A website dedicated to the man so uniquely unqualified to be President. This blog by by radio talk host Todd Feinburg has been replaced by RealClearThinker.com.
FALSANI: Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?
OBAMA: Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.
FALSANI: Those two will keep you on your toes.
OBAMA: And theyr'e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what's happening to each of us in ways that are useful.
I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.
“One of the churches that I became involved in was Trinity United Church of Christ,” Obama said in the interview. “And the pastor there, Jeremiah Wright, became a good friend. So I joined that church and committed myself to Christ in that church.”
Obama began attending the church in 1988 and formally joined Trinity in 1992. Falsani asked, “Do you still attend Trinity?”
Obama answered, “Yep. Every week. 11 o’clock service. Ever been there? Good service.
Hmm. This sounds a bit different from Barack said during the campaign.
“As young marrieds, Barack and Michelle (who also didn't go to church regularly as a child) went to church fairly often—two or three times a month. But after their first child, Malia, was born, they found making the effort more difficult. ‘I don't know if you've had the experience of taking young, squirming children to church, but it's not easy,’ he says.
“‘Trinity was always packed, and so you had to get there early. And if you went to the morning service, you were looking at—it just was difficult. So that would cut back on our involvement.’
Sorry - am I really posting this commercial for the third time? I believe so, but with good reason. It's a great ad, it's one that should have been running for weeks, and it could tilt the election to where it should be.
He built his power base in Wright's church. Wright was his mentor, adviser and close friend. For 20 years Obama never complained until he ran for President.
This weekend, the National Republican Trust is spending $6 million in TV buys for this one ad. Is it too little too late?
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
What friends of Barack Obama do we believe to have been involved in, or to have supported such activities?
Bill Ayers, co-founder of the Weather Underground and active bomber of U.S. government buildings.
RashidKhalidi - university professor and reputed former PLO spokesman.
Is it unfair, inaccurate or code to say that Barack is guilty of "palling around with terrorists?" Rashidi is a close personal friend. The evidence is strong that Ayers is a critical partner in Barack's career, but he has not been forthcoming with details, so we are left to speculate.But some, like Anil Dash at Dashes.com, are upset with Sarah Palin's use of the palling phrase - without, it seems to me, bothering to test its accuracy.
But a closer look at her deliberate use of vernacular and language reveals that she has gone far beyond any other candidate in vice presidential history in the dangerous and irresponsible implications of her attacks. She has phrased her attacks on Obama in a way that avoids accountability to the press while specifically addressing the subset of her audience who are most likely to advocate extreme actions against Obama.
The crux of the issue is simple:
Sarah Palin has unequivocally associated Barack Obama with the idea of terrorism and specifically with "terrorists".
Republican President George Bush has defined in our National Security Strategy, and the Republican Party's platform affirms, that we may identify and strike at terrorists before they have committed any defined acts of aggression against American citizens.
Palin has used deliberate choice of language to avoid these connections being highlighted by the media, while increasing the likelihood that the target audience for her message will be incited by her statements.
...she appears to be attempting to convince a substantial portion of her supporters that Obama supports terrorism against the United States and thus should be, at the very least, incarcerated as an enemy combatant (which we are doing to American citizens already) or at worst, assassinated for supporting terror.
This is, of course, is an appearance that only presents itself to some. That Barack has built his career while partnering with bizarre and bad people is not in doubt, nor is the fact that some engaged in terror or supported terrorist activities. Palin's statements are factual and fair.
She has done this knowing full well that she can retain plausible deniability thanks to the ambiguity of her statements as they'll be interpreted by the media, by her detractors, and by her more reasonable supporters.
It would seem that Mr. Dash is jumping to conclusions. It's a hazard of doing too much thinking and not enough assuming of the obvious. For starters, Dash's assertions fail the reality test. Did Palin succeed in throwing the press off course, or did she suffer attacks for her "palling around with terrorists" language? She was attacked.
Did anyone, besides Dash, that is, posit that she was really demanding that Barack be arrested and sent immediately to Gitmo? He's the first one I've heard suggest this. Has anyone, in response to Palin, made demands that Barack be arrested? Not that I've heard.
Dash goes on to explain the idea of Code Switching - think Oprah slipping into black vernacular to ingratiate herself with her target audience - to make her language more impactful to the chosen audience than proper English would be to the larger population.
Put simply, if Palin says "Barack Obama consorts with terrorists," she is making the assertion that he supports acts of violence against American citizens and the media will refute this obviously false assertion. If, instead, Palin says he "pals around with terrorists", she's used code-switching to mask the seriousness of the charge, obfuscating her meaning enough to get away with making an assertion that inevitably calls for the imprisonment or even assassination of a political opponent.
This clever use of language only hides Palin's meaning from members of the press. Because writers for traditional media are usually highly educated and pride themselves on their mastery of Standard American English, they can often look down on dialects like AAVEand North Central English. Instead these forms of language being seen as legitimate and interpreted in the social context where they've formed, they're dismissed as being the words of "people who don't even speak proper English!" In the cases where the ideas aren't outright dismissed, there is still rampant misinterpretation of meaning: Reporters wrongly see a term like "palling" as imprecise, when compared to a word like "consorting."
In my mind, consorting is simply not a word that people use and readily understand the subtleties of. It might carry more baggage than Dash assesses is delivered by palling. Palling is, after all, friendly and warm - consorting sounds legalistic and dangerous.
On top of this, by deliberately omitting the word "domestic" as a descriptor of "terrorist" after its initial mention in her speeches, Palin has amplified the recurring theme of "otherness" that the McCain campaign and its surrogates have pinned on Obama. There is an unequivocal attempt to assign a commonality of purpose and intent between Obama, his supporters and campaigners, and terrorists who would attack Americans.
Yes, if Barack only had hung out and planned his career with domestic terrorists, then we'd have nothing to fear! It's like how domestic flights are safer than international ones.
Sarah Palin's conduct has gone far past the bounds of decency, and far past even the most dangerous efforts of any previous candidate for such high office. This is an inexcusable, unforgivable, and unacceptable transgression and my belief is that she should be removed from consideration for the office of Vice President for her dangerous, unethical and unamerican display of irresponsibility.
This sort of obsessive analysis distracts the educated class, and allows the elite to miss the obvious flaws in Barack's candidacy - inexperience, youth, radicalism and the natural questions of judgment and character that arise from his long partnership with dangerous people such as Wright, Khalidi, Pfleger, Ayers, Rezko, Farrakan, etc. And, of course, there's his stated displeasure with the work of the Founding Fathers.
PS - is there a hidden message in Dash's obviously deliberate failure to properly capitalize un-American?
Sorry - it's contagious.
Here's a refresher course on how Barack used to brag about his Chicago Annenberg Challenge experience, which is omitted from his resume today.
Today's tallys - from the polls we pay the most attention to. Rasmussen stays at 8% for the second day, Gallup stays at 5%, and Zogby drops to 5%, with a 3 point lead for Barack in yesterday's polling alone (the 5% number comes from tabulating the last 3 days.)
One of the issues motivating Colin Powell to appear on Meet the Press this week, and perhaps to endorse Barack, is the ugliness poor Obama has faced on the campaign trail.
A friend and ex-aide said that Gen Powell was extremely "upset" by the "vitriol, bile and prejudice" aimed at Mr Obama on the campaign trail.
I know what might calm Colin - by providing him some perspective.
"We've talked about this and I know it really bothers him and I'd expect him to talk about it," Col Lawrence Wilkerson, his former chief of staff, told The Telegraph.
I'd suggest a visit to the Churches of Jeremiah and Michael.
I am living in a world with two realities. On the one hand, there is the pile of polls that indicate that Barack Obama has a lead of a few points that, barring some game changing event of some significance, the current trend will solidify into an unavoidable outcome on November 4.
On the other hand comes the certainty that Barack Obama is unelectable.
I've not heard others say this, until today, when I was happy to read Dallas talk host Mark Davis write the same thing in an open letter to John McCain.
But it is my faith in something else that leaves me still thinking you can win: My belief that Barack Obama is unelectable.
I have faith that America will not turn in these serious times to a candidate so wholly unfit to lead the free world. Your campaign's flaws are playing out in an arena that will be more forgiving as Nov. 4 approaches.
I know that all of the fundamentals of this election scream out for a Democrat, it doesn't matter who, just a Democrat to win. But I don't see how someone so young, inexperienced and radical can get the nod of the American people.
The Obama ride has been historic and scintillating. His political gifts are vast and his campaign skillfully run. But when it comes time for voters to determine who will take the oath Jan. 20, an appreciable number will realize that showering him with adulation on the campaign trail is one thing; handing him the keys to the Oval Office is quite another.
This opinion is not unique to Barack Obama. I don't think anyone can win the presidency carrying around the burden of Barack's resume and Barack's friends - what I affectionately refer to as the Obamafia.
You will win not because your voters are actively thrilled with your agenda, but because they are sufficiently repelled by his.
Bring back Abe Lincoln for another run at the White House, but have the co-founders of his career be Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Michael Pfleger, and I'd put my money on his opponent.
This is every bit as valid a basis for victory, and you will then have a clean slate on which to write a legacy that I hope is more coherent and compelling than your campaign has been.
Then I ask myself - what if they don't know? What if voters just aren't conscious of who Barack is, and who is friends are, and how seedy his past associations are? If the desire for change is so great that they never bother to look? Sure, Reverend Wright had his time in the news cycle, but that was months ago. And the mainstream media is doing it's best to keep the truth about Bill Ayers from being explored.
I have no idea whether you should try to rhetorically wrap unreformed terrorist Bill Ayers around Mr. Obama's neck tonight. Frankly, I don't know if you can do it skillfully enough to defuse criticisms that you are bringing this sudden concern to the campaign too late.
On the one hand, it is impossible for Barack to win the presidency. On the other, it seems that events have conspired to make him unstoppable. I'm living in both worlds at the same time, trying to figure out which one is real.
Is the Obama campaign misrepresenting his strong ties to Bill Ayers? Of course. CNN, of all places, has actually done some reporting on this that adds some value.
This piece makes a couple of very important points. First, that Barack's political career was created by Bill Ayers, who, despite his utter lack of qualifications, made Obama Chairman of the Ayers controlled Annenberg Challenge. Second, that Barack was introduced to mentor Alice Waters at the home of Bill Ayers. A guy who happens to live in Obama's neighborhood.
Is telling the truth about Barack and his scummy friends enough to pull the current campaign narrative away from the clutches of the economy? Barely, but I think it is. The challenge remains how to educate Americans about the Obamafia. Right now, the job of educating the public about Bill Ayers et al seems to have been assigned only to Sarah Palin.
Campaigning through Republican strongholds of Gulfcoast Florida today, Palin continued her weekend theme of tying Obama to Ayers, who was a founder of the violent Weather Underground group blamed for several bombings during Vietnam War protests, when Obama was a child. Obama has denounced those activities.
Ideally, the theme of Barack's shady character would be pursued by a third party, not by the McCain campaign. It's hard for a campaign not to come across as shrill and speaking only from self-interest when attacking during the final days. But it's still good to hear discussion about the bad guys who Barack made close bonds with.
And in an interview with conservative New York Times columnist William Kristol published today, the Alaska governor suggested that there should be more discussion about Wright, who was Obama's pastor of 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Obama has denounced the pastor as well.
But when Kristol pressed Palin about Wright, she replied, "I don't know why that association isn't discussed more, because those were appalling things that that pastor had said about our great country... To me, that does say something about character. But, you know, I guess that would be a John McCain call on whether he wants to bring that up."
Which must be done. Jeremiah Wright is the only member of the Obamafia known to the general public, but the hot pursuit at the truth about Barack's dirty past never materialized. While it may be too late now to bring it up with power, McCain can't let November 4 arrive without voters knowing about who Barack is.
And I guess we’ll soon know McCain’s call on whether he wants to bring Wright up — perhaps at his debate with Obama Tuesday night.
I asked at the end of our conversation whether Palin, fresh off her own debate, had any advice for McCain. “I’m going to tell him the same thing he told me. I talked to him just a few minutes before I walked out there on stage. And he just said: ‘Have fun. Be yourself, and have fun.’ And Senator McCain can do the same.” She paused, and I was about to thank her for the interview, but she had one more thing to say. “Only maybe I’d add just a couple more words, and that would be: ‘Take the gloves off.’ ”
Tomorrow night should be very interesting. How does McCain damage Obama without doing as much damage to himself?
Yesterday I posted an ad from the Judicial Network that attempts to make the country aware of the Obamafia. It was ok. Here's an RNC version that's stronger, I think. But for this to be done with the viciousness it warrents, aren't we looking for a 527campaign of expensive truth telling?
Here's another attempt at making people aware of Barack's shaky associations. Not a particularly powerful one - but all attempts at getting the truth out are important. This is from the Judicial Network.
Where are the ads? The 527 created campaign that should be re-creating the Swift Boat attacks of four years ago - something Barack's shady past makes him far more vulnerable to than Kerry ever was. Is it possible that the big money GOP donors aren't that interested this time?
This ad demonstrates how easy it is to produce very effective ads on Barack - and Vets for Freedom is paying to run it in California, a Democratic stronghold!
The group, Vets for Freedom, has been active in several battleground states. But this is its first ad buy in California, which is considered to be firmly in Obama's column. His Republican rival, John McCain, is making only token campaign efforts in the state.
With the economic crisis controlling the news cycle, keeping the country reminded of how much people want "change," no matter how random or ill advised, McCain needs to educate about the Obamafia - the Reverends, the terrorist, the Briber, et al.
I fear they're planning a last minute attack campaign, which may be too late.
Shocked? I've been eagerly awaiting the moment for months!
McCain advisers say that they see “attack by association” as fair game now, arguing that Obama’s campaign has been using that technique to go after McCain. In particular, the Obama campaign has hammered McCain on the stump and in TV ads on the number of one-time lobbyists working for his campaign. (The McCain campaign is also angry about a Spanish-language TV ad that ties McCain to Rush Limbaugh on immigration, without ever saying that McCain took on Limbaugh and others to fight for comprehensive immigration reform.)
Why would any justification be required? Never more than now, with a candidate uniquely unqualified for the office, is it necessary to judge a potential president by the company he's chosen to keep!
“They played it one way, we played it another way,” said one of McCain’s top advisers, Mark Salter. “Now we’re both going to play it the same way.”
I'd expect the 527's to be taking care of the Obamafia lineup, but if McCain has to do it for himself, let's get to it guys.
McCain began that effort this week by linking Obama to Democrats Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, former executives at Fannie Mae. Johnson was named to head Obama’s vice presidential search before he stepped down amid controversy. Raines is a supporter of Obama (though evidently not an “adviser” as McCain charged at first).
Those guys are chump change. Brings us the big guns - Wright, Pfleger, Farakhan, Ayers, Dohrn, Rezko, etc.
I'm asked quite often how I can be so confident that Barack will lose this election. It is, after all, a year designed for the Democrats to win. Bush fatigue, War Fatigue and a bad economy provide all the structural impediments needed to block the return of the GOP to power.
In nominating Barack, however, Democrats have chosen a candidate who renders those advantages far weaker than they should be.
If his inexperience and liberalism aren't enough to beat him - which they wouldn't be in a year like this, his associations certainly work in combination with his other electoral challenges to render him unelectable.
Some folks find this ugly preacher amusing, just because he's a pro McCain bomb-thrower, instead of one of Obama's bigots. I think it's ugly drivel, to be shunned by one and all.
Pastor James David Manning, PHD has asked his flock to pray for Senator John McCain's running mate, Sarah Palin. Manning unleashed his venom on the media for favoring Barack Obama over McCain and has accused the press of playing "favorites".
Isn't the point of the controversy over Reverends Wright and Pfleger that there's something wrong with people who would associate with people like this?
Specifically, he goes on to blast them for reporting extensively on Palin's 17-year old daughter for getting pregnant out of wedlock.
In his sermon, Manning had some very unkind comments directed at Barack Obama's mother and the media in general.
Democrats make a big mistake by refusing to object to Barack's close association, and worse, helping to cover up the truth of that association, with people who make money and gain power by stomping on the nerve of race. All of them should be scorned.
Barack had a couple of tough weeks after his convention ended. He got a four point bounce from his convention, but McCain's bounce about doubled that, putting McCain into a small lead.
Mature Democrats would realize the numbers will be doing a lot of moving around over the next several weeks. Normal Democrats will blame rrrrrraaaaaaaccccccceeee!!!, their favorite demon, when things aren't going Barack's way.
Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius publicly considered the possibility that Sen. Barack Obama’s race might be a factor in this year’s presidential election during an appearance here Tuesday.
Of course it will be a factor.
“Have any of you noticed that Barack Obama is part African-American?” Sebelius asked in response to a question about why the election is so close. “That may be a factor. All the code language, all that doesn’t show up in the polls. And that may be a factor for some people.”
I suspect that race plays the same role for Barack that religion did for Romney, being a bald, Italian New Yorker did for Rudy, or being old does for McCain. People are biased.
The remark, delivered in the governor’s low key, folksy, out-from-behind-the-podium style, raised a couple chuckles but few eyebrows in the downtown Iowa City crowd, but Republicans took offense and responded in short order.
The impact of these biases can be minimized, or exaggerated, by the behavior of the candidate. Having partnerships with people like the Reverends Pfleger and Wright is the sort of thing that exacerbates concerns over whether one's otherness is a signal of a candidate whose views aren't mainstream.
“Governor Sebelius’s remarks in Iowa City today are hurtful and divisive at best,” said Republican Party of Iowa Executive Director Caleb Hunter in a press release. “With less than 50 days to go, Democrats will continue to try and change the focus away from the issues that will decide this election.”
One of the problems Democrats have is they've been sucking on the teet of the racial divide for so long that they can't separate fact from fiction any more.
The rest of Sebelius’ remarks in Iowa City stuck closely to the Obama campaign’s talking points.
The more Dems talk about race, the more Americans will grow concerned that being black might be Barack's most important attribute. In which case, race really will be a factor. Which is why Democrats with any brains never mention race.
Now that he's established a small lead in the presidential election, and VP nominee Sarah Palin has taken the world by storm, is John McCain in the driver's seat?
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows John McCain with 49% of the vote while Barack Obama attracts support from 46%. That is unchanged from yesterday and a complete reversal over the past week. Last Saturday, before McCain’s convention bounce had its full impact, Obama was up by three.
Nah. A three point lead does not a driver's seat make.
While I continue to predict with great confidence a McCain victory, the way things should turn out could be easily altered. A mistatement in a debate, a smoking gun from Juneau, a heart murmur... the possibilities are endless.
Barring that, I remain convinced that opinion of Barack will continue to slip lower as people start to learn more about him. I don't believe there is a single person in America who could get elected president today having had Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Mike Pfleger and Tony Rezko as his closest political allies.
Perhaps the nation has changed? I wrongly predicted that Bill Clinton would lose once the Jennifer Flowers scandal broke during primary season. Yet he was able to go on to the presidency and haunt the nation with his sexual insatiability, just as Flowers had forshadowed. Why didn't we listen, and what was the nature of my miscalculation?
America had moved beyond sexual impropriety as a disqualifier, perhaps. Or we had moved so much into the TV generation that on-screen appeal had become more important than personal qualities in selecting a leader.
Whatever the explanation, I was wrong - out of touch with the state of mind of the nation at that moment. Could it be that we have we evolved, or devolved, to such a point that voters would chose someone of unproven leadership qualities because of his aura, ignoring threads of anti-American feelings and illicit associations?
It could be. But thus far, polls are proving me to be right. While some - the educated class, the elite, who want desparately to follow their hearts - may be ready to throw the baby out with the bath water, the majority of normal, everyday folk, are not. It is the ones looked down upon by the educated class who are in possession of the wisdom.
In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the ChicagoSun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger—for a change of pace, a white Catholic preacher who has a close personal feeling for the man he calls (as does Obama) Minister Farrakhan.
Now that McCain has leveled the star-power playing field by tapping Palin, leaving the Obama campaign and its worshippers in a disoriented frenzy, it is easier for people to vote for a man proven to be of enormous character and leadership ability rather than the man who has proven himself very good at playing one.
Does anyone remember the philosophical differences between the political parties? It's not a bad idea for the GOP to use its convention as a reminder. Which Fred Thompson did last night.
Thompson - who ran for president this year and failed -- described presumptive Republican nominee John McCain's service to his country and laid into the Democrats, calling presidential nominee Barack Obama the "most liberal, most inexperienced nominee to ever run for president."
While it's debatable whether Barack comes in first in either of those categories, the debate represents a major vulnerability for Barack. Through the fall, as voters learn more about Barack's partnership with folks like Bill Ayers (co-founder of the Weathermen domestic terror organization) and Reverends Wright and Pfleger, the accusation should take on greater meaning.
