From what I've seen of her performance so far, Palin almost reminds me of Dan Quayle... except that Quayle, for all his endearing gaffes, actually had some experience of world and particularly Washington politics - something about which Palin appears to be disturbingly clueless.

Heloise: A very good article, and quite reassuring.
I found Palin's comment that she wasn't going to answer the questions asked, but speak directly to the American People about who and what she is about. This shows a disdain for rules, politeness and just how lacking in substance she is. Much like the current President, I would think. I doubt many want a repeat of that kind of attitude.

We had a President like that, whose initials were RR, and look where that got us - the economic situation we are in now is the long-term legacy. I remember a friend telling me "but he has excellent advisors" when I pointed out the lack of substance. I was totally shocked and did not know how to counteract such myopia, and still don't.

While Palin certainly did not fall on her face in the debate, neither did she distinguish herself with even one original thought or unrehearsed answer. She deftly steered away from topics of which she obviously had no knowledge. I suppose, were she on the U of Idaho debate team, she might have gotten a few points for that, but she's auditioning for a job as the fucking VP of our country. Is that what we want? Do we want a VP, or possibly a P who is unwilling or incapable of tackling certain subjects? There is nothing extraordinary about Sarah Palin. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence coupled with some experience at public discourse could have pulled off what she did Thursday evening.

She is totally ill equipped to handle the myriad of issues that could and likely would confront her as either VP or P. She has no depth nor breadth of knowledge of world affairs, history, economics and other domestic issues. She has no more than a superficial grasp of the whats, the whos, the whens or the wheres.

Obama has shown repeatedly and with alacrity that he does possess such knowledge. Palin may be a really cracker jack governor, but that hardly qualifies her for the national and international stage. Let her go back and lord over the caribou and the licensing of dog sleds and sled dogs. Alaska hardly serves as a microcosm of the U.S.
You betcha!

B

All of which raises the question of whether you'd rather have someone as VP who is perhaps a bit naive and inexperienced but well meaning, or someone who is deeply enmired in the culture of Washington and Wall Street corruption which most of us want to see curtailed.

Too often experience comes at the price of corruption, and while Biden is hardly the most corrupt figure in Washington, he's certainly more than sufficiently tainted.

Then there's the issue of the presidency. Again, your choice is between young and old, but in this case between young and ideologically corrupt and old and cantankerous and well intentioned. I'd rather take the old, angry and disgruntled guy than someone who was raised in a subculture which is fundamentally anti-american and who has walked hand in hand with some of the most dangerous and corrupt groups in the nation.

Dave

All of which raises the question of whether you'd rather have someone as VP who is perhaps a bit naive and inexperienced but well meaning, or someone who is deeply enmired in the culture of Washington and Wall Street corruption which most of us want to see curtailed.

Too often experience comes at the price of corruption, and while Biden is hardly the most corrupt figure in Washington, he's certainly more than sufficiently tainted.

Then there's the issue of the presidency. Again, your choice is between young and old, but in this case between young and ideologically corrupt and old and cantankerous and well intentioned. I'd rather take the old, angry and disgruntled guy than someone who was raised in a subculture which is fundamentally anti-american and who has walked hand in hand with some of the most dangerous and corrupt groups in the nation.

Dave

Nice spin. Not fooling anyone here.

Would Dave care to elaborate on who/what "subculture" he is referring to as "fundamentally anti-american" [with or without caps]? In context it could be read as including anyone whom Democrats have ever nominated for office, and/or anyone who holds any position to the left of Himself.

Democrats [hey, I'm one] are as fundamentally American as you are, bub. So are Community Organizers and, yes, peaceniks. You have no monopoly on freedom or the constitution.

If the above is not what you meant, try not pretending you are an oracle or a sphinx, and just speak plain English instead of obliquely accusing people of treason.

Handy, you're a regular mainstream democrat - or so I assume.

What I'm talking about is the marxist activist subculture which Obama comes from. His entire career has been in the extreme fringe of the left, who are Democrats only because they would not be politically viable if they admitted their socialist/communist objectives and associations.

Come on, Handy. Have you been to local Democrat party meetings? You know the folks I'm talking about. Surely you've seen the alinskyites and greenies and 'grassroots' movement types, whose objective is not a better America, but an entirely different kind of country and government occupying the same space.

Dave

Of course he means Willaim Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This is the same crap that Tundra Barbie is now spewing in her stump speeches. By being coy though, Dave let's the reader's mind wander back to the even more ludicrous crap that Obama is a muslim trained in a medrasa and other bogus blather.

Curious, if Biden is so corrupt, why is it that he's not rich? Is he both corrupt and stupid as well?

The only "ideologically corrupt" part of Obama is that he isn't a conservative.

How is it that people believe McCain has not himself been corrupted by his long exposure to beltway politics? McCain has shown plainly that he is more than willing to sell his soul to win this election. He has tossed out all of his pre-campaign rhetoric about running a purely positive campaign. He has jumped head first into Rovian tactics, the same tactics used by the same people to savage him back in 2000. McCain may have been relatively clean back then. If so - and that's a big "if," that is no longer the case.

Also, McCain has shown that he not only has a short fuse, but is now obviously becoming more and more a loose cannon within his own campaign. Desparation is bringing out his penchant for incoherence and inconsistency. These are dangerous traits for someone seeking to have his itchy finger on the nuclear button.

And Palin? "naive and inexperienced but well meaning?" I fully agree with the "naive and inexperienced" part. Well meaning? How do we know that? Why are her motives considered to be any more honorable or less corrupt than any of the other candidates? Because she looks good? Palin is obviously highly ambitious, viciously aggressive, and it has been reported from numerous sources in Alaskan government that she is ruthless and unforgiving. If all that equals "well meaning" then, well, okay, uh, I guess.

B

Of course he means Willaim Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn.

Did I say that, Baritone? The Ayers/Dohrn connection is telling, but hardly significant compared to his years employed by the alinskyites at Project Vote, where his salary was paid by ACORN, or his later work as one of the many lawyers defending ACORN from prosecution for the mass of frauds they have committed, from obtaining federal funds on false pretenses, electoral fraud, tax evasion and racketeering.

I agree that that Obama is a Muslim bullshit is ridiculous, but the fact that Obama is part of the marxist fringe left is too well documented to laugh off.

Curious, if Biden is so corrupt, why is it that he's not rich? Is he both corrupt and stupid as well?

I would argue that yes, he is both corrupt and stupid. His stupidity is demonstrated almost every time he opens his mouth. His corruption is well documented in his dealings over his home - which makes up the greater part of his wealth - and was purchased with legally questionable support from credit card giant and massive campaign contributor MBNA. See this article.

Dave

"Of course he means Willaim Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn. This is the same crap that Tundra Barbie is now spewing in her stump speeches."

It aint crap old B-tone. There's lots more to this coverup story, which I recommend you read in full.

Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools

Founding Brothers

Barack Obama and Bill Ayers: Stanley Kurtz Makes the Connection

The real crap is this......

"just a guy I know who lives in my neighborhood."

Oct 4, 2008 - NY Times Confirms Ayers' Role in Obama Appointment as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge

The partial story of the Ayers/Obama relationship told by the New York Times today is collapsing of its own weight but has likely added to the confusion. Since I am one of the "bloggers" referred to without an explanation in the Times' story I thought I would summarize the top ten highlights of the current state of play.

See full summarization at the "blogger" link.

By Steve Diamond: Democrat, lawyer, political scientist and law professor.

You can also see his full archive of indepth work on Obama/Ayers at the same link.

Baritone

I didn't chase you off did I?

Oct 4, 2008 - NY Times Confirms Ayers' Role in Obama Appointment as Chair of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge

The partial story of the Ayers/Obama relationship told by the New York Times today is collapsing of its own weight but has likely added to the confusion. Since I am one of the "bloggers" referred to without an explanation in the Times' story I thought I would summarize the top ten highlights of the current state of play.

See full summarization at the "blogger" link.

By Steve Diamond: Democrat, lawyer, political scientist and law professor.

You can also see his full archive of indepth work on Obama/Ayers at the same link.


BIGWOOPTEEDOO. Ayers had at his disposal tens of millions of dollars. If I was Barack Obama and I were looking to reform Chicago schools I would be a MORON to not apply for the position. The fact that Ayers declined to disapprove of the Obama choice means nothing, even if the series of events is exactly as described. The fact still remains Ayers controlled 10s of millions of dollars of grant money for an organization looking to improve education. Obama was the man for the job. The fact that the Bill Ayers agreed with this doesn't mean squat. Even the sick and twisted logic of a terrorist like Bill Ayers can make good decisions. It is POSSIBLE believe it or not to agree with improving education and DISSAPROVE of terrorist bombings. This is just another attempt at guilt by association. I don't really care who Obama knew or whose feet he licked to get a foot in Chicago politics. I care what Obama did and what he advocated for. If you can find Obama advocating for terrorism.. then I would take you seriously.. but good luck with that!

The irony is Obama is being held guilty for joining a group to help CHILDREN READ.

Dave,

"Did I say that, Baritone?"

Yes, you have.

Interesting that all of the articles both you and Franco cite are written by and for conservatives and conservative organizations. Hardly unbiased reporting.

The CAC characterization as being "radical" is bogus. Is it left wing? Yes. Are about 99% of all fundamental religious schools in this country right wing? Yes. Inculcating young children into right wing politics is fine. Doing so from the left is "radical." What bullshit.

Gosh, Biden's house increased in value? Why that low life son of a bitch! What pains that article went to in order to provide nothing more than innuendo. Why don't we all sit down and see just how much McCain's 7 or 10 or 85 homes have faired over the years. Of course, McCain is more or less sheltered in that regard because his wife has more money than god. How many Senators do you suppose live less well than the Bidens? If that's the best you guys have got, you got nothing.

And, Biden is hardly stupid. He wins his elections, Dave. How about you?

And, no Franco, you didn't scare me off. I have a life.

B

The Ayers/Dohrn connection is telling, but hardly significant compared to his years employed by the alinskyites at Project Vote, where his salary was paid by ACORN, or his later work as one of the many lawyers defending ACORN from prosecution for the mass of frauds they have committed, from obtaining federal funds on false pretenses, electoral fraud, tax evasion and racketeering.

1) Sure ACORN is radical. But they're hardly evil. They have rebuilt 1,850 homes in New Orleans. That's more than Ray Nagin can say.

2) Being paid by ACORN to do a get out the vote campaign is hardly a winning point. Obama was working to get out the vote. Sure some people in ACORN are radical, especially its high level leaders, but on a community scale it's mostly just disgruntled residents, none of home have a serious political ideology, never mind reading anything about Marx.

3) You know Obama had nothing to do with defending against voter registration frauds. If you had any evidence of this you would have given it. A just read an NRO article by Kurtz. He has no evidence of it either. This accusation is a flat out lie. Most of the voter registration frauds you are talking about occur outside the time Obama part time as a lawyer and none occurred in his area and he certainly did not defend or attempt to defend them in court. That's a load of horse **** and you know it. Shame on you Dave.

I agree that that Obama is a Muslim bullshit is ridiculous, but the fact that Obama is part of the marxist fringe left is too well documented to laugh off.

Yeah if going to Harvard or any other college these days makes you a member of the marxist fringe. I'm afraid you're confusing the socio-economic theories of Karl Marx with community activism to get rid of asbestos in schools. The two seem entirely unrelated to me.

Even Kurtz - a radical right wing writer for NRO - agrees that Obama was just about the only man for the job in Chicago. The fact that Bill Ayers declined to express his disapproval means SQUAT. God you people are desperate.

So, is Kurtz voting for BHO?

Neither am I.

Same old story. If McCain had worked closely with an organization or person linked to some racist killing or the KKK in the 60's who hadn't repented well 'that'd be different'. The left team would be squawking up a storm and Nalle et al would be playing it down.

The most striking thing I've noticed here reading comments at blogcritics is the apparent inability for partisans on either side to put themselves in the shoes of the other. I don't know whether that is contrived or people really are just that closed minded. I suppose it's easier to to assume the other team's position is based on desperation, evil, greed, jealousy or some other character fault thereby obviating the need to address it intellectually.

#18 Doug, most Obama supporters can't identify his record when challenged. The CAC thing, for instance-nominally intended to help children read, it didn't do the job after sixty million dollars were spent. The records on HOW that sixty million were spent have been witheld-one wonders where it went. (ACORN maybe?)

Ayers is unrepentant and only failed to be convicted due to prosecutorial screw ups relating to a wiretapping warrant that got the evidence thrown out-this is NOT exhonoration, it's simply getting away with it in public, and then being smart enough to avoid getting caught AGAIN.

A Republican with ties to violent radicals would be simply unelectable-not even Republicans would vote for him, (y'see, the Right doesn't lionize their violent, domestic terrorist fuck-heads as heroes, there is no equivalent of Bill Ayers on the right... WE cheered when McVey was put in the execution chamber, rather than trying to defend him as a vanguard.)

Obama gets a pass.

You bad, bad bloggers, better stop the Palin-bashing because just this morning according to Morning Joe "Palin is a very, very bright woman." And Pat B. thinks she is sheer genius. Why? Because she will get up to speed, just like our Hillary in a few months! They were analyzing the debate. And yes we should get a few linguists to analyze her style.

PS: If you want to read an excellent writer who wrote about the Buckley/Phaget connection read a NYT article by Diane McWhorter. I will post link later, but you can google it. Spelling on the guy's name, not sure, but RFK Jr also wrote about this guy whom Palin quoted in her acceptance speech. He is a rabid, rabid rascist. Kinda like me--just kidding.

Sarah Palin comparison to Hillary.

Heloise

Ah, Diane is a very good friend of mine.... her stuff is always right on!

(PS I wrote about the racist RFK wrote about, too...check my piece:))

...calling Ayers a terrorist for blowing up a statue and smashing up some cars and storefronts (and then watching his compadres blow themselves the fuck up) is quite Hooveresque - it all took place in the context of Vietnam and COINTELPRO

you want to see terror - ?

look at the faces of Vietnamese villagers after a bombing in pictures from that government sanctioned slaughter

#22
Troll, it was a WAR, and wars are horrible for anyone in the war-zone. Don't you find it kinda-sorta-interesting that over a million Vietnamese had to (Felt the need to)escape from their "liberators" coming down from the North (and that's only the ones that had the ability to flee, not the ones that wanted to, but were too far from exit-points, or lacked the necessary resources, physical ability, sneakiness, or friends-willing-to-aid-them).

Ayers and his ilk succeeded in pressuring the U.S. to abandon an ally in exchange for a "Peace of Paper" in true Chamberlain fashion, after another Democrat (LBJ) set the course of the war by crippling said ally's ability to govern themselves (Supporting the overthrow of Ngo Dinh Diem's elected government, exchanging them for Generals who would play ball), then restricting support in such a way that the PRVN to the north had a free in-ward flow of arms from the Soviet Union (the bombing missions hit rice paddies and villages in the rural areas, instead of the docks and warehouses where the arms were coming in).

...and then the commies took over the world

fucking weathermen

I ran into an interesting article today on Obama and a fellow named Saul Alinsky. This link is just one example of the 63,000 that one could have picked on the subject. Had I truly believed in overthrowing the American government, Saul Alinsky would have been the fellow I would have followed. He was contemptuous of the New (now the Aging, Arthritic and Loony) Left with all their bullshit about this "liberation" and that "liberation", their loose sexual morals, their drug use, etc. etc. Alinsky was a serious revolutionary who meant to overthrow the society he lived in. He was, in essence, what Lenin would have been had he never left the Café Internationale in Vienna. I honestly hadn't known until today that Obama was a disciple and student of Alinsky. But I do now.

So now we see the shades of "Lenin at the Finland Station". In other words, while Obama is the best candidate for Israel (for the reason that he would inspire the overthrow of the shmucks here who are mere puppets of the United States), he is the worst possible candidate for the United States.

While Russia is no longer "communist", it is still an enemy of your country (and mine) and Obama will deliver you into the hands of the Russians, slowly but surely, if elected. Putin is an unreconstructed Russian imperialist, but the totalitarian ideology he follows is very much to the liking of 'New left" types, no matter how they prattle on about "liberation" and roll fourth generation joints.

Mind you, I still prefer Obama to McCain. I have my country to worry about. But you in Yankee-land, if you have any brains at all - do not want the likes of Barak Obama trying to run your country.

...I preferred digger actions (and still do) - the weathermen were too PC

Ruvy,

You refer to the Aging, Arthritic and Loony. I know that I fit into the first two categories, but feel that I am only partially loony. That probably explains why I agree with you, at least insofar as what is best for the U.S. is concerned.

Zeus help us!

Dan(Miller)

Heloise,

Are you sure the title of this article is correct? Shouldn't it be Sarah's Standup Debut?

Dave: Enough with this Ayers shit already.

More Huffing and Puffing, Lisa? Cute....

If there is going to be talk about the tenuous link between Obama and Ayers (and there should be), there ought to also be talk about McCain and G. Gordon Liddy.

Lisa,

The Huffington Post -- ah yes, truth we can believe in, sans bias and spin. Let's stop talking about Senator Obama's associations and how they may (or may not) have affected him, and focus instead on the really important stuff. There are many critical issues of national importance, such as Governor Palin's pregnancy/non pregnancy, whether she winks too often, whether Senator Biden's hair plugs are falling out, and whether Senator McCain is a good typist. Now there are some issues we can really get our teeth into; those, of course, who still have any.

Dan(Miller)

Dan, read it, the Huffington Post cites many man other sources. Be slightly open minded before you decide to be closed minded.

Same old story. If McCain had worked closely with an organization or person linked to some racist killing or the KKK in the 60's who hadn't repented well 'that'd be different'. The left team would be squawking up a storm and Nalle et al would be playing it down.

No, Doug. If McCain were linked to the KKK or some other racist group I'd be out front in condemning him for it. See my prior commentary on people like Ron Paul, Rick Santorum or various figures of the religious right. I don't want those kinds of people involved in the GOP in any way, and the fact that they claim to be republicans makes their associations even less excusable.

Both parties have their extremist fringes, and I find both equally unacceptable. The key difference between McCain and Obama is that McCain is genuinely not part of the ideological fringe, while overwhelming evidence places Obama on the extreme fringe of his party and an adherent of ideologies which I find unacceptable in any candidate from any party.

Dave

The fringe of his party. You are delusional.... and completely OCD about this. You can't let go of it, can you?

Ruvy, I find ironic that you can see the Alinsky connection clearly and understand what it means about Obama, while so many of the partisans here just go "nananananana" and hold their hands over their ears when you talk about it. Obama has written extensively on his admiration for Alinsky and on his efforts to pursue Alinsky's goals in his own work.

Michelle Obama quoted Alinsky in her DNC speech, btw. Alinsky's son publicly praised Obama for completing his father's work, describing Obama as a 'disciple' of Alinsky. Obama wrote a chapter in the book After Alinsky outlining how he applied Alinsky's ideas in his work as a 'community organizer'.

Dave

I received the following as an e-mail from one of the Jewish lists I belong to. It is written by Naomi Ragen, an Israeli of American extraction and a novelist who keeps a close eye (like lots of us here) on the political scene in America. I apologize for not having URL to this. Maybe the apologist from the Huffington Post would like to read this - and then Huff and Puff her little fanny off....

From Naomi Ragen:

To All My Friends,

This is long, but, please take the time to read it.

This election has me very worried. So many things to consider.

I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with.

About six months ago, I started thinking "where did the money come from for Obama". I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle
class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans.

I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his
time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies.

"Barry" (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan .

During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a "round the world" trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia , next Hyderabad in India , three weeks in Karachi , Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family.

My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York . It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack - not Barry.

Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe.

After Columbia , he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York.

By "chance" he met Antoin "Tony" Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria , and a real estate developer in Chicago . Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named "Entrepreneur of the Decade" by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association".

About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School . Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School ? Where did he get the money for Law School ? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago .

Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented "Rezar" which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago . In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with "seed money" for his U.S. Senate race.

In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price.

The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko.

Now, we have Obama running for President. Valerie Jarrett, was Michele Obama's boss. She is now Obama's chief advisor and he does not make any major decisions without talking to her first. Where was Jarrett born? Ready for this? Shiraz, Iran! Do we see a pattern here? Or am I going crazy?

On May 10, 2008 The Times reported, Robert Malley advisor to Obama was "sacked" after the press found out he was having regular contacts with "Hamas ", which controls Gaza and is connected with Iran . This past week, buried in the back part of the papers, Iraqi newspapers reported that during Obama's visit to Iraq , he asked their leaders to do nothing about the war until after he is elected, and he will "Take care of things".

Oh, and by the way, remember the college roommates that where born in Pakistan ? They are in charge of all those "small" Internet campaign contribution for Obama. Where is that money coming from? The poor and middle class in this country? Or could it be from the Middle East ?

And the final bit of news. On September 7, 2008, The Washington Times posted a verbal slip that was made on "This Week" with George Stephanapoulos. Obama on talking about his religion said, "My Muslim faith". When questioned, "he make a mistake". Some mistake!

All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008. Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, why haven't
all of our "intelligent" members of the press been reporting this?

A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - "Beware of the enemy from within"!!!

If none of you who support the Republican ticket can see that McCain/Palin are trying to pull a last minute Willie Horton on Obama then you're as amoral as they are.... I am truly appalled at Palin's bizarre pulling this Ayers shit out of her shoe at the list minute. It's ugly beyond belief and Lee Atwater would be very very proud of her.

I guess that should be "can't see."

I really am astonished at the stunts the Repubs are pulling here....

The fringe of his party. You are delusional.... and completely OCD about this. You can't let go of it, can you?

Lisa, the facts are there if you'd take your blinders off. The reason I can't let go of it is that this is the very heart of why Obama is so incredibly dangerous and why he has to be opposed at any cost. Why should I give up when it is the destruction of our nation and institutions which is at stake?

Dave

"McCain/Palin are trying to pull a last minute Willie Horton on Obama"

Not a bad idea, but maybe trying to pull a Denny McClain is a better idea.

Troll - Fine. Let Obama come out and say that shooting cops and robbing banks was right, in the context of the Vietnam War. Ditto with the orgies, drugs, and Maoism. Just as long as Obama stops pretending that he has an innocent casual friendship with a former terrorist.

The thing that struck me most about the debate was Biden's flat-out lie about Obama being willing to meet with Ahmadinejad. That was a lie. There is always plenty of spin, favorable interpretation, broad brushing, et cetera in debates. Too much of it. But Biden flat-out lied about Obama's statement. Biden was on the stage during the debate when Obama said he'd meet unconditionally with the leadership of Iran. During the VP debate, Biden said it never happened.

I don't expect much from debate coverage, but recognizing a baldfaced lie is essential.

At comment #36: Ruvy, I find ironic that you can see the Alinsky connection clearly and understand what it means about Obama, while so many of the partisans here just go "nananananana" and hold their hands over their ears when you talk about it.

Aw shucks, Dave, how many of my articles have you published here which talked about overthrowing a regime? How many times have I mentioned here that I am a socialist, and damned proud of it? Put the two together.

What does it take for you to figure out that I'm preaching revolution? The big difference is that the revolution I foresee is one that is very different from the ones we have all witnessed or read about in our history books - one of Biblical proportions....

You need to be a revolutionary to see it and not lose the thread of what it means.

Baronius, I suppose it shouldn't be too surprising that one of Biden's "lies" stuck out more to you than the horde of Palin deceptions.

Dave, I wonder if you could be a touch more dramatic. "Opposed at any cost?" Really? Any cost?

I also wonder if you could ever apply the same scrutiny to Obama that you do to McCain, ideological differences aside. Of course, this is from someone who pretty much declares liberal ideas as "dangerous" as a knee-jerk reaction. I'm not sure expecting balance, fairness, and justice from you is reasonable.

Ruvy, thanks for the laugh. I always get a kick out of the Jewish email list you're on because it seems to me that the list contains some of the nuttiest individuals around. This idea of wondering where Obama "got the money" to go to Harvard or to go on his trip can easily be answered without resorting to speculative, paranoid bullshit. When is the world going to end again?

Naturally, actually checking facts and looking into things seems to be hard work for a frightening collective of posters here. The instant dismissal of Lisa's link is evidence of that.

Be slightly open minded before you decide to be closed minded.

Ah, sweet, sweet irony...

Ruvy @ #37:

FYI.

Always best to fact-check these things before passing them on... especially if the e-mail finishes off by saying things like, "You can look up all of this on Wikipedia" or even "I checked this story on Snopes and they said it was true!"

Dr. D:

So you're ... saying I didn't have to send that last e-mail off to 10 friends in order to meet my true love?

Ah, sweet, sweet irony...

yeah....kinda like how sarah quoted one part of the times article while conveniently ignoring the next.

boyo, i'd love to meet just one politician who didn't do that.

Jordan, I know that partisan people are lousy analysts. But the whole argument about 94 or 35 tax votes seems trivial to me. To definitively say that Obama never said something you heard him say, well, there's no wiggle room there. I'd hope that if "my" side lied like that, I'd recognize it.

Matt,

Let's just say that there is a gentleman in Nigeria who is willing to share a substantial lottery prize with you. For details, check your e-mail.

Baronius, does Palin's lie about McCain health care taxes (which her own campaign said wasn't true) seem trivial to you? Or how about her lie regarding McCain and the tobacco industry (he opposed expanding the SCHIP children's health insurance program because it would increase tobacco taxes)?

What about Palin's lie that she was the first governor to form a climate change subcabinet when 28 other states did so before she did?

Or perhaps her lie about "pushing for" divestment (re: Darfur) was trivial (she in fact opposed divestment)? Or when she said that the United States was down to "pre-troop surge numbers" in Iraq? Was that trivial?

Honestly, Baronius, how many of these deceptions (and there are more) are you willing to discard as trivial?

Ah, sweet, sweet irony...

yeah....kinda like how sarah quoted one part of the times article while conveniently ignoring the next.

boyo, i'd love to meet just one politician who didn't do that.

mark,

I probably have a much lower opinion of politicians than you do, so I agree with you there.

However, my comment was directed not at a pol, but at Lisa, who is easily one of the most closed-minded, party line spouting commenters on these threads.

DD,

You seem to miss the point of Mrs. Ragen's article - just like the folks at Snopes did. Her point is that the folks from the Arab world who surrounded Obama when he was a "youth" are all there now - swinging big money bats.

The question of where Obama got the money was probably what started Mrs. Ragen wondering and asking questions. And for all the dismissal in the tone of the Snopes piece calling her a liar, they do not account for how Obama got the scratch to be a world traveller in his "youth".

Perhaps Mrs. Ragen could have answered the questions about the school loans in her piece - it might have shut the folks at Snopes up - and it might not have. There is nothing to guarantee that Smopes is non-partisan, DD, or objective. Perhaps they are as non-partisan as the NYT, and you seem unwilling to question their reputation as a "debunker of record".

The NYT, long heralded as the "newspaper of record" has been nothing but a propaganda rag for decades - at least since the days when they automaticlaly condemned the JDL while prostituting themselves to the Nigerian government to get exclusives on the civil war there in 1969-70. That is a point you might wish to remember. I have a long memory, and a damned goood one. I still remember the days when Senator Fulbright was called Senator "Halfbright" and "Quarterbright" in the Daily News. Dan Miller can fill you in if that sounds a bit mysterious to you.... That is a point that you also might wish to remember.

Jordan, I was unfamiliar with the lie/distortion about tobacco, so I looked around online.

First of all, Palin said, "look at the tobacco industry" as an example of McCain pushing for regulations.

During his career, McCain has pushed to raise cigarette taxes, put the FDA in charge of regulating nicotene, and restrict tobacco advertising targeted to minors. He has also recently voted against cigarette taxes.

You can argue about McCain's effectiveness or his consistency in light of the recent vote. But to call "look at the tobacco industry" a lie? That's nonsense. The statement isn't a lie. The only way you could consider Palin's one unspecific reference to tobacco to be a lie is if you're reading it off a list of talking points.

Like I said, Biden made a specific statement about a specific thing that he witnessed that he knew to be false. I can't get past that.

Her point is that the folks from the Arab world who surrounded Obama when he was a "youth" are all there now - swinging big money bats.

No shit, Sherlock. If an old friend of yours were running for president, wouldn't you be inclined to throw your support behind him and help him in any way you could?

The number of Arabs supporting Obama is dwarfed by the number of non-Arabs supporting him. Nice red herring, man.

The question of where Obama got the money was probably what started Mrs. Ragen wondering and asking questions.

And I rather wonder about Mrs Ragen. It really isn't that hard to get a college grant, loan or scholarship, even in America. Perhaps if she'd obtained one or two herself, she wouldn't need to wonder.

Although actually, Naomi Ragen didn't write the e-mail: she received it (stop me if you've heard this before...) from a 'friend of a friend' and merely reproduced it on her blog, with a caveat that she would correct any factual errors pointed out to her. (Although the latter has happened, the former has not.)

And for all the dismissal in the tone of the Snopes piece calling her a liar, they do not account for how Obama got the scratch to be a world traveller in his "youth".

The same way hosts of other young people travel the world, I imagine: starting off with just the money for their initial airfare - and working to earn their further passage.

Or perhaps borrowing or being gifted the money by his friends and relatives along the way?

There's actually very little limit to the number of ingenious ways to finance such travel. A girl we met in Peru last week, who was on a seven-month tour of Latin America, is a human resources specialist who made herself redundant and used the compensation package to bankroll her trip!

There is nothing to guarantee that Smopes is non-partisan, DD, or objective.

But they do cite their sources, Ruvy, and they're by no means the only site which has debunked this and many other nonsense e-mails.

Baronius #42 - you appear to be confusing Ayers and Dohrn with Boudin and Gilbert...the former pair of desperados had already spent a decade on the run and had turned themselves in to the authorities before the robbery took place

I also wonder if you could ever apply the same scrutiny to Obama that you do to McCain, ideological differences aside. Of course, this is from someone who pretty much declares liberal ideas as "dangerous" as a knee-jerk reaction. I'm not sure expecting balance, fairness, and justice from you is reasonable.

Not sure I follow, Jordan. You're saying that you regularly declare liberal ideas to be "dangerous"? I haven't noticed you doing that. Even if you do have something against liberals I'll still treat you as fairly as I can. As a liberal I try to consider all points of view, even the most reactionary and assess them based on reason before deciding on their merits.

Dave

Well that is the pot calling the kettle black, Clav. Dave can't see the forest for the trees. And you can't see anything for your cynicism. You don't seem to give a damn either way. And Dave is convinced the world will end if Obama becomes president. He's willing for any and all measures, no matter how foul or untrue, to be used against the man. If I am so closed minded, then how come fifty percent of Americans are voting for Obama? How come so many others on this list also write opinon pieces supporting Obama? How come so many other writers for so many other respected newspapers like The New York Times (even if you don't respect them) and Time and even the Wall Street Journal, and columnists who are conservative like David Brooks and George Will to name but a couple, question both McCain's and Palin's abilities and credentials?

I don't support everything the Democrats do. I didn't and don't support the bailout. I don't think Biden is perfect. Nor do I think Obama hung the moon. I merely think he is the superior candidate, far superior to McCain in temperment, intelligence and judgment and will do a far better job at guiding our country out of this mess that the Republicans and George Bush have gotten it in to. You can try and argue that Bush hasn't ruined our international reputation, you can try and argue that going into Iraq was a good idea, you can even try and argue that Palin was a good choice for McCain's veep, but there are countless others besides me who will argue the other side and that makes them neither closed minded nor party hacks.

Our positions are intelligent and well thought out. Just because we don't agree with you means very little in the scheme of things. I don't just go off spouting doom and gloom. I give sources and I support my positions. If you don't choose to read my sources, so be it. If you choose to ignore the value of those sources, so be that, too.

There is plenty of evidence, in the newsmedia, some of which you must find credible, that supports McCain as a candidate who dissembles at best, lies often, can't remember what he said when, has changed his position all too often, has been behind the Republican party for most of the past two dozen years, has sold his soul for this presidency despite what George Bush tried to do to him last time, opposes many things that are good and right for this country, is easily manipulated, does not respect women, is far too old to govern the U.S., and a whole host of other things that make him an unsuitable leader.

His running mate is not as dangerous only because she won't have as much power, unless she is allowed to wrest it from McCain as Cheney did, or unless McCain falls ill and dies, but her phoney baloney middle American bullshit does not fool me and I am shocked that it fools anyone; she is grasping, selfish and in way over her head.

I think we have a clear choice. You may call that what you like. I call it it informed.

Not really, Troll. Ayers and Dohrn were part of the group, and have never (to my knowledge) denounced it. And they used to love denouncing things. The Weather Underground may have been ineffective terrorists, but they did make and plant bombs. They led riots and fled prosecution. They were "guilty as sin" (Ayer's words).

If you want to embrace them, fine. If Ayers and Dohrn want to continue to embrace them, fine. Obama hasn't had the decency to come out and acknowledge his ties to Ayers and Dohrn, or even to denounce them as he did with his spiritual advisor. Of course, that would be complicated. Rezko and Wright aren't the men Obama knew, but Ayers and Dohrn are the people Obama knew but they didn't used to be?

The 'radical marxist fringe' label Nalle insists on applying to Obama is so over the top...but actually it's not that unusual in the canon of DN's rhetoric.

It's hard not to notice that the heavy breathing, 'he's incredibly dangerous' stuff only began when it appeared that Obama was likely to win.

Back in Dec/Jan/Feb, it was Hillary Clinton who was 'crazy' and 'incredibly dangerous.' [Most of us silly Democrats consider her a moderate. Dave, of course, believes he knows better, as always.]

In Oct/Nov 2006, he was warning in apocalyptic terms of the 'anti-American' Democrats and what would happen if they took over Congress. Whatever one's feelings about the effectiveness of the Pelosi House, it has been very far from a radical 'marxist' hotbed. They were never as extremist as Dave seems to need to believe they were, and they've been far more moderate in running the house than they were in opposition - as I, and many other sensible people, predicted.

It's rare that anyone very far from the political center even gets nominated in this country. The three most 'radical' nominees of the last half century were all from the right: Goldwater, Reagan and G W Bush.

Maybe by some measures, Obama is as far left as Reagan was right. But I don't think most people believe that, and it seems to me he's not a doctrinaire anything.

Get out much, Dave? Maybe on Nov 5 you can rejoin the real world, and give yourself, and the rest of us, a breather from the gushing hyperbole.

Lisa, you do seem to label all liberals as brilliant and all conservatives as stupid. Sooner or later, all your arguments come down to that. I realize that if you think conservatism is stupid, you'll see all conservatives as stupid. But it sure doesn't make for open-mindedness.

Handy, National Journal certainly doesn't see Obama as moderate. They rank him as the most liberal in the Senate: not based upon his rhetoric, or his community-organizing associates, but upon his 2007 voting record.

...Baronius - are crimes against property terrorism - ? NB: no one but weathermen were blown up by weather people bombs

I'm working off of memory here but as I recall the Weather Underground splintered in the mid 70s after the war ended and Ayers went with a group called Prairie Fire that did renounce further 'revolutionary' activity

I can't remember what the group of bank robber/killers called themselves in '81

calling Ayers a terrorist debases the word - but that's politics I guess

Baronius,

Obama hasn't had the decency to come out and acknowledge his ties to Ayers

Didn't he mention this at the Pennsylvania Democratic debate when Hillary Clinton brought it up? Also, his official website addresses the "connection" here.

Baronius, I would also struggle with the Biden claim. But I am equally troubled, if not more troubled, by Palin's issues from the debate. You can choose to focus on one or two of the deceptions if you wish, but a simple Google turns up over 18 Palin deceptions (at the least).

Dave, your "reply" is baffling. Not much more to say there. Unless you thought that I referred to myself as "you," I'll simply take your post as an attempt at humour and move on.

My headline today: "Palpable Panic." On Oct 1 on Dave's article I wrote "even after the bailout bill passes the stocks will still sink and stink." Oh boy that was ugly now it has become the "Stink Market" Heloise is so funny.

I sold my stocks last year at its all-time high.

George Will on Sunday echoed Heloise who said "Americans don't elect haters." Will said "Americans don't elect angry men." Same thing, same damn thing.

Then Rove and bunch of other folks all said that McCain has lost the race after I put that shit on the table with my "The Passion of the Candidates."

That girl is always ahead of the political curve.

Heloise

part of Diane McWhorter's article from Salon on Pegler:

"Students of history, however, may come to a different conclusion. Since Buckley floats a defense of Pegler while burying the charges against him, let us be clear about who this man was and what he represented. Pegler's career took off in 1933 when he became a nationally syndicated columnist with Scripps-Howard, roared along under the Hearst family, and ended 30 years later under the auspices of a twitchy sect of neo-Nazis and professional racists from the White Citizens Council and the Rev. Billy James Hargis' truly reptilian Christian Crusade. At his peak in the 1930s and 1940s, Pegler was a leading popularizer of one of the most concerted antidemocratic crusades in this country's history: the vicious backlash against the New Deal and the labor movement to which it gave legal protection. This anti-Roosevelt front included the country's major industrialists, anti-Semitic, red-baiting pamphleteers, Congressman Martin Dies' Committee on Un-American Activities, and an assortment of Depression-era demagogues (and men on horseback who conspired with Hitler's agents in this country)."

Troll, yeah, I'm okay with calling a member of a group that planted bombs and called for the overthrow of the government a "terrorist". I think that Prairie Fire denounced the Weather Underground's departures from the principles of Marxism-Leninism, but not their bombings or calls to overthrow the government. I could be wrong. Likewise, Jordan, I think that the Annenberg group upon which Ayers and Obama sat on the board still refuses to turn over some of its records. I could be wrong on that too.

Best case scenario: a presidential candidate depicted his relationship with a former communist underground revolutionary as just that of a neighbor, when they were fellow community organizers. That's the best case.

Mark Levin is calling all "Jews, unionists" et al to fight Obama's election. He is using code that suggests that Levin's dad does not want to see this country handed over to the likes of (a black man)Barack Obama.

The air waves are seething with sour grapes from Hannity, Levin and our dear, dear Rushbo. I feel fer ya, as Sarah would say.

Heloise

Dave question fer ya, just asking mind you, are you taking your anger on Palin out on Heloise? Is that why her little article here sat in the hopper from Thursday night until late Saturday? Hmmm, just wondering.

Is there such a dearth of editors? My stuff is usually published with few editorial changes.

I recall way back a time when Heloise all by her lonesome wrote opinion articles on Obama and was eventually bold enough to say that he could win this thing. And no one here was sweating because Obama didn't have a prayer.

I am in Texas and my daughter is in Illinois. We know Illinois and all the neighboring states will break for Obama.

But here in town I am seeing lots of Obama/Biden signs of the time. Not saying he can win TX but he sure as hell has made a big dent in her rather racist profile.

Heloise

#63 -- troll

no one but weathermen were blown up by weather people bombs

Brian V. McDonnell , a sergeant with the San Franscisco Police Department who received fatal shrapnel wounds from a Weatherman pipe bomb set off on February 16, 1970.In a bombing that took place on February 16, 1970, and that was credited to the Weathermen at the time, a pipe bomb filled with heavy metal staples and lead bullet projectiles was set off on the ledge of a window at the Park Station of the San Francisco Police Department. In the blast, Brian V. McDonnell, a police sergeant, was fatally wounded while Robert Fogarty, another police officer, received severe wounds to his face and legs and was partially blinded.

An FBI informant, Larry Grathwohl, who successfully penetrated the Weathermen organization from the late summer of 1969 until April 1970, later testified to a U.S. Senate subcommittee that Bill Ayers, then a high-ranking member of the organization and a member of its Central Committee had said Dohrn constructed and planted the bomb. Grathwohl testified that Ayers had told him specifically where the bomb was placed (on a window ledge) and what kind of shrapnel was put in it.

Grathwohl said Ayers was emphatic, leading Grathwohl to believe Ayers either was present at some point during the operation or had heard about it from someone who was there. In a book about his experiences published in 1976, Grathwohl wrote that Ayers, who had recently attended a meeting of the group's Central Committee, said Dohrn had planned the operation, made the bomb and placed it herself. In 2008, author David Freddoso commented that "Ayers and Dohrn escaped prosecution only because of government misconduct in collecting evidence against them".

I'm working off of memory here but as I recall the Weather Underground splintered in the mid 70s after the war ended and Ayers went with a group called Prairie Fire that did renounce further 'revolutionary' activity

Prairie Fire

Dohrn was a principal signatory on the group's "Declaration of a State of War" in 1970 that formally declared "war" on the U.S. Government, and completed the group's transformation from political advocacy to violent action. Dohrn also co-wrote and published the subversive manifesto Prairie Fire in 1974, and participated in the covertly-filmed Underground in 1976.

In late 1975, the Weather Underground put out an issue of a magazine, Osawatamie, which carried an article by Dohrn, "Our Class Struggle", described as a speech given to the organization's cadres on September 2 of that year. In the article, Dohrn clearly stated support for Communist ideology:

"We are building a communist organization to be part of the forces which build a revolutionary communist party to lead the working class to seize power and build socialism. [...] We must further the study of Marxism-Leninism within the WUO [Weather Underground Organization]. The struggle for Marxism-Leninism is the most significant development in our recent history. We discovered thru our own experiences what revolutionaries all over the world have found -- that Marxism-Leninism is the science of revolution, the revolutionary ideology of the working class, our guide to the struggle"

Dohrn was criticized for a comment she made about the Charles Manson led Tate-LaBianca murders in a speech during the December 1969 "War Council" meeting organized by the Weathermen and attended by about 400 people in Flint, Michigan: "Dig it! First they killed those pigs and then they put a fork in their bellies. Wild!"

Dohrn also charged that her fellow left-wingers showed themselves to be scared "honkies" for not burning down Chicago when Black Panther leader Fred Hampton was killed, and urged her audience to arm themselves and be "a fighting force alongside the blacks." Dohrn's husband, Bill Ayers wrote in 2008 that he always thought Dohrn's controversial statement was uttered to make a political point

Bernardine Dohrn

Weatherman

Franco - I stand corrected concerning who got blown up...and I'll go with 'terrorist' (hesitantly as McDonnell wasn't a civilian) if intent to kill was established - thanks for the correction

in the second half of your comment you have confused the time line - Prairie Fire didn't come into existence until the mid 70s well after the 'War Council' and the 'declaration'

and in any case declaring war on the US gov and adhering to Marxism/Leninism isn't terrorism - targeting civilians is

I haven't seen mention of the site the Obama campaign put up after McCain tipped his hand about launching a smear campaign and after Palin was set out to startit by implying Obama is a terrorist.

Keating Economics

DEVASTATING! McCain is Dead!

"America, this is what a feminist looks like - Governor Sarah Palin."

-NOW Los Angeles Chapter President, Shelly Mandel, endorsing Sarah Palin's candidacy.

Ms. Mandel also noted that she is a 30 year veteran of women's rights advocacy and a lifelong Democrat, during her brief speech at a Palin rally in Carson CA.

sarah palin is a feminist? or does she just look like one?

"america, this is what a biscuit looks like--a brown hockey puck"
--blogcritics' commenter, zingzing, endorsing brown hockey pucks as food.

zingzing is a noted hockey fan and a southern boy with a taste for biscuits, during comment #74.

Funny, zing, but a non sequitur.

But you knew that.

well, yeah, the second part certainly. but palin is no feminist, no matter if ms. mandel says so or not. she uses feminism for her own religious/political nonsense. what feminist organization is she a part of again? oh yeah, the anti-abortion one. that's real feminism right there.

not saying all feminists need to be pro-choice, but jeez-louise. or whatever she would say.

rape and incest, clavos! RAPE! and INCEST!

FOR FUCK'S SAKE, WAKE UP, THIS WOMAN IS A FUCKING NUT.

C'mon, zing, you're a good critical thinker.

That one issue doesn't by itself define what is or is not a feminist.

Palin says she's pro equal opportunity, pro equal pay she's even in favor of women having the vote!! :>)

Here's the vid of Mansel's speech.

ok, ok. it doesn't make or break a feminist. but, her membership in that feminist organization and no other does make you think that it might just be politically motivated. she's a feminist when she can agree with the particular brand of feminism (and when it gets her some psycho-christian votes, purely for its anti-abortion facet).

and who isn't against equal opportunity and equal pay? misogynists? come on.

besides, if that woman didn't support her, there'd be a special place in hell, etc, etc.

#72 -- Cindy D

Keating Economics

DEVASTATING! McCain is Dead!

How old are you?

On April 9, 1987, McCain and the other senators attended a meeting with federal regulators investigating Keating. McCain has since said he regrets doing so. "He asked me to help him,I said I wouldn't do certain things. He called me a wimp. I threw him out of my office."

McCain testified that he never asked for anything inappropriate during the meeting, and the Senate ethics committee found that, after regulators said the firm was being investigated not just for insolvency, but on criminal grounds, McCain took no further action on Keating's behalf. In the end, the committee recommended McCain and Sen. John Glenn be dropped from the probe

McCain was cleared of wrongdoing in the "Keating Five" case.

Those are the facts, and they are indisputable.

Now since McCain has fully and openly talked all about this and been fully cleared, lets get back to the questions at hand.

Obama will not talk about his relationship with Bill Ayers. Obama and his campain are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to distance themselves from Obama/Ayers working relstionship. Why?

It is a fair question given the mounting evidence that Obama lied to all of us about this.

Now his campain is running a dead story about the "Keating Five".

That is going to back fire on them like a Weathermen pipe bomb. How stupid can they be?

New details now in evidence from the archives of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC) reveal that Barack Obama and unrepentant Weathermen William "Bill" Ayers were "partners" in a radical education program that poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists" with "no evidence of educational improvement which their grant was predicated on.

The extremist education program on which they collaborated lined the pockets of community organizers including $487,000 to Michael Klonsky founder of SDS in the 60's with Bill Ayers, and now a Chicago educator and political activist leader of the New Communist Movement. Klonshy runs special school and community workshops that were funded by CAC when Obama was running it.

Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just 'a guy who lives in my neighborhood,' and 'not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.' Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC.

The CAC's basic functioning has long been known, because its annual reports, evaluations and some board minutes were public. But the Daley archive contains additional board minutes, the Collaborative minutes, and documentation on the groups that CAC funded and rejected. The Daley archives show that Mr. Obama and Mr. Ayers worked as a team to advance the CAC agenda...

The CAC's agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers's educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, like that of Michael Klonsky special workshops based on his New Communist Movementand which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism.

CAC translated Mr. Ayers's radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with 'external partners,' which actually got the money,

Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Mr. Obama once conducted 'leadership training' seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama's early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC's in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

CAC resulted in nothing but failure for Chicago families and schoolchildren. Are these really the people we want to see setting education policy for the next four years?

Cindy, those are the indisputable facts!

What the hell is going on Mr. Obama? We Americans would clearly like to know.

Your campain websites says "Trust Me".

OK tells us about all of the above if you want our trust, seeing as you are calling for and increase for grants to charter schools programs like CAC!

So who are Obama's radical associates again?

I mean give me a break people. He's toed the party line this whole time and will continue to do so as President. He and the democratic party fully endorse capitalism. Nothing radical there. Bill Ayers on the other hand..

When we get right down to it, Dave doesn't want his taxes raised by Obama so that people making less than 250k a year can have a tax cut.

palin associates with witch doctors. therefore, she is a witch. or burns witches. or something.

is that logical, franco?

When we get right down to it, Dave doesn't want his taxes raised by Obama so that people making less than 250k a year can have a tax cut.

PETI, my family income is substantially less than $250K a year. I just don't for a minute believe that Obama won't raise taxes on just about everybody who earned more than the median income. He may raise my taxes less than he does for those in the highest bracket, but there will be more brackets and the ultimate goal will be income equalization.

I also don't see him cutting the corporate tax rate, which I believe is the single most important thing the government can do to revitalize the economy and create jobs.

We are currently the second most taxed nation in the world. Any increase in taxes will kill us economically and doom us when it comes to international competitiveness.

Dave

DD,

The number of Arabs supporting Obama is dwarfed by the number of non-Arabs supporting him. Nice red herring, man.

That's not the red herring, it's the whole damned fish!

Obana is surrounded by anti-Israel types who want to use American troops to impose a military solution here - one that makes me and 200,000 people like me homeless in our own country. So most Israeli are very nervous about this slick bastard.

The picture of Obama that emerges is this:

1. He is a disciple of a serious revolutionary who believes in infiltrating society to overturn it (Alinsky).

2. He hangs with former, but unrepentant terrorists (amateurs, but they still managed some damage) like Dohrn and Ayers.

3. His is bankrolled by Pakistanis, Arabs and has an Iranian for a chief advisor.

4. He lies to AIPAC about a "united Jerusalem" and the fools buy it (American Jews used to have brains - this generation is a pack of stupid self-satisfied cows).

5. He does not want to release where a lot of his money is coming from.

Most Israelis see this and see disaster. And they are right! So they oppose Obama. I see it and see an opportunity - to overthrow the American puppets in Jerusalem. I'm also a revolutionary. So I support Obama.

But this slick "community organizer" will deliver America into the hands of foreigners for real.

No shit, Sherlock.

I believe the pronouncement on McCain re Keating was that he used "poor judgment." He seems to get that a lot. Do we really want a president who uses poor judgment?

When Bill Ayers was in the Weathermen, Obama was 8 years old. He was then on a board with him. He has disclosed his association with him ad nausem. Read the NYT which Palin clearly did NOT finish reading (poor attention span?). McCain bringing this up is last minute mudslinging, old news, and not pertinent.

It's the global economy, stupid. It's people, stupid, and their lives, stupid, and the wars, stupid, and the world in general, stupid, and who has the best temperament and judgment to lead.....

McCain has denounced negative ads and negative campaigns time and time again yet continues to pull them out in desperation. He's losing the election, losing his marbles, and trying anything he can.

...spurred on by Franco and having spent the night studying the history and particulars of of as many weather people as I could locate information on and reviewing different definitions of terrorism/terrorist I'm forced to conclude that Hoover was right

as I cannot bear the shame I shall now expiate my weak argument through the ritual of seppuku

how about sudoku instead. really hard ones.

GOP's "Drill Baby Drill" not going down on Mean street or Drill Baby Drill meets "Not in my back yard"

Heloise lives in THE most conservative county in the country. And that means every other white person is a republican who voted for Bush and plan to vote for McCain, even if HE kills them or keels over, but that aside, we have a conundrum here in that just down the street from me some nice white conservative folks literally don't want to hear the sound of "drill baby drill" as the drills start to make that sound drilling for natural gas.

I got panned when I talked about natural gas cars on Kos because I guess they thought I had a share in natural gas. Well, guess what they're right. We do stand to make royalties here once the drilling begins.

But isn't money the root of the evil GOP? Hmmm, guess not, they not hearing "drill baby drill" because Chesapeake has had to jump through much hoops to get their nearby drill going close to expensive homes and perky little white kids.

Heloise

Below is a quote about what he wants to do in California and they see again' it too.

"T. Boone Pickens could gain from his energy plan, but so might we
David Lazarus, Consumer Confidential
July 9, 2008
When a guy heavily invested in natural gas and wind power says the answer to our energy woes is natural gas and wind power, it's hard not to smirk at his Texas-size gumption.

But let's not be hasty.

Energy tycoon T. Boone Pickens unveiled a plan Tuesday to wean the United States from its dependence on foreign oil. By shifting to natural gas as a transportation fuel and increasing our reliance on wind power, he said, we could cut oil imports by as much as 38%.

"Our dependence on imported oil is killing our economy," Pickens said in a statement. "It is the single biggest problem facing America today."

He called the country's oil purchases from places like Saudi Arabia "the greatest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind, sending billions of our dollars overseas to buy . . . a commodity that lasts 90 days until burned in our gas tanks."

Pickens, a legendary oilman, said his plan could change things within five to 10 years "if we can get Congress and the administration to act quickly."

That's a big if. Another big if is getting the auto industry to play ball by manufacturing more vehicles that run on natural gas instead of gasoline. And yet another wild card is whether the oil industry would support new energy priorities.

"These are big question marks," said Dan Becker, director of the Safe Climate Campaign and former head of the Sierra Club's global warming program. "There are a lot of things out of Mr. Pickens' control.""

RE# 79

Franco,

"radical, radical, radical education activists, radical education program, extremist, lined the pockets of, extremist education program, etc"

What was so radical or extremist about the education program?

Tossing around adjectives like that gives an impression one has said something without actually having said anything.

My own ideas about education would, I have little doubt, be considered radical and extremist. Of course so would anyone's who would actually encourage children to think instead of prepare for penciling in marks on a test.

I do know the Annenberg Foundation though (you know the ones who funded the Chicago Annenberg Challenge). They give out grants for media programs on PBS. How radical!

P.S. Franco,

Just like it doesn't really matter that Obama isn't hanging out with terrorists, it doesn't really matter if McCain was cleared of wrongdoing.

As McCain has decided his campaign will be a smearfest, Obama now is forced to fight back with the same tactics. Remember Kerry and the swiftboating from Bush--he made the mistake of ignoring it.

As McCain understands, it doesn't matter if you did it or not. It doesn't matter if you're innocent. It's the impression you leave.

The video is damning in the impression it leaves. Did you watch it?

Keating Economics

The Annenberg Foundation, founded and funded by conservative Republican, Walter Annenberg, lost control of the CAC when it funded Ayers. One of the CAC's acknowledged goals, is the radicalization of inner city school kids.

What irony.

And what a travesty.

When Bill Ayers was in the Weathermen, Obama was 8 years old.

That doesn't matter, Lisa. Anyone with even a slightly shady past who's ever been in the same room as Obama is now an 'associate'. I hear that Obama's mother's midwife once assisted in a backstreet abortion back when they were illegal, which of course makes Obama a baby murderer.

That's how rumors get blown out of proportion on the Internet, Doc.

I give it three days until it's on FNC.

Well hopefully my little reductio ad absurdum will remain a storm in a virtual teacup, Clav.

But the worldwide nature of the internet means whatever you write will get taken seriously by somebody. More likely if it's an article and not a mere comment - as I found out when I penned a tongue-in-cheek Ron Paul [crosses self, resists temptation to link to said screed] article a few months back.

When Bill Ayers was in the Weathermen, Obama was 8 years old. He was then on a board with him.

He was actually on two boards with him and Ayers hosted one of his first political fundraisers at his house. That's just a bit closer relationship than you suggest.

Dave

RE #90

Clav,

Any chance I can get a reference.

"...lost control of the CAC when it funded Ayers..."

I'm not sure what that means. Ayers wrote the grant for the CAC. Annenberg gave the grant (about 50 million. The city matched it 2:1 (about 100 million).

I can see it now...the city of Chicago giving 100 million to a group that acknowledges the goal of "radicalizing" children. You know, the city of Chicago--the city that obviously "supports terrorism."

What is "radicalization" of children? What were they teaching them, to make bombs and blow things up?

Why doesn't anyone tell me what the hell was radical, extremist, etc?

oh, jesus. sarah palin worships with a witch doctor, mccain accepted endorsements from pastors that want to wage war on islam and the catholic church, obama hangs out with ex-radicals... i once sat next to a hooker and have had people huffing paint and whip-its in my bedroom... you, dave have been known to converse with socialists and once lived in a communist state...

funny how this shit comes up (again) when mccain has his back against the wall. and he doesn't even say it. he gets his little minion to do it for him. pathetic. pick a real issue.

Annenberg gave the grant...

A big mistake on the Foundation's part. They obviously didn't vet Ayers before turning him loose with Ambassador Annenberg's money.

What is "radicalization" of children? What were they teaching them, to make bombs and blow things up?

Here's just one citation, from an article titled "The Bomber as School Reformer," by Sol Stern and published in today's City Journal:

As I have shown in previous articles in City Journal, Ayers's school reform agenda focuses almost exclusively on the idea of teaching for "social justice" in the classroom. This has nothing to do with the social-justice ideals of the Sermon on the Mount or Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech. Rather, Ayers and his education school comrades are explicit about the need to indoctrinate public school children with the belief that America is a racist, militarist country and that the capitalist system is inherently unfair and oppressive. As a leader of this growing "reform" movement, Ayers was recently elected vice president for curriculum of the American Education Research Association, the nation's largest organization of ed school professors and researchers. (emphasis added)

#89 -- Cindy D

Cindy, all we want is some answers from Obama. To date, he and his campain are trying to get as far away from it as they can. The more they try, the more people want to know why.

Here is more, I would like Obama to explain the following too.

In 1995, with Obama as chairman of Bill Ayers newly formed Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a school reform organization, CAC's first grant out of the box was to Michael Klonsky's Workshop for 175,000. The CAC provided another $482,662 to Klonsdy over the next few years.

Mike Klonsky was a former SDS comrade of Ayers and later helped found a maoist party in the United States, travelling to meet with Chinese leaders in 1977 for their endorsement of his effort here. Klonsky's Small Schools Workshop received a total of $647.000 dollars from the CAC headed by Obama and Ayers.

In a book, "Revolution in the Air," author Max Elbaum, himself a former Maoist activist, recounts that in Beijing, Klonsky toasted the Chinese Stalinist leadership who, in turn, hailed the formation of his Communist Party group as "reflecting the aspirations of the proletariat and working people," effectively recognizing Klonsky's organization as the all-but-official U.S. Maoist party.

Michael Klonsky leader of the New Communist Movement.

Why is that kind of money going into special communit education programs through Mr. Obama at Chicago Annenberg Challenge, why did he authorize CAC funds to the New Communist Party to fund their special school work shops.

This is reasonable question. It's not a smear, all these facts came out of the CAC records stored at the UIE library.

Sol Stern is a neocon who sees "radicals" under his bed. According to him the entire NYC school system is filled with radicals.

RADICAL TEACH
N.Y.C. SCHOOLS' NEW FAD

So, the CAC was promoting "teaching for social justice". I guess they were ahead of their time. Interesting, that is part of my pedagogy (which focuses on critical thinking and social justice). Students should learn to become active participants in their society. They should also be trusted with a factual accounting of events rather than cultural "incantations" which rather view the world like "Leave it to Beaver" by ignoring reality.

Here is a review of Stern's book: Breaking Free

Frequently Stern's objections to the horrors of progressive educational methods are more troubling. For example, Stern decries attempts to celebrate "Black History, Hispanic Heritage, Asian/Pacific Heritage, Women's History, Lesbian and Gay History - which nearly takes up the entire school calendar, leaving scant time for plain old American history." Presumably "plain old American history" need not include blacks, Hispanics, Asians, women, or gays.

"Critical thinking" and "Social Justice" are mutually exclusive terms, Cindy. The first relies on examining inputs based on their outcomes, honest data analysis, and skepticism.

The second relies on belief in a secular religion.

Cannon,

Justice is a religion?

Hey look, businessdictionary.com has a fairly good definition of social justice:

Fair and proper administration of laws conforming to the natural law that all persons, irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice. See also civil rights.

Holy shit! I guess that makes me some kind of "secular religious zealot".

What is wrong with this world? How did we decide that even justice is not valuable? Are we not social creatures anymore? Are we merely money-grabbing machines? So that nothing but aiding the making of money is worthwhile?

Note: For those of you who don't like the "ahistoric" phrase "natural law" just replace it with "reasonable proposition".

Here's an example of part of a series of lesson plans on aging that I developed based on a social justice principal.

I feel that something we do in our society is to lock the elderly away from view in nursing homes, which are often hell holes of despair. Aging is taboo--we understand this from all of the TV commercials that tell us so.

The lesson plan includes trips to a local nursing home to read to the elderly. Dialogs are encouraged. Often, experiencing reality like this has a number of benefits:

1) The old people get some company.
2) The children get to hear the voices of their fellow society members directly.
3) Exposure to aging people may help to "normalize" the idea of aging and promote self-acceptance.
4) The children get to see a part of society whose voice has been shut off. That is they get to experience a part of reality they generally don't see.
5) Through reading children learn vocabulary and grammar. Incorporating reading as an activity is the best way to improve reading and writing skills.

Seeing exactly how social policies effect people in our society is something I believe we should be doing.

If what I believe is religious secularism then I am a proud heretic of the Church of Capitalism.

Oh and don't forget all the subversive discussions can be gleaned out of such a radical method of teaching. The experience with the elderly could lead to other discussions.

For example: We could discuss critical thinking about TV commercials. Discussion of what advertising is might result in questioning what the goal of advertising is. Children might learn how to fact check about products and claims. Someone might get the idea that their body size/shape/age is okay, what if they had an idea like that as they grew up? What would that mean for Revlon's revenues?

Radical!

Actually, Cindy, I think the program you describe is excellent; props to you for teaching it and for your innovative methodology.

But radical it isn't. At least not in the sense of what Ayers taught through the CAC project.

Okay Clav,

But I am still waiting for someone to tell me what Ayers taught through the CAC project.

Really, I can't find anything myself, at the moment. I'd like the "what" of what was the teaching, not someone else calling it radical. If you find anything, please let me know.

Perhaps the actual records might be available soon.

The other problem being that while I don't have a problem either with your program, Cindy, or with the book definition of "Social Justice", that's NOT what activists mean when they use the term.

irrespective of ethnic origin, gender, possessions, race, religion, etc., are to be treated equally and without prejudice.

Irrespective, as in colorblind, Cindy. Most of the time when the words "Social Justice" are USED, it's to advocate for special treatment for a pressure group, RESPECTIVE of ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, etc.

A JUST system recognizes all citizens as Citizens, not (pressuregroup)citizens.

Oh, Clav, one more thing. I'm not a teacher yet. I've been taking classes for my retirement job in the next year. (Ft. Lauderdale here I come.)

Cannon,

But I am an activist. Which activists are you referring to?

"colorblind": you mean ignoring reality?

"Colorblind"-as in weighing people by what they DO, not what they look like. it isn't likely to make you feel better about yourself, but applying ONE standard to everyone, regardless.

If a guy beats his wife, it doesn't matter that he's white, brown, green, or purple-polka-dots, he's a beater and a scumbag by definition of what he does. Druggie, murderer, petty thief, they're all the same regardless of who their daddy was or wasn't.

The same can be said of con-men, and while it's a bit of an idealistic view, Cindy, there are a great many con-men in Wall Street and D.C. who need to go to the same prisons we send the con-men from Trailerpark USA and Slumville.

To Be Justice, Justice must be blind and inconsiderate of background. weighting the scales based on who someone's daddy was makes as much sense as NOT prosecuting a drunk driver because his parents were alcoholics. deciding that some groups get treatment different because they are 'special' just perpetuates injustices in the system.

It's the equivalent of saying "Oh, it's okay, they're just Wogs, after all, they don't know any better."

THAT is indefensible.

Cannon,

So you don't mean colorblind: ignoring that we may in fact favor some people or disfavor others based on ethnicity.

In that case, I don't have a problem with that.

Profound, really profound Cannon:

"A JUST system recognizes all citizens as Citizens, not (pressuregroup)citizens."