Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Barack Obama: Gas Holiday Savings: Half a Tank

Barack Obama the tank's half-full? That's the amount of savings consumers will get from the Gas Holiday Plan promoted by Hillary Clinton (and John McCain) about $20 to $30 over the three-month (summer) period.

See the video:

The Truth about Gas Prices

http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/gasprices1

More

Clinton's Final Full Day in Indiana
Plus, Obama shows he's patriotic and personable.
By John Dickerson
Updated Monday, May 5, 2008, at 10:20 AM ET

Seventy percent of respondents in a recent New York Times poll (PDF) said they believed the proposal to lift the gas tax was mainly promoted to help the politician proposing it rather than voters...

http://www.slate.com/id/2190380/


Gas Tax Relief
4/29/2008 2:30 PM
Hillary Clinton proposes a gas tax holiday for the summer, suspending the federal tax on gasoline, which amounts to about 18 cents a gallon for gasoline and about 24 cents a gallon for diesel fuel. John McCain also supports the idea of gas tax relief.

http://www.whitehouse.com/


Clinton superdelegate lead cut in half

...Both Obama and Clinton are trying to make points with American consumers, motorists especially who are facing record prices for gasoline and diesel fuel.

Clinton has joined McCain in calling for a suspension of federal taxes on fuel during the summer holiday season.

Obama contends both his opponents are engaged in gimmickry that would actually increase fuel consumption nationally, cause prices to rise still further and ravage the treasury of tax money needed for transportation infrastructure. He called their plans shortsighted measures that would save American drivers a pittance over the course of the summer.

Instead, Obama said he would push for a middle-class tax cut that could save working families an average of $1,000 a year.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-05-01-clinton-superdelegates_N.htm

O'Reilly All Smooze Zone Interview with Hillary Clinton

During Fox's O'Reilly Factor, the questions came straight from the mouth of Bill O'Reilly himself. No sit-ins tonight. An exlusive one-on-one with Hillary Clinton. A real coup, right.

Formerly credited in large part with maintaining the No Spin Zone, now it's the All Smooze Zone after O'Reilly's question to Hillary Clinton.

Are you surprised that Fox has treated you more fairly than those other networks?

If anybody is watching after that question, for whatever the answer, we'll be shocked.

Goodbye, Big O.

When Keith Olbermann gets the transcript after his live program, Countdown, on MSNBC, we'll be hearing the whippee all across the country.

Notice the Fox article doesn't include the question we've highlighted. Of course not, it was a non-question. The other questions before that were not worth much either.

In the No Spin Zone: Hillary Takes On Bill O'Reilly

the questions are obviously nothing new or different than what we've already learned. Most telling again, absence of the useless question O'Reilly asked and whatever Clinton said regarding any surprise she might or might not have that (according to O'Reilly) Fox has treated her more fairly than other networks...

Can't wait to see Fox 'n Friends tomorrow morning oohing and ahing at the so-great questions - tough - just too tough.

Snicker, wink.

Net the Truth Online

In ‘Factor’ Interview, Clinton Matches Obama’s Outrage Over Wright
by FOXNews.com
Wednesday, April 30, 2008

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/30/in-factor-interview-clinton-matches-obamas-outrage-over-wright/

April 30th, 2008 6:29 PM Eastern
No Spin Zone: Hillary Takes On Bill O’Reilly
by Aaron Bruns

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/30/no-spin-zone-hillary-takes-on-bill-oreilly/

Hillary Clinton: Wright Remarks 'Offensive and Outrageous'
April 30, 2008 2:46 PM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/hillary-clint-2.html

The Constitution Matters Too

Talk about associations affecting one's personal perspective on life, let's talk Newt Gingrich and Alvin and Heidi Toffler.

Gingrich wrote the Introduction to the Heidi and Alvin Toffler book: The Third Wave

If Gingrich doesn't believe what the Toffler's wrote, shouldn't Gingrich reject the Tofflers? For instance, the Tofflers argue for a drastically new and according to them, improved, United States Constitution.

What does Newt Gingrich have to say about that chapter?

Nothing. Nobody has ever asked Gingrich whether he believes in his heart the United States Constitution basics are well basic enough to keep, or whether the basics are out of touch with the United States of the future.

It may be dry reading, the Constitution, but it's what any President will take an oath to not only abide by, but defend and preserve with his/her every breath.

It's about time the media read it, and determine who else has followed it and will continue to follow it after taking an oath of office to uphold it as President of the United States.

Net the Truth Online)

John McCain's Attack on the 1st Amendment
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

John McCain will be unable to honestly take this oath of office. As we've seen through his passage of McCain-Feingold and his attacks on 1st Amendment rights he is incapable to say the words "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution" without chocking.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Let's begin with his attack on the 1st Amendment with McCain-Feingold...

http://www.drissman.com/blog/archives/2008/02/04/john_mccains_attack_on_the_1st_amendment.html


Barack Obama taught Constitutional Law At Chicago Law School. Dkos diary by one of his students

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4239757

Whose Future Is it, Anyway?
Steve G. Steinberg

Gingrich has been a friend of futurists Alvin and Heidi Toffler since the early 1970s, back when Alvin Toffler's Future Shock was riding the bestseller lists and Gingrich was a history professor. Since then, the Tofflers have become an integral part of Gingrich's brain trust and a clear influence on Newt's vision of the future. Although Gingrich's views on cultural issues like abortion and homosexuality are well to the right of the Tofflers' and can seem more antediluvian than futurist, Alvin Toffler is adamant that Gingrich is a 21st-century figure...

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive//3.03/eword.html?pg=2&person=alvin_toffler&topic_set=wiredpeople


Interesting piece/review

http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=2060

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Clinton Suspends Gas Tax Funds by Taxing Oil Companies More

Really goo-d idea? John McCain first made the proposal, but how would he pay for it?

How will Hillary Clinton pay for the suspension? She'll tax the oil companies more.

Seriously, the oil companies will simply pass the higher tax onto consumers who will end up paying triple over and above what they should be paying. Oh Clinton will prevent that how, by garnishing the entire profits of the oil companies and giving them back what amount she thinks they should have???

On the downside, the tax holiday won't lower the cost to drivers says a guest on CNN, The Situation Room... and the programs the tax funds won't be totally paid for by the tax holiday or the higher tax on oil companies...

Net the Truth Online

McCain-Clinton Gas Tax Holiday Proposal Slammed
by SusanG
Wed Apr 30, 2008 at 09:58:37 AM PDT
Obama threw out a great quote about the proposal yesterday; "This isn't an idea designed to get you through the summer, it's an idea designed to get them through an election."

Confirmation of Obama's take was provided this morning by the Washington Post:

http://dailykos.com/


Resources

CNN Situation Room April 29, 2008

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/sitroom.html

April 29, 2008, 3:59 PM
Clinton Says She’s the Only Candidate To Offer Gas Relief
Posted by Fernando Suarez|

Clinton again today called for a gas-tax holiday that would suspend the federal gas tax on all gas, including diesel, from Memorial Day weekend to Labor Day weekend. “We will pay for it by imposing a windfall profits tax on the oil companies, they sure can afford it,” she said...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/04/29/politics/fromtheroad/entry4056087.shtml

Wright Rejection Obama's Road to Democratic Nomination

This will do it. Obama's clear break with his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright will give the on-the-fence superdelegates the substance to Obama they will have been looking for after North Carolina and Indiana voters express their will at the polling place.

Press Conference Transcript

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/transcript-obama-press-conference-on-jeremiah-wright/


We were wondering after our earlier post on Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club whether his challenging words were enough to cause Obama to make a clear break with Wright. We didn't think they would be. We wondered whether Wright would have to make a statement over the next days that he did not believe the Holocaust had occurred - it was a Jewish conspiracy.

Nope. Wright didn't have to go that far. He'd gone far enough. We believe that's exactly what Rev. Wright intended. The pastor is no dummy. He understands politics. He can read and understand polls. And his absence from the public scene during his restful few weeks of silence were not enabling Obama to be the clear frontrunner before or after Pennsylvania.

Obama lost, but only by some 200,000 votes and a 9.2 percent spread in Clinton's favor. Not the dramatic push Obama needed to sway a clear majority of superdelegates.

Upcoming a few weeks later are North Carolina and Indiana, and the media and blogs are still going on about Rev. Wright. Wright had to do something dramatic. And that he did.

He overplayed his hand, for those of us who look behind these games, but that was intended. He claimed Obama had not denounced him but did what he had to do politically. He's a politician.

Really now as if Wright doesn't understand that is exactly the image Obama does not want to project and what he is not about.

so what better way to invite rejection, outright rejection, and get that outright rejection than to say among a string of outrageous to anybody statements, say the one thing you know will cause Obama to have to reject you now?

call him out as no different than any other politician.

After watching Obama for near 20-years, marrying him and his wife and baptizing his children, and watching him through a dozen years in the Illinois state Senate and throughout his short few years in the U.S. Senate - and now on his way to capture the nomination of the Democratic Party for President of the U.S. because he has the delegate count and the popular vote count still on his side - Rev. Wright absolutely knows Obama is different than other politicians.

Rev. Wright gave Barack Obama exactly what Obama needed at this point in time - a reason to reject not only the words of Wright, but the man behind the words.

The style of Wright's delivery of his words was revealing. Obama got it right in his response: His performance... he made a caricature of himself.

Exactly. And that's so revealing, because Wright is a very practiced public speaker. He knows the effect of his words, his movements, when he raises his hands in an exclamation point, and his every dance step in tune to his style of music.

Wright acted purposefully to create an outlandish character, himself, so even Obama could not sustain a relationship of any sort with him at all.

Obama had only one recourse - clean and clear denouncement and rejection.

Watch as the polling numbers increase for Barack Obama over the next few days and are maintained through North Carolina and Indiana.

Read what all Barack Obama said in response to hearing and watching Rev. Wright's as Obama puts it, performance, at the National Press Club.

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=barack+obama+rev.+wright+condemns&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=X&oi=news_result&resnum=1&ct=title

Realize, Rev. Jeremiah Wright has a book already in the works, surely he does, it could be entitled: My ___**** 1 Million Sermons and if he had to lose some "face" and lose a friend, for a few months or a year, or maybe 8 years, he did it for his country - the country that needs an unfettered Barack Obama at this point in time unlike any other.

The media has dogged Obama long enough about Rev. Wright. Now after a few days of discussion and articles, they won't be able to do that.

Jack Cafferty on the Situation Room got it exactly right. This was the best thing for Obama to do... the best thing that could have happened, now this can be put aside.

Barack Obama Blasts Former Pastor; McCain Introduces Health Care Plan; Gas Tax Reality Check Aired April 29, 2008 - 18:00 ET

Jack Cafferty: ...I'm not sure after that performance that Wright put on in front of the National Press Club that this was all that difficult for Barack Obama. It shouldn't have been. What this did was create the opportunity to maybe do what he was reluctant to do the first time. Remember, he distanced himself from the comments, but he said, you know, I've known the man a long time, he married us, blah, blah, blah. He didn't throw the man under the bus.

Now he can stand up and say you know what, he's a bigoted bitter old jerk and I'm out of here. And maybe, in a way, this is the best thing that could have happened
, because Reverend Wright, in the beginning, was complaining how those short clips that were running on all of the TV networks were caricatures of him. Well, he walked down to National -- to Washington, D.C. to the National Press Club yesterday and proved that he's nothing much more than a cartoon character mired in the racial bitterness of a generation ago. I mean he's old news now. Maybe it's over.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0804/29/sitroom.03.html


we agree, but we won't put it past the media to cover Rev. Wright no matter who hosts him next. But our bet is Wright won't come back at Obama for the rejection, because Wright basically had every reason to cause the circumstances for the rejection.

(Net the Truth Online)

Partial excerpt

Transcript: Obama Press Conference on Jeremiah Wright
by FOXNews.com
Tuesday, April 29, 2008

QUESTION: You heard the reports about the AIDS comments.

OBAMA: I had not. I had not seen the transcript. What I had heard was he had given a performance, and I thought at the time that it would be sufficient simply to reiterate what I had said in Philadelphia.

Upon watching it, what became clear to me was that it was more than just him defending himself. What became clear to me was that he was presenting a worldview that contradicts who I am and what I stand for.

And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and knows what I am about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and that I see the commonality in all people.

And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/29/transcript-obama-press-conference-on-jeremiah-wright/


CNN Transcripts

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/


MSNBC Hardball discussing Wright's Press Club comments and Obama's rejection of Wright after learning of the comments...

MSNBC Transcript

Matthews says unless Obama wins both North Carolina and Indiana this race is going all the way to the convention in Denver.

Of course, and that's exactly why the media has dogged Obama about the Rev. Wright comments from previously - so they could keep giving Clinton supporters hope that something really damning would affect Obama's chances... this after Obama is ahead in delegates and popular vote to date.

Ed Gordon: Obama has to get back on his message.

Howard Fineman: Obama has to get ahead of Hillary Clinton tactics... promising everything...

Margaret Carlson: it's an absolute stunt, Hillary Clinton's gas tax holiday... just hand out whatever it is... Obama is done with the Wright story, he can't follow her on this gas tax...

Matthews: pandering tends to work in the Democratic Party... will pandering sell.

Fineman: it could work for Hillary as a theme for the rest of the primary season if she makes it look like action and not speeches...

Net the Truth Online

Obama 'outraged' by Wright's remarks
Obama said he is outraged by Wright's remarks that seemed to suggest the U.S. government might be responsible for the spread of AIDS in the black community and his equation of some American wartime efforts with terrorism.

"What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing," Obama said, adding that Wright had shown "little regard for me" and seemed more concerned with "taking center stage."

Obama said Wright's comments were not only "divisive and destructive," but they "end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate." Watch Obama describe Wright's comments »

Obama said he did not think Wright's comments accurately portrayed the perspective of the black church and said they "certainly do not portray accurately" his own values and beliefs.

Throughout his campaign, Obama has said he wants to be a uniter, said Bill Schneider, a CNN senior political analyst...

...Obama said Monday that Wright's remarks were "antithetical to our campaign; it was antithetical to what we're about." Watch Obama denounce Wright's remarks »

"I cannot prevent him from making these remarks," but "when I say I find these comments appalling, I mean it. It contradicts what I'm about and who I am. ... It is completely opposed to what I stand for and where I want to take this country."

In a break with previous comments, Obama focused his criticism on Wright the man, and not simply his remarks.

Obama said he gave Wright "the benefit of the doubt" before his speech on race relations.

"What we saw yesterday from Rev. Wright was a resurfacing and, I believe, an exploitation of these old divisions," Obama said.

Obama said he did not see a transcript of Wright's remarks until Tuesday...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/29/obama.wright/index.html


Barack Obama denounces Rev Jeremiah Wright
By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 8:04PM BST 29/04/2008

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/1911973/Barack-Obama-denounces-Rev-Jeremiah-Wright.html

FACTBOX: Obama condemns ex-pastor's "appalling" remarks
Tue Apr 29, 2008 5:52pm EDT

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSN2928781420080429

Rev. Wright Taunts Journalists, Blasts Government
April 28: The Rev. Jeremiah Wright taunts the national media in Washington, D.C.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright taunted a gathering of journalists Monday in Washington, D.C., calling their coverage of his speeches an attack on the black church, while defending his claim that the U.S. was responsible for the terrorist attacks of 9/11.

Wright, the controversial former pastor of Barack Obama’s church, took dead aim at the U.S. government Monday — saying American soldiers in Iraq have died “over a lie” and calling the war “unjust” — as he called for reconciliation and understanding between blacks and whites.

Wright was speaking at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. as he continues a series of nationwide appearances following an uproar over remarks he made in some of his sermons delivered from the pulpit.

Click here to read a full transcript of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s remarks and question-answer session at the National Press Club.

http://www.thecitizen.com/~citizen0/node/27780


Rev. Wright Show Goes On
Posted Apr 28th 2008 9:00AM by Faye Anderson
Filed under: BlackSpin, Elections, Barack Obama, Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. is making headlines again. In recent days, he was interviewed by Bill Moyers and delivered a speech before the Detroit Branch of the NAACP...

http://www.blackvoices.com/blogs/2008/04/28/rev-wright-speaks-out/

Obama looks to put controversial pastor behind him

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080430/ap_on_el_pr/obama_wright

Reverend Wright at the National Press Club
Published: April 28, 2008
Following is the transcript of the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr.'s remarks to the National Press Club, as provided by CQ Transcriptions.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/us/politics/28text-wright.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

December 2007 Atlantic Monthly
Is Iraq Vietnam? Who really won in 2000? Which side are you on in the culture wars? These questions have divided the Baby Boomers and distorted our politics. One candidate could transcend them.
by Andrew Sullivan
Goodbye to All That: Why Obama Matters

...But he knows, and privately acknowledges, that the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.

Obama’s candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America—finally—past the debilitating, self-perpetuating family quarrel of the Baby Boom generation that has long engulfed all of us. So much has happened in America in the past seven years, let alone the past 40, that we can be forgiven for focusing on the present and the immediate future. But it is only when you take several large steps back into the long past that the full logic of an Obama presidency stares directly—and uncomfortably—at you...

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama

Wright Damage to Obama Press Myth

Update:

Press Club president responds: Reynolds pitched Rev. Wright two years ago
April 29, 2008
National Press Club president Sylvia Smith responded today to a Daily News article reporting that club member Barbara Reynolds, a Hillary Clinton supporter, organized yesterday’s breakfast talk with Dr. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/michaelcalderone/0408/Press_Club_President_responds_Reynolds_pitched_Rev_Wright_two_years_ago.html


Say what?

Louis: Colossal disaster or press trick? ...
Posted Apr 29, 2008 4:34 AM

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright couldn't have done more damage to Barack Obama's campaign if he had tried. And you have to wonder if that's just what one friend of Wright wanted.

http://www.nydailynews.com/forums/thread.jspa?threadID=19149


Answer to question: Neither. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club was not a colossal disaster, for Barack Obama as is being implied, nor was it a Press trick by one individual, a Clinton supporter as is alleged - or more - a campaign conspiracy as implied.

The Press does desire to keep the focus on Jeremiah Wright, and he apparently is only too willing to oblige. And why shouldn't he? He'll probably come out with a book in a couple of months and it will be a bestseller. Title: Best ___ **** One Man One Million Sermons in America.

The Press wants to keep the story going so they don't have to do their real day jobs and find the truth about the other Presidential candidates.

The media has failed to ask the most basic questions that a fifth-grader would ask for a school report.

While the Press asked some questions of Hillary Clinton after her speech back in March when she recalled "landing under sniper fire" on a trip to Bosnia during her husband's administration, they failed to ask:

Uh, Mrs. Clinton, why would you place your daughter's life in danger in Bosnia landing under live sniper fire? Oh, your recollection is faulty on that? You and your daughter were not in any danger - there was no sniper fire.

Having asked the question, and getting only one logical response, a videotape wouldn't even have been necessary to show the truth. Clinton would have had to answer truthfully, or look like an unfit mommy let alone an unfit Presidential candidate.

Only Clinton comes out looking good because if the same were Barack Obama recalling putting his children's lives in harm's way - he would have been deemed as having worse than poor judgement and therefore unelectable.

It took the Press months to discover John McCain has been using his wife's company's jet inexpensively to travel around campaigning. And it took the Press longer to reveal the loophole in the campaign finance laws which specifically exempts "aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control."

That amendment was passed a year ago, according to recent reports. The loophole was scheduled to be closed last December, but who knew until now with the Press negligent in carrying out its duty.

One would have thought the question would have arisen before this: Senator McCain exactly how much are you reimbursing your wife's company for use of what we've found is a company plane you're using in your campaign travels?

Our free-Press doesn't press on back-to-the past problematic situations, either. Those missing billing records, they still matter. Clinton fundraising connections with someone named, Norman Hsu.

The Keating five investigation, that still matters. Yet, reading the Press, it's as if there's nothing to see here, move on.

Instead of the old saying so aptly put: Where's the beef? We need to ask: Where's the Press?

As for Barack Obama, the Press is hungry to find something, but can't quite get there.

They've tried with the Tony Resko trial and failed to find anything directly damning against Obama.

That trial at this time raises the question: Why now? When was the last time charges of this nature were brought against anyone who was known to have been in some way associated with a Presidential candidate?

Not in our recent memories. Not even Bill Clinton's associate way back in the early '90s was investigated and charged with anything until long after Clinton was in the White House. And none of those "real estate" deals have ever been explained in full.

While Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club isn't a Press trick, the way the Press is focusing on Wright's words as so objectionable he should be denounced again and again by Barack Obama, is.

Last time we all checked everybody has first amendment rights.

The best thing Barack Obama could do is ignore the media's enticements to engage in a daily refutation of a particular pastor's expressed thoughts about our government.

Obama only needs to continue to express his own thoughts about our government, which to date, he has imparted clearly enough to remain ahead in committed delegates, popular vote, and amount of Primary states actually counted as won.

The Press won't like it, because not only are they hungry for something on Obama they are starving and will soon have to look where they should have been looking all along.

Elsewhere.

Net the Truth Online)

Resources

Obama Condemns Pastor's Fiery Remarks
Says He Has Looked To Rev. Jeremiah Wright For Spiritual Advice, Not Political Guidance WASHINGTON, March 14, 2008

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/14/politics/main3940680.shtml

Obama tackles race divide in major speech
Senator encourages U.S. to break ‘racial stalemate’

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23687688/


McCain Frequently Used Wife’s Jet for Little Cost
By BARRY MEIER and MARGOT WILLIAMS
Published: April 27, 2008
Given Senator John McCain’s signature stance on campaign finance reform, it was not surprising that he backed legislation last year requiring presidential candidates to pay the actual cost of flying on corporate jets. The law, which requires campaigns to pay charter rates when using such jets rather than cheaper first-class fares, was intended to reduce the influence of lobbyists and create a level financial playing field.

But over a seven-month period beginning last summer, Mr. McCain’s cash-short campaign gave itself an advantage by using a corporate jet owned by a company headed by his wife, Cindy McCain, according to public records. For five of those months, the plane was used almost exclusively for campaign-related purposes, those records show.

Mr. McCain’s campaign paid a total of $241,149 for the use of that plane from last August through February, records show. That amount is approximately the cost of chartering a similar jet for a month or two, according to industry estimates.

The senator was able to fly so inexpensively because the law specifically exempts aircraft owned by a candidate or his family or by a privately held company they control. The Federal Election Commission adopted rules in December to close the loophole — rules that would have required substantial payments by candidates using family-owned planes — but the agency soon lost the requisite number of commissioners needed to complete the rule making.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/us/politics/27plane.html?_r=1&ei=5088&en=4e3fc06611edcc0e&ex=1366948800&oref=login&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all


NYT: McCain frequently used wife’s jet for little cost

This article, McCain Frequently Used Wife's Jet for Little Cost, originally appeared in The New York Times.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24330727/page/2/

Timeline: How Nets Catch Up, Stumble Into Clinton's Bosnia Bumble

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/2008/cyb20080326.asp#2


You Decide 2008 Presidential Forum
Obama's possible link to Resko who is on trial for federal corruption

http://www.youdecide2008.com/you-decide-2008-presidential-forum/?forum=2&topic=86&page=1&post=437

Roland Martin Blog

Listen to Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s 9/11 sermon
It has been discussed around the nation. So what EXACTLY did Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago say in the aftermath of the devastation on Sept. 11, 2001?

This sermon was delivered on Sept. 16, 2001 and is titled, “The Day of Jerusalem’s Fall.” Note that the “chickens coming home to roost” comment was attributed not to Wright but former Ambassador to the Iraq, Edward Peck. It comes around the 20-minute mark.

The point that I have always made as a journalist is that our job is to seek the truth, and not the partial truth.

I am also listening to the other sermons delivered by Rev. Wright that have been the subject of controversy.

http://www.rolandsmartin.com/blog/?p=147

Monday, April 28, 2008

Liberal Media Giving Racist Democrats Excuses for Obama Rejection

David Axelrod will be a guest on MSNBC Hardball with Chris Matthews. The exchange comes minutes after Matthews makes every effort to associate Obama with the words and actions of retired pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Matthews or one of his guests said Wright is narcissistic, everything is about him. It's not about America, or the campaign of Barack Obama, or anything else except Wright himself... he's going for his 15 minutes of fame.

Gee whiz. Does the media want to keep this manufactured controversy going for the ratings or what... who cares what Wright says about anything? Only the media which couldn't find the truth if it smacked them in the face.

If Obama wins North Carolina by 8 or 10 points, but loses Indiana by a few points 3 or 4, will the Rev. Wright factor into the loss, asks Matthews of his gathered panel, still awaiting Axelrod.

Hey Chris, how about if Obama loses Indiana by whatever amount he will have lost Indiana by whatever amount and because Clinton got more votes for whatever reason voters will use to NOT VOTE FOR OBAMA. If people want to continue to use Rev. Wright as an excuse not to vote for Obama, go ahead. It provides a convenient excuse to reject a man because of the COLOR OF HIS SKIN. Period, end of analysis.

That's why the media - mostly white - keeps the Rev. Wright story going. Wright could say everything glowingly supportive of how the United States has conducted itself and the media would find something the pastor said that is viewed by mostly conservatives as anti-American. Seriously, now, conservatives have tagged liberals as anti-American for how long now, how many decades. Now all of a sudden, a liberal black pastor makes similar far left statements - and it's as if Obama himself said them because the pastor is his pastor and spiritual advisor to his campaign...

That's only the surface of what's happening. We'll bet on it. What is really happening is so obvious - white Democrats who remain fearful of blacks in positions of power need a "concrete" and acceptable excuse to not vote for a black man for President.

Now they have that excuse in the words and actions of Rev. Wright the media keeps playing over and over so even the stupidist of white Democrats can get it - hey, I can just say I didn't like Obama's association with that (anti-American) kook, Rev. Wright, or I can just say I didn't like Obama's comments about bitter small town Pennsylvanians, or Americans, or I can just say I heard Rev. Wright say Obama is after all a politician - and that will be the reason I do not vote for Obama.

Yeah. Whew.

Axelrod arrives on Hardball. Asked why after Obama didn't diss Wright, but distanced himself from his words, not the pastor, Wright goes on a book tour basically, and puts it in Obama's face... how should Obama respond... something like that. Axelrod responds... he can't speak to Rev. Wright, but there are other problems in this political race.

Matthews presses on: Obama leads, all the polling is there, he's ahead... yet this Rev. Wright, his comments, tears at it, that lead.

Matthews then continues, unprompted by Axelrod: ...that gives excuse not to people who are racist, says Matthews, but who can think hey, I'm gonna move away from Obama...

See there people, get this part of the transcript. This is all you need to agree with what we're saying in this post.

Matthews knows what is up. He knows precisely what is up and he gives us a wink and a nod right then and there.

Rev. Wright gives an excuse, not to people who are racist, but who think hey I'm gonna move away from Obama...

Seriously that is the heart of it and Matthews caught on just as we were writing this. But he would not say it, so he cleverly - very cleverly - deflected by phrasing the way he did.

Why would Matthews even mention racist people in this discussion? He mentions them because the thought crossed his mind as it has ours - there are liberal white racists who are members of the Democratic Party.

They do exist. The Democratic Party doesn't want them to exist, but they do, in their own Party ranks as voters.

They are hidden behind their masks and now have at least three circumstances they can point to as an excuse they need to reject Barack Obama.

But all along they were looking for some excuse other than the one they have - they are racist - don't want a black man as President of "these" United States - and now they have right towards the end game - that excuse - handed to them by the mainstream media and such like Chris Matthews.

What perfect cover for white racist bias.

Fortunately, Pennsylvanian voters showed in part they are not all racist and fearful. Obama lost in the popular vote there by only some 200,000 votes. Clinton won the state by 9.2 percent, not double digits. And Clinton had an early lead of some 20 points two-weeks out from the Primary which Obama narrowed down to a 6-point lead going into April 22.

And because of the system of proportionally distributing delegates, Obama garnered only 10 or so fewer delegates to Clinton from the Pennsylvania distribution.

Come on North Carolina and Indiana. Show us what you're really made of.

Bradley has it right. Rev. Wright is a media story.

And now you know why.

Video link Bradley: Rev. Wright 'a media story'

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/

(Net the Truth Online)

Hillary Clinton: Obliterate Iran Upon Israel Attack Ignored by Media

It's officially noticed. Hillary Clinton's comment how she'd "obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel has been completely ignored by the mainstream media that appears bent on following Obama's pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his every word.

Net the Truth Online)

First Read
MSNBC
'If you'd had my life you'd be tough, too'Posted: Monday, April 28, 2008 4:45 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: 2008, Clinton
Hillary Strangelove? Because of Jeremiah Wright remaining in the news, not that much attention has been paid to Clinton’s recent comments regarding Iran and the Middle East. But Sunday’s Boston Globe weighed in -- harshly. It dubbed her “Hillary Strangelove,” because of her umbrella Iran-Mideast ally retaliation policy. And the paper called that "Rambo rhetoric" that "plays into the hands of Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability." More: “[T]here are some red lines that should never be crossed,” it said. “Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's ‘Good Morning America’ that, if she were president, she would ‘totally obliterate’ Iran if Iran attacked Israel. This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.”

John McCain: Hides Behind Skirt to Skirt Campaign Finance Law Intent

Skirting the clear intent of campaign finance laws John McCain initiated by hiding behind his own wife's skirt... uh, lear jet... par for the political cause... an election, of course... John McCain style

Net the Truth Online

April 28, 2008
McCain: 'What we did was perfectly legal and appropriate'
Posted: 09:31 AM ET

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/28/mccain-what-we-did-was-perfectly-legal-and-appropriate/

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Why Can't Obama Finish Off Hillary

Cartoon poll

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/25/cartoon.clicks/index.html

Influential Pundits

The 50 most influential US political pundits
By Toby Harnden, US Editor
Last Updated: 3:25pm BST 28/04/2008
With just over six months before United States citizens choose their 44th president, the 2008 election is already proving to be the most fascinating and potentially one of the closest contests in living memory.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/pundits/nosplit/uspundits.xml

Rev. Wright: Will Hold Barack Obama Accountable Day One

Youtube video of Wright National Press Club

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM6-K1MicZU

http://youtube.com/watch?v=-6BQMQAx0-Y

http://youtube.com/watch?v=pekVHn2jWYQ

Via

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x124923


During his appearance at the National Press Club this morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr. made a statement that many may find puzzling. We don't.

Wright said, speaking to the audience and invoking the name of Barack Obama, if you're elected November 4, on the next day, November 5, I'll be watching... you'll be part of the government then... a government that grinds people under...

Others may see this differently, but we think this is truly a breakthrough. Imagine, someone supporting any political candidate upfront, telling that candidate, look, you're not infallible, you may be tempted to become the very thing we're fighting against, (insert whatever that is), and we're going to hold you accountable, not hold you up on a pedestal, just because you're President of the United States, you are still and forever, one of us.

This is so in keeping with what most Americans actually want, accountability even from the President of the United States of America, it will be interesting to see how the media spins Wright's comment.

Net the Truth Online

Wright to Obama: 'Coming after you'
By MIKE ALLEN | 4/28/08 11:58 AM EST

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright said Monday that he will try to chance national policy by “coming after” Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) if he is elected president.

The pastor also insisted Obama “didn’t denounce” him and “didn’t distance himself” from Wright’s controversial remarks, but “did what politicians do.”

Wright implied Obama still agrees with him by saying: “He had to distance himself, because he's a politician, from what the media was saying I had said, which was [portrayed as] anti-American.”

Wright, who was Obama’s pastor for 20 years and performed his wedding, made the explosive comment during a chaotic question-and-answer session at the National Press Club in Washington, following the pastor’s remarks about the black church in America.

“I said to Barack Obama last year, ‘If you get elected, November the 5th I'm coming after you, because you'll be representing a government whose policies grind under people,’ Wright said.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9912.html

Rev. Wright: United States Supplied Saddam Hussein Chemical Material

The most astonishing part of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's appearance at the National Press Club was the reaction of the Press Club audience. At times, the majority booed. And at other times, the majority cheered and clapped. The moderator asking the questions seemed absolutely astounded by the cheering and clapping.

Later, one newscaster on Fox News America's Newsroom noted audience members included other than journalists and Press Club members. Guests were present, the newscaster stated, including ... West... and others. (We'll check)

Wright's response in particular to the question about his position and comments regarding the government spreading HIV among black communities should be required viewing and reading for all.

(unofficial) Wright: Have you read Horowitz's book, others, if you haven't read things, based on Tuskeegee... and other things, believe our government is capable, yes... all we have to do is check the sales slip...

we sold Saddam those biological materials ... to him... they used what we sold them, yes I believe we are capable... (end unofficial)

A discussion, a serious discussion, among journalists should begin on the beliefs that are not going to go away. The truth about the United States supplying chemical material for use by Saddam Hussein against the Kurds must come out, and soon.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true

A week after September 11, 2001, I was personally able to attend a panel discussion in Pittsburgh, PA held by a respectable group of academics. The discussion was to revolve around foreign-relations issues at the time. Given the horrendous events of 9/11, panel members focused on those tragic events.

Late in the discussion, near the end of the program, one panelist, a journalist, specifically made a comment about how the U.S. has been involved in foreign affairs to the detriment of the U.S. in many cases. He stopped short of making a connection between 9/11 and U.S. involvement around the globe, but the implication was there.

I was disappointed that nobody had an opportunity to ask for further explanation of the journalist's remarks. The audience at the time didn't seem surprised by the comment.

so similar statements to Rev. Wright's had been made long ago and by individuals well-respected in various truth-seeking pursuits.

As for the U.S. supplying Saddam Hussein with biological material that Hussein later used in attacks on the Kurds, this has been well-documented.

While Wright's style may at times be objectionable, his disgust with a United States of America that indeed lies, is well deserved.

We just have to be extra careful that we prove by the evidence when the charges of lying pan out. Otherwise, one mistake, one charge disproven, diminishes the credibility of all other charges, which can be shown to be true and accurate.

(Net the Truth Online)

Related

Dozens of U.S. Items Used in Iraq Arms; Exports Often Approved Despite Warnings From Pentagon, Others Series: SENDING EQUIPMENT TO IRAQ: ANATOMY OF A DEAL Series Number: 1/2
[FINAL Edition]
The Washington Post (pre-1997 Fulltext) - Washington, D.C.
Author: R. Jeffrey Smith
Date: Jul 22, 1992
Start Page: a.01
Section: A SECTION
Text Word Count: 3130

An early U.S. motive in expanding high-tech trade with Baghdad was to help bolster Iraq economically against Iran during the brutal war between the two countries. Even after the Iran-Iraq war, administration officials continued to promote U.S.-Iraqi trade in a failed effort to gain influence in Baghdad and moderate Iraq's behavior in the region.

Only a few of the U.S. exports to Iraq involved munitions. Virtually all the rest involved so-called "dual-use" equipment, ostensibly meant for civilian application but also capable of being used in a military program. U.S. law proscribed such exports to countries listed as supporting terrorism, a label Washington applied to Iraq before 1982 and reinstated one month after Iraq's August 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/74038683.html?dids=74038683:74038683&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&fmac=&date=Jul+22%2C+1992&author=R.+Jeffrey+Smith&desc=Dozens+of+U.S.+Items+Used+in+Iraq+Arms



U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds By Michael Dobbs Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 30, 2002

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&contentId=A52241-2002Dec29¬Found=true


American Gulf War Veterans FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
10 Sept. 2002
Contact Person: Gary Treece

According to information obtained by the AGWVA, there is irrefutable evidence to show that the United States government provided and encouraged Iraq’s use of chemical weapons. The United States Department of Commerce and The American Type Culture Collection (ATCC) provided at least 80 shipments of biological agents that were not attenuated (or weakened) and were capable of reproduction. These shipments included such virulent agents as Anthrax, West Nile Virus and Clostridium botulinum (S.R.103-900, May 25, 1994, pg. 264)...

http://www.gulfwarvets.com/news11.htm


search

http://www.google.com/search?q=saddam+hussein+united+states+cia+armed+chemical+gas+history+&hl=en&start=10&sa=N

Government Report Saddam Hussein Threat 1999

Government Report Saddam Hussein Threat 1999

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:21T9v3m1dMIJ:www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB167/13.pdf+government+lied+saddam+hussein+united+states+supply+chemical+gas&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=8&gl=us

More

http://www.juancole.com/2006/12/for-whom-bell-tolls-top-ten-ways-us.html

Resource to check out sources

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran-Iraq_war

Supreme Court Approves Voter Photo Identification

According to Fox News anchors Bill Hemmer and Megyn Kelly, the Supreme Court approved a measure that would enable the requirement for voter photo identification. In Indiana...

Supreme Court upholds photo ID law for voters in Indiana
By MARK SHERMAN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court ruled Monday that states can require voters to produce photo identification without violating their constitutional rights, validating Republican-inspired voter ID laws...

In a splintered 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Indiana's strict photo ID requirement, which Democrats and civil rights groups said would deter poor, older and minority voters from casting ballots. Its backers said it was needed to prevent fraud.

It was the most important voting rights case since the Bush v. Gore dispute that sealed the 2000 election for George W. Bush. But the voter ID ruling lacked the conservative-liberal split that marked the 2000 case.

The law "is amply justified by the valid interest in protecting 'the integrity and reliability of the electoral process,'" Justice John Paul Stevens said in an opinion that was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Anthony Kennedy. Stevens was a dissenter in Bush v. Gore in 2000.

Justices Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas also agreed with the outcome, but wrote separately.

Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David Souter dissented, just as they did in 2000.

More than 20 states require some form of identification at the polls. Courts have upheld voter ID laws in Arizona, Georgia and Michigan, but struck down Missouri's. Monday's decision comes a week before Indiana's presidential primary.

The decision also could spur efforts to pass similar laws in other states.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080428/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_voter_id

Press Corp asks Rev. Wright Meaning of Chickens Coming Home to Roost

Rev. Jeremiah Wright answers question at the National Press Club

http://npc.press.org/calendar/caldbevent.cfm?eventid=15205

http://npc.press.org/

Live video

http://www.wftv.com/politics/16028170/detail.html

Rev. Wright Press Club video

http://www.cnn.com/video/live/live.html?stream=stream1

Rev. Wright speech NAACP video

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7586605&ch=4226716&src=news

Transcript speech NAACP

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/28/wright.transcript/index.html

Press Club Rev. Wright CNN video black church different, not deficient... the privileged avoid war, while sending over 4000 American boys and girls to die, over a lie...

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/04/28/sot.wright.different.long.cnn


Throughout Rev. Wright's appearance at the National Press Club, the audience both cheers, boos, cheers, boos... and throughout Wright references Bill Moyers interview, says transcript left out some of his remarks...

Bill Moyers transcript

http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/lofiversion/index.php/t91885.html

Quoted the ambassador of Iraq, if you'd heard

Biblical principles expect what you reap you sow...

Wright addresses what he said on Bill Moyers program...

Politicians do what they do and say what they say because they are politicians, so too with Rev. Wright and pastors...

Government lied about HIV

Have you read Horowitz's book, others, if you haven't read things, based on Tuskeegee... and other things, believes our government is capable, yes...

we sold Saddam those biological weapons to him... they use what we sold them, yes I believe we are capable.

It's about policy, not the American people, God doesn't praise everybody, he condemns actions...

Net the Truth Online

Fox News analyzes

Megyn Kelly wonders whether given Wright's responses at the National Press Club Obama should now come out and denounce Rev. Wright and his comments... Juan Williams says he doesn't think Wright explained many of his positions, he's deflected attention, putting the Church out as victim, not Obama, not himself...

Kelly: fallout from that comment alone... terrorize others... and not have it come back on you...

The issue is back on the front burner. What the Fox panel continues to do, however, neglect to show the entirety of Wright's previous comments and in particular his full answers to National Press Club questions.

Net the Truth Online

USA Today

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/04/jeremiah-wright.html

ABC Defends 'Soft-Spoken,' Patriotic Jeremiah Wright
By Scott Whitlock | April 25, 2008 - 12:57 ET

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/04/25/abc-defends-soft-spoken-patriotic-jeremiah-wright

Lincoln-Douglas Debate: Push Among All Party Nominees, Not Just Democrats

Hillary Clinton's idea for a Lincoln-Douglas style debate is a good one, just not one that should be held between the two candidates vying for the Democrat Party's nomination for President.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's styles are different, but their positions are admittedly very close, with a few exceptions in how each would handle a few details regarding particular issues.

The idea should be promoted for all party nominees, Libertarian, Constitutional, Reform, Republican, Democrat, and as many others as possible, including Socialist.

In this way, voters in November would have the kind of information needed to make a choice among all candidates.

Net the Truth Online

updated 6:14 p.m. EDT, Sat April 26, 2008
Clinton to Obama: Let's debate like Lincoln

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/26/obama.debate/index.html?eref=rss_politics&iref=polticker

Related including some historical perspective

The Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party


http://www.rnclife.org/brochure/rprolife.html

Bob Barr Seeks Libertarian Party Endorsement

Trouble with Bob Barr's candidacy for the Libertarian Party slot for nominee for President? He's breaking with his former party, Republican, who continue to hold the majority position of being pro-life, to switch to the Libertarian Party, whose members remain a majority of pro-choice despite "inroads made" by the Libertarians for Life Committee faction of the party over some 20 plus years.

(Net the Truth Online)

Barr's campaign for White House taking shape
By JILL VEJNOSKA
Published on: 04/26/08

Barr's electability and Libertarian cred — he's been a party member since just 2006 — his "exploratory" Web site (http://www.bobbarr2008.com) showed about $25,000 in contributions within two days...

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/26/barr_0426.html


Related

http://www.lpconvention.org/

The Republican Party is the Pro-Life Party

http://www.rnclife.org/brochure/rprolife.html

LFL Challenges Libertarian Party's "Pro-Choice" Position

Doris Gordon
Copyright 1985
Originally published in the December 5, 1985 issue (Volume 12, No. 21) of National Right To Life News, Official Publication of the National Right to Life Committee.

Inroads Made

http://www.l4l.org/library/lfl-chal.html


The Pulse: Pro-choice versus pro-life versus . . .

Abortion: It's considered one of the "fault-line" political issues of our time -- dividing Americans on medical, religious, and legal grounds. So, too, is it with Libertarians. This month's Pulse question -- "Should the LP be pro-choice, pro-life, or something else?" -- drew the largest response ever and some of the most passionate answers.
The results of this unscientific poll confirmed what the LP Platform states: That "libertarians can hold good-faith views on both sides [of the abortion debate]." Using arguments based on Libertarian philosophy, the U.S. Constitution, and simple pragmatism, Libertarians were sharply split on this issue.

A firm "pro-choice" position was the plurality favorite, but with only 35.2% of the vote. Another 30.2% took a solidly "pro-life" position. And 18.6% said that the party should take no political position on this issue.

However, the responses didn't stop there. Another 4.9% said the party should be pro-choice until some point in the pregnancy (either a set date, the beginning of brain activity, or some other measurement), and 2.3% said that the government should take no position on abortion -- which would de-facto legalize the procedure. A final 8.8% gave answers that were indecisive or confusing.

http://www.lp.org/lpn/9807-pulse.html


A Closer Look at the Libertarian Party Platform
From Tom Head,
Your Guide to Civil Liberties.
FREE Newsletter. Sign Up Now!
(Continued from Page 2)
Apr 3 2008

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/libertarianpolitics/a/libert_party_3.htm

Constitution Party Presidential Nominee Chosen

More of the positions of the Constitution Party nominee would be supported by conservatives than those taken by Republublican nominee, John McCain (OK just for a time, John McClone)(In that kind of mood today)(Besides, the posts in commentaries on the prime buzz site were kinda inspirational)(Hitlery, Obominable, really now... a little much even for those who don't like the policies or politics of either)

Constitution Party stunner: Chuck Baldwin KOs firebrand Alan Keyes

http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/11314

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Wallace Interviews Barack Obama

Obama: doesn't think race is going to be a barrier in the General Election... or think there's been an effort by Bill Clinton to inject race into the contest... confident once primary is over everybody will come together... come August whoever is the nominee the Democratic Party will say we'll be unified to come together...

Yes, Wallace asks Obama about Rev. Wright do you think Wright is just the victim here? Yep, Wallace takes up time and asks about William Ayers.

Wallace also asked a question that elicited the most revealing response given by Barack Obama.

To many in the Democratic Party, potentially, his most troubling comments will be those on abortion. (We've been wondering, now we think we know for sure)

While Obama wants to be a uniter, unifier - that simply isn't possible on the issue of pro-choice abortion.

One either believes life is a life from the time the fetus is viable - zero hour - to 1 second into conception, or one doesn't believe a life is a life at zero hour and therefore not in need of its guarantee to "life," liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and all of the other guaranteed rights which are inalienable rights; rights inseparable from the individual.

There is no unifying possible between placing the woman's right to choose to abort or not above the unable to speak for him or her self right of a child to be born and live.

At least one of his major supporters is after all Senator Bob Casey, Jr. who is pro-life. Maybe he'll name him as Vice President. That way, Obama won't just be attempting to unify the other side with his side, but his own Party with those in major disagreement with a major portion of the Democratic Party platform.

But, there is a wing of the Democrat Party making itself known for many years that opposes late-term abortion, yet, the position includes an exception in the case of endangerment to the life of the mother.

That wing could see an opening in Barack Obama's response to Chris Wallace.

And many Republican Party members on the other side could as well be drawn to Obama for the same reason. Because there is a wing of the Republican Party membership that also opposes late-term abortion, with exception in the case of threat to the life of the mother, and at variance with the Republican Party platform which remains in the majority pro-life.

Net the Truth Online

TRANSCRIPT: OBAMA ON ‘FNS’
by FOXNews.com
Sunday, April 27, 2008

excerpt

WALLACE: Over the years, John McCain has broken with his party and risked his career on a number of issues — campaign finance, immigration reform, banning torture.

As a president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line and say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"

OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

WALLACE: Such as?...

Barack Obama... It is true that when you look at some of the votes that I’ve taken in the Senate that I’m on the Democratic side of these votes, but part of the reason is because the way these issues are designed are to polarize. They are intentionally designed to polarize.

On partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that
    )the state can properly restrict late-term abortions.
I have said so repeatedly. All I’ve said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother. And many of the bills that came before me didn’t have that.

Now part of the reason they didn’t have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion, and I don’t begrudge that at all, they have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral, oftentimes what they are trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people so that they could try to bring an end abortions overall.

So the point I’m simply making is that as president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them. And I don’t think there is any Republican out there who I’ve worked with who would say that I don’t listen to them, I don’t respect their ideas, I don’t understand their perspective.

And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we are always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/transcript-obama-on-fns/


WALLACE: Over the years, John McCain has broken with his party and risked his career on a number of issues — campaign finance, immigration reform, banning torture.

As a president, can you name a hot-button issue where you would be willing to buck the Democratic Party line and say, "You know what? Republicans have a better idea here?"

OBAMA: Well, I think there are a whole host of areas where Republicans in some cases may have a better idea.

WALLACE: Such as?

OBAMA: Well, on issues of regulation. I think that back in the '60s and '70s a lot of the way we regulated industry was top-down command and control, we're going to tell businesses exactly how to do things.

And you know, I think that the Republican Party and people who thought about the markets came up with the notion that, "You know what? If you simply set some guidelines, some rules and incentives, for businesses — let them figure out how they're going to, for example, reduce pollution," and a cap and trade system, for example is a smarter way of doing it, controlling pollution, than dictating every single rule that a company has to abide by, which creates a lot of bureaucracy and red tape and oftentimes is less efficient.

I think that on issues of education, I've been very clear about the fact — and sometimes I've gotten in trouble with the teachers' union on this — that we should be experimenting with charter schools. We should be experimenting with different ways of compensating teachers that...

WALLACE: You mean merit pay?

OBAMA: Well, merit pay, the way it's been designed, I think, is based on just a single standardized test — I think is a big mistake, because the way we measure performance may be skewed by whether or not the kids are coming into school already three years or four years behind.

But I think that having assessment tools and then saying, "You know what? Teachers who are on career paths to become better teachers, developing themselves professionally — that we should pay excellence more." I think that's a good idea, so...

WALLACE: But, Senator, if I may, I think one of the concerns that some people have is that you talk a good game about, "Let's be post-partisan, let's all come together," just a couple of quick things, and I don't really want you to defend each one. I just want to speak to the larger issue.

OBAMA: Right.

WALLACE: The gang of 14, which was a group, a bipartisan coalition, to try to resolve the issue of judicial nominations. Fourteen senators came together. You weren't part of it.

On some issues where Democrats have moved to the center — partial birth abortion, defense of marriage act — you stay on the left and you are against both.

And so people say, "Do you really want a partnership with Republicans, or do you really want unconditional surrender from them?"

OBAMA: No, look, I think this is fair. I would point out, though, for example, that when I voted for a tort reform measure that was fiercely opposed by the trial lawyers, I got attacked pretty hard from the left. During the Roberts...

WALLACE: John Roberts, the Supreme Court.

OBAMA: ... the John Roberts nomination, although I voted against him, I strongly defended some of my colleagues who had voted for him on the Daily Kos and was fiercely attacked as somebody who is, you know, caving in to Republicans on these fights.

In fact, there are a lot of liberal commentators who think I'm too accommodating.

So here's my philosophy. I want to do what works for the American people. And both at the state legislative level and at the federal legislative level, I have always been able to work together with Republicans to find compromise and to find common ground.

That's how I was able to provide health care for people who needed it in Illinois. That's how I passed ethics reform both at the state and the federal level.

That's how, you know, I've worked with people like Dick Lugar from here in Indiana on critical issues like nuclear proliferation.

It is true that when you look at some of the votes that I've taken in the Senate that I'm on the Democratic side of these votes, but part of the reason is because the way these issues are designed are to polarize. They're intentionally designed to polarize.

On an issue like partial birth abortion, I strongly believe that the state can properly restrict late-term abortions. I have said so repeatedly. All I've said is we should have a provision to protect the health of the mother, and many of the bills that came before me didn't have that.

Now, part of the reason they didn't have it was purposeful, because those who are opposed to abortion — and I don't begrudge that at all. They have a moral calling to try to oppose what they think is immoral.

Oftentimes what they were trying to do was to polarize the debate and make it more difficult for people, so that they could try to bring an end to abortions overall.

So the point I'm simply making is that as president, my goal is to bring people together, to listen to them, and I don't think that's any Republican out there who I've worked with who would say that I don't listen to them, I don't respect their ideas, I don't understand their perspective.

And I do not consider Democrats to have a monopoly on wisdom. And my goal is to get us out of this polarizing debate where we're always trying to score cheap political points and actually get things done.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

Fox News Sunday airtimes

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,61653,00.html

Transcript Chris Wallace interview with Barack Obama

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,352785,00.html

Media Accurate Finally 9.2 % PA Win Clinton Not Double Digits

Well, there you have it. 5 days after the Pennsylvania Primary the media finally finds it within themselves to get the exact and accurate percentage of Hillary Clinton's popular vote edge by 9.2 percent, not double-digits or even 10 percent.

Maybe the Beltway Boys researchers finally visited the Pennsylvania DOS site which compiled the accurate, real, yet, remember, still unofficial results from Tuesday's Primary Election.

Why does it matter? Accuracy matters because in this Presidential contest, even a difference of 1 or 2 votes could make a differene in the amount of committed delegates accrued by a Democratic candidate.

More importantly, the truth matters. A mainstream media that can't tell the truth about unofficial election results cannot be trusted to tell the truth about ANYTHING.

Will wonders never cease. After the Barack Obama interview on Fox News Sunday, (April 27, 2008) during a panel analysis, host Chris Wallace and Brit Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, and Juan Williams are discussing his appearance, and bring up Hillary Clinton's win in PA...

Chris Wallace refers to her win as astonishing... says ok some 9 percent plus.

Liasson says hey, it wasn't so astonishing... she was ahead by 20 points...

Bill Krystol his usual self stumps for Hillary Clinton... she's been ill-served by her own campaign...

At least Wallace noted the 9 percent, but he didn't take back the astonishing statement, not even after Liasson pointed out Clinton was favored in polling to win a few weeks prior to the Primary by some 20 points.

the entire exchange made Wallace look pretty bad, especially since he stood by his initial comment that Clinton's win was an astonishing win.

Yeh Chris 9.2 percent is really astonishing.

What's astonishing is the Clinton name has name recognition, and a 100 million plus in income over the years that is enough to buy back the White House and all those pardoned supporters of former Bill Clinton, well where's their cash flow going now?

Update: april 28, 2008

Remember, Clinton had to win by double-digits. She didn't, but not until recently has the media made note of the real percentage, some 9.2 percent win not double digits.

CBS News Transcripts
SHOW: CBS Evening News 6:30 PM EST CBS
April 22, 2008 Tuesday
Jeff Greenfield and Bob Schieffer on the numbers game when it comes to the Democratic primaries


http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007217&docId=l:782906466&start=20

(Net the Truth Online)

Related

April 23, 2008
A Review of the Pennsylvania Primary
Posted by JAY COST
http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/04/a_review_of_the_pennsylvania_p.html

PA Exit Polls

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/22/pennsylvania-exit-polls-p_n_98069.html

Saturday, April 26, 2008

Save Lincoln-Douglas Style Debate for General Election

Why waste the effort of a Lincoln-Douglas style debate on a discussion between two candidates of the same political party? That's ridiculous. The styles of BArack Obama and Hillary Clinton are different, that's obvious. But their platforms are near mirror images with the exception of a few slivers where the pair disagree on how to go about some things.

Save the Lincoln-Douglas style debate for the General election between the Democratic nominee and Republican nominee, or you never know, an Independent nominee who's gathered enough of his/her own momentum.

Clinton challenges Obama to Lincoln-Douglas style debate
Apr 26, 4:53 PM (ET)
By MIKE GLOVER and SARA KUGLER

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080426/D909PE0O0.html

Fox News Sunday Interview Scoop Barack Obama

On Sunday with Chris Wallace. Fox News Sunday will spend some major time with Barack Obama. We'll see if a round of questions about Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, or "bitter" small town Americans come up. Hope at least Wallace does get the full explanation of the comment Obama made about bitter small town Pennsylvanians and all of us.

Pennsylvanians registered in overwhelming numbers to participate in the Democratic Party Presidential Primary in PA. By state accounts, some 160,000 new registrants or crossovers from Independent and Republican political parties.

An impressive number of college students registered, and all by the deadline in late March, well after the Rev. Wright controversial statements.

Among all voters who surely heard or read incessantly of Rev. Wright's comments, the Bill Ayers question arising during the pre-Primary Democratic Debate hosted by ABC, and Barack Obama's comments about bitter small town Pennsylvanians, it remains astonishing that Obama held Clinton to her 2-week 6-point percentage and basically lost in the popular vote by only some 3 points more than that on Primary Election Day.

Obviously, voters in PA did not take Obama's bitter comments in the same way presented by many in the media.

Clinton won, but by some 200,000 votes and a 9.2 margin, not a double digit spread of ten points.

News media are just now correcting themselves on that, but reluctantly. What they're saying is they are being pressed by Obama supporters to give out the real margin of Clinton's win.

Well, no, how about correcting themselves because it is the truth. Clinton won by 9.2 percentage, not 10, and can't claim a double-digit win in PA.

In fact, because of the proportional way the delegates are assigned, Clinton may have gained in the net only a dozen, if that, more delegates than Barack Obama in PA.

Chris Wallace is obligated to settle the matter of Obama's comments about bitter small town Americans. Obama's direct explanation will be a lot more settling than he mangled his words.

We've given Obama a favorable nod on that point, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't provide a much clearer explanation of what he meant.

In fact, Geraldo Rivera of Fox News gave a very satisfactory explanation of what he thought Obama intended to say.

Brilliant explanation, to our surprise.

If that is what Obama meant, and more, the explanation should sit well with an even larger percentage willing to be recognized among the "We R Bitter."

But how will Barack Obama raise the consciousness of those who are bitter - so they themselves can have a hand in curing themselves?

That's the question Chris Wallace should settle for once and for all.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

9.2 percent Pennsylvania win not double digits for Hillary Clinton

It's not double digits, media. How the media plays up a so-called double-digit ten percent lead for Hillary Clinton is par for the course of media spin. They did this with Texas when Clinton won the popular vote by a slim margin, and Barack Obama actually won the caucus and obtained more delegates from the Primary than Clinton.

In Pennsylvania, Clinton's popular vote win nets her about 10 to 13 more delegates in Pennsylvania than Obama, yet her popular vote win there does not put her ahead of Obama in the overall nationwide tally in popular vote to date.

Meanwhile, the media has every reason to give the additional .8 percent to Clinton so they can keep the horserace going to the Democratic Party convention to be held in Denver in August - it's called ratings.

What's not surprising at all, Hillary Clinton won Pennsylvania's Primary. She was not only expected to win, with the power-house Pennsylvania insiders on her team, from the Governor to the Philadelphia Mayor to other notables across the state, she was initially expected to win by some 20 points.

Obama kept narrowing and narrowing that lead down to a steady two-week hold on a 6 percent margin into the eve of the Primary.

What is suprising, even after all the media flack over Barack Obama mangling words regarding bitter small-town Pennsylvanian's only 200,000 less Pennsylvania Democratic voters voted for Obama than Clinton, showing it's media hype not real-life Americans who are keeping the bitter flame going.

It wasn't double digits, Hillary. It was closer to 9 percent than 10 percent, and every single percent, just like every single vote, counts.

Consider that all of the absentees and provisionals have not yet been declared officially counted. So Clinton's lead could expand, or it could narrow depending on the outcome of early voters and voters whose registration status still remains unchecked and uncounted.

CNN continues to report Hillary Clinton narrowed Obama's lead in committed delegates. That's simply untrue. Obama's lead has been around between 100 and 150, depending on whose charts and schematics one is using. All that can be said about CNN's numbers, they show a 130 delegate difference between the contenders.

Obama 1,714

Clinton 1,584

Net the Truth Online

2008 General Primary
Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Unofficial Returns
*** 9,212 out of 9,264 Districts (99.44%) Reporting Statewide ***

President of the United States
Democratic Primary

Candidate Votes Percent
OBAMA, BARACK (DEM)
1,029,672 45.4%
CLINTON, HILLARY (DEM)
1,237,696 54.6%

Republican Primary

Candidate Votes Percent
PAUL, RON (REP)
125,705 15.9%
MCCAIN, JOHN (REP)
575,543 72.7%
HUCKABEE, MIKE (REP)
89,957 11.4%

http://www.electionreturns.state.pa.us/ElectionsInformation.aspx?FunctionID=13&ElectionID=27&OfficeID=1


CBS analysis

Why Clinton Won Pennsylvania
CBSNews.com Analysis: Results Show Electorate Divided On Education, Race, Income And Religion Comments 173
April 22, 2008
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/22/politics/main4036287.shtml

Incumbent Remains Despite Double Anti-Incumbent Reformer Opposition

What to make of the dramatic loss/es? More voters wanted to retain Gingrich than defeat her. The independent turned Republican challenger, Russ Diamond had an opportunity to ride into office given statewide fame after the 1995 payraise aka paygrab debacle. Name recognition had to be at least equal to that of the incumbent given two-years' worth of state headlines about Diamond's efforts to rid the state of incumbents, all incumbents, after the payraise. He also made a historic bid for Governor as an Independent in 2006, running on a platform of reform, including a specific call for a PA Constitutional Convention.

Diamond remains commendable for his efforts to highlight the arrogance of members of the General Assembly and the often abrogation of duty to uphold the PA Constitution by our elected Judges who oversee the PA Constitution.

His efforts towards a PA Constitutional Convention after his failure to lay claim to an elected office seat should be reconsidered, and placed squarely where the blame has always been - entrenched incumbents - not perceived failures of the PA Constitution.

As we've argued before and will again, the PA Constitution is not at fault. Legislators who fail to abide by the PA Constitution are.

Any further reform of government should take place via grassroots efforts to hold our legislators accountable and enable reasoned measures which are carefully weighed before enacting into law, or not.

(Net the Truth Online)

Diamond concedes to Gingrich in 101st
by The Patriot-News
Tuesday April 22, 2008, 9:46 PM
PALMYRA--Mauree Gingrich said the "unflappable, enlightened, thinking voters" of the 101st District are responsible for her victory last night over challengers Russ Diamond and Bruce Kreider.

Despite Diamond's unsuccessful challenge of signatures on her filing petition, Gingrich said she "never had a doubt" that she would prevail in the election.

"Nobody bought into that," Gingrich said of Diamond's argument that some signatures were forged on the petition, which the state supreme court rejected.

With all precincts reporting, Gingrich had 4,338 votes, compared with 1,558 for Diamond and 846 for Kreider.

Diamond said he thinks he lost because voters like Gingrich, which he doesn't think should be the number one reason to vote for someone. "It should be because they are effective at doing things."

He also said he didn't think he lost many votes due to a last-minute mailer by a group called Campaign for PA's Future of Media that cited his 2002 conviction for harassment after violating a PFA order.

Kreider said he stayed out of the fray, concentrating his campaign on promoting positive change. For him, he said politics is "more about ideas" and on the individual candidate than the party.

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2008/04/diamond_concedes_to_gingrich_i.html

Monday, April 21, 2008

Clinton Edge Remains Frozen at 6% Eve PA Election

Same six point lead in Pennsylvania to Hillary Clinton.

Barack Obama was over an hour late arriving in McKeesport Campus of Penn State. The facilities were already filled with attendees, and about 50 of us stood around outside. Must say, was extremely encouraged by the mix of the turnout and entire families showed up, children in tow. One person had a sign which read:

We R Bitter.

Took a photograph of it. Tried to get video of Obama arriving but no luck.

Heard his opening remarks via loud speaker. Was just a bit disappointed that he opened by thanking everybody for waiting, then of course thanked all the usual suspects before he made a remark about why he was running... A few of us were standing near some trees when he said the same thing we'd all heard reported he'd said before, and to a one of us - not knowing each other - we all said hey we heard that before... how about something really good for us.

As he wasn't saying anything new in those few minutes and it was chilly outside after waiting almost 2 hours there, a few of us left. We'll catch it on youtube. He was also scheduled for a 9 PM appearance near Pittsburgh, about a 45 minute drive from McKeesport.

It was interesting to listen to some political conversations going on while everyone outside was waiting for his arrival. Some seemed upset he didn't arrive on time. Chalk that up to they were either Hillary plants or they wanted to get home already to watch whatever show they usually watch.

tommorrow will tell...

Posted on Mon, Apr. 21, 2008 04:45 PM
Thousands of Pennsylvanians are switching parties to vote for Obama
By DAVID LIGHTMAN
McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/585358.html

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Points of Agreement & Disagreement Barack Obama

Update April 22, 2008

Gee wonder whether our points of disagreement with some of Barack Obama's approach to create a fair economy were an influence on Pennsylvania's Democratic voters unconvinced or convinced about Obama on that point.

Maybe so. Obama is a different type of candidate for President. On many issues he draws the moderate Democrat, on many issues he draws the liberal Democrat, on many issues he draws the yes, there are some, reportedly, conservative Democrat.

What remains in Obama's favor of electability in the Fall? Two major factors.

Independent voters who are not necessarily committed to an IndependentParty Presidential candidate are more likely to vote for Barack Obama.

And another factor:

In comparison to Clinton supporters who reveal should Obama be the nominee they would vote for John McCain by some 28 percent whereas Obama supporters - only some 19 percent - say they would vote for John McCain in the Fall should Clinton be the nominee.

Imagine over one-fourth of Democrat voters would rather John McCain be elected President of the United States than Barack Obama? Isn't that telling? What possible motivation would there be for that? There is a blast-from-the-past motivation (let's say) should Pennsylvania statistics hold true concerning an overwhelming amount of slightly aged white women voters preferring Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama.

Doesn't that show the angry white-woman Clinton voters would rather lose the election to John McCain than see Barack Obama have a chance in the White House for some likely 8 years? Isn't that indicative of the odd feminist-selfishness of Clinton voters?

Net the Truth Online (April 23, 2008)

March 26, 2008
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCainIf McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain

...As would be expected, almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party's nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election matchup against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee....

...Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party's nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election...

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx



Yep, it'll all be coming after the Pennsylvania election. Our need to point out each and every difference we have with many of the positions of Barack Obama. (Update: it's still coming. Even with Clinton's win in the popular vote in PA by some 200,000 votes (unofficial, that could narrow depending on official tallies including absentees and provisionals), Clinton gained a net of only 10 delegates in comparison to Obama in PA.

Obama continues his over 150 plus lead in over-all committed delegates.)

For now, we have an area of agreement and disagreement with Barack Obama based on a clip of his comments made in Lancaster, PA reportedly, at a town-hall meeting.

Unofficial transcript of portion:

Wants to create an economy that's fair, believes in capitalism, free markets entrepreneurship... people have to work but when CEO makes more in a month ... than worker makes in entire year... gets tax breaks... worker left holding bag when company gets sold or goes belly up CEO gets million dollar bonus and ordinary worker loses his pension, something is wrong... something has to change...

He finds it unacceptable CEO's get tax breaks, we can agree there. Nobody should get tax breaks, or everybody should. Problem is, the taxes are burdensome on business to begin with, and with more environmental concerns weighing in on the political scene, expect more such taxes to be imposed and those in a sick cycle become more burdensome. Business owners are always looking for ways to pay less taxes because more taxes are a stranglehold on innovation, research and development, and the like. So until government stops taxing for what is politically expedient and not best for the country's economic development, expect CEOs to look for tax breaks and make every attempt to influence those who will or will not give the breaks to them.

Obama: They are making millions in bonuses while workers lose their pensions.

Not exactly accurate. Yes, a couple of Enron execs were shown to have been despicable and deceitful concerning their knowledge of stocks about to tank, and workers lost the equity in their pensions so the pensions were valueless, but not all CEOs are that way or there wouldn't be any companies left after a short while.

Yes, CEOs get paid the big bucks and get the big bonuses. But why should we care as long as they are treating the workers fairly in salary and benefits in keeping with levels of experience, work product, etc.

That's called capitalism, and according to Obama, he's ok with capitalism and free markets and entrepreneurship.

We hold out the hope Obama will acknowledge some less than "taxing" way to meet his expectations to create a "fair" economy - his understanding and support of capitalism and free markets and entrepreneurship point to some potential there, and maybe his sentiments about Washington lobbyists will go toward that end.

We don't agree with the idea to tax the wealthy to pay for government programs for everybody else. At the same time, we agree the wealthy should not get off from paying their fair share of taxes. But the taxes have to be in keeping for only the absolutely necessary and few programs government should be doing.

Doing far more than their constitutional duties, that's where our Washington leaders have gone wrong, on both sides of the aisle...

Obama clip in Lancaster, PA

http://pop.youtube.com/watch?v=bExmgsHo0s0&feature=related

Lay, Skilling guilty on nearly all counts
Former CEOs convicted of fraud, conspiracy, face lengthy prison terms

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12968481/

Hillary Clinton Gets Pass on Bosnia Story No Questions about Chelsea

We noticed similarly a tad bit of a slant when Politico owners appeared on networks Friday and Saturday. We switched back and forth so often, we forgot which network captured the interview that was so revealing - the politico founder or contributor was simply speechless about the stats that were showing Obama's poll numbers were actually on the rise after the ABC debate.

As we reported today, the Fox Morning Show panel interviewed Jim Pinkerton, who didn't even bring up the fact a crowd of 35,000 attended a rally in Philadelphia to hear Barack Obama...

Seriously, the fact that amount of Pennsylvanians turned out for Barack Obama after the past month's worth of a combination of things - but particularly the week-long discussion of Obama's comment about bitter small town Pennsylvanians shows Pennsylvanians have it in them to ignore the media and whatever it is the media thinks or portrays as truth.

It isn't so much that the media shouldn't have discussed Obama's comment, it's that the media discussed, and discussed, and discussed for an entire week - from last Friday to this Friday, and beyond a day into Saturday, and even Sunday!

Yet, how often has the media talked about John McCain forgetting or not knowing the difference between Shiite and Sunni? A smattering of times. Had McCain been the focus as much as Obama, McCain's numbers would not be anywhere near where they are now.

As for the story of Hillary Clinton and daughter being under sniper fire in Bosnia, recall, it wasn't until ABC News broke the story as simply not happening that way that there was any focus put on the story.

Where was the media when Hillary Clinton recited the story as true at least two or three times while campaigning?

Where was the media looking out for us asking Hillary Clinton why would she take her daughter into the country if she had knowledge beforehand of the potential for any danger? Once aware there was sniper fire as they got off the plane or shortly afterwards, or whenever, why didn't Hillary and daughter flee the hell back to the plane?

The entire story would have fallen apart had the media asked Clinton the rest of the story - which would make the most sense - as soon as I noticed or was aware we were under sniper fire, I grabbed my daughter Chelsea and ran with her to safety!

Wouldn't you? That's why we don't trust the media. They've shown their bias by not asking Hillary Clinton one question about the circumstances of her daughter's life being in danger on a trip to Bosnia. A story which to all was true, until the exact time ABC News disproved it.

Our prediction: Pennsylvania is going to have a really big shock on Wednesday, according to .... Smerconish, radio host and sit-in often at CNN and Headline News Glenn Beck, who during the past couple of days has unequivocally said he believes Barack Obama is closing in and will win Pennsylvania.

(Net the Truth Online)

The following site asks you to participate in the poll question at politico.com

Check the lower right corner of the homepage


Obama's secret weapon: the media
Do you think many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon?

http://www.politico.com/


Apr. 20th, 2008


insomnia
Politico owners start interjecting themselves into the election's outcome.
Politco owner/editors John F. Harris & Jim Vanderhei, who previously misrepresented Politico's own interview with Barack Obama, and repeatedly and aggressively attacked John Edwards' haircut with numerous big headline news stories, recently penned a transparently obvious hit piece / editorial against Obama and his supporters, accusing the media as being biased in favor of Obama, accusing Obama supporters of "whining" about the balance of the recent ABC debate, and defending that debate as being "more substantive than other debates".

In an attempt to try to give their latest ludicrously slanted editorial -- which they've been relentlessly hyping -- some degree of credibility, they've posted a poll to the bottom right of their front page, asking:

Obama's secret weapon: the media
Do you think many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Obama phenomenon?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9718.html

Note that they aren't asking whether many journalists are not merely observers but participants in the Clinton or McCain campaign. Apparently, everyone knows Bill Kristol's or Paul Krugman's editorials at the NY Times are completely balanced, right?!

Apparently, it's a "phenomenon" and not common sense when the majority of Democrats vote for the most honest, trustworthy, optimistic candidate running the best organized, most successful campaign that focuses primarily on the issues that matter to people, rather than on sleazy attacks.

So, take a few seconds, go vote no to their biased poll... and please feel free to crosspost this to let other Obama supporters know that they should do the same...

http://community.livejournal.com/obama_2008/

Clinton Market Square Obama McKeesport Penn State

Video Obama at Pitt

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/video/multimedia.php?res=hi&v=2001&1=1

Video Clinton Market Square

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/video/multimedia.php?res=hi&v=1997&1=1

Both candidates will make appearances in the Greater Pittsburgh area on Monday

On the trail: Where are candidates in final days of campaign?
Sunday, April 20, 2008

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_563418.html

Penn State Greater Allegheny McKeesport

http://www.ga.psu.edu/

Tickets a must picked up at

4/20/2008 — On Monday, April 21, Senator Barack Obama, candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination, will hold a Town Hall Meeting, "On Track for Change," at Penn State Greater Allegheny.

http://www.ga.psu.edu/30425.htm#NEWS30425

http://tomwfox.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/barack-obama-in-mckeesport-pa-april-21/

Who loves Governor Rendell AKA Fast Eddy?

The national media is surely not talking to the real-Pennsylvanians who have not been enamored with Governor Ed Rendell for several years, particularly since the 2005 legislative pay raise debacle.

Governor Ed Rendell is often tagged Fast Eddy in Pennsylvania.

Yet, this morning on Fox 'n Friends, Fred Luntz, plugging an appearance Rendell will make tonight and a Penn State rally, said the "people of Pennsylvania love Governor Ed Rendell, he's beloved by Pennsylvanians."

So who is Luntz talking to about Rendell? Why supporters of Hillary Clinton in the areas where Gov. Rendell still holds slim margins of support.

In other words, voters who already have a predisposition to vote for Hillary Clinton, and will likely vote for her April 22, are at least willing to listen to Gov. Ed Rendell speak - because he's supporting Hillary Clinton.

Really, it would be the same if Gov. Rendell supported Barack Obama.

Those voters who are going to vote for one or the other will listen to supporters of that candidate.

But to claim that Governor Rendell is a beloved Governor in Pennsylvania? Get real.

Some 35,000 of the people of Pennsylvania turned out to hear Barack Obama on one day. Previous to that early on 22,000 turned out for a single Obama appearance.

Combined, or separated, those numbers amount to more than Hillary Clinton has obtained with you, or without you, Governor Rendell by her side.

One might even say, nicely, that you are having no effect on Pennsylvania voters who are continuing to back away from Clinton towards Obama.

For that, he should be grateful. His favorability and unfavorability numbers will most likely remain the same as they were before he offered his endorsement of Hillary Clinton.

He'll still be called Fast Eddy (Don't Call Me Fast Eddy).

(Net the Truth Online)

AP-Yahoo Poll: Obama overtaking Clinton despite bruises
By CHARLES BABINGTON and TREVOR TOMPSON
Associated Press Writers

http://www.kansascity.com/445/story/581509.html


Gov. 'Blunt Talk' Rendell (and other topics)
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
So many topics, so little space:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08043/856727-153.stm


Rendell's endorsement seen as a plus for Clinton
Friday, March 21, 2008
By Tom Barnes, Post-Gazette Harrisburg Bureau

...Mr. Rendell does give some pluses to Mrs. Clinton, analysts say, including:

• His continuing popularity in the city of Philadelphia, where he was mayor for most of the 1990s, and where, he says, many people still greet him on the street as "mayor." That factor should, to some degree, counteract the racial advantage that Mr. Obama will likely enjoy among the city's large African-American population. She has another advantage in Philadelphia: the endorsement of popular new Mayor Michael Nutter, who is black.

• Mr. Rendell's spillover popularity in four growing suburban counties around Philadelphia: Bucks, Montgomery, Chester and Delaware, where the numbers of Democrats have been increasing.

• The enthusiasm he exudes just being out on the campaign trail and his ability to tap deep pockets for campaign cash. He spent record amounts on his own campaigns in 2002 and 2006.

Supporters of Mr. Obama generally concede that Mrs. Clinton has started out with an edge in Pennsylvania, such as high name recognition from the 1990s, when she was first lady, and the high visibility of her husband, former President Bill Clinton. Also, her father, Hugh Rodham, grew up in Scranton and she spent summers in that area as a child.

She's also popular with senior citizens, a huge voting bloc in Pennsylvania, and with blue-collar workers and labor union members.

But Obama supporters agree with Mr. Borick that times have changed and people don't vote for a candidate just because some big-time pol tells them to.

"This Pennsylvania primary won't be won by top-down, machine-style politics," said state Rep. Joshua Shapiro, a 30-something Democrat from Montgomery County who's backing Mr. Obama...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08081/866857-457.stm


Clinton says she'll put country on right track
By Amy Zalar, Herald-Standard
04/20/2008
Updated 04/20/2008 07:36:43 AM EDT

http://www.heraldstandard.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19500761&BRD=2280&PAG=461&dept_id=480247&rfi=6