obama (the way, say, Tim Kaine might have brought Virginia over).  Delaware is the bluest of blue states and is going to vote Democratic regardless of who Barack Obama's running mate is;

-Finally, despite the commentaries you will hear about how Joe Biden attracts working class Catholics and blue collar workers in general (you know, the people who Mr. Obama crapped on with his "clinging to guns" condescension in San Francisco), the truth is that, outside of Delaware, Mr. Biden has no following at all. 

He has run for the Presidency several times and gotten exactly nowhere.  Not even close.  And to make matters worse, his first run ended in complete disaster when it came out that Mr. Biden was plagiarizing other more successful politicians (like Neal Kinnock of the UK) to get material that he thought would attract voters.

My overall take on the selection of Joe Biden, therefore, is that it is not going to help Barack Obama and may well hurt him.   A net negative. 

Now let's see who McCain picks.  Hey, for all I know it could be even worse.

We'll see......

Ken Berwitz

As you know by now, Joe Biden is John McCai.....er, Barack Obama's running mate.

If you're wondering why I might be confused as who who he is playing second fiddle to, watch the following ad, courtesy of the New York Times, which the McCain people clearly had ready and waiting just in case Mr, Biden was picked:

August 23, 2008, 6:43 am

McCain Rolls Out New Ad With Biden’s Words

.

Now that hurts.

You have to hand it to McCain's campaign apparatus.  They are right on top of things.  By comparison, the Bush people never came close to being this prepared to do battle (and they won twice anyway).

This is going to be some campaign.

Ken Berwitz

That title does not convey a very pleasant thought.  And I certainly wouldn't be the one to say it.  But Barack Obama would.

I know Mr. Obama would say that because he DID say it.  Here, from John Hinderaker of www.powerlineblog.com, are the specifics:

Barack Obama without a teleprompter is an accident waiting to happen. Sometimes he reveals his ignorance of history, sometimes he stumbles incoherently, and sometimes he blurts out what he really believes. That's what happened today when Obama tried to talk about Georgia, a topic that has embarrassed him more than once already, beginning when, in the first hours after the invasion, he parroted the Russian line.

Today Obama equated Russia's invasion of Georgia with our toppling of Saddam Hussein:

Democrat Barack Obama scolded Russia again on Wednesday for invading another country’s sovereign territory while adding a new twist: the United States, he said, should set a better example on that front, too.

The Illinois senator’s opposition to the Iraq war, which his comment clearly referenced, is well known. But this was the first time the Democratic presidential candidate has made a comparison between the U.S. invasion of Iraq and Russia’s recent military activity in Georgia.

“We’ve got to send a clear message to Russia and unify our allies,” Obama told a crowd of supporters in Virginia. “They can’t charge into other countries. Of course it helps if we are leading by example on that point.”

So our "charging into" Iraq--with dozens of allies, supported by a U.N. resolution, as a last resort after six months of build-up and negotiations, to unseat one of the cruelest dictators of modern times who had twice invaded neighboring states, was in violation of more than a dozen U.N. resolutions and was responsible for the deaths of something like two million people, who was shooting at American aircraft and had tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, in Obama's childish mind, was just like Russia's "charging into" Georgia, which resembles Saddam's Iraq in no respect. And, of course, we invaded a horrifying charnel-house so as to establish a democracy, whereas Russia invaded a peaceful democracy that it wants to re-incorporate into its empire.

Is Obama an idiot? I don't think so, really. But one of the many problems with being a leftist is that it leads you to say lots of stupid things. Today, the Obama gaffe machine went into overdrive. By November, I suspect that most voters will have heard enough to know that Barack Obama is unqualified to be a middle-manager in a well-run company, let alone President of the United States.

Amazing.  A man about to be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States making a comparison like this.

We depose a dictator, with full UN sanction and a raft of countries supporting us.  Russia unilaterally invades a Democratic country and takes whatever it feels like taking.  And Barack Obama equates the two of them.

Is this the "sound judgment" we're supposed to be so impressed with;  judgment that is supposed to make us forget Mr. Obama's lack of any accomplishments?  Evidently it is. 

Frankly, I'm not impressed.  I'm disgusted.  How about you?

Ken Berwitz

Ahh, those annoying folks at www.cns.com.  There they go again compiling data to determine whether (let me amend that to how completely) Barack Obama is favored by mainstream media.

In case there is any doubt left, read this piece by Fred Lucas and see for yourself:

Study: Networks Gave Fawning Coverage to Obama
Friday, August 22, 2008
By Fred Lucas, Staff Writer

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama

(CNSNews.com) – Lee Cowan’s “infectious” feelings and Chris Matthews’ “thrill” helped NBC lead the way in positive coverage for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.
 
But the other two major networks weren’t far behind in a study of 1,365 network news stories going back to May 17, 2000, the date of Obama’s first appearance on CBS Evening News, through early June 2008, when the Illinois senator secured the Democratic nomination.
 
The study was released Wednesday by the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog and the parent organization of CNSNews.com. The study is titled, “Obama’s Margin of Victory: The Media,” pointing out that he beat his Democratic rival New York Sen. Hillary Clinton in the primaries by one-tenth of one percent,
 
“Perhaps if he had faced serious journalistic scrutiny instead of media cheerleading, Barack Obama might still have won his party’s nomination,” the report says. “But the tremendously positive coverage that the networks bestowed upon his campaign was of incalculable value. The early celebrity coverage helped make Obama a nationally-known figure with a near-perfect media image.”
 
The study showed that on “NBC Nightly News,” Obama had 10 times more positive stories than negative stories. “CBS Evening News” was bent toward Obama by seven to one, while ABC News was the least lopsided with four times as many pro-Obama stories as negative.
 
Overall, the networks gave Obama 462 positive stories compared to 70 stories that were critical, a 34 percent to 5 percent ratio. In other findings, the study showed that networks minimized Obama’s ideology, describing him as liberal just 14 times in four years, but calling him a either a “rock star,” “rising star” or “superstar” 29 times.
 
Meanwhile, of the 147 average citizens interviewed about Obama, 78 percent were pro-Obama, and 19 percent were unfavorable.
 
This study comes after two separate polls showed the public thinks reporters are trying to help Obama become get elected and while the Project for Excellence in Journalism reports that Obama has received overwhelmingly more coverage than his Republican opponent Arizona Sen. John McCain in TV and print.
 
The study showed that before the Iowa Caucuses, Obama’s positive to negative story ratio was 30 percent to 6 percent.
 
After the Iowa victory, ABC’s Charles Gibson asked on air, “How do you run against hope?”
 
Before Super Tuesday, that shot up to 42 percent to 5 percent. His lowest point came during the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stories, when the positive to negative ratio was 21 percent to 9 percent. In the final month, the ratio was 43 percent to 1 percent.
 
The study cites the networks for “insulating Obama from Reverend Wright.”
 
After Obama tried to head off the Wright matter with a speech in Philadelphia, the networks seemed to swoon, the report says. CBS anchor Katie Couric said, “Barack Obama addresses the controversial comments of his pastor, condemning the words but not the man. And he calls on all Americans to work for a more perfect union.”
 
NBC’s Cowan reported “in the City of Brotherly Love, Barack Obama gave the most extensive and most intensely personal speech on race he has ever given.”
 
It was after that speech that Matthews, commenting on MSNBC said he “felt this thrill going up my leg.”
 
The study shows only two stories covered Obama’s close relationship with real estate developer Tony Rezko (who was convicted earlier this year of wire fraud and money laundering), one on NBC by Lisa Myers, the other on ABC by Brian Ross.
 
The study highlights several quotes from network news reporters and anchors that lavish praise on Obama.
 
Cowan said of Obama in January, “From a reporter’s point of view, it’s almost hard to remain objective because it’s infectious, the energy, I think.”
 
ABC reporter Terry Moran said on “Nightline” in November 2006, “You can see it in the crowds, the thrill, the hope. How they surge toward him. … And the question you can sense on everyone’s mind, as they listen so intently to him: Is he the one.”
 
After Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) endorsed Obama for president in late January, reporter David Wright on ABC’s “World News Tonight,” said, “And today, the audacity of hope had its rendezvous with destiny. The Kennedy clan anointed Barack Obama a son of Camelot.”
 
After Obama secured the nomination, CBS reporter Byron Pitts declared, “Barack Obama and his wife Michelle walked into history’s arms last night. … Just like JFK’s journey as the first Catholic president, America crossed a milestone. … One of America’s oldest and ugliest color lines has been broken, and there’s a new bridge for a new generation.”

That clear enough?

 

Suppose Barack Obama loses this nomination because people finally learn about who andwhat he is and reject him for it.  Who will the media blame it on? 

 

I wonder if they will reserve at least some of the blame for themselves - for the impossibly positive imagery they created of Mr. Obama and people's eventual realization of the disparity between that imagery and reality.

 

I doubt it. 

Ken Berwitz

Here is the latest McCain ad.   Did you think it was that dagger about Obama's relationship with antoin "tony" rezko, the convicted felon who helped him buy his mansion and extra land next to it? 

Well, a matter of hours ago you would have been right.  But not any more.

This new ad nails Barack Obama on his cozy relationship with domestic terrorist william ayers -- a relationship that Mr. Obama has flat out lied to us about for months.

See for yourself, either by clicking on the video below or, if that doesn't work, clicking here:

Thursday, August 21, 2008

.

Is there anything that Barack Obama doesn't lie about?  He's lied about knowing that jeremiah wright was a hater, about the nature and scope of his relationship with "tony" rezko, about how much money he got from rezko, about his voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act (BAIPA), etc. etc. etc.  And he lied about his relationship with william ayers.

Change you can believe in?  Sound judgment?  You've got to be kidding.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday I blogged about the lawsuit filed by Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter Phil Berg which challenges Barack Obama's claim to be a naturalized citizen of the USA.  I have blogged several other times about this claim.

Today I want to give you the other side of the coin.  It comes to us from Charles Johnson of www.littlegreenfootballs.com.  He is convinced that Mr. Obama is legal and feels he has the facts to prove it.   Here they are - and please, please click on the link so that you can read the argument in Barack Obama's favor:

.

Ok, there you have it. 

-Is Charles Johnson correct - i.e. this is all a bunch of baloney?

-Is Phil Berg correct - i.e. Obama is illegal and his candidacy cannot go on?

Well, my job is to provide both sides, which I've now done.  Your job is to come to your own conclusions.

Happy motoring.....

Ken Berwitz

As readers know, I have posted several blogs which seem to credibly call into question Barack Obama's eligibility to be President.

I have never said I believed he was ineligible, and don't say so now.  But I was, and remain outraged that media have just acquiescently accepted the premise that he is, without demanding more proof than a concocted Certificate Of Live Birth that appears to be as phony as a three dollar bill.

Well, now we'll find out.  Because a lawsuit has been filed in Philadelphia challenging Mr. Obama's legal standing as a naturalized citizen of the United States.  And before you scream about Republican "dirty tricks", the suit was filed by a Democrat and Hillary Clinton supporter.

Here, from www.americasright.com, are the particulars:

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Hooboy. 

Ok, the obvious question:  Is this Hillary Clinton's ace in the hole? 

Was Hillary Clinton genuinely supporting Barack Obama for the past month, or was it a cynical act by someone who knew that this bombshell would drop the week before the convention and it would give her a perfect reason to say "I supported him, but how can we nominate a man who might not even be legal?  It's like giving the election to McCain and the Republicans"?

Keep your eyes on this one, folks.  And do NOT be surprised if you see one or more similar suits in other states before the convention takes place. 

This could be nothing.  But it also could be the abrupt end of the Obama candidacy.

Ken Berwitz

Yesterday John McCain could not remember off the top of his head how many houses he and his wife Cindy own.  Obviously they own more than a couple but he couldn't nail the exact number.

That sounded pretty ridiculous.  And the Obama people lost no time in attacking him for it.  Mr. Obama, talking about that comment and Mr. McCain's statement that having $5 million made you rich, said:

“So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four. Now think about that. I guess if you think that being rich means you gotta make $5 million, and if you don’t know how many houses you have, then it’s not surprising that you might think the economy is fundamentally strong.  But if you’re like me and you’ve got one house or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they don’t lose their home, you might have a different perspective.”

Tim Kaine, a frontrunner to be Mr. Obama's running mate chimed in with this:

"I understand that Sen. McCain was asked yesterday this question, 'how many houses do you own?,' and he couldn't answer that question. He couldn’t count high enough apparently to even know how many houses he owns"

Ok, fair enough.  McCain said something that he could be nailed for and the other side jumped all over it.  That's politics (did you really think Obama would do anything but act like the politician he is?  I sure hope you know better by now).

But there is a bit of a problem:  Mr. Obama may know how many houses he owns, but the acquisition of his home and its adjacent property is a major scandal.  And by attacking McCain in this manner he has opened the door to that scandal being aired. 

At this point you might be asking something like "If there is a scandal associated with Obama's house, wouldn't I have known about it by now, because the media would have jumped all over it".  If so, you aren't paying much attention to this blog (and countless others like it).  The media do not nail Mr. Obama on his scandals. 

But now they'll have to.  Because the McCain camp has not only answered Obama's attack but has immediately put out an internet ad that hits him between the eyes on it.  And, as an extra added attraction, it brings home the deep association between Mr. Obama and the convicted felon (16 counts!!) antoin "tony" rezko.

First there is the statement issued by the McCain camp:

"Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses?"

Ouch.

And then  there is the ad, which you can see by either clicking below or, if this gives you trouble,  clicking here:

Double ouch.

Is this going to be a fun campaign, or what?

Ken Berwitz

Apparently, when it comes to late night comedy, the buzzwords are See no Obama, Hear no Obama, Speak No Obama, Leno Obama, Letterman Obama, Colbert Obama, etc.

If you thought media bias was restricted only to the news shows, morning shows and newspapers, think again.

Here are the particulars, from Noel Shepard of www.newsbusters.org:

Late Night Comedians Bash McCain, Lay Off Obama

By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
August 21, 2008 - 10:39 ET

Apparently, the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama is no laughing matter.

Mimicking their so-called serious counterparts in the so-called serious press, late night comedians have comedically bashed John McCain far more this year than the junior senator from Illinois.

So says a new study about to be released by the Center for Media and Public Affairs as reported by the LA Times Thursday (h/t Hot Air):

A hilarious new study of late-night political jokes, due to be released later today, finds the network comedians clearly avoiding humor about Democratic candidate Barack Obama. [...]

The center found that the network shows broadcast only 169 jokes about Obama, compared with 428 about Bush. McCain drew 328 jokes. Hillary Clinton, who dropped out of the presidential race and much political news in early June, still drew more than twice as many attempted yuk lines (382) as Obama. [...]

Combining the laugh lines from all five shows, Bush was the ...

... most mocked, with 605; Clinton had 562; McCain got 549; and Obama trailed, with 382.

Letterman had the most fun at Clinton's expense, with 146 jokes about her and only 46 about Obama. Leno had the most Bush jokes (208), with Clinton right behind at 204.

Colbert worked McCain over the most, with 129 jokes, compared with 91 for Obama and 79 on Clinton. An example: "It's time the media started trumpeting McCain's exciting story. He's old, and no one likes him.The best observation by the Times:

The study did not explore why Obama got off so lightly on the network shows from New York and Burbank. So we'll all just have to guess: probably out of simple respect for Obama's long public service.

Isn't that special?

I guess there just isn't any funny material about Barack Obama. 

Hey, what else could it be?

Ken Berwitz

Just yesterday I blogged about the University of Chicago's sudden and - so far - successful efforts to prevent Barack Obama's activity as chair of the Annenberg Project from seeing the light of day.

But Thomas Lifson of www.americanthinker.com has some additional material on this hugely funded project that Mr. Obama worked directly with william ayers on.  That's right, the same william ayers who Obama has claimed he barely had any contact with.

Here is Mr. Lifson's piece.  The bold print is mine:

Obama's Lost Annenberg Years Coming to Light

By Thomas Lifson

The cloak of media invisibility is slowly beginning to lift from Barack Obama's most important administrative leadership experience, helming an expensive educational reform effort in Chicago that failed to produce any measurable academic gains, according to the project's own final report.

"The Special Collections section of the Richard J. Daley Library agreed to let me read them, but just before I boarded my flight to Chicago, the top library officials mysteriously intervened to bar access. Circumstances strongly suggest the likelihood that Bill Ayers himself may have played a pivotal role in this denial. Ayers has long taught at UIC, where the Chicago Annenberg Challenge offices were housed, rent-free. Ayers likely arranged for the files of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to be housed in the UIC library, and may well have been consulted during my unsuccessful struggle to gain access to the documents. Let me, then, explain in greater detail what the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) records are, and how I have been blocked from seeing them."

It is highly unusual and legally questionable for a publicly-funded archive to deny access to records in its collection, particularly when they have a bearing on matters of intense public interest: the qualifications of a man seeking to be Commander in Chief.

But even if the university manages to stall release of the records until after the election, it is only drawing attention to the project. Already, the nation's mainstream media have taken notice (however imperfectly)  of the University's unusual actions, albeit without exploring the subject in any depth yet.

In the midst of a heated presidential campaign, it is going to be hard to keep this interest in Obama's Annenberg years contained, now that it has surfaced.

A blogger, Steve Diamond, has put together enough data from public sources to seriously embarrass Obama over the closeness of his association with Ayers in the project, and to describe the wrong-headed and politicized approach taken by the project. Anyone can go to this page and look at the latter half of the very lengthy post to see the data uncovered by this intrepid researcher. At a minimum, it proves that Obama has seriously misled the public about his association with Ayers. And it documents and analyzes some of the complex left wing politics underlying the effort.

As the public begins to notice this outlines of the history of the CAC presented by Diamond, more questions are bound to be asked.

The First Cover-up

Diamond examined  public documents, receiving cooperation from the Brown University Library, where the Annenberg Challenge Program national headuarters had been housed.  Until, that is,  Diamond's requests for further information fell on deaf ears following publication of a post highlighting a grant to one of Ayers' former revolutionary cohorts in the Weathermen. He writes:

"...while the representative from the university I originally corresponded with had been quite friendly and accommodating prior to my June 23 post, afterwards my additional requests for further information went unanswered.  I did not pursue it at the time because I felt I had told a significant part of the story already.  Thanks to the diligent work of Dr. Kurtz, however, we now know there is much more to know."

The Obama camp has already noted that it does not control the archives at UIC. All well and good, though it would be nice for the candidate to plead with the university and the mystery donor to let the sun shine on his track record. After all, he is a new kind of politician.

But even if he doesn't, the Annenberg Challenge is slowly entering the national consciousness, and that's very bad news for Barack Obama.

How much does this stink?  

How clear is it that Mr. Obama is going to be hurt by the records of this accomplishmentless boondoggle? 

How completely does this prove what a liar Mr. Obama was when he claimed to have so little contact with ayers?

How obvious is it that the wheels are starting to come off this campaign?

Ken Berwitz

Well, Musharraf has been pushed out in Pakistan.  Exactly what the Taliban wanted, since he, more than anyone else (this is not to say a lot, just more than anyone else) was involved in going after them.

So how have they responded?   I'll let www.sweeetness-light.com, via the Associated Press, tell you.  The bold print is from sweetness-light:

Taliban Kill 50, Despite Musharraf Ouster

August 21st, 2008

There, folks, is a lesson in reality.  It is being taught to us in naked fury by the taliban.  And it leads to two questions:

1) Which political party advocated for the ouster of Musharraf?

2) Which political party is accordingly less likely to learn from what happened afterwards?

Think about it.

Ken Berwitz

If you have any doubt about what depths the Democratic Party is willing to sink to in this campaign, read the following piece from Dan McLaughlin of www.redstate.com:

DNC on Eric Cantor: "Both Abramoff and Cantor are Jewish"

Paid for by the Democratic National Committee — 430 S. Capitol St. SE, Washington DC 20003.

For the record, I just checked the link to this site, and these attacks on "Jewish" Eric Cantor are still up, every word of them.

If the Democratic National Committee - which is clearly identified as the source of this filth - isn't ashamed of itself, it should be.  And if you aren't disgusted by this, you should be.

It is bad enough that Barack Obama's site consistently has material posted by his supporters that overtly hates Jews and the country of Israel (both individually, sometimes the two together).  It's bad enough to find out that Mr. Obama attracts this kind of scum.  But does the DNC have to join in the fun too?

Now:  WHERE ARE THE MEDIA ON THIS . 

Nowhere, that's where.  Do their computers have a blocking system that disallows them to see what you and I can just click to look at?  Are they incapacitated in some way, and unable to locate  http://www.democrats.org/page/content/VPCantor  just the way we can?

But listen to them squeal like stuck pigs if you call them biased.

Ken Berwitz

It is easy to be gracious when you've already won.  It is hard to be gracious when you're in a battle. 

That is the lesson to be learned by the immediate turn of Barack Obama's campaign now that John McCain is either tied or beating him in a few major polls.

Here is an excerpt from an Agence France Presse article  I just read at www.breitbart.com, which will show you what I mean:

Barack Obama savaged his Republican rival John McCain Wednesday for running a dishonorable campaign that aides to the Democrat said smacked of "reckless" desperation.

In some of the most vehement attacks yet heaped on the Arizona senator by the Obama camp during this White House campaign, the Illinois senator said he honored McCain's public service but not the manner of his electioneering.

Coinciding with a new poll suggesting McCain has overhauled Obama among voters nationally, Obama's senior foreign policy adviser Susan Rice portrayed the Republican as a hot-head who could not be trusted to stay cool under fire.

McCain's "tendency is to shoot first and to ask questions later," she said on a conference call alongside former White House anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke, who called the Republican "trigger-happy" and "reckless."

McCain, according to Rice, "cheer-led (President George W.) Bush's decision to take our eye off the ball and start a war in Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11."

"This is a record that belies anything approaching sound judgment," she said.

Clarke added, "he has consistently been quick-draw McCain here on every issue. His first instinct is to rattle sabers and look for a military solution."

Ken Berwitz

Investors Business Daily is a treasure trove of well researched, sensible political analysis.  And yesterday was no exception.

Here is their editorial on the enthusiastic support being given to Barack Obama by the hardest left (I'd say the hard left, but that wouldn't do them justice).  The bold print is mine:

Finding Friends On Far, Far Left

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Wednesday, August 20, 2008 4:20 PM PT

Election '08: The saying that a man is known by the company he keeps is true of political relationships. In Barack Obama's case, some of the groups that support him are an indictment of his political orientation.

IBD Series: The Audacity Of Socialism

Among Obama's biggest admirers, for example, is one Pepe Lozano. Unknown at the national level, Lozano is more of a small-time agitator, just as Obama was in his community organizing days in Chicago. Maybe that explains part of the attraction.

But it's more likely that Lozano, a leader in the Chicago Young Communist League and an editorial board member of the People's Weekly World, newspaper of the Communist Party USA, finds that Obama is the communist party's best hope because of the junior senator's far-left positions.

"This is a history-making process," Lozano told a Chicago gathering of about 250 in June, "and we will be missing it if we don't do all we can to elect Barack Obama president."

The next month, the People's Weekly World editorialized in favor of Obama, calling his a "transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term."

The communist support is nothing new, however. Joel Wendland, managing editor of Political Affairs: Marxist Thought Online, another CPUSA magazine, suggested in February that Obama could be "the people's president."

Also in February, Political Affairs editor Terri Albano talked about how the "kind of upsurge" surrounding Obama "comes around just once in a lifetime. I hope for all progressives — each of us — (to) get involved. Don't stand on the sidelines. Be active. Don't let history pass you by."

While communists are endorsing Obama, the Communist Party USA isn't. But that's not because it doesn't like Obama. The CPUSA simply does not endorse candidates. Yet it issued what could be called a non-endorsement endorsement of Obama in March, saying "his campaign has the clearest message of unity and progressive change."

"This election can begin to turn the tide: It can help bring universal health care, save the environment and start the restoration of our democratic rights," the group said. "This election can strengthen democracy for all."

If Obama is smarting because he didn't get an official Communist Party USA endorsement, maybe he will be mollified by the approval of an old communist to the south. Fidel Castro in the spring wrote in the state newspaper Granma that Obama is "the most progressive candidate for the U.S. presidency."

That's an endorsement that anyone who doesn't have a socialist agenda should be ashamed of, especially given Castro's murder and intimidation of his foes and his repeated, egregious human rights violations of average Cuban citizens.

But from what we can tell, Obama has not rejected Castro's support. What we can tell, though, is that when Obama says he stands for change, he could be talking about erasing facts that he considers to be politically damaging.

Last month he scrubbed clean from his Web site evidence that he opposed the successful Iraq surge, and last winter he deleted the endorsement of the extremist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who had become a political liability.

But despite his campaign's penchant for cyberhygiene, the community blog on his own Web site still has an entry that's rather incriminating: "This group is for self-proclaimed Marxists/Communists/Socialists for the election of Barack Obama to the presidency. . . . We support Barack Obama because he knows what is best for the people!" The fact that it can still be found on Obama's official site would indicate that the campaign has no problem with it — and that it might even appreciate the endorsement.

The current campaign is not Obama's first association with groups that promote socialism or its more stringent ideological cousin, communism.

In 1995, he sought the endorsement of the New Party for his 1996 state Senate candidacy. The party — a collection of anti-capitalist ex-communists and socialists that disbanded in 1998 after six years of trying to push the Democratic Party even further left — gladly gave Obama its support.

Obama also was endorsed in that election by the Democratic Socialists of America, the largest socialist group in the U.S. While the name might sound benign, the DSA has a poisonous agenda. Its goal is to establish "an openly socialist presence in American communities and politics" and is committed to "restructuring society."

Members "are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit, alienated labor, race and gender discrimination, environmental destruction, and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo."

Just as it should be no surprise that a Che Guevara poster was found hanging in an Obama campaign office, it would not be a shock to see an Obama poster on a wall in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism's headquarters.

Mark Solomon, the group's national co-chair, wrote in a virtual endorsement in February that Obama "is an attractive, articulate and talented politician" whose "campaign has sparked a powerful surge."

But that would be expected, since this group, which branched off from the Communist Party USA in 1991, organized the October 2002 rally in which Obama criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq — while still serving as a state senator in Illinois. The ties between Obama and the committees go back years.

Across the Atlantic, the Party of European Socialists also has given its blessing.

President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen says that "Obama is the choice for change and renewal. He gives hope to millions of Americans and Europeans for a fairer world. . . . Progressive Europeans are united in hope that Barack Obama will be the new president following the U.S. elections."

Obama supporters might excuse the candidate's support from communists, Marxists and socialists, saying he is the only alternative since these groups would never support the Republican nominee. (Which is entirely correct and indicative of the Democratic Party's continuing decline into the pit of democratic socialism.)

But the truth is, these groups usually reserve their endorsements and support for fringe candidates, not someone from a major party. That's not the case this time around. They seem to have their man.

Neither IBD nor I claim that Mr. Obama sought these endorsements.  But, other than jeremiah wright, he has not publicly refused even one of them.  And he only dumped wright after lying repeatedly about what he knew of the man - as if spending 18 years in his church and being so close that he called him a spritial mentor didn't give him a clue.

If these people are latching onto Barack Obama as their choice, they are TELLING you something, aren't they?  The question is whether you are listening.

If you are on board with this crowd, Mr. Obama is your man.  If you aren't, he isn't. 

Your call.

Ken Berwitz

The Associated Press is now reporting that Stephanie Tubbs Jones has died after a brain hemmorhage. 

Earlier today there were also reports she had died but they turned out to be erroneous.  This one, unfortunately, seems to be accurate.

Despite my differences with Ms. Jones on issues, she was a dedicated congressperson and served her constituents very capably.

I'm sorry to see her go, especially at such a young age (58).  May she rest in peace.

Ken Berwitz

Remember when Barack Obama was assuring us that his involvement with william ayers (and bernardine dohrn) was only peripheral and that ayers was just some guy in the neighborhood?

Remember how little attention media there was when this fraudulent claim was debunked?

Well now there's more.  It turns out that Barack Obama was heavily involved with ayers in something called "The Annenberg Challenge".  And the University of Chicago, which employs ayers and evidently has no problem with his violent, terroristic anti USA activities which he has never apologized for, is helping to hide this from the public.

Read this piece by Mark Silva (and know that there are dozens of other accounts out there saying the same thing):

Barack Obama records sealed at Illinois

Posted August 20, 2008 9:30 AM 

by Mark Silva

The University of Illinois has refused to release records related to Sen. Barack Obama's service for a nonprofit educational project that put him in contact with activist William Ayers, a 1960s-era radical and now education professor.

The university's Chicago campus maintains that the donor of the records that document the work of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge has not handed over ownership rights. The university says it is "aggressively pursuing" an agreement with the donor, and as soon as an agreement is reached, the collection will be made accessible to the public. The university has not identified the donor.

The Obama campaign says the senator does not have control over these records or the ability to release them, adding that it has made many documents related to Obama's life available to the public and that "we are pleased the university is pursuing an agreement that would make these records publicly available."

The National Review this week posted an article online saying that the institution had initially deemed the records open to inspection, but that the university subsequently reversed its position. Tuesday, the university said that there had been a misunderstanding.

Ayers is an education professor at the University of Illinois at Chicago. In his youth, he co-founded the Weatherman organization, later known as the Weather Underground Organization, which espoused violence in the pursuit of political change.

In the 1990s, Ayers was instrumental in starting the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which was awarded nearly $50 million by a foundation to help reform Chicago schools. Obama was the first chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, and Republicans have been attempting to underscore his ties to Ayers.

"The donor's only concerns regarding the collection are due to personnel information that could include names, confidential salary information and even Social Security numbers," a spokesman for the university said. Spokesman Bill Burton, no relation to an Obama spokesman of the same name, said he could not identify the owner.

Obama served as board chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge for three years starting in 1995 and remained on the board until the project closed in 2001. The $49.2 million was the largest private gift ever made to Chicago schools. The money went to 250 schools.

Ok, so what do we know here?

We know that william ayers was instrumental in starting The Annenberg Project.  And we know that Barack Obama was board chairman of The Annenberg Project for three years.

We also know that the University of Chicago, which has no problem cutting paychecks to this unrepentant terrorist scumbag, suddenly found a reason that we can't see the organization's records.   But it isn't them, you see, it is some donor who mysteriously materialized before the information was issued.

Well, maybe that's all there is to it.  But if the University of Chicago is telling the truth and all that has to be done is the exorcising of a few names, salaries and social security numbers, it should have been available already -- or, at any rate, it should be available in a matter of a few days.  How long could this possibly take?

What this looks like, at least until the full information is released, is that the University is protecting Barack Obama from his past and abetting him in an overt lie. 

We'll know for sure soon enough.

Ken Berwitz

Now we have this from the Scripps-Howard news service:

Hillary Clinton supporters still trying to derail Obama nomination

Published:Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Scripps Howard News Service

WASHINGTON — A massive e-mail and Internet campaign is under way aimed at derailing the nomination of Barack Obama and making Hillary Clinton the party’s standard bearer next week at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

“It’s downright nasty,” said Memphis, Tenn., superdelegate and city council member Myron Lowery, who has shared dozens of the messages he’s received with The (Memphis) Commercial Appeal newspaper.

“I think it’s divisive for the ‘Support Hillary’ campaign to continue at this time. She made the decision to fully support Mr. Obama,” said Lowery, who initially supported Clinton but later switched his allegiance to Obama. “I don’t know why they’re not taking their cue from Hillary and falling in line.”

Lowery said he does not believe Clinton herself is behind the effort, but that it’s “her supporters, acting on their own because they’re proud of what they have done for her.”

Most of the messages Lowery has received from across the country come from Hillary supporters making the case that she won more voters’ votes in the primaries, she won bigger states, that Obama won states that won’t vote Democratic in November, and that she is the only “electable” Democrat.

“I think it’s a terrible tactic,” said Memphis delegate, Baptist minister and Shelby County, Tenn., Democratic Party Chairman Keith Norman. “We had hoped that this kind of politics, especially from within the party, would have been abandoned.”

A pledged Obama delegate, Norman noted that some of the attacks are overtly racist and that in one instance Obama was likened to “the Anti-Christ.”

“We have a historic moment that we need to grasp and we need to move forward as a unified party,” he said.

I love the part where Myron Lowery states his belief that Hillary has nothing to do with this.

How many times over how many months have I (and others) said that if there is a way to get this nomination Hillary Clinton is going to get it.  And that if Mr. Obama wins the nomination it is in Hillary Clinton's interests for him to lose the election?

This is getting more and more aromatic all the time.  I can't wait to see how - or if - the Obama people deal with it.

Ken Berwitz

JB Williams, writing for The New Media Journal, just put this up.  I don't agree with everything he says, but enough of it holds water so that it is definitely worth thinking about.

Here is his essay, without further commentary from me.  You make up your own mind:

JB Williams

I Smell a Clinton Coup Brewing
August 20, 2008

After Barockstar’s near fatal empty suit performance at Saddleback Saturday, the Obama spin machine is in damage control overdrive. I wonder if they‘ve had time to realize that they have been triangulated by the Clinton war room and set up to take a fall at the DNC convention?

That old Clinton war room stench is in the air again...It seems the empty suit and his empty headed staff is not quite up to speed on Clintonian strategeries.

Consider the Latest Clinton maneuvers

▪ Camp Clinton convinced Camp Obama to help liquidate her campaign debts.

▪ Camp Clinton convinced Camp Obama to call for Florida and Michigan voters to be counted. It’s the right thing to do, of course. But had it already been done, Hillary would already be the nominee.

▪ Camp Clinton convinces Camp Obama to agree to a floor vote at the convention when all the cameras will be rolling. What if Clinton wins on the floor?

▪ Camp Clinton removes Obama supporter John Edwards from the equation, along with his scheduled convention speaking spot, on the basis that he is now a known lying cheater. But Bill Clinton (also a known lying cheater) is the headliner of the convention, and he’s not an Obama supporter at all.

▪ Barockstar tanks on national TV only days before the convention and his campaign staff is sent out to do damage control, leaving the super-delegates gasping in a holy crap moment, with the sudden realization that this empty suit is in no way ready for the big show. Only a promise to make a VP announcement this week can get his failed TV appearance off the front pages.

▪ Meanwhile, Camp Clinton is mobilizing millions of NObama minions and staging a convention coup in which Hillary can ride in on silver steed to save the party from complete implosion on an international stage…

Even James Carville, Dick Morris and Oliver Stone combined, could not have written this script any better. All we need is a second gunman on the grassy knoll. Howard Dean maybe?

The fact that millions of Democrat voters were intentionally disenfranchised by their own party in the primaries leaves the chosen one the prime target of too many in-house enemies. And nobody in American politics is better at organizing, mobilizing and exploiting in-house enemies than the Clintons.

Barockstar’s off-teleprompter performances consistently make George Bush look like a silver tongued genius. That fact makes even the most ardent Obama supporters second guess their early hypnotic socialist driven lust for the chosen one.

Ship Obama is taking on water faster than the spin machine can bail. The DNC is going to need a new savior by this time next week and guess who is positioned to save the party?

The super-delegates are not bound by their verbal commitments of support for Obama. With each passing hour, Barockstar convinces more and more Americans, including delegates, that his empty suit is only outdone by his empty head.

Without a teleprompter, Obama’s inexperience becomes glaringly obvious. Face it; Obama lost Saturday’s open forum discussion with a very friendly Rick Warren while McCain was still traveling to the location in his motorcade. Once McCain arrived, all he had to do to win was not follow Barockstar down the toilet.

One Must Wonder Who Set This Guy Up in the First Place

Most Americans knew he had little chance of making it to the finish line from the start. Never in history has a less qualified individual sought the highest office in the land with such a blank résumé.

His over-inflated ego made him the perfect mark for a perfect storm. Accidents like this don’t happen in politics, where little is ever left to chance.

Who set this naïve freshman up? Whoever it is, they did it magnificently!

This is the problem with pompous pride. It always leaves you blind and vulnerable to your attackers. The freshman nobody had no chance. He was a minnow swimming among sharks. In today’s cutthroat DNC, which is caught in a perpetual power struggle, such an inexperienced individual was no match for career political deviants like the Clintons.

The only open question at this point is this; does Hillary have the votes to pull it off?

I wouldn’t lay my money against her!

Ken Berwitz

This is terribly sad news. 

Stephanie Tubbs-Jones, the former Municipal Court judge, Cuyahoga county prosecutor and five time congresswoman from Cleveland and surrounding areas, has suffered a brain aneurysm and is hospitalized - obviously in grave condition.

Fates willing, Ms. Tubbs will be 59 years old on September 10th.

Ms. Tubbs is a distinguished congressperson who served in several key capacities in the house of representatives.  And she is highly respected within her congressional district.

It is a shame that someone this productive is in such a clearly life-threatening situation, so long before her time. 

May she recover completely.

Ken Berwitz

Two polls have come out in the past 24 hours that should make Barack Obama and his supporters shudder with fear.

One of them (which I've already talked about today) is from Reuters/Zogby;  it shows John McCain leading  Mr.Obama by 5% (last month Obama was leading by 7%).  The second, an LA Times/Bloomberg poll, shows Obama leading by just 2% after being ahead by 12% last month. 

Those are both double-digit turnarounds from Obama to McCain.

I acknowledge that these polls may not mean a thing.  But if th