It is becoming increasingly obvious that Obama's past has made him u n e l e c t a b l e. He is divisive and anti-white. That will not fly in a general election.

"Hmmm Obama phrases something incorrectly while empathizing with people

vs.

Hillary, who personally benefits from Bill's high priced speeches to support CAFTA."

Let's see--Obama gets elected to the Senate and his wife's salary gets tripled. And would anyone buy his books, the ones that helped pay for his $1.6 million house, if he hadn't won the Senate and weren't running for President? Do you really think he won't parlay the Presidency, if he gets it, into BIG money speaking and consulting engagements after he's out of office?

As for his "poor" childhood--grandma, who raised him for much of his life, was a Bank VP in Hawaii, one of the first women to hold such a position. Mama and his Kenyan father both held Ph.D.s So yes, Obama has an elite background, in accomplishment and education, one superior, in fact, to Bill Clinton's or even Hillary.

"I prefer Clinton's policies over McCain's, I just can't excuse her behavior... she's like an angry toddler who isn't getting her way. Someone needs to give her a good spanking! Bill...?"

I was reading a column the other day (by a woman who supports Obama) that notes that much of the hostility toward Hillary seems to be coming from MEN due to unacknowledged sexism. It's comments such as this that make me think she was right. Try replacing "Hillary" with "Barack" and "Bill" with "Michelle" and see how it sounds.

I wonder how Sen. Obama's fellow congregants at Rev. White's urban church would react to being publicly chastised for seeking religious comfort because of THEIR bitterness? Of seeking drugs, alcohol, and so on, the banes of urban society, because of their frustration?

He also claims that small towners are "anti-trade" and "anti-(illegal) immigrant" because of their bitterness and frustration, minimizing the very real problems stemming from trade and illegal immigration. However, he himself has argued against NAFTA and the Colombian Free Trade Pact, and has supported the building of the border fence with Mexico. Just what has made HIM bitter and frustrated, if these are the only reasons why one must oppose harmful trade agreements and job loss to illegal aliens?

All is fair in love, war and politics...is that true? should we be wooried if it is true.

The consensus is the Clinton has to tear down Obama to win. Thus the latest namecalling..he is an elitist...there is something disturbing that a politician can only win by destroying the other...instead of rising one's self up to the occasion...

Does America really want this kind of person in office...any office..

Regarding Clintons playing the race card everytime since SC that she gets in trouble...this is a serious matter that goes to the roots of our democracy..indeed race-based acts are the basis of separate, distinct crimes...I wonder if her acts are not grounds for impeachment..they should be.

If Obama cannot properly understand what motivates the core demographic of his own country, what make you believe he will "understand" people in all the other countries around the world?

Considering English his first language, imagine the "misunderstandings" that he will be creating when he engages everyone else!

For a "Uniter" to succeed, he first needs to understand White America (last time I checked we were still the majority) and what motivates us, not R. Wright's views of White America.

Are we done yet with this joke of a leader?

I think the last thing we want is for some Arab nation or sub-group of a nation to "misunderstand" him for the hundredth time and lop all our heads off.

Generally speaking, the first thing that comes out of your mouth is the thing you really believe.

Obama, speaking to an urban audience of rich ultraliberal donors where he thought there would be no unsympathetic observers, made an off-the-cuff explanation of why he wasn't drawing rural votes in Pennsylvania.

Problem was, a pro-Obama blogger with a sense of ethics was videotaping his closed-door speech. Correctly, she sensed a deeper story, and she put the footage online for all to see.

(Cue the pro-Obama crowd to dogpile anyone who hasn't drunk the messiah's Kool-Aid.)

When you think you're among friends, you don't censor your words. Obama didn't.

There is no reason to think he meant anything but exactly what he said -- that rural whites who don't support him are the same ones who become gun nuts and bible-thumpers and anti-NAFTA xenophobes. He wraps that sneer in an fig leaf of explanation (because they're "bitter" over losing jobs).

But the real kernel of his meaning (and the correct reason for our condemnation) lies in Obama's crude caricature of rural whites as bigoted, uncultured suckers.

Obama was simply playing to his audience of West Coast sophisticates, who (as with so many cultural liberals) actually do see rural whites as unenlightened hicks who don't know what's good for them. In an effort to open his urbane donors' wallets, Obama confirmed their prejudices in a candid, private forum.

That revealing San Francisco video, along with the various gems of Rev. Wright sermons, will provide the GOP with rich material for a series of devastating attack ads, once the general campaign begins.

Obama's subsequent dance of backsteps, clarifications, "regrets", and other obfuscations will prove helplessly ineffectual, when his original words are replayed endlessly for the general populace.

Obama meant what he said. And when decoded, what he told those rich San Fran donors was this: that rural American whites believe in God, crave guns, and hate outsiders because they're basically too stupid to realize their problems are economic, not social.

And there's our reason why Obama will lose in November. The Kool-Aid-swilling Obamaniacs can delude themselves, but the Democrats are bound to lose. Obama will be running not so much against McCain as from the echoes of his own flapping gums.

"BitterGate" is going to last long after Barack is nominated, if he is nominated.

I think Obama is some combination of Adlai Stevenson and "Barack X." 'Bittergate' seals his Stevenson credentials, and Wright locks-in his 'Barack X' bonafides.

More discussion of this phenomenon here, as well as Thomas Sowell's thoughts on the matter:

http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=383

If we Democrats nominate Obama, I think we are going to be crushed in the general election.

From: BLACKS4BARACK.org

Hillary/Media's 'bitter' tactic against Obama desperately PITIFUL !

Here we go again ! When the campaign started in 2007 Obama was said to have not been 'black enough' as per the media as they touted Hillary's 82% support from Black Americans. The Clinton camp scrounged and dug as deeply as they could to find some kind....ANY kind of smut they could use against Obama, even searching as far back as his kindergarten writings. Couldn't find a thing. Then as Americans of all races learned more about the real Clintons, while learning more about the great qualities and capabilities of Obama, the inevitable was no more. So the Clintons (and the media) decided if they couldn't find anything negative on Obama, why not search through video tapes of Obama's preacher. Yea ! That's the ticket. So they scrounged and searched through years and years of video taped sermons and found a few somewhat harsh statements from the preacher....looped them all together....played them on the news 1 or 2 million times, in hopes that they could paint Obama as this anti-American-black militant type person....exactly what he is not (maybe they forgot he's also half white). But, polls showed their masterminded plot to be ineffective. Now what ? Ahhhhh. Obama makes a statement discussing how many Americans are fed up with government failures and are 'bitter'. The Clintons....McCain....the media....ALL decide....here's something we can jump on top of.....Obama called Americans 'bitter' ! So he's an elitist out of touch with real America!

This is the weakest attempt so far. How in the world can they try to claim that a little black boy who's father left at age 2....raised by a single white mother...so broke at times that she was on food stamps....a boy who grew up and went to college through grants and scholarships....riding to school daily in a ragedy jalopy.....just recently paying off his student loans thanks to proceeds from a book he wrote....(entitled 'The Audacity of HOPE') who's entire life has been devoted to helping the disadvantaged....the poor....sick....the struggling....THIS IS AN ELITIST ?

Hillary, McCain and the entire media should be ashamed of themselves for this weak, pitiful attempt to literally make-up truth. They should be concentrating on REAL facts such as the 109 million the Clintons have made during the last few years...or the 300 mill McCain's wife is worth.....or what about Hillary's secret religion known as 'The Family' which CNN didn't ask a single question about in the so-called religious forum...or what about her election fraud case going on right now in California? Did we mention McCain's wife's stealing of drugs and her rehab stint ? There's so much more....it's pitiful !

The fact is.....Obama is about as elitist as Hillary ducked sniper fire in Bosnia....Stay focused people. They are all (Hillary, McCain and the media) getting more and more desperate everyday. That's a real good sign !

Greg Jones
Visit: BLACKS4BARACK.org (Official Site)

Living in California these days, but I'll always be a son of PA at heart. Let me tell you that a lot of us ARE bitter people. Part of that is our psyche -- we are always the underdogs, and we LOVE the underdog. We hate fakeness and deception, and loathe pandering.

I always liked Obama and McCain (wanted him to win in 2000), used to be neutral to Hillary. I can't stand her now for obvious reasons (and I'm pretty tolerant for a Pennsylvanian ;), and know that I should support whoever the Democrat nominee is because much as I like McCain, I'd like to get the economy fixed, thanks much, but I don't think I could bring myself to vote for someone who employs outright lies and scorched-earth policies like she does.

I prefer Clinton's policies over McCain's, I just can't excuse her behavior... she's like an angry toddler who isn't getting her way. Someone needs to give her a good spanking! Bill...?

Chill out! Most of these comments will be out of the news in 3 weeks. That is as much time as they have on a 24 hour news cycle.

The issues being talked about tomorrow will be the difference between the rich and the poor. The job vs the job less. Those who have healthcare and those who do not. How do we save our planet and still have the things we want?

How come DC made $2.1b (billion) on a Vice-President salary or is it some non-competitive contracts (Iraq and Katrina)?

How come GWB made $896m on a President salary or is it some kick backs in oil money during their record profits?

In a current political ad, 3 year-old Hillary Rodham, arms extended, toddles toward the home-movie camera. Hillary's present-day voice-over explains, the Rodham family cottage, down by the lake, lacked indoor plumbing. Yet, more telling details seem to fall by the wayside. Take twenty-seven year old Hillary's first real job. The upshot: Jerry Zeifman fired Hillary for unethical practices during the Watergate Investigation. Why was Hillary fired? "Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in a recent interview. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

"I have gone [duck] hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting," says Hillary. Perhaps as amusing, is how an elitist politician worth over $100 million-dollars, espouses small town family values. Not only does Mr. Zeifman's account go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation. It took Zeifman twelve years to get his story aired. After Watergate, Zeifman could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust, nor furnish her with a letter of recommendation. After that, Hillary's employment record is one of strict nepotism, cronyism, and amnesia.

Although few suspected the lengths to which Hillary would go, a leopard never changes her spots. According to Mr. Zeifman, it's not just Hillary's dishonesty; that's a fact not in dispute. More to the point is the overall timeframe in which she has behaved in a fraudulent manner. "The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party." -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor. Again, Hillary Clinton is a bold-faced liar, who will stop at nothing. Should anyone doubt either Mr. Zeifman, or Mr. Ruth's veracity regarding the Clintons, dispute this: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Ps. Parental reminder: due to possible long-term side effects, please use caution when teaching a child to quack like a duck.

Hillary's tactics. She has the media right in her pocket.

"Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event -- no matter how trivial - and turn it around to your advantage. Make a big deal of it. Keep doing it. Over and over again. Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win. And the bloodless revolution succeeds.
The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):" Saul Alinsky

Wise up people and see that the Clintons are up to their same old divisive tactics. It's a scorched earth plan that will leave no one standing if Hillary has "her way."

Posted by: Lucia | April 15, 2008 1:26 PM

This is the precisely the manner in which Hillary has been treated.

Why does it have to be a "nasty, power-hungry, take-no-prisoners woman?" Hopeless in Mass?

Consider the fact that all the current high profiled candidates are power hungry take no prisoners sorts only divided by party lines, large canvassing budgets, and a media owned by both liberal and conservative tycoons and collectives hellbent on maintaining the very status quo most would scoff at?

Let's wake up. Judge a candidate on their lifelong merits and not their budgets or combined closed closeted party sentiments.

This IS supposed to be AMERICA, land of the free... is it not?

I am completely fed up with HRC's tactics in this campaign. She must have studied the Republican play book cover to cover because she has been using it like a master. When are our politicians going to realize that their partisanship is destroying not only the party, but our great nation? If Clinton claws her way to the top using these scorched earth tactics, the future of our country, and our children is in serious peril. We face serious issues, and we will accomplish NOTHING if we elect someone like Clinton, who practices playground politics. We will face 4 more years of gridlock in Washington, while the country goes straight down the toilet. This life long Democrat will choose McCain over HRC.Wake up you sleeping superdelegates - the time to take a stand is now. Will someone please pull the plug on this nasty, power-hungry, take-no-prisoners woman? This country desperately needs Barack Obama.

Shane L, as an eighteen year old I was presented with the same sort of argument in the early nineties. My family, my friends, even many of my university professors and classmates all felt that Ross Perot spoke some core truths about the economics of the day with real (while considered revolutionary) fixes which could steer the US in the right direction. They also felt the need to heed both Democratic and Republican Party warnings that a vote for Perot was a vote towards the party they most disagreed with. I voted alongside my beliefs, my ethics, and my rose colored perceptions of what the founding fathers envisioned.

I moved away from the US for various unrelated reasons, and while watching the subsequent elections and rhetoric, decided to abstain indefinitely from partaking in the two party system based on it's universally world wide depravities, until a Chechnyan of all people pointed out to me Ron Paul. (You don't expect Chechnyans to be in tune with the US process, and neither did I)

He was.

Freedom fighters come in all flavors and nationalities.

He recognized something philosophically against his old regime, and by extension, my old regime we could both relate to.

I don't ultimately care if Ron Paul makes it or not. My expectations aren't so high that it might be a life changing scenario, and I also know better about the entire "political process". But what does matter is that my single voice stated the bare essential truth, as Ron Paul did on the Floor - October 8th, 2002.

It's my duty, my responsibility, my very charge in this life. To do and broadcast what is real, what is valid. As a human being, it's not always an easy task though in this case, the conclusion is effortless and true to heart, mind, and soul.

I could give two Yogi Bear Cave droppings with a side order of McCain on Hillaried Obama grained toast whether my candidate ascends or not.

The political parties that be can take their cheap wins and run with them just as long as it takes all our sons and daughters to be raised to adulthood by reason, ethics, and an overall consensus of right and wrong.

In the meantime, I'll be teaching my kin about the great Ron Paul who I was proud to vote for on at least one occasion.

There is bitterness among the supporters of Clinton not as a result of anything Obama has said but the manner in which the media, and that includes liberal blogs and even supporters of Obama, have been launching swift-boat attacks on Clinton from day 1. And yes, Hillary has more experience than Obama both in the policy making arena and international affairs or just about anything. Liberal blogs like Huffingtonpost.com have been shameless in creating fake anti-Hillary headlines and censoring readers who dared to disagree with what garbage it, and other sites like it, have been dishing out.

Nicholas Lefevre, thank you for this dose of reality.

I would only add that I hope we can soon get past even the partisanship. It's so important for every American to be more discerning, learn a little more about what good government is based on, and elect the candidate who will bring us just that -a good government. Everywhere around us we see evidence of government failure not the least of which is an economy that even the Republicans admit has been devastated. I think most rational Americans can unite behind the fact that we must do better and cannot afford to be distracted by the sideshow.

I like Ron Paul. Unfortunately, Barack Obama is a lot closer to choosing and appointing an administration that will affect our lives in the near future. In my view, support for Nader or Ron Paul is conscious and respectful but only to the benefit of those who can and will authorize war.

I don't know about you, but I was once in favor of this man. Now I am left with nobody to represent me. I was feeling neither bitterness, nor contempt in my life until he chose to stereotype me in that manner.

Just because someone is half black and half white, doesn't mean they don't carry the same biases as everyone else. He is not without sin though he will try and convince you differently.

But between his reverends remarks in the past, his reverends NEW remarks in VA this past weekend, combined with Obama's ever escalating tone of an overbearing parent speaking to me as if I didn't know any better, I think the American public can now attest in unison that the apple didn't fall very far from the Wright tree. I was one that gave him slack on that but as I suspected it would, it came back and bit me.

The general feeling that when he screws up, he blames US for not understanding him and/or it's because we don't understand Black Extremism and we are racist if we don't agree. This is getting very old with white and middle class America....And of course the topper of not properly representing the mentality of the very core of Mainstream America.

Bitter? Darn right I am bitter now... He has just shown America what he is truly about...

Well... perhaps in another 4 years...

Until then, ill go and apparently take comfort in things that I CAN control... Only this time its not my guns... It's my vote for president. The one thing that I know he will listen to and understand since apparently he has been listening to the MINORITY of Middle America.

Hillary gets caught in another lie, this time on NAFTA

At her recent campaign stop in Pennsylvannia, Hillary insisted that, "I did speak out and oppose NAFTA". I raised a big yellow flag and said, "I don't think this will work."

According to documents released by the National Archives, Hillary in 1993 attended at least 5 meetings that were used to win approval of NAFTA by Congress and these documents detailed her role in promoting NAFTA while she was first lady.

Teamsters union President James P. Hoffa told The Associated Press recently that, "No one who was around in the time of NAFTA remembers her" opposing the agreement.

Shane L wrote, "I cannot support any of the candidates who authorized this war. I'm not crazy about Obama but I have to respect his judgement in this instance."

What is to respect then, Shane L?

A man who stood his ground, while having it:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Ron_Paul%27s_Iraq_Speech

Or a man who foraged for ground as a shadow political party member to the "Big Two" when he didn't have ground to stand?

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech

Actions speak louder than words.

I live right across the Delaware from PA in NJ. I look out my window and I can probably see the trees. I have a lot of family that lives in PA and in those very small towns Senator Obama is talking about. I have family in a lot of small towns around the country. Theres a good chance I could be thought of as an elitist even though I relate more to my cousin in the sticks then I do to my cousin in Miami.
But it's true. People have to drive 3 times farther to go to the home depot or Walmart because their local stores are closed or they can't afford the prices. They are out of work because those who used to be carpenters are being undercut by others who hire immigrant labor.

Their schools are closing or in disrepair. Which makes it even harder to get scholarship money to send their kids to colleges with ever rising prices. Parents work themselves to the bone to get their kids into college only to see the prices go up every year till that little nest egg of money saved is only a drop in the bucket.

And then their pensions dry up or the money they have invested disappears and that little bit of college money has to go to making sure they can survive when they retire.

They look for answers and help. A political leader comes along and tells them the church, which they already take comfort in will save them, and guns cannot be taken from us (and shouldn't but I am pro-control not anti-gun), and its the immigrants fault. And since many politicians work through the church they are associated with hope. So they get behind them.

But when a guy like Obama comes along and says that these aren't the problems just what we try to cling to when times are bad he gets kicked down. So long as politicians can use people looking for answers to follow them with blind faith and no solutions they will believe that immigration hurts the economy.

Even though any economy 101 student can probably prove its the total opposite. That exporting jobs has also created many new jobs in America. Gay marriage is a problem for the church not the government. That abortion is a social problem that needs to be dealt with at the source (drugs, rape, poor education) not the end result. Sure many Americans hold these issue dear because they believe in them not just because they are desperate to cling to something but many have little left to turn to.

So I support Obama when he tries to tell people these are not the issues that will save your job, your country or the economy.

And I guess to round out my rant let me say one quick thing about hypocrisy. How can the Republican party or any politically conservative person or group claim that it is ok for the government to make rulings over social problems? The Republican party is historically anti-government and yet Bush and other Republicans run on the platform of banning gay marriage, funding private schools, ending abortion and about 100 other social issues while claiming the government should stay out of the peoples affairs. I know the answer, do you? I'll give you a hint:
follow the money.

Demo posters tell us that both candidates are racists, liars, bad for our economy, have very sleazy friends, would open the flood gates to illegals, would destroy our health care system, have dispicable spouses, would do anything to be elected,would embolden our enemies to more terrorist actions and the terrible list goes on. Yet, they are going to vote for one or the other?

I never liked the idea of our two party system. After losing someone close in Iraq to suicide (not considered casualty of war to some) I cannot support any of the candidates who authorized this war. I'm not crazy about Obama but I have to respect his judgement in this instance. Sorry to all you Obama haters.

Hillary's tactics. She has the media right in her pocket.

"Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event -- no matter how trivial - and turn it around to your advantage. Make a big deal of it. Keep doing it. Over and over again. Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win. And the bloodless revolution succeeds.
The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):" Saul Alinsky

Wise up people and see that the Clintons are up to their same old divisive tactics. It's a scorched earth plan that will leave no one standing if Hillary has "her way."

Rob: your so wise. I wish we all had the wisdom of you and Obama.

Post-Modernist:

Don't blame me I voted for Ehrlich. I agree with your assessment of both parties. I believe we need at least one if not more strong parties in our system, but it seems that is one of the things the Rep & Dem parties agree on, that only they should have the power.

As Bill Maher has often said the working class in America continuously votes against its own best interests. Every time some out-of-work steelworker or auto worker votes Republican, he's voting for someone who professes to feel his/her pain, and then turns around and figures out how to take money out of his/her pocket while lowering taxes for his rich cronies. Wake up. The last time you voted for someone who was really on your side was in 1948 when you elected Truman. Republicans are the elitists - but they don't extoll the virtues of intellectuals. They pay homage to the rich - no matter how they made their money.

Obama is sounding more and more like his mentor preacher Mr. Wright. It looks like some of the sermons did sink in.

Bill W: you nailed it. He is looking down on some ene elses culture and showing his own -- which was developed in large part by people in his life like Rev. Wright. The writing is on the wall if you chose to read it.

To me the issue is not whether he said it, but the question is, is it TRUE? I'm no fan of Obama, but being from a small town in Missouri, badly econonomcially distressed and has been for years, I believe his statement, in general is true!

Chip

No wonder George Soros has been lying low.

I was wondering where he was.

"Hillary, Soros, Alinsky, and Rush"

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

For the past couple of months, I've been reading up on the Clinton/Soros connection into the wee hours of every night. Ever since George Soros slipped through the backdoor to American political power at the tawdry invitation of Bill and Hillary Clinton, he has carpet-bagged his way to the Democrat Party inner circle and has become the "biggest political fat cat of all time." With more than $7 billion in his little Hungarian carpetbag, he thinks he can buy the Presidency for Hillary Clinton and get back into the throne-room of worldly hegemony -- the Oval Office.

In 1995, George Soros appeared on PBS with Charlie Rose, and said this:

"I like to influence policy. I was not able to get to George Bush (Senior). But now I think I have succeeded with my influence...I do now have great access in the (Clinton) administration. There is no question about this. We actually work together as a team."
(The Shadow Party; David Horowitz and Richard Poe; p. 91)
So, even though Soros is hedging his political bets by donating to more than one candidate, his intimate ties to Hillary and Bill, going back more than a decade now, make it clear that he would prefer a 2nd Clinton administration, where he is already part of the very in in-crowd.

Not so fast, you two. We're onto you.

Senators Reid and Harkin are taking their cues from Media Matters, a Soros-funded front group. As Hillary Clinton declared at the recent YearlyKos convention (her confirming sound bite played by Rush Limbaugh on the radio), she was the mastermind behind both The Center for American Progress (her think tank) and Media Matters (her media attack machine). Hillary provides the name and political connections that Soros craves, and Soros provides the money. Quite a powerful partnership, what some might even call a conspiracy.

If you want a complete rundown on how all of Hillary's and Soros' "non-profit groups" work together in her plan to take over America, get yourself a copy of the book by her mentor, Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals. In it, you'll find the complete outline for throwing Judeo/Christian principles and honesty to the winds of revolutionary fervor. Hillary Clinton has been the perfectly patient disciple of Alinsky's since she wrote her thesis about him her senior year at Wellesley in 1969. If her admiration of Alinsky had died with her thesis, no one would care. But it didn't. He remained a close confidant until his death (The Shadow Party, p. 56) and his tactical fingerprints are all over her projection of the false "Centrist" image she is manipulating to garner political power. It's all in the book.

The First Attack on Rush

Hillary's media attack machine Media Matters first tried to hush Rush by attempting to have him thrown off the Armed Forces Radio and Television Service in May 2004. In a letter to Secretary Rumsfeld, they demanded Rush be silenced after his "trivialization" of the military misconduct at the Abu Ghraib prison. The gag on Rush was necessary, they wrote, "to protect our troops from these reckless and dangerous messages."

Senator Tom Harkin jumped on the Hush-Rush Campaign that time too, just as he is now, demanding "balance" in media. With the taxpayer-funded, liberal propaganda organ, NPR, being broadcast to the troops 24/7, it's hard to believe that anyone could feel one hour a day of Rush Limbaugh is a threat to balance. If anything, that one hour of Rush may be the only balance to the unending, livestream of "The-War-Is-Lost" Harry Reid and his Democrat followers: Tom Harkin, John Murtha, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy.

The only reason that Hillary Clinton keeps up the public façade of "moderation," and doesn't dare to go on record with her deep disdain for our military is that she is following the Alinsky model, which admonishes revolutionaries to milk their white, middle-class backgrounds and appearances to achieve the political power necessary to carry out the socialist revolution.

According to the Alinsky model of bloodless socialist revolution, Rush Limbaugh represents a Have as opposed to a Have-Not. Now what does Rush Have that Hillary Clinton and George Soros Have-Not? [A lot, actually, good ideas being perhaps the first thing that comes to my mind.] But in the current battle, what he definitely has is an established and quite verifiable reputation for unabashed patriotism. This reputation is so strong that as soon as someone attacks it, then real, living, American Armed Forces and Veterans immediately come to his defense.

George Soros, on the other hand, even has a hard time being recognized as an American citizen. And Hillary Clinton, even though she voted for the War, has done all she could to squirm out of it -- without apologizing -- ever since the War became more difficult than bombing an aspirin factory in the middle of the night.

Rush's Have Patriotism status, and the Soros/Clinton comparative Have-Not status is the dynamic that makes Rush a prime target of their revolution.

They are using Alinsky's "basic tactic in warfare against the Haves," which Alinsky refers to as "political jujitsu." (Rules for Radicals, p. 152) This tactic advises the Have-Nots to "club the enemy to death with his own book of rules and regulations." (p. 152) Rush is a great patriot, playing by the American patriot rulebook. But even a true patriot can be caught every now and then using one or two words, that when taken out of context, might be used to choke him on his own "petard" (p. 152).

This works especially well for the revolutionaries in our high-tech age, and some of Soros' money goes to pay full-time listeners and media-watchers at Media Matters to monitor every word of the Haves.

In their battle to Hush Rush -- preferably before he gets a chance to skewer Hillary in the general election campaign -- Hillary and Soros are using their media attack machine, Media Matters, to apply Alinsky Radical tactics #8 and #10.

The eighth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 128):

Keep the pressure on.

Once you identify a potent adversary, seize every word, every event -- no matter how trivial - and turn it around to your advantage. Make a big deal of it. Keep doing it. Over and over again. Eventually, you will wear down your opponent and win. And the bloodless revolution succeeds.
The tenth rule (Rules for Radicals; p. 129):

The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.

The operations of the revolutionaries must be cohesive, organized and constant. An action causes a reaction, which causes another reaction to the reaction, "ad infinitum." (p. 129)
And we see exactly how that happened with Rush.

- MoveOn, another Soros front group, came out with their ad defaming our Commander in Iraq, General Petraeus.

- Because that was a political ad in a major public forum, The New York Times, and because it defamed an American General in wartime during his momentous testimony before Congress, the ad sparked a reaction in the Senate: a resolution denouncing the ad. Notably, while many Democrat Senators joined in condemning the MoveOn ad, Senator Hillary Clinton did not.

- Media Matters picked up Rush Limbaugh's denouncing of 2 scurrilous soldiers, Jesse Macbeth and Scott Beauchamp. They seized the only two words, which appear to catch Rush breaking his own patriotic rule of always supporting the troops.

And they employed Alinsky's 13th tactic: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. (p. 130)

The Soros-funded MoveOn ad provoked a reaction in the Senate. The Clinton brainchild, and Soros-supported, Media Matters stepped in the battle for Patriotism honors and provided a reaction to the first reaction. A few other Democrat Senators (including Senator Hillary Clinton) jumped on board with their reactions. And the battle continues.

After Air America crashed and burned, Clinton and Soros feel they must hush Rush and push to reinstate the "Fairness" Doctrine in order to completely control the message for Hillary's run on the White House.

In short, bringing down Rush -- or bursting the bubble of Rush supremacy, as George Soros might say -- would prove more than a political plum in Hillary's pudding. It might actually give her the throne of power in the Oval Office, with George Soros her backer and enabler.

And the only thing that remains to be seen is whether it will be as easy to control the ballot box on Election Day as it apparently has been to control the Democratic Party."

From the American Thinker

Obama got carried away during the closed door meeting and revealed his true self to be a condescending elitist. But that's not all. He said regarding small town people: "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" Now he is backtracking and changing the word bitter to anger. OK, look at the last part of the above quote. Now he is saying they get angry and resort to bigotry. He has applied his mentor Wright's behavior to small town people. How obtuse can a candidate for president be and still receive support from some people?

Small-town folks in PA voting for Clinton
are untutored masochists asking for
25 more years of joblessness.

Just like his preachers comments, americans agrees and the media over-blows it. These overblown nothing are a great sign, if they really didn't fear Obama they would be ignoring him not constantly over-blowing anything to do with him.

I more so follow Marty's line of reasoning, with one exception or rather exceptional subject under the microscope, a candidate with the combined experience of an 18th century statesman, a 20th century lifespan of selfless devotion to his community, and an integrity which none could even think to rival. Look up Ron Paul's lifetime if you're in doubt. As Marty suggested, the whole presidential race between Obama, Hillary, and McCain is in fact "conventional". An irony when you consider that both Republicans and Democrats alike would have you believe that they're not indeed conventional. My vote, my dollars, and my fellow worldwide expats, stationed soldiers alike will continue doing what we can to elect someone more deserving of the original constitutional convention. Conventional or not.

Obama is nothing more than a media showtune -- and 50% of democrats lap it up like puppy dogs. Let's hire someone who can do the job for a change.

To flyover, I don't know that it makes much difference for me especially since I live in the People's Republic of Maryland, which would vote for Pol Pot or Saddam Hussein if they ran as Democrats.

Given what both parties have to offer, I'm not sure that it makes much difference anyway. We just get to vote for the piano-player in the sporting-house that is official D.C.

Wouldn't an election between say, Ralph Nader and Ron Paul be a lot more interesting and offer more substantive debate, both of whom question the fundamental legitimacy of conventional wisdom, albeit from different places along the continuum of ideas?

Obama's comments were made off the cuff at a fundraiser outside of SF. I usually find that off the cuff remarks tend to be what people really think which is the problem for Obama.

He is condescending here and he has been at other times. He does tend to look down at people. Now I give him credit for being really smart and charismatic. But I gave the same credit to Kerry and Gore- not the charismatic part- and look what happened to them.

It is clear that Hillary has the ability to connect with the voters we need to win the Presidency. Don't know what it is but she connects with seniors, white catholics, Hispanics and women in a way that Obama somehow can't. He has a much better connection with the elite and the liberal media-guess that is the same thing-and they can relate to him. At least so far they have found excuses for every mistake he has made.

The reality is that when we won the Presidency before as Democrats it was with two good ole southern boys. Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Now they were both brilliant guys but they learnt how to connect with the average Joe. For some reason, maybe because she spent so many years in Arkansas, or by osmosis from Bill, Hillary Clinton has learnt to connect to those same voters. If you look at the Democratic primaries, Hillary has won the majority of Democratic votes. Obama got his victories by adding Republican and Independents. But in the general election I would rather count on the voters that Hillary got. They will give us the difference we need to elect a President.

Obama can't win Ohio or Florida and we really need one of those states to win in November. Hillary will also win Arkansas.

I am a Democrat and will support either of them but them I am an elitist and not the average voter in the states we need to win.

This is conventional politics folks. Take it or leave it. None of the candidates are perfect people, perfect politicians or saints for that matter. They are in fact humans who have made questionable career choices. You are foolish if you hold the truth microscope on these people. The best that we can do is choose (or not) based on character, intuition and conventional widom. I just wish some bloggers would just be honest and say that despite her lies they support Hillary because they like her hair or because Barack is black.

Republicans and NY Times Working Topgether Now? The Times doesn't like to take responsibility for its words, and there are plenty that deserve the scrutiny now being given to Obama's remarks. Reporter Michael Powell, recently used the slang phrase, "talks smack" to describe Obama's perfectly articulate criticisms of President Bush.

Powell, and Jeff Zeleny, who is the author of the several of the latest hit pieces on Obama, also wrote that Obama basically learned to do politics in Chicago with crowbars. In that article, also, was the suggestion that if Obama gets down and dirty with Clinton "he risks taking the shine off."

"Shine," as you probably know, was once a well-known racist label for a black man who shines shoes for a living. Right now, Obama is playing by the white man's rules--he's a shine, Powell and Zeleny suggest, if he goes on the offensive and takes the shine off, he is, by inference, a full-blooded black man with a crow bar. The Times has never apologized for these word choices.

I don't understand how someone could "incorrectly phrase" his thinly veiled aversion towards at least two of the ten amendments to the Bill of Rights, just in this scenario, much less an overall lack of connection towards his supposed constituency.

Let's dispense with the labeling and look at the facts.

I'm just fed up with all this petty crap about poor choices of words. Clinton's gaffe about sniper fire was a one day story that dragged into two weeks. Obama's bitter comment is even less important. I'd rather listen to the two of them argue for a couple more hours on health care, as boring as that might be than to listen to any more coverage of this trivial crap. I'd also like to see either one of them mop the floor with McCain on the health care issue.

Instead of covering this stupid stuff, why aren't reporters asking for very specific definitions from John McCain as to what victory in Iraq will look like. They should also ask him how he's going to do it while reducing both the length and duration of rotations. These are the things our news people and pundits should be talking about, not whether Obama is in touch with working class small town gun owners.

I can see we've got more Lush Rambo HRC for nominee posters here.

They and all other purveyers of 'business as usual' are clinging to the past.

Hmmm Obama phrases something incorrectly while empathizing with people

vs.

Hillary, who personally benefits from Bill's high priced speeches to support CAFTA. She lied once. Why should we believe she backs any of her policies, especially when most of her advisors do just the opposite?

truth vs. CAFTA..... truth vs. CAFTA

Hey, I support Hillary, let's choose CAFTA and ship more jobs out of this country.

While I'm not a religious person by nature, I can't fault anyone else for developing their spirituality through any means, religion, hunting, or otherwise. Religion and hunting have been staples of grassroots existances since the beginning of time, and through all civilizations, empires or not. There's even an argument that they're necessary extensions of mortal life. Obama's attempt to explain why increasingly caged(social and economic)animals feel an instinctual rage not only missed the mark completely, it actually highlighted where that rage is directed towards. People like Obama, Hillary, and McCain. Yet when someone speaks the real homespun and undarned reality, such as Ron Paul, there is no sizeable reaction by any party except these disenfranchised supposedly ignorant types. Media mentions are virtually censored to boot.

In the corner, Obama. Your dunce cap awaits

get that video out there!!!

Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America, Circa 2004

http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M

thanks to gandalfthegrey

Would you folks please cool it! Supporters of Senator Clinton and of Senator Obama are natural allies in the effort to reverse the disastrous results of the Bush administration. Some of the folks trashing Obama and Clinton are Limbaugh "Democrats" - Republicans posing as Democrats and trying to damage both candidates. Don't let them do it and don't help them do it! Both Obama and Clinton are highly capable and their policies are nearly identical.

I was very impressed by Obama's comments from 2004 in the YouTube link in this article:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M

I was also impressed by this accounting of his comments in San Francisco by someone who was there, but not as biased as the person who originally manufactured this scandal:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html

Soundbites are not a reason to vote or not vote. Soundbites areonly that. The entirety of Obama's comments is lost if you play along with what Clinton will have you think.

What should Pennsylvania really think about? NAFTA. It was manufactured, marketed, and sold by Clintons. Bill Clinton took $800,000 from Columbia which is where NAFTA is going next. Now Hillary says, I never liked NAFTA. That was my husband's administration.Hillary and Bill are profitting from the deal.

"Throughout the world, people suffering with the consequences of this disastrous experiment are organizing to demand the better world we know is possible - but we face a race against time. The same interests who got us into NAFTA are pushing to expand it to include 31 more countries in Central and South America through the proposed Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA). In 2005, Congress voted to extend NAFTA to five Central American countries through the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA), and the Bush administration is now looking to add Peru and Colombia to the list as well."

Read between the soundbites. Run from the Clintons.

Vote change.

It's pretty obvious the writer Doug Fever is just another Obamabot. He only picked a couple comments that were against Obama. Is spite of the overwhelming condemnation of Obama by so many.

Journalists think they are so clever in their subtle deceits. But tactics like Doug's just go to show why america despises journalists more than attorneys and justifiably so.

Clinton has nothing to stand on except as a liar and backstabbing. My mother taught her children not to climb to the top on the back of others. Clinton is a true snitch Marxist, and as so is a confirmed invalidator of anything of value. Shame is a word nonexistent in her vocabulary and she needs to wash her mouth out with soap, lye soap.

Excellent post-modernist. Do we sit it out, or vote for the least of three evils? I keenly sense that Obama is the leastest elitist, but the least capable of action. McCain will be the best CIC, but the most likely to succeed at Scarsdale High. So, does Hillary represent the wisest choice, or is it a moot point as she has been doomed by the uber-liberals' primary choices?

having "antipathy to people who aren't like them" - that would not include jeremiah [H's spiritual leader], would it? Because that applies only to European-Americans?

This idiotic conversation illustrates again that we're smack in the middle of the political Silly Season.

Obama speaks simple truth too directly for some, and the Stupid Lobby rises up to go to war, with Rendell and Clinton leading the troops.

Depressing.

I think people are focussing too much on the word "bitter" and not at what he said rght after. That is where the trouble and offense lies.

He said it to appease California fundraisers who think they're better than smaller town folk. Obama was essentially telling them "poor them, let's at least try to understand why those ignorant fools who aren't as educated as all you, are so religious, use their 2nd ammendments rights and are all a bunch of racists."

What he said was wrong. And he'll never apologize. He'll say what he "meant" to say instead. And when he does, the sheeple will applaud and forget what he said in the first place.

The question I fiand interesting is why is Oboma out of touch with small town voters that he would end up making the statements? Is small town America no longer part of the Democratic Party big tent(or just very small part) that the concerns, thinking do not register with most Democrats anymore?

Well, as a student of von Mises's and Wendell Berry's social criticism, I find little in Mr. Obama's comments to be arguable. His point is well-taken, that in times of radical economic and social change people retreat to that which they can trust, i.e. gemeinschaft as opposed to gesellschaft. Church, family, clan, and community were the basis of the American identity for more than two centuries. It was the destructively creative force of industrial capitalism that created the rift we still see today. The Democratic Party has followed Durkheim in believing that mechanistic culture (trade unions, government programs, etc.) can adequately replace the organic institutions of a more agrarian society. They are wrong. Unfortunately the Republicans have nothing worthwhile to offer either, promising support for small-culture but still undermining it whenever they have the chance. A pox on both parties.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.