Powered by TypePad

« The Reconciliator's Judgment | Main | Getting To Know You »

March 14, 2008



I'm so ticked at the game-playing. More from the must see if you haven't Cat on a Hot Tin Roof:

Harvey 'Big Daddy' Pollitt: You didn't kill Skipper. He killed himself. You and Skipper and millions like you are living in a kids' world. Playing games, touchdowns, no worries, no responsibilities. Life ain't no damn football game. Life ain't just a buncha high spots.


Some think OJ was framed for the murder he committed and knew exactly what evidence was moved or tampered with.


It's not difficult to believe, C, that the LA police framed a guilty man, and it is not difficult to argue from the framing to the assumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.


If Obama privately doubts Wright's message, and part of his motivation is to get beyond the divide, then he may be sincere with all that hope business. But it is becoming increasingly clear that what Obama holds in his heart is not allowed out for public display.

This fella is not authentic. He is not even honest with himself.


God, I luv the Geraghty post, with the Obama story:

The room fell quiet, and people turned to my father, expecting a fight. Instead, my father stood up, walked over to the man, smiled, and proceeded to lecture him about the folly of bigotry, the promise of the American dream, and the universal rights of man. “This fella felt so bad when Barack was finished,” Gramps would say. “that he reached into his pocket and gave Barack a hundred dollars on the spot. Paid for all our drinks and puu-puus for the rest of the night – and your dad’s rent for the rest of the month.

By the time I was a teenager, I’d grown skeptical of this story’s veracity and had set it aside with the rest. Until I received a phone call, many years later, from a Japanese-American man who said he had been my father’s classmate in Hawaii and now taught at a midwestern university… during the course of our conversation, he repeated the same story that my grandfather had told, about the white man who had tried to purchase my father’s forgiveness. “I’ll never forget that,” the man said to me over the phone; and in his voice I heard the same note I’d heard from Gramps so many years before, that note of disbelief – and hope.

America--what a great place! Hope--we can get the white man to provide handouts indefinitely! And notice how it was a "Japanese American man"--not an evil white man--who vouched for the story. Does anyone else find it as disgusting as I do that Obama portrays his father as accepting handouts from an evil racist?

Patrick R. Sullivan

I was always just wild about Jeanie (from nearly a quarter century ago):

I am grateful that you should invite me, a lifelong Democrat. On the other hand, I realize that you are inviting many lifelong Democrats to join this common cause.

I want to begin tonight by quoting the speech of the president whom I very greatly admire, Harry Truman, who once said to the Congress:

"The United States has become great because we, as a people, have been able to work together for great objectives even while differing about details."

He continued:

"The elements of our strength are many. They include our democratic government, our economic system, our great natural resources. But, the basic source of our strength is spiritual. We believe in the dignity of man."

That's the way Democratic presidents and presidential candidates used to talk about America.

....They were not afraid to be resolute nor ashamed to speak of America as a great nation. They didn't doubt that we must be strong enough to protect ourselves and to help others.

They didn't imagine that America should depend for its very survival on the promises of its adversaries.

They happily assumed the responsibilities of freedom.

I am not alone in noticing that the San Francisco Democrats took a very different approach.

[big snip]

The inauguration of President Reagan signaled a reaffirmation of historic American ideals.

Ronald Reagan brought to the presidency confidence in the American experience.

Confidence in the legitimacy and success of American institutions.

Confidence in the decency of the American people.

And confidence in the relevance of our experience to the rest of the world.

That confidence has proved contagious.

Our nation's subsequent recovery in domestic and foreign affairs, the restoration of military and economic strength has silenced the talk of inevitable American decline and reminded the world of the advantages of freedom.

President Reagan faced a stunning challenge and he met it.

In the 3 1/2 years since his inauguration, the United States has grown stronger, safer, more confident, and we are at peace.

The Reagan administration has restored the American economy.

It is restoring our military strength.

....The Reagan administration has helped to sustain democracy and encourage its development elsewhere.

And at each step of the way, the same people who were responsible for America's decline have insisted that the president's policies would fail.

....They said that saving Grenada from terror and totalitarianism was the wrong thing to do - they didn't blame Cuba or the communists for threatening American students and murdering Grenadians - they blamed the United States instead.

But then, somehow, they always blame America first.

When our Marines, sent to Lebanon on a multinational peacekeeping mission with the consent of the United States Congress, were murdered in their sleep, the "blame America first crowd" didn't blame the terrorists who murdered the Marines, they blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When the Soviet Union walked out of arms control negotiations, and refused even to discuss the issues, the San Francisco Democrats didn't blame Soviet intransigence. They blamed the United States.

But then, they always blame America first.

When Marxist dictators shoot their way to power in Central America, the San Francisco Democrats don't blame the guerrillas and their Soviet allies, they blame United States policies of 100 years ago.

But then, they always blame America first.

The American people know better.

....The American people know that it's dangerous to blame ourselves for terrible problems that we did not cause.

They understand just as the distinguished French writer, Jean Francois Revel, understands the dangers of endless self- criticism and self-denigration.

He wrote: "Clearly, a civilization that feels guilty for everything it is and does will lack the energy and conviction to defend itself."

With the election of Ronald Reagan, the American people declared to the world that we have the necessary energy and conviction to defend ourselves, and that we have as well a deep commitment to peace.

And now, the American people, proud of our country, proud of our freedom, proud of ourselves, will reject the San Francisco Democrats and send Ronald Reagan back to the White House.

Rick Ballard

Great speech. The synopsis is "lemon suckers are losers, so I switched". Just like the folks leaving the plantations. Just like the folks who have abandoned the lemon sucking mainline denominations. There's a message there for those with ears to hear...

Barney Frank

With Wright and Rezko blowing up in his face it will be very interesting to see how BO handles it.
If he can Teflon his way through he'll look even more like the Messiah and propably skate to Nov, unless McCain can pin his loony leftism on him without looking like a cranky old geezer.
If he can't there could be one landscape shiftng donnybrook brewing in Democrat land. Will it spill over beyond the party into society as a whole?
The only chickens coming home to roost (to use the Wright reverends phrase) are the ones resulting from the Democrats trying for decades to make an identity omelot on their plantation without breaking any eggs. They kept them from breaking for forty years but now they seem to have hatched on their own.


In Omelot that's just how conditions are.


Obama in his statement said he found Wrights remarks "inflammatory and appalling."

Appalling. I wonder who on his campaign staff chose the word apalling. Twenty years and he is only now appalled?


Anduril: Yeah - about that $100 guilt assuager? What, pray tell, are we supposed to make of that? Hey whitey biggot, throw us some money (after you apologize) and it will make it all better?


YOu know this could play out pretty well for the democrats. Obama is down 8 points in the overnite Rasmussen poll. So lets say he tanks in PA. Hillary takes the nomination and people no longer decide that she stole it, but rather earned it. HIllary asks Obama to be VP and he takes it to prove himself for the next time. The breakdown of the democrat party is avoided and a race war is also avoided.

They could then take the WH.


Kim--I think that you are correct re: OJ and the "framing of a guilty man." The presumption is that the system is rigged against the black man. OJ's actual guilt or innocence was secondary to the victory over the prosecution. I don't think this is blindness or stupidity or moral callousness--it is instead an entirely different set of priorities and a profound mistrust of our system of justice. It underlies the message of most black leaders, including politicians and preachers--and explains why even intelligent, educated, upper class blacks like the Obamas are not revulsed by the message of Wright, Sharpton, et al.

Rick Ballard

It's the audacity of hoping for additional reparations - not exactly a new theme in black/prog political circles. The emptying out of the plantations is an indication that bloom on that rose is fading.

The HI fantasy is a cute prog morality play on the issue - I wonder if BHO had help in dreaming it up? What a weasel.


Clarice, re; over 50% coming here after the Civil War:

That's what makes the outrage and the victimhood so irritating. There are so many in this country who are here because they or their ancestors escaped real persecution and who seem to move beyond their pain. Is there anything that is more hypocritical than a wealthy and successful African American whining about the injustices of America, when he screams for the head of a Jew with a concentration camp tattoo on his/her wrist, or a refugee from Stalin's Soviet Union, or some other horrible state system or religious system? Shoot, I don't go around whining about compensation and my WASPy ancestors escaped from Catholic persecution during the Reformation period, good Quakers, Presbyterians, Lutherans, etc. all came to America to escape from religious persecution and the confiscations of their land and livelihoods. Or ask descendants of the early Mormons about their experiences in New England or in Missouri where they were constantly attacked by armed gangs who killed everyone in their path, not because of the color of their skin, but because of the faith in their hearts. But worse, a good portion of blacks who were captured and sold into slavery were the victims of their own tribesmen/countrymen and of African-Arab slave traders. Obama is more African-Arab/American than he is an African American. Is there even one modern African American who has suffered the torture and pain of imprisonment that comes close to whitebread John McCain's experience? Asians/Vietnamese escaped to America, broke, didn't speak the language and yet in only one generation, they have risen to the top academically and in business, while young blacks with their fancy cars and cell phones and credit cards roam the malls and scream racial obscenities at whitey for all the world's ills. It is infuriating.


On OJ, there were over 170 on the cyber jury with me and only 2 voted guilty, the other 170+ voted not guilty. As I've said many times, if you only got your OJ info from the nightly news, there is no way you could come to any other conclusion but guilty, but not so if you watched every minute of the actual trial. The media completely ignored Barry Scheck's brilliant cross-examinations and they cut away from his brilliant closing arguments and concentrated only on Johnny Cochran. It is no wonder the majority of America got a very warped view on the outcome.


Just saw on Fox News, Kessler saying that Newsmax would show "proof" on Monday that Obama was present for one of the sermons.


I think Scheck was helped by an utterly incompetent prosecution team, too busy shtupping eachother to handle the case properly and by a DA who stupidly let the case be tried in the most unfriendly venue and the worst trial judge in the country.

And there was a lot of defense legerdemain. Remember the juror bounced for what turns out to have been an utterly false report? The juror who seemed to have her head on straight?
Well--no sense rearguing it.
But in time he'll kill someone else and go to jail for it.At last.


Sweetness & Light is tracking down Obama's church attendence. http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-wasnt-in-wrights-christmas-audience>Sermon

He definitely has him at chuch on Jan 13 and has proof Obama was in CHicago at Christmas.
It's just a matter of time.


A friend of mine said to me a few days ago, it is much much worse to be fat in America than to be black in America.


I think Scheck was helped by an utterly incompetent prosecution team, too busy shtupping eachother to handle the case properly

Agree 1000%. When Marcia Clark got her multiple million dollar advance for her book, I quipped that I could have easily lost the case for 1/2 the amount they gave her and done it much more skillfully.


Referring to the Captain's snark, shouldn't it be, "I sat in his pew - but didn't inhale"?



A late comment.

And likely thread killer.

I met Senator Obama last week here in Wyoming during the caucuses. (Friends and family tell me we were on MSNBC or some-such.)

He came to our table, all smiles and charm (he is VERY IMPRESSIVE in person) extending his hand and asking us how we were doing.

As I shook his hand I asked him if Samantha Power was going to continue to advise him as POTUS even though she had just the night before resigned from his campaign.

His smile disappeared slightly and he "congratulated me" on being "so up-to-date on the news."

"She's a friend" he told me, but he "couldn't have someone on his campaign who made such a 'silly' remark."

I then asked him if he supported her views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

He told me that he had just the day before "spoken with the King of Jordan" and that "There are people there [the ME] that are willing to work for peace."

And finally, "Yes, I support her views."


But support.

Seems similar here.

Or not.

In any case, Obama Hussein Barack is not finished.


He will double down and call the bluff of AmeriKKKa.

So too, will his proxies.

Bush is not Hitler for nothing.

Hillary! too.

It will be Hillary Rodham Clinton who will have to cut the deal.

Obama is in for the long haul.

Too bad the Republicans are running Maverick.


It's only gonna' get worse.

Just sayin'.


Here's a report of some comments made by Rev Wright on the Hannity & Colmes Show on Mar 2007. Link

"WRIGHT: The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the gospel (INAUDIBLE) developed by laypersons in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement, 26, 28, 30 years ago, yes."

Steve Sailer puts the whole thing in context in Link

" A year ago, March 1, 2007, Rev. Dr. Wright made an angry appearance on the Hannity & Colmes show on FoxNews. It represents one of the few times when someone very close to the old Obama has been directly challenged. The telecast attracted little attention—the discussion quickly devolved into almost incomprehensible crosstalk—but a careful reading of the transcript reveals much about the ideological underpinnings that helped bond Obama to Wright's church for the last 20 years.

Sean Hannity began by asking Wright about the "Black Value System" espoused by Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ. Wright responded:

WRIGHT: The black value system, which was developed by the congregation, by laypersons of the congregation, 26 years ago, very similar to the gospel (INAUDIBLE) developed by laypersons in Nicaragua during the whole liberation theology movement, 26, 28, 30 years ago, yes.

What exactly was going on in Nicaragua 26 to 30 years before this debate in 2007? Well, 1977-1981 were the years of the Marxist revolution in Nicaragua. The Soviet-allied Sandinistas made use of the "liberation theology" promoted by leftist Catholic clerics of the Jesuit and the Maryknoll orders. In fact, three radical liberation theology priests served in the Sandinista cabinet. During a dramatic 1983 visit to Managua, Pope John Paul II had to speak out sharply against liberation theology. He later suspended Marxist priests serving in the Sandinista regime.

So, the black liberation theology of Obama's church is, according to Obama's minister, "very similar" to the "liberation theology" espoused by old Marxist revolutionaries in Nicaragua."

One really has to read all of the Steve Sailer article plus all the links to understand just how bad the Obama movement is. Also, don't forget John Kerry already has a long history/connection with the Sandinista and their leader.


"Most importantly, Rev. Wright preached the gospel of Jesus, a gospel on which I base my life."

Jesus, inexplicably,failed to dabble in real estate,nor did he seek high office.Has Barack Hallelujah Obama got the wrong copy of the Gospel?


Or,more likely did Jesus have the wrong one?


Me TooThen, if you are willing to be identified I'd blog the Powers exchange.
You can contact me thru editor@americanthinker.com.

I disagree with your final analysis..Rasmussen shows Obama sinking like a stone, but he has the delegates, doesn't he? The DNC must be going insane.


What are the chances that this church was chosen by his wife and he just went there to make her happy? After all, most churches are chosen by the wife and she seems the more radical one. Or perhaps this church is known as a good place to make connections among the up-and-coming African Americans in Chicago, and it was chosen for political connections rather than the religion. I don't know if that makes it much better however.


Sorry, Sara, but anyone who says O.J. didn't murder Nicole and Goldman is incredibly stupid.

Don't even try to spin this as the media didn't report it properly. The trial was on TV. I read books on the stupid thing.

If you want to lose all credibility, keep it up.


Obama and Wright from VDH:

In a nutshell, Obama just doesn’t get it. The more he keeps hedging and huffing about the demagogic (“God damn America”) Wright, while simultaneously preaching about ethics, tolerance, and healing, and the more his own prior sermons are juxtaposed to Wright’s venom, so the more Obama appears an Elmer Gantry-like figure.

He obviously either doesn’t fully grasp the degree to which his intimate relationship with a peddler of hatred offends Americans; or he feels that the Wright narratives are merely a wink-and-nod part of the local Chicago African-American landscape, and thus not that big a deal; or he finds some sort of psychological fix in listening to a surrogate provide a vitriolic, vicarious payback; or he is so indebted to Wright for providing him the requisite racial fides to start his career that he simply cannot say, “I was wrong to have been a part of Rev. Wright’s church; it is divisive and at odds with what I have tried to achieve in this campaign, and I’ve resigned from it.”

I pass on the fifth option that someone like Obama really believes the Wright lunancy.

Hard to Believe

Given Obama’s past sanctimonious dismissal of the Christian right (“The so-called leaders of the Christian right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”), he now is in danger of not just playing the hypocrite, but the fool as well. Referring to Wright as a “respectable biblical scholar” et al, is laughable—given that almost everything Wright seems to assert, whether about the Roman Empire or the origins of AIDs, is buffoonery.

The notion that Obama never heard any such nonsense is, well, nonsense—given that he frequented the church for 20 years, laughed off some of the Wright hyperbole in his own memoirs, and has a wife whose invective about America as not worthy of her pride, mean, etc dovetails with his pastor’s sermons. Moreover, his own past interviews belie his most recent assertion that Wright was merely his pastor, rather than a political advisor. And we learn that during those tough years in which Michelle Obama was whining about having to budget money to pay back those government-guaranteed student loans to Harvard Law School, the Obamas were giving thousands of dollars each year to subsidize the Wright hatred. Messiahs are supposed to tell the whole truth, and nothing but the truth—and all the time.

This is hope and change and the new transparency?



When I come across long entries I'm in the habit of guessing who wrote them, while reading, and I'm getting pretty good at it. I didn't guess Hanson (I guessed Rich actually) and I think he nails it. Of course that's not all that hard to do on the Ides of March.


I always thought OJ was guilty AND was framed. I think the police saw it as an open and shut case and planted a little more evidence to make it even more so. In the end, that was the downfall of the prosecution, because Johnny Cochran was able to use the "if some of it is tainted, it all is tainted, and you must acquit" line very successfully. The jury threw out the baby with the bathwater, essentially.


thought OJ was guilty AND was framed

If there is a difference between "reasonable" and "not unreasonable" then that seems like a not unreasonable suspicion.

IMO the prosecution got some details wrong and because OJ knew which ones his team was able to exploit those errors as racist framing. The bloody glove BS and Furman's 10 yr old n-word recording probably made conviction a very long shot.


PaulL: Thank you for the compliment. So nice to hear your thoughts on the subject. I guess most of us then on that cyber jury, who actually had to watch the trial gavel to gavel and had access to ALL the evidence for our study and comment were stupid. And none of us ever said, one way or the other, whether we thought OJ was innocent, what we KNEW was that the prosecution FAILED miserably to prove he was guilty. To think otherwise is racist, IMHO. See I can toss the insults too. Oh and the makeup of the cyber jury was 90% white and with about 50% with jobs in the legal field, from attorneys to court reporters to police officers to private investigators. We had different reasons for voting the way we did, I couldn't reconcile the timeline and never believed Nicole's claims of abuse, others were more swayed by the bogus forensics, or police officers carrying evidence from one crime scene to the other, others who knows.

Soylent Red

I don't know if that makes it much better however.

Gee sylvia...

Hen-pecked husband or political charlatan. Neither one of them absolves Obamessiah of the profoundly poor judgment and decision-making capacity of joining such a church, then sticking with it for 20 years, then not immediately distancing yourself from it prior to vying for national office.

Points to a guy who never suspected he'd get caught, never suspected people would find such speech offensive, or just plain didn't care. Whatever the case, not the kind of guy I want in charge of the football.


Via Drudge, here are this week's cable news ratings:

FNC GRETA 1,896,000
CNN KING 1,640,000
FNC HUME 1,530,000
CNN COOPER 1,417,000
FNC SHEP 1,392,000
CNN DOBBS 1,057,000


Soylent,Just as the media coverup for Kerry backfired--who in his right mind didn't laugh when that traitor "reported for duty" and made his "heroic service" the theme of his campaign?--the cover up of Obama's ward heeling and connection to the race baiting Marxist minister has backfired. Had the media not covered up for him , he'd not now have the most delegates and put the DNC in an intractable box.
Tough toots.



Charlie (Colorado)

The Fed, not J.P. Morgan, is bearing the risk of the loan. It is the first time since the Great Depression that the Fed has lent in this fashion to any entity other than a bank.

Anduril, Bear is an investment bank.

Charlie (Colorado)

Sorry, Sara, but anyone who says O.J. didn't murder Nicole and Goldman is incredibly stupid.

Paul, anyone who thinks "framed for a crime he committed" is saying OJ didn[t' kill them is even stupider.

And needs to work on reading comprehension.

Charlie (Colorado)

Folks, I'd like to point out that Obama has as many delegates now as he had last Wednesday; failing a dead girl or a live boy, he'll get to the Convention with the majority, and with months of pressure both ways on the superdelegates. I wouldn't bet against him getting the nomination, and if he doesn't, I wouldn't bet on Hillary getting ANY of the black vote.

Some time ago, a friend bet me $50 that it would be Hillary vs Romney in the election and that Hillary would win. I bet against him on the basis that the Democratic Party's ability to be idiots was incalculable.


I am not able to convince myself that progs are going to react to all this Marxist, America hating and racist nonsense the way the majority of Americans are currently reacting and will continue to react as it becomes more widely known. Progs will likely figure out ways to give Barack a pass and he shows no signs to me that he intends to back off or even slow down.

So its still what to do about Fla delegates, what to do about Michigan delegates and what to do if the Superdelegates vote against the dlegate count in enough numbers to put Hill over Barack. Someone should order a case of Head-On and mail it to DNC headquarters. They are going to have pains in the forehead for quite some time.

But have Obama on the ticket at the top or the bottom is not going fly well with the muddle. He likely is toast in a general election, and further he knows that ABC News only ran this stuff because Hill wanted them to. Its like AIDS and the CIA, Hill made the Newsies talk bad about Reverend Wright. It is a forgivable offense, at least to a good number of true believers in the The Mess.




Anduril, Bear is an investment bank.

Charlie, you made my day. I always worry that people don't read all these articles that I link. Now I know that at least you do. For those who didn't read the article, here's what I mean:

Charlie quoted this graf from the article that I included in my post:

The Fed, not J.P. Morgan, is bearing the risk of the loan. It is the first time since the Great Depression that the Fed has lent in this fashion to any entity other than a bank.

Then Charlie commented: "Anduril, Bear is an investment bank," as a kind of a wink and a nod to let me know that he had looked up the rest of the article and read the very next paragraph:

The Fed, not J.P. Morgan, is bearing the risk of the loan. It is the first time since the Great Depression that the Fed has lent in this fashion to any entity other than a bank. MarketWatch's David Weidner on Bear Stearns's announcement that it will receive funding assistance and whether the financial institution can be stabilized.

Some Wall Street executives said they thought Bear was likely to be sold, in whole or piecemeal, in a matter of days, to prevent it from going under. Bear, the fifth-largest investment bank, said it has retained investment bank Lazard to weigh alternatives. Those alternatives "can run the gamut," Bear Chief Executive Alan Schwartz said in a conference call.

For those not in the know, like Charlie and me, banks are prohibited by law from both accepting deposits and underwriting securities: they can do one or the other but not both. Thus we distinguish between Investment Banks (like Bear) which underwrite securities and Commercial Banks which are allowed to accept deposits.


Really thats the difference? I will have to call my broker at Wachovia Securities and tell him he is breaking the law!


Gawd look at this from Jeralyn at Talk Left-

This is an open thread, with a caveat. We are not commenting (and neither should you) about a candidate and his pastor. Any comments about it will be deleted. People have shown they can't discuss it rationally, and what's okay to one person is insulting to another. My decision, with the full support of Big Tent Democrat, is that it will not be on this site.

As to other topics, the floor is your's.

Oh really um-all other topics except this particular one...

It's weird huh?

They're afraid to discuss it.

And she's got a lame excuse there because on a thread about Rezko before this one they were talking about it-and it was a veritable tea party.

You know aren't they the party that is suppose to be against censorship, for freedom of speech....?



****I guess most of us then on that cyber jury, who actually had to watch the trial gavel to gavel and had access to ALL the evidence for our study and comment were stupid.****

Clearly. I wouldn't expect someone stupid to acknowledge that she is stupid, however.

As I alluded to above, and maybe Charlie missed it, the O.J. trial was unusual in that the public not only had access to virtually the whole trial, they also heard *more* than the jury.

That's why your spin, Sara, about being privy to the whole trial doesn't carry any weight. You don't know a darned thing about the trial that millions of other people don't know too.

You other posters who actually think the cops framed O.J., you're beyond reasoning with. You should be ashamed.

The prosecution, judge, defense, jury, and media were incompetent. Now we can add the cyber jury was incompetent as well. Plus the conspiracy-theorists. Heckuva thing.

Rick Ballard

"Bear is an investment bank."

And I think Chrysler was a car company - that one took an act of Congress though. The triple B ABX packages are trading as low as 9 cents on the dollar. JPM/Chase was also a junk issuer and has a very good idea about what the precise default rate is for the 100% no docs. They have four months of data to work with on the very worst loans which were granted.

I hope they don't get an upset tummy from overeating.



The natives are restless.


Why was Romney's religion completely out of bounds to talk about, and he never had to defend the really outrageous, racist, intolerant and sexist tenets of his church, of which he is a 3rd generation of a dynastic family leadership of the LDS and Obama just sat in the congregation. Seems like some blatant hypocrisy by some right bloggers who backed Romney, although I suspect they mostly did because they hated McCain, but any mention of Romney's risible cult were met with "anti Mormon bigot!" while Obama's preacher, who btw says what a lot of black preachers in this country say, is nitpicked and Obama who "nodded in agreement" is damned? WTF is that? I call bullshit on this one. Where's Tim Blair's column dissecting Mormonism and asking Romney hard questions about his cult?

Why is it?


Isn't interesting how the Marxism thread keeps weaving itself in and out of Obama's storybook life? First off is moonbat momma, an avowed Marxist and atheist. Then its Ayers, the weatherman. Then J Wright with his Black Liberation Theology, which just Marxism blended with some racism and put in a religious context. Liberation Theology has been banned by the Pope, if you were wondering.

Thus finally we have his darling wife spitting out her first time proud comment. In this context, does he speech read like every edition of the Workers World Daily? Shouldn't the burden be on Obama and Michelle to show us they are not unreconstructed commies?


I can't believe anyone not on the jury sat at their computer for a year and a half and watched a trial.

What's with that Sara?


The Hillary supporters are on strike at Kos.


"Wachovia Securities is the trade name used by two separate, registered broker-dealers and non-bank affiliates of Wachovia Corporation providing certain retail securities brokerage services..."

hit and run

he'll get to the Convention with the majority

A plurality but not a majority, right?


Doc weasel, And what an appropriate name..In fact, Romney was forced to give a long interview about his faith and was criticized for views his church had long abandoned. If you can point me to current Mormon doctrine half as odious as Dr Wright's Black liberation theology, please do so.


Anyone who wants to know what the situation re investment banking is since 1999 can look up the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in Wikipedia. The point is, the authors of the WSJ article understood the distinction. Bear Stearns is not a commercial bank.


Well Paul, you obviously don't know what we had access to or who. But, don't let that stop you.

There are people, not stupid, who believe the system should work. Put aside your bias of a rich white while black man and ask yourself if you would want to be convicted on blood evidence that a detective took home overnight and carried from one crime scene to another or whether you would want to be convicted on glove evidence knowing that a detective carried the Rockingham glove and laid it down in the dirt next to the Bundy glove at the Bundy crime scene? Would you want to be convicted on fiber evidence from a blanket that video tape showed was lying on the ground and walked over by dozens of people going in and out of the Bundy condo, without footies, and traipsing all kinds of debris across it and then using that blanket to wrap one of the victims in? It just goes on and on with the conditions of the lab, the incompetence of the technicians, the reputations of L.A. cops, etc, etc. The bottom line was that it was the prosecution's job to prove its case and they did not. When the prosecution does not prove the case, the jury has no choice. Be glad that the system worked, despite your desire for blood.

And as an aside, would you not harbor suspicions that Ron Goldman was the actual target and not Nicole, if you knew that he was one of 3 young men in their early 20s who worked at Mezzaluna who were killed within an 18 mo. period? And if you also knew that he supplemented his income as a toy boy to the Beverly Hills rich & bored housewife contingent as well as a drug dealer? Or that the police never really looked into any of the six men who Nicole was known to be seeing in the previous months before her death?

I'm not saying any of these things are definitive as to innocence, but they definitely raise legitimate reasonable doubt in at least a few reasonable person's minds.

Rick Ballard

"A plurality but not a majority, right?"

He could have a majority Hit. Only The Shadow knows the evil which lurks in the heart of a Dem Superdelegate...

hit and run

Oh, I just meant on the pledged delegates -- meaning he won't win enough in the remaining races.

to reinforcing the idea that the super delegates are super enfranchised in this process.

Soylent Red

It is a forgivable offense, at least to a good number of true believers in the The Mess.

Ah, just so GMax...but that's not really what this is about.

Even if this dies down, this adds to the Obamessiah's unlectability in the general quotient, which is what Hillarity is currently banging away on.

Regardless of whether he gets the nomination (which he probably still will) he will not get it without Hillarity milking this for all it is worth. Thus it no longer matters whether he gets nominated, he still loses.

Some pundit made reference to the Kilkenny Cats WRT the Dem nomination. That's as apt a description as I've seen.


By Big Tent Democrat at Talk Left:

Matt Stoller writes:

Obama is not a part of any progressive fights, so there's no independent organizing going on on his behalf from people who actually understand the right-wing media and how it operates. He's decided he's a post-partisan politician, and when a politician makes that choice, it's not just a disincentive for partisans to fight for that person. It becomes structurally impossible to fight for him because the incentives get all out of whack.

But if Obama is the nominee, do we believe Obama won't be defended by the Left blogs? I find that hard to believe. Heck, I know I will.

There you have it!


I don't get this. Is Obama comparing himself to RFK and the Rev. Wright to Martin Luther King? I am in awe of his ability to deflect:

Obama invokes RFK in distancing self from pastor

PLAINFIELD, Ind. – Sen. Barack Obama invoked Robert F. Kennedy on Saturday as he continued to try to distance himself from controversial statements made by his former pastor that are now widely circulating on the Internet.

"Bobby Kennedy gave one of his most famous speeches on a dark night in Indianapolis, right after Dr. King was shot," Obama said. "He stood on top of a car."

In reality, Kennedy, speaking in nearby Indianapolis on the night of April 4, 1968, spoke from the bed of a flatbed truck.

"He delivered the news that Dr. King had been shot and killed," Obama continued. "At the moment of anguish, he said we've got a choice. We've got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and letting it fester and dividing us further so that we no longer see each other as Americans, but we see each other as separate and apart and at odds with each other...

Saying "the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again," Obama began to point to his own former pastor from Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's South Side.


ts clued me in to some breaking news about another Fitz farce--Enron--the case against Skilling is falling apart as it appears the Enron task force deliberately withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense.



That's Fitz? WOW. I read about that earlier. He needs to be Nifonged - or Spitzed, which ever is more painful.


I hope they don't get an upset tummy from overeating.

hit and run

Bobby Kennedy:

We've got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and letting it fester and dividing us further so that we no longer see each other as Americans but we see each other as separate and apart and at odds with each other...

Reverend Wright said, "Yes! I like that choice!"

Obama replied, "I'm cool with that."


Jane, per TS, Fitspatrick selected the Enron task force that Skilling claims hid the evidence,


"The Hillary supporters are on strike at Kos." - Clarice

Where is Other Tom? He would love the fighting going on at The Daily Kos: Blogtalk: Pro-Clinton Bloggers Boycott Kos

From the article:

"Joe Gandelman at The Moderate Voice blog writes: “Where progressive and moderate bloggers and commenters used to get worked up arguing about George Bush, there now a real angry, scolding tone in many comments left by Clinton and Obama supporters.”

He continues: “In short, the strike/boycott is a symptom — and with so many months to go until the Democratic convention, the prognosis for true Democratic Party unity going into the election seems ‘questionable.’”


The crane collapse in NYC is horrible.


We've got a choice in taking the rage and bitterness and disappointment and letting it fester and dividing us further so that we no longer see each other as Americans but we see each other as separate and apart and at odds with each other...

H&R: It would seem Obama and his pastor have chosen the rage and bitterness and disappointment. Huh?


Something really has to be done to get these democrat prosecutors out of power. They are a bunch of fascists.

Mars vs Hollywood

The media completely ignored Barry Scheck's brilliant cross-examinations and they cut away from his brilliant closing arguments and concentrated only on Johnny Cochran.

Brilliant or no, Scheck's argument boiled down to saying that contamination of DNA evidence resulted in a false postive ID of OJ. Which if you know the first thing about DNA evidence, is total BS.


No Mars, it was the contamination of the majority of FORENSIC evidence that was the point, not only the DNA.


'Obama is going down and taking Oprah with him.'

Oprah cult.

Obama is going to take America down with him. His socialism already cost lives. Oprah is just going to go cult and tell everyone to leave. She's worth billions.


Here's an interesting passage re the Enron case, a case I know next to nothing about:

I have spoken with several former federal prosecutors about this issue and all believe that the government has a big problem in the Skilling case on the way in which the information from the Fastow interviews was provided to the Lay-Skilling defense team. None of these former prosecutors ever prepared a composite 302 in one of their cases or ever used such a composite in one of their cases. The process of taking all the Fastow interview notes or draft 302's and creating a composite is offensive in that it allowed the prosecution to mask inconsistencies and changing stories that Fastow told investigators as he negotiated a better plea deal from the prosecutors.

Similarly, the Enron Task Force's apparent destruction of all drafts of the individual 302s of the Fastow interviews in connection with preparing the final composite is equally troubling. Traditionally, federal agents maintain their rough notes and destroy draft 302s. However, in regard to the Fastow interviews, my sense is that the draft 302s were not drafts in the traditional sense. They were probably finished 302's that were deemed “drafts” when the Enron Task Force decided to prepare a composite summary of the 302's.

An average person might well suspect from this account that those "composite" 302's were, in fact, substantially written by the prosecutors rather than by the investigators who conducted and memorialized the interviews. Traditionally in the US we've always tried to maintain a separation between the investigation and the prosecution. This arrangement does, IMO, serve as a protection against prosecutors who are seeking to advance their careers by spectacular prosecutions. It also is the case, of course, that the prosecutors serve as a control over overzealous investigators--all this in addition to the separation between prosecution and judging. The modern tendency, and the Libby trial was IMO another example, is for the prosecutors to become involved in a very hands on way in the investigative stage. This tendency has been furthered by misguided legislative insistence on having the government attorneys oversee and approve investigative activity that previously was discretionary to investigative agencies--such layers of oversight have served as a wedge for the less scrupulous prosecutors to use to gain undue influence over the investigatory phase.

The blogger writes: as Thomas More reminds us, "in the winds that blow" from the unjust exercise of the government's overwhelming prosecutorial power. I believe that is true.

Rick Ballard

I have spoken with several former federal prosecutors about this issue and all believe that the government has a big problem in the Skilling Libby case on the way in which the information from the Fastow Russert interviews was provided to the Lay-Skilling Libby defense team.

Yeah - sounds like Fitzlaw allright. Creative Writing 302 as taught by Professor Fitzpatrick.


I can't seem to get over the fact that a minister of the gospel of Jesus, according to Obama, was dry humping during a sermon. And someone who looked a lot like Steve Harvey runs up and pats him on the back, encouraging him. Dry humping behind the pulpit...

::shaking my head in wonder::


The crane collapse in NYC is horrible.

My son was two blocks away. Heard a big crash, and went to look.

Called to say he's okay, lest his Mother worry. ... As if I wouldn't worry. ... Well, he's right, I probably wouldn't worry. I jsut assume he's in his own good hands with his own decent luck. Nice to hear from him, though.

Charlie (Colorado)

Oh, I just meant on the pledged delegates -- meaning he won't win enough in the remaining races.

Hit, you're right that I meant the non-Superdelegates. On the other hand, considering the population of potential delegates, and the proportional allocation rules, I think it's really unlikely in the extreme that Hillary will make up enough delegates to actually pull ahead by the time those ninnies arrive in Denver.

Which is kind of a shame, as I don't really want to spend that week standing around with a 12 ga pump-action, explaining to anarchists why they shouldn't be trying to burn down that building.

PaulL, when you take "OJ may have been guilty but framed" and turn it into "thinks OJ was innocent", you're being an idiot.

When you come back and try to defend that bit of amphigory, you demonstrate yourself an ass.

I'm not sure what the next step down the slippery slope might be, but I have a feeling we're going to find out.

Clarice, jane, as you know IANAL, but I'm glad you brought that kir article up; I read it today and I was wondering what an actual lawyer thought of it. It sounds to me like it's pretty conclusive.

Considering that this case destroyed Arthur Andersen (RIP) and arguably killed Ken Lay (RIP), and the only convictions that look likely to stand are of the people who turned state's evidence, I really find myself wondering about actual actionable misconduct here.

richard mcenroe

Remember the Reverend Alston?

That fine, upstanding African-American preacher who stood up with John Kerry's Band of Brothers at the 2004 convention and Testified! Aye-men! about Kerry's courage under fire?

Remember how it turned out he'd been 75 MILES AWAY from the actions he claimed to have witnessed, unconscious in an army hospital?

Remember how he disappeared from the Kerry campaign and website in the blink of an eye?

I don't think that word 'change' means what Barry thinks it means...


Mr Ballard,
"Only The Shadow knows the evil which lurks in the heart of a Dem Superdelegate..."

Surely there is a going rate?


I actually think that the deadlocked convention and compromise candidate scenario grows ever more plausible. In this scenario enough Superdelegates vote for a third candidate on the first ballot so that no candidate can get 51%, and then once delegates have voted once for the winner of the primary/caucus ( or in Texas the primary and the caucus) then a rush begin to the third candidate on the proceeding ballots until a ballot or two later a majority is had.

Al Gore? Surely there is someone with better possibilities than this retread, right?


take "OJ may have been guilty but framed"

Others have suggested that and it is a POV that is not unreasonable IMO. Sara seems to be saying something else ... botched investigation and prosecution.

On that, the DNA evidence should have been compelling no matter how lame the judge, prosecution or investigators, they were not on trial. Being skillfully duped by an extrodinary defense team, no matter how good they were compared to the prosecution, is not an argument for brilliance.

Technically what Paul wrote does not apply to Sara: "anyone who says O.J. didn't murder Nicole and Goldman is incredibly stupid" since she didn't make that claim.

That it took the picture of OJ in the Bruno Malli shoes to convince some of the OJ jurors is just sad..


Well, John Edwards still has delegates.



Great news. Of course I didn't know there was a risk there, but I'm glad it has passed.


It's probably actionable if you could ever get to the bottom of it. The problem is that all justice is now political. Too many walls would be set up by too many higher-ups to ever get to the bottom of things. I'm starting to believe that Nifong was an anomaly in that he got caught, not that he acted like he did.

I hope I'm wrong.


Charlie, are you trying to endear yourself to Sara by making an idiot of yourself?

I realize there are people who feel it was perfectly fine for O.J. to walk because Marcia Clark was stupid, Mark Fuhrman said nigger in the previous ten years, and because the most brilliant man in the entire world, Dr. Henry Lee, declared that there was "something wrong."

Others are upset that the co-most brilliant man in the entire world, Barry Scheck, was able to persuade Sara and the morons on the real jury that DNA can fly around a room and turn itself into someone else's DNA as it degrades, and give them the justification in their own minds to turn a double-murderer loose.


I did. Click the links. One gives about a dozen sources of odious, racist, totally slanderous and intolerant theology of Mormonism. And Romney is a 40+ year leader in the church, as was his father and grandfather. They helped shape LDS policy. So he's not just sitting in the congregation nodding, he's part of the anti-Semitic, anti-Catholic, racist, sexist, regressive, oppressive powers that be in the Mormon cult.

All the bloggers who called his religion 'out of bounds" are now jumping all over Obama. I can link you to literally hundreds of outrageous and disgusting passages from the Book of Mormon, which ROmney professes to believe literally, and to which he's bound by a DEATH OATH to obey and live by.

Just saying, double standard. I don't like Obama for president, but I hate hypocrisy.


Too bad you don't hate ignorance.


I dislike when someone is not straightforward, when someone dissembles, and when someone lies. The underlying problem is not the hatred expressed by Obama's minister. It is Obama.

Whether it is Obama on NAFTA, Obama on his house, Obama on Chicago hospital influence that seems to get his wife a $100K job and then a 200k raise, Obama on his minister, or Obama on unspecified, chameleon-like change in his stump speech.

The warning signs are clear. There is nothing there to trust.

Mister Snitch!

Note that Obama's HuffPo piece had the comments TURNED OFF. They are not at all confident that this will fly, even in a (presumably) sympathetic atmosphere like HuffPo.

hit and run

I think it's really unlikely in the extreme that Hillary will make up enough delegates to actually pull ahead by the time those ninnies arrive in Denver.

Absolutely. He will be ahead in delegates in Denver.

How will it work out? Who will get the nomination? For whom with the super delegates break?

I know, but I can't tell yet.

Charlie (Colorado)


I'm not sure what the next step down the slippery slope might be, but I have a feeling we're going to find out.


Charlie, are you trying to endear yourself to Sara by making an idiot of yourself?

So we have our answer: idiot, ass, repetitively silly.


I know too Hit. I'll tell for the right price.


Jane,Jane, Jane , you slut. (*wink*)


Well. You can trust what you see. Obama's behavioral pattern is clear. He has used who he has used as long as they are useful.

Look how casually and completely he tosses them overboard. What detachment. What complete lack of remorse. Such certainty.

Detachment. Lack of remorse. Trading in distortion and the unchallenged ignorance of others to gain power.

This is no more a comforting picture than it is clinically benign.


@ clarice | March 14, 2008 at 11:48 PM

Christmas sermon? I can't imagine what the Easter sermon was like.

Here's a preview to "Lenten Hope":

Palm Sunday brought a feeling of hope fulfilled. As people in Jerusalem spread coats and leafy branches on Jesus’ path and shouted “Hosanna,” they saw His arrival as evidence of Jesus’ coming reign. Yet, history tells us hardship still lay ahead, and Christ’s kingship was to be different than they expected.

What do we do when, at last, we see signs that our own hope will indeed be fulfilled? The first thing is to enjoy it. Jesus knew that He would not become the earthly ruler of Israel. Yet, He took part in the drama, because it symbolized the importance of His mission. The second thing to do is to interpret the signs correctly. If we are ill and a test reveals signs of healing, it does not mean that we are instantly whole and fully well again. However, the news is significant and reassuring. The actions of the Palm Sunday crowd were evidence that people were hearing Jesus’ message.

The glimpsed fulfillment of our hopes today should be reassuring and an indication that things will be better. If we have taken time during Lent to look at our lives and redirect them into a more productive course, a fresh feeling of peace and accomplishment may help us feel that it has all been worthwhile. However, it is perilous to stop short. While the old saying is true that “Well begun is half done,” we still have to do the other half.

Palm Sunday should lift our spirits and let us know that the path of faith is a rewarding one. But we need more than a glimpse of fulfillment. Walking with Jesus at our side, we need to work at the ongoing task of building a new life.

That's just the pretext of the church bulletin, wait till the lines get filled in between with rantings and ravings. I'd watch the webcast, but with my bout of stomach flu, I don't think I could take even 5 minutes of his spewing.

But I'd surmise Obambi would be compared to Jesus on the donkey and the "dirty white Romans" turning the black people against a black Jesus.

Oh, wait a moment, it was the High Priest and his followers, not the Romans, that done the deed. Somehow, I don't see the Justice Brothers and other black liberation leaders turning on Obambi, unless they think he really intends to leave their plantation after the election.


PS. The bulletin is 32 pages. Before you read it, be sure to tape your jaw shut so you don't hurt yourself when it drops.


@ clarice | March 15, 2008 at 09:00 AM, again

Sara, at least half of all Americans are the descendents of people who came to this country after the Civil War.

That would include BHO.

In looking at Michelle's bio at wikipedia, I find it interesting that she quit her position as a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS),[20] a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007. In the same bulletin that I cited above, there's a note that TUCC is continuing its boycott of Walmart & Sam's Club. That, and her role in Chicago Office of Public Allies and Chicago Council on Global Affairs wouldn't have anything to do with Chicago exerting every legal maneuver to block Walmart from city limits, would it?

Inquiring minds want to know. ;)


The progs equate evil Corporatism with Wal-Mart. Plus, they can sneer at the consumer choices of hoi polloi at the same time; it's a twofer.


I am currently an independent.

I have a few questions and concerns.

First, after reading the comments and looking at what the news was saying I find that the possibility that Obama was unaware of Rev Wrights laughable comments is possible. We are talking about just those three 30 sec clips on Hannity and Colmes right?(as far as WE know based on what the media says)

Moving along....
Say YOU were the one running for president.
Common sense will tell you that the first things you will do (based on what we've seen happen for yers)is to make extra sure that you are not affiliated to someone that(to your knowledge)could compromise the chances of your nomination.

So my question to you all would be.

If you were trying to convince the Nation that you are ready, able and capable of being the next President of the United States...why would you (knowingly, if it were the case) put someone on your campain who you consciently knew would diminish if not destroy your chances of accomplishing that goal?

Why be open about it?
Remember he doesnt need the church or the backing of any major black political figure to attract black voters, We know it happens anyway.

Before you reply with the same:
"He has been a member of that church for 20 years and knows him personally how can he NOT know?"

I know people who have been members of a certain church for years and only go on special holidays like Christmas, Easter etc.

I'm not defending this, I am just looking at all angles and not just relying on the media to tell me how I should think based on what they feed me through the 10 oclock news.

I am thinking of the what if's the why, where, how...


I want to see Hannity and Colmes as well as CNN and any major media group give us an insight on what the candidates have to offer to the Nation and judge them ALL based on what they've done, said, what they are doing currently and what they plan to do in the future.

If "undecided voters" like myself are going to make a decision based on their dumb witted associates then none of all three would be electable to me.

Perhaps Hill,BOH and McCain should let their camp run for them and based soley on the campscharacters we can decide who wins what.
It would be the best reality soap opera you will ever see.

I hope some of you feel the same way.
This was merely my humble opinion and I hope that can atleast be respected.



You would do that, hybrid, if you believed the media would not probe that or report what they knew about it. (Apparently everyone in Chicago knows about Wright, but did you catch anything from the Chicago Tribune?)

It's no different than the media sitting on its hands when "war hero" Kerry "reported for duty". They all knew this was a crock but circled the wagons to give him the extra 25 percentage points Newsweek's Evan Thomas said they would---until the Swifties broke thru.

It seems the Dems simply refuse to understand the power of Fox (which was the one media outlet which asked for and reviewed the tapes, and--not coincidentally--ran Kerry's "I was for it before I was against it" statement.) And they do not understand the power of the IT.

The comments to this entry are closed.