You don’t need to register for an account to use your name on comments. Here’s what you do:

In the comment box there are several options after the Google/Blogger login. Here’s the order, underneath the Google/Blogger default:

OpenID
Name/URL
Anonymous

So instead of clicking on the “Anonymous” circle like you have been, click on the Name/URL. Two text boxes come up when you do that — top one says Name and the other says URL. Just type in your/a name in the box that says “Name.” That’s it. Each time.

You don’t need to type in an URL (website address), either. Just a name. It is not registering or getting an account. It doesn’t need a password. It just puts the name to that particular comment.

You did a good job. It was short and sweet, but it’ll be longer next time.

Anyone notice how the media will brush off Hillary lies and especially this Columbia issue with Penn so easily???? They give it a day or two and it is gone.

Yet we still are hearing about the Rev?

It seems the media hold Obama accountable for everything someone else does, but they don’t hold Hillary or Bill responsible for anything.
How many more lies, out of her mouth, does she get a pass on?

Have we forgotten Whitewater?
Bill lies under oath for cheating on his wife, faced impeachment and he pulled in how much money? And we wonder why people are corrupt?
America voted for Bush because it claimed it had enough of the Clintons. Ok. So why do they think anything will be different?

She wasn’t strong enough to leave Bill in such and embarrassing moment and it is obvious she still NEEDS him because it is taking both of them to handle Obama and yet women say she is strong????

If PA votes for Hillary considering her recent chain of events to me it points to one thing and one thing only and this is what the Clintons have been trying to introduce since the beginning which is race.

And how does the media keep calling it momentum if they expect her to win it? Shouldn’t momentum be a win she is not expected to win? Like what Obama has done to be in the lead?

Finally, why does the media continue to say she won Florida and Michigan if it was ruled it wouldn’t count before hand and she was the only one on one ballot?
They need to stop entertaining this notion. No matter what Hillary calls it it call it what it was which had no winner.

Hillary Clinton is the one who started the whole “denounce and reject” bullshit in the Ohio debate and it has gone too far.

Obama doesn’t need to denounce or reject another word that someone else speaks. Let the people who speak decide whether or not they want to “unring the bell” of their own words.

This has become a childish exercise in nonsense and I’ve had just about enough of it.

I am a devoted reader to this blog and nor am I a troll. The reason I post my comments earlier as anonymous is because I haven’t and don’t know how to register to get a name like you have and really to busy to care. Don’t worry about anybody giving good advice as anonymous.

Appealing to white moderates and independents is the cornerstone of Obama’s campaign. He was never running as the black candidate, and theme of change and unity is a direct appeal to them. Only after white independents and moderates went for Obama in Iowa, did blacks begin to consider him a viable candidate and began to turn to him en masse.

Moderates and independents cannot be ignored and don’t be surprised to see Obama try to move to the center in the general. The big question is, is he too far to the left to make a credible appeal to those voters?

Why do you think Obama is bowling in PA and asking for fly-fishing advise in MT?

The Congressional Democratic Party has lied again. Now that’s as new as the sun rising in the east, but let’s put a little meat on those bones.

When Rahm Emanuel’s House Democratic Caucus sent talking points around to make sure that Democrats are on the same page when they declare defeat, one of them was:

The American people want a new direction in Iraq, not 100 more years of war, as Senator McCain has promised.

Now, the catch is, of course, that this was wrong. How do we know? Independent fact checking watchdogs (here and here) and even the mainstream media (ABC, CBS, New York Times, Politico, NBC, Time Magazine, among others) have demonstrated that John McCain didn’t say that.

So what is going on? Read on.

House Republican Leader Boehner underlines the Democrats’ political objective:

It is completely unacceptable for Rep. Emanuel and his colleagues in the Democratic leadership to urge other House Democrats to repeat this lie. This intentional misrepresentation has been roundly discredited by the news media, by nonpartisan watchdog groups, and by academic observers. Sen. McCain never called for 100 years of war in Iraq. Rep. Emanuel knows that, and his colleagues in the Democratic leadership know that. However, in order to distract attention away from the progress our troops are making in Iraq, they are peddling this rank falsehood. Let me be clear: there is plenty of room in this policy debate for differing opinions, but there is no room in this debate for lies and distortions.

In addition, the Democrats are just operating under Lenin’s maxim that “a lie told often enough becomes truth”. They are just trying to spread lies to hope that it sinks in to a couple of voters.

Rockefeller: Fighter Pilots Like McCain Don’t ‘Care About the Lives of People.’

Senator Jay Rockefeller, jerk:

Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) Today: “McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit. What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn’t know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues.” (Paul J. Nyden, “Jay Defends Endorsement Of Sen. Obama,” The Charleston Gazette, 4/8/08)

A longer version of his remarks (the context doesn’t seem to be much help to Rockefeller) can be found here.

Team McCain’s response:

ARLINGTON, VA — Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), today issued the following statement demanding that Barack Obama denounce Senator Jay Rockefeller’s smear against John McCain and the men and women of our military:

“Senator Rockefeller’s statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America’s military. Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn’t dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967.

“Barack Obama has a responsibility to denounce Senator Rockefeller’s smear against John McCain’s character and military record. The question remains: Does Senator Obama have the courage to stand up and hold himself to the principles of ‘new politics’ he outlined in his book, The Audacity of Hope?”

Where to begin?

That you don’t drop a missile? That laser-guided bombs weren’t deployed until after McCain was a POW? That he was shot down at 4,500 feet, a lower altitude because they wanted to minimize collateral damage?

That McCain certainly got to see “what happened on the ground” as a POW? That Senator McCain gets impression of how things are on the ground in Iraq from his son? That a guy in a party who spent the past five years beating the drum on “chickenhawks” ought not send a guy who spent Vietnam in the Peace Corps to contend that fighter pilots don’t “care about the lives of people.”

UPDATE: As one of my readers notes, ‘boy, the Democrats just don’t want any votes from any current or former Naval Aviators and/or current or past members of the Air Force, huh?’

ANOTHER UPDATE: Apologies are flying.

On Tuesday, Rockefeller issued a statement, saying, “I have deep respect for John McCain’s honorable and noble service to our country. I made an inaccurate and wrong analogy and I have extended my sincere apology to him.

“While we differ a great deal on policy issues, I profoundly respect and appreciate his dedication to our country, and I regret my very poor choice of words,” he said.

“Senator Obama has a deep respect for Senator McCain’s service to this country and doesn’t agree with what Senator Rockefeller said,” spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Tuesday.

Apologies are all well and good, but millions of Americans can’t help but recognize that Obama’s supporters are ignoring the candidate’s call to take the high road – Ed Schultz calling McCain a warmonger, Powers calling Hillary a monster, this latest outburst, etc.

Obama’s Other Spiritual Mentor, Who Makes Wright Look… Eh, About The Same

Sure, Jeremiah Wright is Barack Obama’s spiritual mentor. But he’s not the only spiritual mentor Obama has — he also has James Meeks. We looked at him recently:

It’s not like we’re hearing an Obama delegate from Chicago in a church pulpit saying, “We don’t have slave masters, we got mayors! But they are still the same white people who are presiding over systems where black people are not able to be educated. You got some preachers that are house n———! You got some elected officials that are house n———! Rather than them try and break this up, they’re gonna fight you to protect that white man!”

Oh, wait, now we are hearing this.

What’s fascinating in the video that Confederate Yankee dug up is the state senator, Reverend James Meeks of the South Side Baptist Church, declaring that the N-word is a “term of endearment.” I kid you not.

Okay, so Obama’s first two spiritual mentors have a propensity for screaming racially-charged language from the pulpit. But he has a third spiritual mentor, Rev. Michael Pfleger, and this one’s a Catholic. So how radical could he be?

Dave Kopel found out. Some highlights:

Ambushed by a Bill O’Reilly camera crew, Pfleger stated: “He has—first of all, he has not called Judaism a gutter religion of blood suckers. That is not what he has said because I have heard that talk. I stick up for Louis Farrakhan because he is another person that the media has chosen to define how they want to do it. And they demonize how they want to demonize somebody. I know the man, Louis Farrakhan. He is a great man. I have great respect for him, ho has done an awful lot for people and this country, black, white, and brown. He’s a friend of mine.” (The O’Reilly Factor, Apr. 3, 2008.) Farrakhan spoke at St. Sabina’s on May 25, 2007. (Chicago Sun Times, May 10, 2007.) …

Rev. Pfleger does not respect the property rights of persons who sell products he does not like. He “is known for climbing ladders to deface liquor billboards.” (Crain’s Chicago Business, Dec. 20, 2004.) …

In another demonstration at Chuck’s Gun Shop, owned by John Riggio, Rev. Pfleger told the crowd: “We’re going to find you and snuff you out….Like a rat you’re going to hide. But like a rat, we’re going to catch you and pull you out….We’re going to snuff out John Riggio.” Rev. Pfleger also promised: “We’re going to snuff out legislators that are voting against our gun laws. We’re coming for you because we’re not going to sit idly.”

Rev. Pfleger later denied that his words had been meant to invoke violence, or that he had known that “snuff out” means to “kill.” Rather, the determination to “snuff out” Riggio was a determination to find out his home address, which was not publicly available.

So, of all the priests, ministers, preachers, rabbis, imams, clerics, gurus, monks and medicine men in Chicago, Obama just happens to pick these three.

If three strikes means you’re out; what does three spiritual mentors who sound hateful and unhinged mean?

John Shreffler said…
The Columbians in 2005 paid Bill Clinton $800,000 to speak in favor of free trade, and he did his job. Here’s the text.

Angela, thanks for tip. There’s a bunch more stuff on the Clintons and India, believe me

So now this makes Bill Clinton, Mark Penn AND Howard Wolfson ALL paid by the Colombians,….

and one wonders why Uribe only attacked Obama..

Oh, Jack, if you can drop this…..smooches to you…..

From the Columbia Journalism Review:

Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s “100 years” notion.

But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters—if not outright lying to them—about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it.

Here’s McCain’s full quote, in context, from back in January:

Questioner: President Bush has talked about our staying in Iraq for fifty years…

McCain: Maybe a hundred. Make it one hundred. We’ve been in South Korea, we’ve been in Japan for sixty years. We’ve been in South Korea for fifty years or so. That’d be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. Then it’s fine with me. I would hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where Al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping and motivating people every single day.

It’s clear from this that McCain isn’t saying he’d support continuing the war for one hundred years, only that it might be necessary to keep troops there that long. That’s a very different thing. As he says, we’ve had troops in South Korea for over fifty years, but few people think that means we’re still fighting the Korean War.

Follow this link to see what’s been circulating on youtube…

http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/Obama_tempts_YouTube_Gods.html

Anything non-’Black’ related will just stump her.

How can we take his criticism of Obama seriously, when Clinton has taken the same position, and he hasn’t said anything about her.

Could it be because he’s been paying two of her main people?

Wolfson and Penn

yeah, drop that bit of knowledge.

1. Campbell Brown is a nitwit
2. CNN is the Clinton News Network
3. I don’t know how, but don’t be surprised if it DOES turn back to Rev. Wright, and you’ve got to defend the Black Church Period – Flip it back on her. Also, you can’t caricature a man’s 36 year career with a 1 minute Youtube Soundbite. Include Prophetic Preaching, and if you could definitely steal my thoughts on the Black Church – no problem.

“Black people do not change churches like they do purses. Commitment to a church isn’t something that’s done fly-by-night. It’s not some fleeting commitment. It is a given that you will find something that you don’t like about any church you attend; which is why it is the general COMMUNITY that will ultimately make that decision. The Black Church is the ONLY institution, in the United States of America, which, from its conception, Validated, Supported, Incubated, and Treasured. BLACK HUMANITY. “

4. If Penn comes up, be sure to remind them that Penn is NOT fired, that he’s STILL on the campaign, and that WOLFSON has Colombia ties too. Even though he resigned to work for Clinton, he STILL gets paid by the firm who had the hook up with Colombia, similar to Dick Cheney with Haliburton.
5. Hillary Clinton STILL HAS NOT APOLOGIZED for her Iraq War vote, and point out that she straight up LIED this past week in Oregon.
6. if the Handkerchief Heads for Hillary come up, then talk about Black and ACCOUNTABILITY with them. That people had no problem with Black Elected Officials supporting Hillary UNTIL THE Dogwhistle Race-baiting politics. That their SILENCE in face of that race-baiting is what is bringing the blowback from the Black community. That Barack Obama did NOT consolidate the Black vote for himself. That Bill and Hillary Clinton CONSOLIDATED the Black vote for him with the Dogwhistle Racial Politics.
7. Oh, and if they bring up Obama NOT being in Memphis, Obama spoke with the members of the King family and they understood. He is living MLK’s dream, and the dream will only be realized when he’s at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. McCain needed to be there because he voted against the MLK Day; HIllary needed to be there because when this was all going down, she was a Goldwater Girl, back in the day, and the bridges she and Bill have burned with the Black community, where else should she have been.

I was listening to NPR in my car. A couple of weeks ago maybe, it would have been between 1:30 and 2pm. They were intereviewing someone about Uribe and Colombia. Talking about how he had calmed the violence from the right wing (don’t remember the left wing part though they discussed that too I think).
So they were talking about it and I kept thinking — hmmm, why do I get the feeling that the way he calmed the extreme right violence was to incorporate them into his govt? And sure enough that came up and whoever was being interviewed said that this was the case.

I was so struck by this that I repeated it that night at dinner, which is part of why I remember it.

PLEASE KNOW this is just me remembering and should be confirmed before any official use :).

Wait — a very quick google search yielded this column — don’t know how useful it is on this topic and I really don’t know anything about the author and don’t have time to follow the links but here:

Friends in low places

And what I am saying may not be directly relevant to the situation with Sen Obama’s comments. Or it just may not come up as a topic.

But if it does … It’s just — saying that Uribe is US’s “ally” and all that seems like kind of a gloss, because US allies can be puppet dictators and/or other bad things, and if Senator Obama is calling out something real (I mean, if it’s true Uribe calmed the violent right by incorporating them into his govt, what he says seems logical to me, and he is not saying that something bad is going on , but rather that it is under a cloud of suspicion) –

Something feels off to me about all this. Why is what he said “libel”? Something just feels off. On so many levels.

I wish I had more time to get into this, to read the WaPo piece etc.

Or, maybe it’s not relevant and if so sorry for rambling.