Obama Finally Quits Wright's Church

After spending 20 years in a church pastored by the minister of hate, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Obama finally decided to do what most people of sound judgment would have done much, much sooner -- today Obama resigned as a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

If Obama's politically motivated attack of sound judgement wasn't so pathetic, it might be funny.

Obama didn't see fit to resign from this radical church when Wright called on God to "damn America":

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Obama didn't see fit to resign from this radical church when Wright preached that we support state terrorism against the Palestinians:

After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Obama didn't see fit to resign from this radical church when Wright said we invented HIV:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies.

No, what finally caused Obama to exercise the judgment to leave this radical church was a surrogate spiritual mentor preaching a sermon mocking Hillary Clinton.

You can watch the racist sermon in the following video:





Obama's exercises such poor judgment, and has the audacity to hope we won't find it peculiar that he argues he should be president because of his judgment.

Democrats Try To Make Up With Florida And Michigan

The Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee will meet today to undo the Party's disenfranchisement of Florida's and Michigan's Democrats.





Now that Obama leads Hillary by about 200 delegates, the Rules and Bylaws Committee is likely to compromise and, following the Republican Party's example the Democrats should have adopted last year, agree to seat half of the Florida and Michigan delegates.

Hillary is pushing hard to seat all the delegates:

Counting the two states' votes could bring Clinton close enough to Obama's total among pledged delegates which in turn could help persuade the party's "superdelegates" that she is the more electable general election candidate.

The Democrat's fight over the Florida and Michigan Delegates may not be resolved today. In March, Hillary threatened to fight all the way to the Democrat's national convention:

"I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don't resolve it, we'll resolve it at the convention -- that's what credentials committees are for."

Al-Qaeda Facing Setbacks Globally

CIA Director Michael V. Hayden says Al-Qaeda essentially defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia and on the defensive throughout much of the rest of the world, including in its presumed haven along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border:

In a strikingly upbeat assessment, the CIA chief cited major gains against al-Qaeda's allies in the Middle East and an increasingly successful campaign to destabilize the group's core leadership.

While cautioning that al-Qaeda remains a serious threat, Hayden said Osama bin Laden is losing the battle for hearts and minds in the Islamic world and has largely forfeited his ability to exploit the Iraq war to recruit adherents. Two years ago, a CIA study concluded that the U.S.-led war had become a propaganda and marketing bonanza for al-Qaeda, generating cash donations and legions of volunteers.

[. . .]

"On balance, we are doing pretty well," he said, ticking down a list of accomplishments: "Near strategic defeat of al-Qaeda in Iraq. Near strategic defeat for al-Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. Significant setbacks for al-Qaeda globally -- and here I'm going to use the word 'ideologically' -- as a lot of the Islamic world pushes back on their form of Islam," he said.

Hayden's assessment is certainly good news and further evidence that the strategy President Bush implemented after September 11, -- going on the offense and taking the fight to the terrorists -- is working.

Hayden also warned against complacency and excessive optimism:

Despite the optimistic outlook, he said he is concerned that the progress against al-Qaeda could be halted or reversed because of what he considers growing complacency and a return to the mind-set that existed before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"We remain worried, and frankly, I wonder why some other people aren't worried, too," he said. His concern stems in part from improved intelligence-gathering that has bolstered the CIA's understanding of al-Qaeda's intent, he said.

"The fact that we have kept [Americans] safe for pushing seven years now has got them back into the state of mind where 'safe' is normal," he said. "Our view is: Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours."

"Safe is hard-won, every 24 hours," well said.

Tensed Verbs - McCain Campaign Conference Call

My esteemed RedState colleague, absentee posted a fine write-up about the conference call fight a bunch of reporters had, on behalf of Obama, with Senator Jon Kyl and McCain's senior foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann:

The call was regarding a small dust-up with the Obama camp over a statement Senator McCain made on the campaign trail yesterday. "I can tell you that it is succeeding. I can look you in the eye and tell you it's succeeding. We have drawn down to pre-surge levels. Basra, Mosul and now Sadr city are quiet and it's long and it's hard and it's tough and there will be setbacks."

The Obama campaign is making this out to be a significant error in the facts.

[. . .]

Most of the questions on the call related to, and excessively used the phrase "verb tenses." Reporters pressed for an admission of guilt, and the campaign firmly continued to point out that the underlying point Senator McCain made was fundamentally correct: that the surge has worked, and that as a result, surge troops have been assigned to return home.

Scheunemann made the excellent point that Senator Obama claims this kind of politicking is obsolete, that it is more important to focus on the heart of an issue than the superficial tit for tat of campaigns past. Yet here he is, sending out John Kerry (John Kerry, Senator? Seriously?) to latch onto "verb tense" to try and paint McCain as not in possession of the facts about Iraq.

Still, the point was pressed again and again. And again. Verb tenses. Verb Tenses? Verb Tenses! Verb tenses?! Verb. Ten. Ses. The press seems eager to join the Obama campaign's point of view, which basically amounts to "nevermind about the surge, what is today's date?"

At Politico, Ben Smith also covered the call.

I wasn't going to add my two cents to this, but I can't get over my impression of just how far the mainstream media reporters went to support Obama in this conference call fight.

For example, because Kyl and Scheunemann, defended McCain, Michael Dobbs decided to give the campaign three Pinocchios.

I've been on many campaign conference calls during this election and this is the first time that I found any mainstream media reporter to be as disrespectful or as darn right insulting as I did Mr. Dobbs.

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press was able to ask polite questions and write a balanced article. So did Scott Helman. I don't understand what got into Mr. Dobbs.

I also wonder why it required dogged attention from bloggers, before Mr. Dobbs decided Obama's Auschwitz "error" merited any mainstream media coverage. And why the mainstream media still, after more than five years, says nothing about Obama's Treblinka "error."

I'm fond of referring to the mainstream media as the biased media wing of the Democrat Party, but still.

Campaign Admits Obama Would Ignore Commanders And Facts During Potential Iraq Trip

I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. -- Obama on Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08

Yesterday, on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs said that Obama would go to Iraq to see how he can withdraw:

MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski: "And, Robert, is your candidate - I mean, just this whole Iraq thing is now being revitalized a bit because of the book. But is your candidate going to go to Iraq? Is that in the plans?"

Gibbs: "Well, as he said yesterday Mika, it's under discussion about going overseas and going to Iraq sometime between now and the campaign.

You know, I don't think we'll be taking that trip with John McCain because as Senator Obama said yesterday, the work that the men and women in our military are doing over there is just far too important for them to be props in some sort of political stunt or photo-op.

You know, what they're doing over there is separated from their families, giving for their country. It's truly, truly amazing, and I think we would want to go over there and talk to them and see what sort of difficulties they're facing and see how it is that we can begin to carefully remove them and carefully bring them back to their families and bring them back to the United States."

You can watch it at the 2:00 mark in this video.

Why has Obama decided not to remain open to facts demonstrating the progress achieved by the revised strategy President Bush adopted in 2007?

In February 2008, Obama told CBS' Harry Smith that the President has to be "mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say:"

CBS' Harry Smith: "If you are to be elected president and your commanders on the ground there and your Secretary of Defense said, 'Hold back; you can't be pulling these people out; we're going to create a civil war and a bloodbath,' what would you do?"

Obama: "My job as commander in chief is to keep the American people safe. But I firmly believe that we have to send a signal to the Iraqis that it is time to withdraw. We will not have a permanent base there. We will not have a permanent occupation there."

Smith: "Even if - "

Obama: "Within those constraints - "

Smith: "Even if it meant the beginning of civil war?"

Obama: "No, no, no. Within those constraints, I think there is going to be some flexibility. And obviously I would consult with commanders. We have to be mindful of the situation on the ground and what the commanders say." (CBS' "The Early Show," 2/4/08)

Last month, Obama said he would be stupid not to listen to General Petraeus:

I will listen to General Petraeus given the experience that he has accumulated over the last several years. It would be stupid of me to ignore what he has to say. (Fox's "Fox News Sunday," 4/27/08)

President Bush Loosens Up

President Bush seems a little more relaxed lately:

Obama Reconsiders Iraq

"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting told The Associated Press in an interview, noting that the Illinois senator's last trip to Iraq came before the military buildup that is credited with curbing violence.

"He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time," the Arizona senator added. "If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."

It started on Sunday, when Senator Lindsey Graham noted Obama's long absence from Iraq and floated the idea that Obama and McCain should go to Iraq together to be briefed by Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

Asked whether he'd be willing to take such a trip, McCain told the AP: "Sure. It would be fine."

Obama's initial reaction was derisive. He called the proposed fact-finding trip "nothing more than a political stunt."




Feeling the heat over the criticism that he is not open to considering the facts which may not support his view, Obama announced yesterday that he is now considering a trip to Iraq.

McCain reacted positively to Obama's changed position, saying he is “confident” a trip to Iraq will convince Obama that victory is possible:

“I certainly was…glad to hear that Senator Obama is now quote ‘considering’ a trip to Iraq. It’s long overdue. It’s been 871 days since he was there,” McCain said at a nearly 30 minute media availability Wednesday afternoon, after slamming Obama on the issue at an earlier town hall in Nevada. “I’m confident that when he goes he will then change his position on the conflict in Iraq because he will see the success that has been achieved on the ground…Presidents have to listen and learn. Presidents have to make judgments no matter how unpopular or popular they may be. So the success in Iraq is undeniable.”

[. . .]

“The facts on the ground, I’m sure would convince any objective observer. That’s why I say that I’m encouraged that he’s going because the facts on the ground are very, very clear. The statistics are there. Facts are facts,” McCain told reporters. “And I’m confident that he would certainly…recognize that this strategy is succeeding, and we have drawn down troops to the pre-surge level and we will come home with honor and victory and there will be stability in the region and that will make for a long term benefit to the United States and our national security interests.”

Millbank Continues The Post's War Against Feith

Dana Milbank continues the Washington Post's campaign against Doug Feith's new book, War and Decision: Inside the Pentagon at the Dawn of the War on Terrorism.

The paper's effort to diminish Feith's book began two weeks ago when Thomas E. Ricks and Karen DeYoung wrote a hit piece on Feith's book without waiting for the book to be released or bothering taking the time to read the unedited manuscript of an embargoed book of some 528 pages less than six hours before they managed to obtain less than six hours before they went to press.

It seems a little unethical that Ricks and DeYoung forget to mention that they both have books being sold, books which take a bit of a different view of things than the three Post writers' versions of what is contained in Feith's book.

I feel at least as qualified as DeYoung, Milbank or Ricks to write about Feith's new book. Even though, like the three of them, I have not yet read War and Decision. At least I took the time to talk to Feith about the book and his experiences before writing this. Earlier today I was fortunate enough to participate in a conference call with Doug Feith and other bloggers including some RedState colleagues. As Pejman Yousefzadeh posted, we engaged in an interesting hour-long discussion about the book.

One of my colleagues attended the book launch event the Center for Strategic and International Studies ("CSIS") held for War and Decision, last night. Like Feith, my colleague reported that Mibank's article bore little resemblance to what actually occurred during the book launch. You don't have to take their word for it or my representations about what they said. CSIS has posted a video, or if you prefer, an audio file of the event, so even though you weren't there you can watch or listen to the event and draw your own conclusion.

As for Millbank's article, just note that reviewers, who have actually read War and Decision, give it high praise:

At the National Review, Larry Di Rita calls it "a reference publication:"

Feith draws on countless internal documents, many of which were intended for, written by, or debated among members of the president’s Cabinet, the most senior advisers to Cabinet officials, and the president himself. Feith has performed a public service by taking the time to present these documents, which have gone through the painstaking process of official declassification, in nearly 600 citations that are reproduced online with links to full texts, transcripts, and presentations. (To pick another insider account by comparison, George Tenet’s At the Center of the Storm offers, well, zero documents, citations, or footnotes).

[. . .]

In grasping the importance of this book, it’s crucial to understand the current state of the Iraq-war literature — a genre largely created by journalists, who bring to the task the same rigor and sourcing found in daily news stories (which is to say not much). Tom Ricks, Rajiv Chandrasekaran, Bob Woodward, George Packer, Michael Gordon, and others have created a narrative arc that relies upon the insights of civilian and military actors willing to air their opinions, insights, grievances, and point papers with reporters eager to give them a hearing.

[. . .]

War and Decision sets a high standard for official memoirs that will follow. It is fair enough for other officials to take issue with Feith’s conclusions, and some have, but these criticisms are blunt until they can rely on documentation as rich as Feith’s. The press wrote the first draft of the Bush administration and the War on Terror, but Feith’s book relegates it to the recycling bin.

At the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens liked Feith's book for its myth busting:

"War and Decision" offers many more such examples where perceptions of the administration's conduct collide with the reality of it. Much to Mr. Feith's credit, however, his book is no apologia, even for those he obviously admires. Of Mr. Rumsfeld, he notes that "his style of leadership did not always serve his own purposes: He bruised people and made personal enemies." As for President Bush, Mr. Feith argues -- rightly, in my view -- that his problem was not that he "discouraged challenges" but rather that he showed "an excessive tolerance of indiscipline, even of disloyalty, from his own officials."

Washington Times columnist, Frank J. Gaffney Jr. calls the book "extraordinary:"

In contrast to previous books and memoirs on the subject published to date, Mr. Feith's is not aimed at self-promotion or self-vindication. Neither is it an effort to settle scores with those who have, in some cases viciously, attacked the author in their own screeds.

Rather, it is the first attempt by a serious student of history to lay out the myriad, challenging choices confronting a president who, within eight months of taking office, witnessed a devastating attack on this country and resolved to prevent another — possibly far more destructive one.

As mentioned in Larry Di Rita's review, Feith has also set up a companion website to the book, where you can access copies of many of the documents referred to in his book.

I plan to read War and Decision. How about you?

Hillary Gets Her Double Digits

Hillary defeated Obama in the Pennsylvania primary by double digits, 55% to 45%.

In her victory celebration, Hillary made it clear that, with her Pennsylvania victory, the brawl between her and Obama will continue:

“Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don’t quit, and they deserve a president who doesn’t quit either,” Mrs. Clinton said to fervent cheers and applause at her victory party... ."

The Pennsylvania primary seems to have failed to settle anything:

Both candidates performed strongly among the same constituencies that have supported them in other primary states. Mr. Obama was backed overwhelmingly by black voters and also scored well among voters younger than 45 and college graduates, the results show.

Once again Obama was unable to close the deal. Obama, as in other primaries, appeared to grasp defeat from the jaws of victory. Even with Obama's huge money advantage, record breaking advertising, and the mainstream media admittedly suffering from Obamamania, he continues to fail to land a knock out blow. One has to ask why Obama can't win the big ones.

Tim Russert discusses what he thinks might happen next in the following video:





The spin doctors will be very busy trying to convince all of us, and more important, the Democrat's superdelegates why Hillary or Obama is entitled to the nomination. But as the battle for the Democratic nomination moves to Indiana and North Carolina, Hillary's goal still seems out of reach. Hillary's campaign is out out money and some party officials would like to see her quit. As Mark Z. Barabak and Noam N. Levey write in the Los Angeles Times, it still comes down to the math:

Mathematically, with just nine contests left, it appears virtually impossible for Clinton to overtake Obama in the popular vote and among pledged delegates -- those chosen in primaries and caucuses. Her best hope was to instill enough doubts about Obama to persuade the 300 or so uncommitted superdelegates to rally to her side.

Hillary will battle on as long as she can find the resources to do so. The bottom line here is that the big winner of the Pennsylvania primary is Senator McCain. He is out running a positive and optimistic campaign, as poll after poll finds that no matter which one of the Democrats survives to challenge him in November, theat Democrat will have a serious deserter problem.

Obama With Iran

Time magazine's Scott MacLeod reports that Sergei Barseghian, a columnist for the Iranian reformist newspaper Etemad Meli (National Confidence), notes that in Farsi, the words Oo ba ma would translate as "He's with us."

Iranians are following the American presidential race. In part, because they wish to be rid of President Bush, who branded Iran part of an "Axis of Evil," and because they are taken in by Obama's false hope. According to MacLeod, Iranians favor Obama's hope rhetoric and see a President Obama repairing the U.S.-Iranian relationship:

It's not only the policy expectations that account for Obama's popularity: his Third World ethnic background and the Muslim faith of his father's Kenyan family — even his middle name, Hussein, the grandson of the Prophet Muhammad and a revered figure in the Shi'ite Islam practiced in Iran — offer points of affinity that some analysts believe could give Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the political cover to make a gesture of reconciliation to the country long decried in Tehran as "the Great Satan."

But it's Obama's declared willingness to engage in "aggressive personal diplomacy" with the Iranian leadership that has generated the most interest among senior officials in Tehran, since this would mark a sea-change in Washington's approach. "Obama is a man of engagement, a man of negotiations," one Iranian official told TIME. Amir Mohebbian, an analyst close to Iranian conservative politicians, argues that "the mentality of Iranian decision makers is ready for that." He adds: "I think that the coming of Obama — maybe, maybe — helps to solve this problem, but it needs bravery, from both sides."

MacLeod, fails to mention that the U.S./Iran "30-year Cold War" is the result of Iran's seizure of the U.S. embassy and the subsequent holding of 52 U.S. diplomats hostage for 444 days -- the remainder of Jimmy Carter's presidency. Like Carter's failure to free the hostages, Obama's proposed "aggressive personal diplomacy" will also be seen as a sign of weakness that will only encourage this state sponsor of terrorism.

Senator McCain, on the other hand, with his more "Realistic Idealism," is less likely to make nice to the Iranians merely for the sake of making nice.

The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) — the nation’s largest association of Muslim organizations — tried to persuade McCain to drop the adjective “Islamic” when describing terrorists and extremists:

We’ve tried to contact his office, contact his spokesperson to have them rethink word usage that is more acceptable to the Muslim community. If it’s not our intent to paint everyone with the same brush, then certainly we should think seriously about just characterizing them as criminals, because that is what they are.

Remembering how ineffective our former policy of treating terrorists as mere criminals was in preventing terror attacks against America Senator McCain has rejected ISNA's plea:

Steve Schmidt, a former Bush White House aide who is now a McCain media strategist, told The Times that the use of the word is appropriate and that the candidate will continue to define the enemy that way.

"Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda represent a perverted strain of Islam at odds with the great many peaceful Muslims who practice their great faith peacefully," Mr. Schmidt said. "But the reality is, the hateful ideology which underpins bin Ladenism is properly described as radical Islamic extremism. Senator McCain refers to it that way because that is what it is."

Realistic Idealism indeed.

The failed policy of merely criminalizing terrorism brought us to 9/11. Al Qaeda attacked us on 9/11 because the organization thought we didn't have the stomach to fight. Following many attacks on Americans in Lebanon in the 1970s and '80s culminating in the bombing of the Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983, America withdrew. Our response to attacks during Bill Clinton's presidency -- withdrawal, angry words occasionally accompanied by a few cruise missiles resulted in attack after attack. Mogadishu in 1993, the 1993 attack on World Trade Center, the attack on the U.S. military office in Riyadh in 1995, the attacks American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998, and the near sinking of the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000.

I prefer the current approach to fighting the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us and McCain's "Realistic Idealism" to the false hope of Obama's "aggressive personal diplomacy."

The Liberal Media's Fickle Temperament

Michael Leahy's Washington Post temperamental hit job on Senator McCain shows just how fickle the mainstream media wing of the Democratic party can be.

Coverage of Leahy's hit job, ignores Senator Lieberman's downplaying McCain's temper and focuses instead on former senator Bob Smith's, made for television, negative campaign sound bite:

"Does he get angry? Yes," said Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, a Connecticut independent who supports McCain's presidential bid. "But it's never been enough to blur his judgment. . . . If anything, his passion and occasional bursts of anger have made him more effective."

Former senator Bob Smith, a New Hampshire Republican, expresses worries about McCain: "His temper would place this country at risk in international affairs, and the world perhaps in danger. In my mind, it should disqualify him."

It isn't until twenty-something paragraphs later that Leahy reveals that Smith admits to not liking McCain, and mentions that Smith has held a grudge against McCain from the time they both served in Vietnam, some forty years ago. Smith can obviously hold a grudge a long time.

In the following video Fox News' Carl Cameron describes the inaccuracies in Leahy's attack on McCain, highlighting Smith's allegations:

That's right, Cameron reports Smith said that what is reported in the Leahy article "never actually happened."

One has to wonder if the mainstream media, which admittedly suffers from Obamania, would even consider writing a similarly negative story about Obama. If a reporter did write such a story, would it get the same front-page treatment as Leahy's hit piece, or even worse, the New York Times' "journalism by innuendo" slanderous hatchet job on Senator McCain.

John Fund offers some thoughts that get right to the point in explaining why:

While John McCain is popular with reporters, they have clearly chafed as they see him adopt more-conservative positions on taxes and immigration in the past year. His coverage is much less favorable than it used to be.

But Mr. Obama, who sports the most liberal voting record of any senator according to the nonpartisan National Journal, has avoided much criticism of that record by implying that any conventional critique of his issue positions represent the tired politics of the past. If he had his way, questions about character and questions about issues would be off-limits.

The mainstream media only seems to take on Obama after nonpartisan fact checkers and an army of bloggers point out egregious "distortions," "rank falsehoods," "seriously misleading," statements and "outright lying" from Obama. How long will the American electorate allow the mainstream media to get away with this lack of even-handedness -- giving Obama a free ride while publishing hatchet jobs on McCain? Enough is enough.

Still More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' Statements and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

CHAPTER III

Here he goes again.

Barack Obama, after being beat up by numerous factcheckers for grossly misrepresenting Senator McCain's "100 Years" comment, finally dropped that distortion from his stump speech. Obama stopped using that line because it became obvious to all, even the admittedly Obamamania infected main stream media, that Obama's misrepresentation of McCain's comment was a "serious distortion to the point of rank falsehood."

Now Obama is distorting Senator McCain’s remarks about the economy. At a speech in Erie, Barack Obama quoted John McCain as saying, "I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there's been great progress economically over that period of time." Unfortunately, in his distorting way, Obama did not recite the second part of the statement where McCain said, "But that's no comfort. That's no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges."

Watch the following video, which shows that Obama once again grossly misrepresented McCain's comments:

At MSNBC’s First Read Blog, Domenico Montanaro reports that Obama continued this latest distortion yesterday:

Obama didn't let go of his attack on McCain in Williamsport yesterday afternoon, continuing to criticize the Republican nominee for a comment that he made about the economy making progress under George W. Bush.

[. . .]

"Now, that's what's going on here, but I don't need to tell you this, it’s going on all across the country. John McCain yesterday said that we are, that, that during George Bush's tenure, the economy actually made great progress. That's his quote," Obama said.

However, the attack, like the one earlier today parsed McCain's comments, quoting him on saying that the economy had grown but not including the fact that McCain acknowledged job losses and had said that the economic statistics brought "no comfort" to those suffering the most from the recent downturn.

Obama's misrepresentation of McCain's economic comments is extremely disingenuous. Obama, himself, acknowledges that the economy made progress:

"Our economy actually expanded over the last seven years, that's true," he said, before going on to talk about how the expansion was unprecedented because wages had not increased along with the rise in GDP.

The McCain campaign is pushing back:

The McCain camp, though pushed back hard against this yesterday, sending along this response: “American families are hurting and Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest. It is clear that Barack Obama is intentionally twisting John McCain’s words completely out of context. Obama is guilty of deliberately distorting John McCain’s comments for pure political gain, which is exactly what Senator Obama was complaining about just yesterday.”

McCain's actual quote while speaking on Bloomberg TV, per the McCain camp was: "I think if you look at the overall record and millions of jobs have been created, et cetera, et cetera, you could make an argument that there’s been great progress economically over that period of time. But that’s no comfort. That’s no comfort to families now that are facing these tremendous economic challenges."

You would think Obama would be more careful after already being pummeled by factcheckers for misrepresenting what Senator McCain actually said abut Iraq, and only a week after Obama proved he was out of touch with small town America with his demeaning "clinging" remarks:

[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The media is no longer giving Obama a free ride when he misrepresents what Senator McCain actually says:

ABC News:

Who says Barack Obama doesn't know how to "twist the knife"? … Although Obama gets substantial mileage out of running against politics as usual, he provided a reminder on Friday that he knows how to twist with the best of them. … Obama did not tell his audience, however, that McCain's Thursday reference to economic progress was quickly followed by him adding that such progress is "no comfort" to struggling families.

Wall Street Journal:

While Obama sharply attacked free trade deals today in Erie for manufacturing job losses, just four days ago he touted the benefits of free trade in Pittsburgh, where he acknowledged that many jobs had been lost not only because of free trade deals, but because of technological advancements.

Washington Post:

The McCain campaign accused Obama of "intentionally twisting" the Arizona Republican's words. "Barack Obama is being recklessly dishonest," McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds shot back in a statement. The Republican National Committee circulated video of Obama acknowledging earlier in his Erie speech that "our economy actually expanded

FOX News:

Obama did not quote McCain's addendum, but minutes before hitting the Republican for saying there was economic progress, Obama himself admitted, "Our economy actually expanded over the last seven years, that's true."

At the Chicago Tribune's The Swamp blog:

But Obama only partially quoted McCain, who also acknowledged the struggles people are facing in a down economy. … Not surprisingly, that triggered a response from McCain's campaign.

CNN:

The McCain campaign has long argued Obama has a habit of twisting the presumptive Republican nominee's words. Referencing McCain's comments earlier this year when he said he'd be okay with some troop presence in Iraq for 100 years, Obama has said the Arizona senator "wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years." The non-partisan factcheck.org later called that characterization a "rank falsehood."

Let’s see how long it takes before Obama drops this hypocritical and distorted attack from his stump speech.

The more I see of Obama's so-called new politics, the more it seems exactly like the old kind.

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing with his continuing distortions and misrepresentations about what Senator McCain actually said.

Obama promised better. As I've said before, Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for his blatant dishonesty, and join Senator McCain in his call for tolerance and respect. If Obama does, perhaps we can engage in a new, civil form of politics.

Also posted at Right Side Politics and RedState.

Obama Denies Flipping Hillary

The Obama campaign denies that Obama gave Hillary the infamous one-finger salute:

A spokesman for the presidential campaign of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama has criticized The Ticket for making a "false and childish accusation" in an item Thursday that the candidate's one-fingered gesture during a speech that day might have been the finger aimed at his Democratic Party opponent instead of an innocent finger aimed at brushing his cheek or scratching a scratch.

As displayed in a video clip, Obama was criticizing Washington for its gotcha politics in general and New York Sen. Hillary Clinton specifically as being "in her element" there. As he mentions her name, he brushes his cheek twice with the middle finger of his right hand.

The crowd certainly seemed to think that Obama used the obscene gesture. Lsten to the reaction as Obama uses his middle finger to scratch his cheek:

What do you think -- did Obama flip Hillary the bird? Go to Right Side Politics and vote.

Obama's Union Thugs

Why won't Obama repudiate the union thugs who are advertising on his behalf in PA?

The Service Employee International Union (SEIU) is running a television ad in Pennsylvania, in support of Barack Obama, who is already outspending Hillary Clinton 5 to 1 on the airwaves.

The ad titled "Change," shows mostly white, working and middle-class Pennsylvanians complaining about their gas prices and then declaring their faith in Obama. The ad compliments the SEIU's extensive get-out-the-vote campaign in Pennsylvania.

Why would Obama accept the assistance of the SEIU? Just last weekend, the SEIU dispatched 700 of its thugs to disrupt a labor conference in Michigan, shoving people to the ground and inflicting a head wound on a retired woman.

In California, they are stalk nurses in a rival union by going to their homes and even post YouTube video of themselves doing it.

The SEIU stalking got so bad that a California judge issued a restraining order against SEIU:

So I repeat, why won't Obama repudiate the SEIU's violent tactics and reject the union's ads on his behalf?

Why does Obama choose to stand with the SEIU, and its track record of intimidation? A record which is rendering the union a pariah, even within organized labor.

Thanks to Matt Lewis and Flap for the tip.

McCain - The GOP Comeback Kid

A new Associated Press-Yahoo news poll finds Senator McCain has managed to win the support of disgruntled Republicans, Independents and  moderate Democrats:

Of those who have moved toward McCain, about two-thirds voted for President Bush in 2004 but are now unhappy with him, including many independents who lean Republican. The remaining one-third usually support Democrats but like McCain anyway.

Also helping the Arizona senator close the gap: Peoples' opinions of Hillary Rodham Clinton have soured slightly, while their views of Barack Obama have improved though less impressively than McCain's.

The survey suggests that those switching to McCain are largely attuned to his personal qualities and McCain may be benefiting as the two Democrats snipe at each other during their prolonged nomination fight.

Tracking a group of about 2,000 people throughout the campaign, the AP-Yahoo poll reports some Republican-leaning voters who backed Bush in 2004 but lost enthusiasm for him are returning to the GOP fold — along with a significant number of Democrats who have come to dislike their party's two contenders:

The poll shows that McCain's appeal has grown since November by more than the Democrats' has dwindled. McCain gets about 10 percentage points more now than a generic Republican candidate got last fall; Obama and Clinton get about 5 points less than a nameless Democrat got then.


Underlining McCain's burgeoning popularity, in November about four in 10 considered McCain likeable, decisive, strong and honest while about half do now. Obama is seen as more likeable and stronger now but his numbers for honesty and decisiveness have remained flat, while Clinton's scores for likeability and honesty have dropped slightly.

The recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found a majority of voters now view Hillary as dishonest:

Nearly six in 10 said in the new poll that she is not honest and trustworthy. And now, compared with Obama, Clinton has a deep trust deficit among Democrats, trailing him by 23 points as the more honest, an area on which she once led both Obama and John Edwards.

Among Democrats, 63 percent called her honest, down 18 points from 2006; among independents, her trust level has dropped 13 points, to 37 percent. Republicans held Clinton in low regard on this in the past (23 percent called her honest two years ago), but it is even lower now, at 16 percent. Majorities of men and women now say the phrase does not apply to Clinton; two years ago, narrow majorities of both did.

According to the New York Times, the brawl that the battle for the democrats' nomination has devolved into is causing Democrats to question the party’s prospects in the November election. Nevertheless, that recent Washington Post-ABC News poll found "little public pressure to bring the long and increasingly heated contest to an end."

Luntz Focus Group - More Evidence Of Democrat Deserters

This Frank Luntz focus group called the Democrats' Philadelphia debate a tie. More important, at about 3:45 into the following video, a significant number of these Democrats raised their hands, on camera, to indicate they will vote for Senator McCain in November:



The Democrats are facing a serious deserter problem. In addition to the Luntz focus group, at least at least seven recent polls show that regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, a significant number of Democrats deserters will vote for John McCain in November.

Focus Group: Hillary Wins The Debate

A focus group for Philadelphia's WPVI TV-6, by a two to one margin, says that Hillary Clinton won the Democrats' debate:



I don't think Hillary won. She never seemed to look into the correct camera making her appear shifty and insincere in her responses.

A smaller sample for sure, but at Right Side Politics, readers think Obama won.

The moderators threw nothing but "gotcha" questions at the Hillary and Obama for first half of the debate. Come November, with all that video, the real winner of this debate will be John McCain.

Watch Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell tell a Philadelphia's ABC affiliate, WPVI-6l television reporter that he was disappointed in the ABC debate because of all the "gotcha" questions:

Obamas Earned $4.2 million in '07

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported earning $4.2 million in 2007:

In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.

Their salaried income was $260,735, which included his $157,102 salary as a U.S. senator and hers of $103,633 as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

For part of 2007, Michelle Obama collected a salary for serving on the board of Westchester, Ill.-based TreeHouse Foods Inc., which produces pickles, nondairy powdered creamer and other products. She resigned in May after two years on the board.

The position had generated some complaints because TreeHouse is a supplier to Wal-Mart, and Barack Obama has criticized some of Wal-Mart's policies and treatment of employees.

The Obamas reported $29,443 from Treehouse Foods.

$4.2 million is one heck of an increase from the $991,296 the Obamas made in 2006. Running for President must be more lucrative than I thought. But its not as good a deal as being a former president and first lady.

Who Won The Debate?

Trying a poll experiment at Right Side Politics. Vote for the winner of tonight's Democrat Debate.

McCain Better Able To Manage Economy

A new Reuters/Zogby poll finds voters see McCain as better for the economy than Hillary or Obama:

McCain was seen as a better steward of the economy than either Democrat despite their repeated criticism of his economic credentials. He led Obama by 3 points and Clinton by 5 points on the question of who would best manage the economy.

The new national poll was conducted April 10-12, before McCain's economic speech on Tuesday, and has a margin of error of 4.3 percent.

In his economic speech, McCain called for the following:

GAS PRICES: A Summer Gas Tax Holiday - suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

STUDENT LOANS: A Student Loan Continuity Plan - calls on the federal government and the 50 governors to expand the lender-of-last resort capabilities for each state's guarantee agency.

MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS: Doubling the Personal Exemption for Dependents - raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.

A SIMPLER TAX CODE: An Alternative New and Simpler Tax System - give America a choice, all who wish can stay under the current system, but everyone else could choose a less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction.

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ELIMINATION: Phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax(AMT) - saving an average of $2,700 for a middle class family with children.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: A One-Year Spending Pause - discretionary spending pause that should be used for a top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.

MEDICARE GROWTH: A reduction in the large subsidies in the Medicare drug program - limit Medicare prescription drug benefits to those who need them.

James Pethokoukis summed it up well -- one part Ronald Reagan (cut taxes, cut spending), one part Mike Huckabee (help for workers; Main Street is as important as Wall Street), and one part Teddy Roosevelt (criticism of "reckless CEOs and speculators").

Sounds good to me.