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 This blog by by radio talk host Todd Feinburg has been replaced by RealClearThinker.com.
ACORN is in danger of having the flow of endless taxpayer dollars going into its bank accounts slowed as a result of becoming the poster child for the mortgage meltdown. So they're fighting back.
John McCain’s presidential campaign has been on the attack against the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for its voter registration tactics as well as its ties to rival Barack Obama. Today, Acorn fired back at McCain, accusing the Arizona senator of erratic and misleading behavior.
Personally, this nasty release only makes me hate ACORN more.
“ACORN to McCain: Have You Lost That Loving Feeling?” reads a release by the organization this afternoon, noting that McCain was the keynote speaker at a Feb. 20, 2006 Miami rally cosponsored by Acorn to build support for a comprehensive immigration reform bill co-sponsored by McCain and Sen. Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts. The bill never passed Congress.
I hope they never get another dime.
In a statement, Bertha Lewis, chief organizer of Acorn, sharply attacked McCain, suggesting the 72-year-old senator is “erratic”—a word that Republicans believe Democratic opponents use against McCain to stir up concerns about his age.
McCain, of course, should have never gone near them. But he shouldn't have been pushing amnesty for illegals either.
“Maybe it is out of desperation that Sen. McCain has forgotten that he was for Acorn before he was against Acorn; he was for immigration reform before he was against immigration reform; and he was a maverick before he became erratic,” Lewis said.
Erratic, by the way, is code for old. Stop the bigotry.
I've always felt that, baring some major upheaval or campaign mishap, Barack Obama was unelectable. My belief that he was unelectable was based on the expectation that voters would have the relevant information, and that it would be provided by a Swift Boat style information campaign. For some reason, that campaign has never materialized.
Independent political groups, some of which made big splashes in the 2004 race, are playing reduced roles in this year's presidential campaign. With three-plus weeks to go, there's less money pouring into nasty negative television advertising from outside groups than in 2004, and much of the activity is directed toward narrow niches in the electorate.
Where are they? is what I'd like to know. Barack is much more vulnerable to this sort of attack than Kerry was, and the Swift Boaters managed to beat Kerry. Are you telling me that we're going to reach November 4 without people understanding that Reverend Wright wasn't a unique character in Barack's past - that he's part of a radical clique who made Barack a political player in Chicago politics?
The 527 was the weapon of choice for many activists in 2004, when major donors wrote multimillion-dollar checks to underwrite advertising and organizing efforts of groups that spent a combined $434 million on federal campaigns, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan research group. As of July this year, 527s had spent about $156 million, the center reports. New reports are due later this month.
Some believe that a shift in how money is raised for presidential elections explains the lack of an organized effort like we saw four years ago.
The highest-profile 527s in 2004 were the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which spent about $22 million attacking Democrat John F. Kerry's record in the Vietnam War; Progress for America, which spent about $45 million, much of it on a memorable ad in which a girl, whose mother was killed in the 9/11 terrorist attacks, praised President Bush; and The Media Fund and America Coming Together, a related group that spent about $136 million on TV ads and field operations in support of Kerry.
But it seems that there must be a different feeling about this election amongst the big money donors and conservative activists - perhaps a dislike of John McCain?
After McCain-Feingold banned unlimited large donations, or soft money, by corporations and labor unions, multimillionaire activists stepped in and underwrote most of the independent groups that were active in 2004.
That was also the year the Internet began to transform political fund-raising, which Obama has taken to new levels of success. "In the soft-money years, a lot of big checks written by corporations weren't given particularly willingly," said Jim Jordan, a Democratic political consultant who played a leading role in America Coming Together and The Media Fund four years ago.
"McCain-Feingold didn't take money out of politics but it got powerful politicians out of the loop of raising big checks," Jordan said.
Lay some "God-damn America," on the American people, combined with some "I've never been proud of my country," with some Bill Ayers and Rev Pfleger and "I'm not going to put that pin on my chest," and I still say that Barack is unelectable - even with the financial meltdown.
The economy needs to be grabbed as an issue by one of the candidates - and it should be John McCain. The void in leadership that it highlights presents an incredible opportunity to play president.
It is Obama, though, who is seizing the moment.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama plans to give a speech on the financial crisis and issue a ``rescue plan'' for the middle class, his campaign said.
``Our economy is facing its greatest uncertainty in over 70 years,'' the Illinois senator's campaign said in an e-mail to reporters this morning. ``Families who saw their incomes decline by $2,000 in the economic `expansion' from 2000 to 2007 now risk seeing deeper income losses.''
His campaign didn't release details about the new proposals. Obama, 47, is due to speak at 1:30 p.m. local time today in Toledo, Ohio. It's the only public event he has scheduled in the next few days as he prepares for his final debate with Republican nominee John McCain on Oct. 15.
Read down one or two posts to see what McCain should say.
Polls indicate that the McCain campaign's attacks on Barack's character - mostly accurate and justified explorations of his shady, and radical, past - may be starting to have some effect. If McCain can find a way to seize the energy of the bad economy, I think he's still got a good chance to pull this out.
Yesterday, Rasmussen continued an incremental daily move toward McCain, now showing Obama's lead at 6%.
Obama leads by fourteen percentage points among women while McCain leads by two among men. Both men lead by an 86% to 12% margin among members of their own party while Obama holds an eight point advantage among unaffiliated voters.
Zogby has the race at 4%, and the new Gallup poll shows the Obama lead at 5% (it ran 11% on consecutive days last week), with new likely voter numbers pulling it to 4%.
Obama's current advantage is slightly less when estimating the preferences of likely voters, which Gallup will begin reporting on a regular basis between now and the election. Gallup is providing two likely voter estimates to take into account different turnout scenarios.
The first likely voter model is based on Gallup's traditional likely voter assumptions, which determine respondents' likelihood to vote based on how they answer questions about their current voting intention and past voting behavior. According to this model, Obama's advantage over McCain is 50% to 46% in Oct. 9-11 tracking data.
The second likely voter estimate is a variation on the traditional model, but is only based on respondents' current voting intention. This model would take into account increased voter registration this year and possibly higher turnout among groups that are traditionally less likely to vote, such as young adults and racial minorities (Gallup will continue to monitor and report on turnout indicators by subgroup between now and the election). According to this second likely voter model, Obama has a 51% to 45% lead over McCain.
Is McCain losing this race, or is he getting beat by monumental events, the political equivalent of acts of God? McCain's definitely had his shortcomings despite the financial meltdown.
Yesterday on This Week, George Will quoted General MacArthur to offer an explanation of McCain's failures up to this point.
"The history of the failure of war can almost be summed up in two words: too late. * Too late in comprehending the deadly purpose of a potential enemy. * Too late in realizing the mortal danger. * Too late in preparedness. * Too late in uniting all possible forces for resistance. * Too late in standing with one's friends."
Perhaps. But the reality is that while all forces are lined up in favor of a win for Democrats, McCain is still running just a few points behind Barack. With some better arguments, with a better theme, and one good debate performance this week, things could turn John's way.
We still need a story from McCain that people can latch onto - a compelling narrative about where the country is at, what is needed to fix it, and why he's the man. They've spent tons of time knocking down Barack, but not much effort has been put into elevating McCain to presidential stature.
McCain says that he'll come out swinging at the next debate.
Republican John McCain dialed back personal attacks on Democrat Barack Obama over the weekend, but vowed he would "whip" his opponent's "you know what" when they clash this week in their final presidential debate.
Good idea.
McCain has lost ground in polls with three weeks remaining until election day, struggling under the heavy burden of his association with Republican President George W. Bush and the blame that attaches to the incumbent Republicans for the crumbling financial markets.
Sen. John McCain's 2006 demand for regulatory action on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have prevented current financial crisis, as HUMAN EVENTS learned from the letter shown in full text below.
McCain's letter -- signed by nineteen other senators -- said that it was "...vitally important that Congress take the necessary steps to ensure that [Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac]...operate in a safe and sound manner.[and]..More importantly, Congress must ensure that the American taxpayer is protected in the event that either...should fail."
Sen. Obama did not sign the letter, nor did any other Democrat.
I've been pondering which way Barack goes if he gets power. Is he a committed leftist who will seek to realize John Lennon's "Imagine" vision, or will he abandon his friends as soon as they've gone home from the inaugural galas?
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace
Barack's story is one of a lust for power. Was his purpose the radical agenda, or was the radical infrastructure just the railroad track he chose to put his private car on? I'm inclined to assume the latter.
Imagine no possessions I wonder if you can No need for greed or hunger A brotherhood of man Imagine all the people Sharing all the world
If you believe anything Barack says, then the above video is very scary. History, though, shows that he says whatever works.
Does he really love ACORN, or are they his food of necessity? Since there's no way to find out but to elect him, we must hope that we never learn the answer.
This is so well written, and so accurate. Visit Lilac Rose for more.
Fighting a Cold Civil War
That phrase came to me a couple of weeks ago when I was thinking about the elections and all the anger going on...the whole blue vs. red thing. The phrase came up again this morning when I was discussing all this with my co-workers. So I Googled it...lots of other pundits and bloggers were writing about this at least a year ago. Maybe I read one of those articles and just didn't remember, but the phrase stuck in my mind. Anyway, I think it's accurate.
As far as I'm concerned, the differences are irreconcilable. One part of the country wants a socialist, European-style country. The other part wants a country based on free-enterprise and the Constitution. One side has disdain for orthodox Judeo-Christian faiths, whereas the other side embraces or at least tolerates those beliefs. One part believes that if we just let down our defenses, everything would be peace and lovebeads. The other part knows we live in a dangerous world and that defense is essential.
However this election turns out, there will be turmoil. If Obama wins, a large part of the country will feel angry and powerless against the will of the left leaning blue states, the news media, Hollywood and academia. (In fact, they already feel that way, I assure you.) They will believe that ACORN created enough false voter registrations to put Obama over the top. If McCain wins, the left will riot and claim, "The Diebold machines were hacked!" The blue states, the news media, Hollywood and academia will resent that the will of the "dumb hicks" in flyover country overruled that of their "betters". And we will hear the cries of, "Racism! Racism!" ad nauseam.
I hate to sound all doom-and-gloom, but I see absolutely no solution to this. Or at least no solution in which America stays in the same form it is now. I hope I'm wrong about that. I guess we'll see.
Where was Barack born? In response to many requests for more news on the controvery, here's an update.
On September 29, 2008 Pennsylvania attorney Philip J. Berg, filed a response to a motion to dismiss by defendant Barack Obama who was joined in his effort to quash Berg's lawsuit by the Democratic National Committee, claiming it has no standing to proceed.
Berg argued in the brief response that he has provided the precedents which establish the standing and petitioned US District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to pursue the case. In his Sept. 29 filing, Berg said: "Plaintiff served discovery in way of Admissions and Request for Production of Documents, on Defendants on September 15, 2008 and has attempted to obtain verification of Obama's eligibility through subpoenas to the government entities and the hospital's in Hawaii. To date, Plaintiffs and two of (2) the locations, which subpoenas were served upon, refused to honor the subpoenas.
"For the above aforementioned reasons, Plaintiff respectfully request Defendants and the Democratic National Committee's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) be denied and order immediate discovery (the unsigned order requiring Obama to produce..." within three (3) days{
1. Obama's "vault" version (certified copy of his "original" long version) birth certificate; and 2. a certified copy of Obama's Certificate of Citizenship; 3. a certified copy of Obama's oath of allegiance."
The certified copy of the citizen of the world's "oath of allegiance" to the United Sates is a document attesting to the fact that the newly "naturalized" citizen (usually an immigrant who has just been granted citizenship) or for native born Americans who have forfeited or otherwise surrendered their citizenship, and have requested reinstatement at their majority, usually 18, has sworn allegiance to the United States and its Constitution.
In this filing, Berg argued that he has legal standing to bring suit against Obama—and the DNC—pursuant to 5 USC §702; 524 US 11 (1998); 8 USC §148(b); 5 USC §552(B); 28 USC §1343 and also standing pursuant to Federal Question Jurisdiction. Berg rightfully claimed he has suffered "...the kind of injury that Congress expected might be addressed under the statute..." since the issue of where Obama was born with conflicting birth certificates and conflicting claims of what hospital Obama was born in—with Obama's own family members claiming he was born at three different hospitals in two countries.
Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat and veteran of the civil rights movement, says the negative tone of the Republican presidential campaign reminds him of the hateful atmosphere that segregationist Gov. George Wallace fostered in Alabama in the 1960s.
Republican candidate John McCain on Saturday called Lewis' remarks "shocking and beyond the pale."
This is not good for the Obama campaign, of course. He doesn't want to Americans to think that putting him into the White House would be like putting Jesse Jackson there. But liberals, who have been trained to blame racism whenever they're unhappy, are too dumb to keep their mouths shut.
The Obama campaign said the Illinois senator doesn't believe McCain or his policy criticism is at all comparable to Wallace and his segregationist policies.
In a statement issued Saturday, Lewis said McCain and running mate Sarah Palin were "sowing the seeds of hatred and division, and there is no need for this hostility in our political discourse." He noted that Wallace also ran for president.
"George Wallace never threw a bomb. He never fired a gun, but he created the climate and the conditions that encouraged vicious attacks against innocent Americans who were simply trying to exercise their constitutional rights," said Lewis, who is black. "Because of this atmosphere of hate, four little girls were killed on Sunday morning when a church was bombed in Birmingham, Alabama."
One of the seminal events of the civil rights movement was the bombing of Birmingham's 16th Street Baptist Church on Sept. 15, 1963. Four black girls died in the blast, which was linked to a Ku Klux Klan group.
All of this controversy, perhaps aided by a phone call from the Obama campaign, led the race bater to de-bate.
Late Saturday, Lewis released another statement saying it was not his "intention or desire" to directly compare McCain or Palin to Wallace.
While Barack says he never worked for ACORN in any capacity, might he be lying, or, perhaps, parsing - working with as opposed to for?
"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them).
Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for State Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."
Discredited Republican voter-suppression guru Ken Blackwell is attacking Barack Obama with naked lies about his supposed connection to ACORN.
• Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer. • Fact:ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee. • Fact:ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.
For me, Barack's denial is confession enough, as it creates more questions than answers. Why is he so horrified to be linked to ACORN - Why is that so bad? And if it's such a disgusting organization, why did he visit each year to train, and why did he represent them?
Barack learned an important campaign lesson from the Jeremiah Wright scandal - never tell the truth about your radical past. Since then, he's pretended not to know Michael Pfleger, one of his self-avowed personal advisers, he's pretended not to really know Bill Ayers (just a guy in my neighborhood), and now he's struggling to keep ACORN at some arbitrary distance to avoid disclosing the truth.
Fight over details and semantics all you want. These are Barack's People.
Which explains why, when he wanted help with voter registration, he turned to ACORN.
U.S. Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign paid more than $800,000 to an offshoot of ACORN, the liberal Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now for services the Democrat’s campaign says it mistakenly misrepresented in federal reports.
Who cares whether he worked for them when we know they work for him?
Two challengers for an Indiana congressional seat have agreed to be hooked up to lie detectors during a debate, but an official with the incumbent's party dismisses the idea as "bizarre."
Was Bill Ayers a critical ally in getting your political career launched?
Ninth District Republican Party Chairman Larry Shickles on Wednesday proposed the political polygraphs for Democratic Rep. Baron Hill, GOP challenger Mike Sodrel and Libertarian candidate Eric Schansberg. The three are scheduled to debate Oct. 21, but an official with a debate co-sponsor said lie detectors won't be included.
Is ACORN a force for good or evil?
Shickles, in a letter sent Tuesday to 9th District Democratic Chairman Mike Jones, suggested that the candidates be hooked up to lie detecting machines at the Oct. 21 event or a separate debate.
"While this format may be unusual, I feel strongly that voters need to be able to make a clear decision without all the usual spin," Shickles wrote.
Is your wife a radical who has very bitter feelings towards her country? And you?
Sodrel's campaign said he would agree to the proposal, and Schansberg said he also would agree to wear a lie detector. Hill declined to comment.
Jones said having a lie detector debate "just seems pretty bizarre."
Who is better qualified to be president, you or John McCain?
"Polygraphs have their use in law enforcement, but I don't see them fitting in a political debate," Jones said. "There are plenty of avenues for finding out each candidate's true position. The votes of both Baron Hill and Mike Sodrel are on record with Congress."
Jones is right, of course - there are plenty of avenues for finding out what candidates truly believe, but those avenues take lots of time and effort - sifting through the historical record. Then, however, it's very hard to get people to take notice. A much better system would be if the candidates would just tell us. Then the blogosphere could spend alot more time at the beach.
Please submit your questions for Barack while he's wired to the polygraph.
McCain is in the unique position of having to calm down his crowds, protecting Barack from folks angry over the possibility of Obama winning the election.
In Lakeville, Minn., this evening, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., found himself confronting some of the anger at and fear of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., that has reared its head at his campaign rallies just as his campaign and the RNC have begun waging a character assault on Obama, painting him as connected to terrorists foreign and domestic, a "liar" who is hiding his true self.
"Frankly we're, we're scared," one voter told McCain. "We're scared of an Obama presidency. And I'll tell you why. I don't want to bring a child up in a country uh where -- I love this country, we'll bring our child up no matter what -- but I'm concerned about someone that cohorts with domestic terrorists such as Ayers."
Said McCain, "I want to be president of the United States and I obviously I do not want Senator Obama to be. But I have to tell you, I have to tell you, he is a decent person. And a person that you do not have to be scared as president of the United States."
The crowd booed.
Turning the focus of the election back to Barack is the purpose of the Ayers comments and ads. While Democrats will call this smears, the focus is a legitimate one. Without a track record of leadership, the questions asked about Barack's judgment are important ones.
All week, supporters of the GOP ticket have yelled ugly accusations about Obama as McCain and running mate Gov. Sarah Palin proceeded down a path where Obama was painted as someone sinister.
"Treason!" "Terrorist!" "Kill him!" audience members yelled when McCain or Palin invoked Obama's name.
The McCain-Palin campaign today defended these comments as those of "real Americans."
Tonight McCain tried to defuse the volatility.
Voters, as they become more savvy about Barack's connection to radical individuals (Wright, Pfleger, Ayers, Alinsky, Farrakhan, etc) and groups (Acorn, CAC, etc), will naturally grow more concerned about his own radicalism.
Said another voter, "The people here in Minnesota want to see a real fight this next time in your debate."
McCain said, "we want a fight and I will fight. But we will be respectful. I admire Senator Obama and his accomplishments. I will respect him."
Again, the crowd booed.
"I want everyone to be respectful," McCain said. "And let's make sure we are. Because that's the way politics should be conducted in America. So lets -- make sure -- you're all respectful. I don't meant that has to reduce your ferocity. I just mean it's gotta be respectful. OK? And I would say that 99 and forty-four one-hundredths of every person who's come to my town hall meeting has been respectful. I am proud you're here and I'm grateful for it and I appreciate your enthusiasm."
Barack is a radical - that is clear. The unknown is whether his ideology will remain relevant if he assumes the presidency, or if he will leave his radicalism, and his radical friends, behind in order to be a successful president.
Another woman stood and said, "I got to ask you a question. I don't believe in -- I can't trust Obama. I have read about him. And he's not, he's not – he's an Arab. He's not."
Shaking his head no, McCain grabbed the microphone away from her.
"No ma'am," McCain said. "No ma'am. No ma'am. He's a, he's a, he's a decent family man, citizen that I just happen to have disagreements with on fundamental issues. And that's what this campaign is all about, he is not. Thank you."
I am constantly aggravated by how the media writes about Barack's association with Bill Ayers. Here's one of thousands of such examples, taken from today's Boston Globe in an op-ed from Scot Lehigh, a sometimes fair commentator:
With things moving Obama's way, the McCain-Palin campaign has apparently decided its best shot at beating Obama is to try to delegitimize him on character issues. That explains Palin's ludicrous attempt to turn Obama's regrettable but distant relationship with former violent extremist William Ayers into a case of "palling around with terrorists."
Are these people deliberately misrepresenting the Obama/Ayers relationship, are they too lazy too look into it, or are they so biased they can't see the obvious? If the connection with Ayers is regrettable while being distant, why not look into the powerful evidence that it's not actually distant?
At age 34 Barack was made the Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a group founded by Bill Ayers. Barack had no experience in the education business, and was just a couple of years out of law school in the early stages of his uneventful law career. Why in the world did Barack get this gig? And wasn't the Annenberg credential essential to his run for the senate the following year?
Even the right leaning Union Leader of Manchester, New Hampshire repeats the cliche argument about Ayers' relationship to Barack.
Barack Obama's political career was launched in the home of William Ayers, a left-wing terrorist who spent the 1970s running from the FBI. Ayers was a co-founder of the Weather Underground, a domestic terror organization that bombed the Pentagon, police departments and the homes of government officials. In a 2001 New York Times interview, Ayers said, "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."
Not only did Ayers host the house party that launched Obama's political career, but he and Obama served on a nonprofit board together for three years.
The point isn't that Ayers did a fundraiser for Barack, or that they were on the board of the Woods Foundation together. The point is to ask - how did these things come to pass? Did Ayers hold the Obama fundraiser because he had seen Barack in the neighborhood? Did they work on the Woods board by accident? These events are significant in that they indicate a pre-existing relationship between the two men, one that runs deeper than Barack's brush-offs own up to. News organizations that are doing their jobs would smell the rat, and pursue it, right off the bat.
Imagine if John McCain's career had been launched at the home of a right-wing terrorist such as Timothy McVeigh. Do you think the media would be shrugging their shoulders?
Imagine if John McCain were closely associated with a right-wing group (like ACORN) that state officials say was actively committing widespread voter fraud running up to this election. Would the media ignore it?
Some bloggers (such as Gateway Pundit, and The World According to Chester) are doing the legwork that journalists in the mainstream media aren't interested in doing, placing Barack at Columbia while Bill Ayers was also living in New York City, and providing a possible link through professor Edward Said.
Barack and Michelle Obama attended several events in the Arab community with anti-Israel speakers including this event in May 1998 where Professor Edward Said gave the keynote speech. (Bill Baar's West Side)
Well, wouldn't you know... Pro-Palestinian Edward Said and Bill Ayers were also very close friends. In fact they were so close that Said wrote a forward to one of Ayer's anti-American books.
It was Barack's modus operandi when in New York to hang around with radicals.
Barack Obama admitted in his first book that he would "carefully" seek out radical and Marxist friends while at Columbia University:
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets."
It seems obvious that the inexperienced and unqualified Obama would not have been hired for an important education activist position, where he would have the power to dole out millions of dollars in grants to activist groups, if Ayers didn't have the specific goal of helping him launch a political career. Perhaps he had an arrangement with Ayers similar to the one he would make later with his leader in the state senate.
“You have the power to elect a US senator,” Obama told Emil Jones, Democratic leader of the Illinois state senate. Jones looked at the ambitious young man smiling before him and asked, teasingly: “Do you know anybody I could make a US senator?”
According to Jones, Obama replied: “Me.” It was his first, audacious step in a spectacular rise from the murky political backwaters of Springfield, the Illinois capital.
Jones started handing legislation in progress to Barack - bills where much of the work had already been done - so that he could take credit for them when they passed.
FREDDOSO: Jones helped Obama — of course, the relationship between the two, according to "Dreams From My Father," goes back even farther. They had run into each other when Obama was a community organizer. But Jones was able to help Obama become a senator. The way he put it himself in The New York Times was that Obama was a smart enough guy, but he needed somebody to give him credibility. And that's what Jones was able to give him. He was the Senate Democratic leader when Obama started and became the Senate president when Democrats took over the Illinois Senate in 2003. He made Obama the chairman of the Senate Health Committee, which put him in charge of issues affecting the Service Employees International Union, which had over 110,000 members in Illinois at the time, and that helped Obama to win the Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate in 2004.
O'REILLY: All right. So he basically — he basically handed Barack Obama, and I mean handed him, a tremendous amount of power for a young state senator.
FREDDOSO: He also gave him — right, he gave him popular bills that, in many cases, Obama hadn't written, but he gave them to Obama to carry on the floor. The great example was the 1998 ethics bill that Obama — I think often exaggerates his role in — but that was a bill that Jones designed specifically.
O'REILLY: OK. So Jones put him front and center, allowed Barack Obama to build up his credibility and resume...
FREDDOSO: Yes.
Perhaps mainstream media folk, who are paid to contemplate and investigate such things, might look into whether Barack had formed a similar partnership with Bill Ayers. There are enough Ayers Deniers out there already.
The economic meltdown has totally rewritten this campaign year in favor of Democrats - even Barack. How bad is it for the GOP? Al Franken leads for the first time in the Minnesota senate race.
As the electoral landscape continues to look bleak for Republicans, Al Franken has pulled ahead of Republican incumbent Norm Coleman in Minnesota’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race. Support for Independent candidate Dean Barkley could have a significant impact on the final outcome of the race.
Franken, who is one of the most unlikeable people on the planet, has a lead similar to Barack's 7% advantage over McCain in the tradionally blue state.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey shows Franken with 43% of the vote, Coleman with 37%, and Barkley with 17%. This is the largest advantage Franken has enjoyed all year. A month ago, Coleman was up by a point.
The Democrat controlled congress is already a joke - things will get dramatically less funny if Al joins.
Franken leads by fourteen points among women but trails by a single point among men.... Coleman is seeking a second term in the Senate and has been under the 50% level of support in nine-out-of-ten polls conducted this year. That’s always a sign that an incumbent is potentially vulnerable. He was first elected to the Senate six years ago, with just under 50% of the vote.
Nationally, Barack is up 5% over McCain in the Rasmussen poll:
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows Barack Obama attracting 50% of the vote while John McCain earns 45%. Those figures are unchanged from yesterday and mark the fifteenth straight day that Obama’s support has ranged from 50% to 52% while McCain has been at 44% of 45%.
The Zogby daily tracker has Barack leading by the same margin.
