Hannity: Like a Dog With a Bone
By NoQuarter on March 10, 2008 at 12:02 AM in Barack Obama, Sean Hannity, William Ayers
Sean Hannity has been pounding the connection of Barack Obama to William Ayers, every day, five or more times per show, six days a week, since February (at least). Here is Hannity today, on his Fox News weekend show, Hannity’s America:
Here’s Hannity back on February 29 interviewing former U.S. senator Trent Lott — yes, Hannity even asked Sen. Lott about the Ayers/Obama connection:
HANNITY: It seems like only now we’re beginning to get a little bit of insight into who Barack Obama is. He’s got a controversial pastor that has bestowed a prestigious award on Louis Farrakhan for life-time achievements, for example.
The Weather Underground. His association with this guy William Ayers, a guy that bombed police headquarters in New York, declared war on the United States, admits to being involved in the bombing of our own Pentagon. And Barack Obama’s spokesperson this week said that they have a friendly relationship.
You know, I’m wondering, when the American people find out more about things like, this do you think it’s going to be a factor? [READ LOTT'S RESPONSE BELOW.]
Oh, that photo? That’s not really Sean Hannity. It’s ….
PHOTO CAPTION: “A devotee of the Hindu god Shiva holds a bone in his mouth as he dances during a Hindu religious procession on the eve of the festival of Maha Shivratri, in Allahabad, central India. Hindus mark the festival by offering special prayers and fasting to worship Shiva, the lord of destruction. ”
I spotted that photo at the Chicago Tribune home page tonight, and I’d already decided to write about Hannity’s “dog with a bone” fixation on Ayers and Obama. And the photo cracked me up.
NOW LET’S GET BACK TO HANNITY AND SEN. LOTT. Here is Sen. Lott’s response to Hannity’s question:
LOTT: Yes. Well, soaring rhetoric is good, but I don’t believe it’s enough. At some point you’ve got to fill in the blanks under that.
For instance, he talks about how he’s going to bring us together. And we’re going to — he’s going to be — we’ve heard this phrase — a unifier. And while he, again, he was very pleasant, and I had a good relationship with him when we served together in the Senate, I never saw him really, but with maybe one exception, really reach across the aisle.
I watched his voting record. I was the vote counter. I was the whip in the Senate. And I kept waiting for him to show just a little — little break. I mean, certainly, he’s not — never votes to amount to anything with somebody like even a Joe Lieberman. But he did not show the ability to work across the aisle the way I think that sometime you have to. …
You’ll note that Sen. Lott did not answer Hannity’s question. He didn’t have to. And Hannity didn’t press him to answer. It was enough that Hannity got the “story” out again, and that was about the fifth or so time he’d already mentioned Ayers and Obama in that one show that night. Lott knew that too.
It is also interesting that Sen. Lott chose to bring up Sen. Obama’s lack of “ability to work across the aisle the way I think that you sometime you have to. …”
That’s a far more substantive concern. And it’s a favorite talking point of Obama in his rally speeches. But other senators, past and present, have said the same about Sen. Obama: That when he could have, he didn’t work with the GOP. It’s one thing to talk about reaching “across the aisle” in speeches. It’s quite another to actually do it.
You can expect Sean Hannity to keep asking many of his guests about William Ayers and Barack Obama. He’s got his teeth into the matter, and he won’t let go.
Soon enough, if not already, regular watchers of Fox News will associate Barack Obama with a violent terrorist group whose leader got away with terrible crimes.
How will Obama’s campaign unring that bell?
::::::::::::::
Read Larry Johnson’s stories here and here on the relationship with Ayers.
cue the music:
“We’ve only just begun…..
……to live…”
Is he live or memorex? Can he take it? We need to know now? Before it’s too late!
When the going gets rough, Obama gets “going, going, gone!” to his friends. Pretty soon, we’ll have the same public “denunciation” (or is it “rejection”) of Ayers by the changeling candidate like what he did to Rezko.
Kinda reminds you of how Shrub acted after “Kenny Boy” Lay was indicted — “Ken Who?” A friend is only a friend as long as they’re useful (and non-controversial).
I’d bet Obama would be hard pressed to even recall Samantha Power’s name, even after all those late-night phone calls and intense policy discussions. Fairly cold-blooded behavior from a man who preaches hope, unity and all that good stuff.
My guess the Obama campaign is praying to God that the stuff Hannity is talking about doesn’t go beyond his show.
Because if it does, say Limbaugh and the west coast talk radio shows start talking up his shady ties, he’s finished and it will probably take down Howard Dean as well.
Oh, the Democrats better hope he doesn’t get the nomination before this occurs because it could damage the party beyond repair. How is pretty obvious.
What gets me, is how stupid the Democratic party bosses are to promote someone like Obama without seriously vetting him first. Of course there is always the possibility its a reflection of terminal rot in the party. Given the way its aid and abetted the Bush administration in the last two years it wouldn’t surprise me in the least.
I thought the same thing. He’s on late on a Sunday. I have no idea what viewship he gets, but I imagine it’s a very specific audience. Have you noticed that no one he has on has any issues with Farrakhan. Apparently, he’s a great guy.
I saw a report that Limbaugh gets as many dem and inde listeners as repubs. Is that true?
As opposed to the Republicans, and Cheney?
But, you know, you’re right.
They ALL need to go, the corrupt, incompetent ones.
You are exactly right in your assessments and questions; Howard Dean will probably go down (and well he should) and why on earth would they (Dean, Gore{through Donna Brazille}, and the other DNCers) allow this unvetted man to get this far with this much baggage: Rezko, (Sadam Hussein; did deals with Auchi who gave money to Rezko who gave money to Obama) and Larry Sinclair (claiming gay sex and drug ties to Obama and more recently claiming death threats from him, causing the December 23, 2007 murder of Obama’s gay friend and church member to resurface). None of this baggage is new and none of it was unknown to these insiders who are supporting him.
“…how stupid the Democratic party bosses are to promote someone like Obama without seriously vetting him first?”
I don’t think it happened quite like that. A more reasonable—though simplistic—explanation is that Senator Obama announced his candidacy, and very quickly became the the ‘candidate of change’ and a viable anti-Clinton nominee. With his productive ground game, huge contribution levels and his growing legions of followers, he quickly became the only non-Clinton candidate left standing.
He was neither promoted nor vetted by the party hierarchy, though he clearly is the beneficiary of having been ‘chosen’ to represent certain self-proclaimed progressive, anti-Clinton, ant-Democratic Leadership Council members of the party. He has quickly built a coalition of self-described ‘…anybody but Clinton’ members.
And, according to exit polling conducted during some primaries and caucuses, Senator Onama is the beneficiary of as much as a 15% Republican crossover. You may draw your own conclusions as to why, but credible measures of his total of the DEMOCRATIC party vote place him as much or more than 685,000 votes behind Senator Clinton, though he clearly leads in the total (D+R+I) vote totals. That being said, if you are willing to accept that Senator Clinton has a higher number of Democratic primary votes, though currently a smaller number of committed delegates because delegate counts are largely based on popular vote totals, you have to ask yourself if his nomination would actually represent the ‘will of the (Democratic party) people?’ Or, does hers?
This, among other issues, must weigh heavily on the minds to the superdelegates, who may vote to select Senator Clinton rather than Senator Obama if neither captures the requisite number of committed delegates to take an uncontested nomination.
Oops: the Senator ‘Onana’ in the fourth paragraph should, of course read Senator ‘Obama.’ No disrespect intended.
thats ok, on the CBC report, one of the reporters called him “osama bin…er..sorry, Sen. Obama”
My spelling checker always makes that mistake: Osama instead of what I wrote - Obama. Preprogrammed Republican computer?
Microsoft conspiracy…same here.
Michael - Toy are absolutely 100% correct. Over at Slate.com there was an entire article on this very thing. Obama has been winning with more R&I votes than with D votes. This disturbs me greatly. I do not think that R&I’s, especially R’s, should be choosing the Democratic nominee. Scary.
Below is a small blurb RE this article from Slare.com. I believe Cal Lanier’s number crunching piece is still available too, if you are interested in reading it.
A Number You Probably Haven’t Seen
• It’s well-known that Barack Obama’s success has depended largely on independent and Republican voters. The corollary to that, however, has been less thoroughly reported: Obama is losing among Democrats.
Over at the Perfect World, Cal Lanier crunches the numbers and finds that Obama, despite being ahead among pledged delegates, has fewer total votes among people who identify themselves as Democrats. (He has 7,392,809 votes; Clinton has 8,229,063.) That gives Clinton as lead with 52 percent of Democrats. Lanier also breaks the numbers down by race and points out that Obama has won white Democrats in only two states: New Mexico and Illinois.
The numbers are hardly perfect. They rely on CNN and MSNBC exit polls, which are inherently rough. (Extrapolating those percentages to estimate exact numbers of voters is going to compound margins of error.) And because caucuses report delegates, not individual turnout, those stats are going to be a little murky, too. I’d also dispute their inclusion of Florida and Michigan in the count. But Clinton’s lead is still large enough to be significant.
It helps you understand why the party gives so much power to its 796 superdelegates. If they didn’t, independents and Republicans could essentially hijack their election. It also makes you wonder whether Clinton should start citing this number, if she maintains her lead through the convention in August. Even if Obama leads in the popular vote and among pledged delegates, it might disturb party gray beards to learn that the nominee has essentially been chosen by outsiders.
Posted Thursday, February 28, 2008 6:34 PM by Christopher Beam
He was selected because at the time he was riding a huge wave of celebrity and was considered a blank slate that had less than the usual pol to attack.
In spite of the reasons you cited, though, he still should have been vetted.
He could look like Cinderella, and STILL be a Trojan candidate, the republicans knew how dirty he was, I bet the democratic leaders did too.
Even knowing about Rezko, Auchi, and god knows what else, (womanizing, drugs?) the democrats thought he was still viable? Thought he would be more electable than Clinton? Do they not understand the republican game plan after all these years, or is the decision to back Obama the result of advice from some boneheaded, ignorant, moronic consultant?
That’s some inferior reasoning there, no wonder they never win elections.
Hannity and Rush are already tearing him down, the Rezko Auchi issues are very real, very pertinent to those who care about national security.
Why do you think they choose to ignore this?
And I think Dean will go down, too.
The DNC is a mess under Dean. He needs to go and the party and its rules revamped. It’d be nice if candidates can be properly vetted before running for high office. Sure would save a lot of problems down the road.
As for what Hannity is up to, he hasn’t begun to scratch the surface of Obama’s thin candy shell. Hillary must be the nominee or we’re in big trouble. Just on the basis of her battleground state wins, she should be the nominee.
This is very interesting, and very sad.
I wonder what the story is, and would he have made this kind of President?
The Democrats were moreorless hijacked by MoveOn.org and Soros money. Obama is the ideal candidate for the MoveOn.Org agenda. However, Obama will never be president of the United States. Howard Dean’s ascendancy was a tipping point for the Democrats.
As to Hannity, his discussion is poorly informed and inarticulate as usual. His shtick is to prompt shouting matches. He throws out redmeat soundbites. John Batchelor on WABC is a far better informed investigative reporter on Obama’s background and connections.
Whats the Name of the Congressman in a dustup comment about Senator Obama? I heard he is not retracting his statement?
Ole Hannity …what is a Colmes to say when looking at a wig? Poor bastard.
Michael Lafferty…Onana.. Onana… Hey heya Onana!
Hannity is preaching to the choir. There’s more substantial criticism that needs be addressed.
Still, it shows how the MSM will construct anything into bluster. A negative can be inflated.
What the hell is that disturbing picture, someone chewing on a leg bone?
What.The.Frist.
Fox is using that?
I provided the caption for the photo just below the fold … it just struck my funny bone when i spotted the image at the Chicago Tribune as I was working on the story — it was a joke on Hannity, and i added it.
whats disturbing about it?
I guess I’m too close to the Indian culture to be shocked by it. I find people who play with snakes and poisons in Appalacian christianity more disturbing. Om nama shivaya.
Mixed Emotions
what’s your offer for my pain?
Am I still a loser’s
pay-roll with no game?
http://www.mp3lyrics.org/m/mixed-emotions/bring-back-sha-na-na/
Folks:
Blame Soros for Obama not being vetted. They met in December of 2006 at a meeting at Soros’ place. Soros was looking for the anyone-but-Hillary candidate and Obama was just the ticket. Two months later Obama announced and set up his campaign with Soros’ money.
Many of the party elders eager to block Hillary, thinking perhaps that Edwards would pull it out, looked favorably on his candidacy. No one looked into Obama’s background or that of Michelle.
Now everyone is making excuses and looking for cover because they know what the Republican attack machine is going to do to Obama.
What was supposed to be the Democratic year may turn out to be the Democratic debacle.
I concur. After the RAM finishes with him, Obama will be lucky to hold on to his Senate seat.
BTW SUSAN
Obama has a long history of ducking issues. He stiffed the Governor of Illinois when he was in the State Senate.
Obama promised the Governor that he would support the Governor’s push for a new guncontrol bill and when it came up on the floor Obama was nowhere to be found. He was in Hawaii on vacation. Needless to say, the Governor was furious and never had a good word to say about Obama after that.
Just imagine him as President disappearing during a crisis. Now that thought is frightening.
Obama claims his reason for not returning was that his daughter was ill.
Hmmmm. On vacation as a crisis nears… O and W sound more and more alike. OW for the USA.
Hey Susan,
I’ll probably be accused of being too “politically correct” but the photo you have here on the front page makes my skin crawl. Not trying to be judgemental, but thought I would share my honest reaction.
Thanks for all the hard work you do.
That is totally cool, Robin. It was late last night and I’d already written the story title … I was checking out new stories at the Chicago Tribune, and there was that photo smack on the home page of the Tribune, and I laughed out loud at the similarity between my story title and that man with the bone in his mouth.
I get a kick out of being silly, and can’t help myself. There was a moment when I stopped and hoped people wouldn’t infer the wrong thing, so that’s why I included the full caption from the photo.
This site is nothing but an attack Obama machine. You’re more hateful towards Obama than many Republicans I’ve seen.
It seems to me that if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the nomination you’ll be more than happy to hand it to McCain. Take your ball, go home and blame Obama. Jesus, it’s friggin bizarre.
Let it go down to the delegate count. But don’t film McCain vs Obama attack ads. Don’t do Republicans’ work for them.
I saw Bill Maher bloody McAliffe’s nose the other night on the same subject.
Maher vs McAuliffe
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/maher-vs-mcauli.html
“we’ll all get together when it’s over….” talking about Democrats.
Not so sure was Bill’s reply. Watch it.
“you’re more hateful”
Funny how you view politics. If someone didn’t come over to your thinking, and began to hold your candidate accountable…they are hateful.
Well, friend, (and I’ll be presumptive enough to call you that) your comments could be called hateful. Instead of dealing with ANY of the substantive criticisms made by the primary authors, you scoop everyone up, lump them together, and skeet shoot.
You presume…I’m a Democrat, or others are Democrats, instead of those “undecided independents” you keep reading about.
Instead of your “if Hillary Clinton doesn’t get the nomination” theme, perhaps you should ask, “why don’t they buy into the bullshit I’ve bought into about Obama, the messiah of hope? I mean, he speechifies so well. His oral skills are so impressive.”
You fail to appreciate, and who would blame you with such a drive by pedestrian political voice, that this site is pointing out what Obama’s camp is refusing to acknowledge, deal with, and in fact even denies. They just lied to you about Obama’s camp not talking to Canada about NAFTA. They downplay his relation with Rezko as if it means nothing (after 17 years of a relationship).
Are you aware that the photo of Obama in traditional Kenyan garb didn’t come from Clinton staffers to Drudge? Nah…why would you care? It makes Hillary look like a “monster” if it came from her.
So don’t lecture me or others here about hateful politics with the drive by smears you and your fellow Obamatons exude. The candidate you’ve chosen has not earned my vote and your driveby critique just put him back another 5 yards with a pending 10 yard penalty for having to explain this yet again.
If you are so interested in his “hope”, “change” and the “end of the politics of destruction” then walk the walk baby, because your comment above gives me none of those options.
I don’t know, perhaps the Obamabot trolls feel they’ve fallen into an open hole, waking up and realizing they’re in way way way over their heads.
Just like Bush and Cheney’s people, too.
OT, but there was an article on Doug Feith from the AP yesterday (he has a book coming out, ah!).
He blames Gen Franks, Bremer, Rice and Powell for the Iraqi failure, but Rumsfeld, oh, Rumsfeld was just a victim, perhaps too hard on subordinates, or maybe not hard enough.
This man was accused of treason, of spying, correct?
Why do people think this is OK?
And this man was offering analysis to the Administration in regard to Iraq.
Those people are fucked in the head, stupid.
Chris;
Yeah, people ignore that “change” can be in ANY direction. Oblahblah’s history and connections and mentors suggest a very unpleasant direction, indeed.
BTW; it’s “presumptuous”, not “presumptive”. The latter means, more or less, “assumed”.
“Don’t do Republicans’ work for them.”
This is the most curious aspect of this season’s campaign.
- People who bring up facts in the primaries are accused of aiding the opposition
- People who don’t bring up facts are accused of not addressing the issues
- People who address character are accused of mud-slinging
What are we supposed to discuss, wardrobe choices and taste in vintage wine? If we don’t analyze candidate’s merits in public, do we really believe that full time employed strategists won’t be doing so in meeting rooms? …and feeding the results to news media?
Further, why assume that the GOP is the only party taking notes? Aren’t there just as many Dem strategists taking notes on McCain and his potential running mates? The primaries are not about lining up in solidarity, that comes later. An untested plan amounts to a non-plan.
its the results of the 8 years of “if you ain’t fer us, you gainst us” politic. I blame that damn keebler elf.
Well said. On other blogs, the Obots are like gnats. What we need is Obot repellent.
I say what the Hillary Clinton camp is doing is wrong and hateful and all you people say is that I’M being wrong and hateful.
Then maybe you folks can explain why Bill Clinton went on Limbaugh’s radio show the day of the Texas primaries. The candidates boycott Fox which they should yet Bill goes on rightwing radio to help his wife’s campaign.
“The primaries are not about lining up in solidarity, that comes later.”
There will be no solidarity if Clinton says the GOP’s candidate is better than Obama. That is just plain stupid. C’mon people, get a grip.
This personifies what is wrong with the Clinton strategy:
Clinton Went On Limbaugh?
10 Mar 2008 10:34 am
You may have missed it - almost everyone missed it - but Bill Clinton was on Rush Limbaugh’s show the day of the Texas primary. You can hear the radio here. Limbaugh himself was sick that day, apparently, but he had already urged Republicans to cross over to keep Hillary Clinton in the race. Bill saw an opening - and went there.
Now just wrap your mind around this: the Clintons were happy to support a cynical, partisan Republican campaign to wound the Democratic front-runner, and they were brazen enough to go on the Limbaugh show to do so.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/03/clinton-went-on.html
No one I know would have ever thought any of the front runners in the Democratic party would grace Rush Limbaugh’s radio show in an effort to defeaat a fellow Democrat in the primary.
Can you catch a glimpse of what I’m saying? Defend that.
Neb, you haven’t offered anything but regurgitated old old old unworkable troll methods.
It makes you a pest, not a player.
How effective are you really?
This is the same method Cheney’s, or the neocon guys use, so to speak, and they’re not doing well at all, laughingstocks.
So why would it be different for you?
It makes you delusional, or it gives your enemy control over your “world” they can feed you anything they want.
The neocons don’t get it either, and they’re not doing well, at all, are they?
You do understand, don’t you, that’s the ONLY place a loyal Democrat would wish to defeat a fellow Dem… in the Primary?
Count me as someone who was once impressed with Obama, but decided to withhold the Anointing Oil.
I won’t vote a criminal into office.
So, the idea of a loyal Dem is repulsive, you would vote for a rapist, say, simply because he is the democratic candidate?
I will not be voting for Obama, I will not vote for a man who accepts money from a terrorist enabler like Auchi, a man whom I consider an enemy to American national security.
And if men like Obama, and Auchi, are allowed in American government simply because they can pay, we, as a country, have to examine what is happening in Washington, because it clearly isn’t working.
I can’t stick my head in the sand and deny, or pretend, telling myself everything will be OK, given what has happened with Bush.
It won’t be OK.
Yet another discussion of politics as usual by Clinton but nothing by Obama. I would believe he was the ‘one’ if I didn’t know about the hispanic mailer, the SC mailer, the fact that he didn’t have his national ad blocked in FL while Clinton did, Obama advertised on Rush (which is why Clinton went on). Apparently it is appropriate politics for Obama to get Repub votes by continuing to run “Dem for a Day” campaigns to get the nomination knowing those same people will vote for McCain in Nov. but according to Obama rules it is not appropriate for Clinton to go after the same artificial vote so the Dems don’t get screwed in Nov? Politics ok under Obama rules….Nafta, Iraq, Israel/Palestinian statements. Maher dates Ann Coulter. Clinton did not say McCain was better than Obama. She said McCain has a lifetime of experience. It’s a fact.
“I’ve been very blessed,” Mr. Obama told the crowd assembled in March 2006. “Keynote speaker at the Democratic convention. The cover of Newsweek. My book made the best-seller list. I just won a Grammy for reading it on tape. “Really, what else is there to do?” he said, his smile now broad. “Well, I guess I could pass a law or something.”
Andrew Sullvan is a self-hating Republican who spent years trying to convince himself Bush really was the man of his dreams. Now he wants to be a spokesman for the Democratic Party. I believe I heard Obama promise to go on O’Reilly some time back. As a life long Democrat, I am a little tired of semi-disenfranchised Republicans trying to take over my party.
Obama has spent the last three years courting Republicans by preaching at us Democrats about how we need to change our attitudes and be more like Republicans. Last month he was denying the liberal label, while at the same time trying to claim Liberal ideals as his own. Saying such nonsense as Universal Healthcare is not a Liberal ideal? The Hell it isn’t! But, he does not support Univeral Healthcare anyway.
Two years ago he preached at us to become more like the religious right, because they are more moral than us heathen Democrats. I hold the religious right responsible for much of what is wrong with this country. Then he toured with anti-gay preachers, expecting everyone to accept that he disagrees with their hate filled agenda.
The fact is McCain does have more foreign policy experience than Obama. Obama’s own foreign policy expert admits he will not be ready on day one. He has no intention of living up to his promise to leave Iraq within 16 months. He cannot be trusted on NAFTA, his national secutiry advisor actually supports telecom immunity. It just goes on and on. Obama doesn’t need Clintons to kill his candidacy. You cannot believe a word he says. That is not Hillary’s fault.
So, Bill Clinton was on Limbaugh. Have you listened to the hatred being spewed against Hillary on what should be balanced media outlets? But, since they are enamored by Obama, it is okay that they reserve their venom for Hillary.
[...] Hannity: Like a Dog With a Bone (by SusanUnPC at No Quarter) Sean Hannity has been pounding the connection of Barack Obama to William Ayers, every day, five or more times per show, six days a week, since February (at least)… You can expect Sean Hannity to keep asking many of his guests about William Ayers and Barack Obama. He’s got his teeth into the matter, and he won’t let go. Soon enough, if not already, regular watchers of Fox News will associate Barack Obama with a violent terrorist group whose leader got away with terrible crimes. How will Obama’s campaign unring that bell? [...]
The first time I heard Obama speak, he really hit some emotional chords. Hope is one slippery thing to hang on to these days, what with the beating we’ve all had to endure by Bush these last 7 years. I had stars in my eyes for a few weeks, until the NAFTA thing, when I began to do a little searching. The site I was hanging at is well known to you, Susan, and I can no longer take the hate-filled garbage being pushed there as political commentary.
When the Samantha Powers BBC interview hit the fan, I wondered how they would explain that. It has never come up. I think that devastated me more than the bashing of anyone who would vote for Hillary, including old ladies . I’ve sinced realized that this is a pattern. Whenever something damning about Obama comes out the decibel level goes up on the Hillary hate-o-meter, but no one dares to mention the real issues with Obama. I swear… to this day, no one there has even mentioned the Samantha Powers BBC interview, they focus on the “Monster” comment and fling some more poo of their own.
With a little searching, a little reading, and a little honest reflection, I can see right through Obama. I feel betrayed… I trusted the work there for so long. Oh well, at least I finally opened my eyes.
I’ve always enjoyed your excellent writing and admire your tenacity at getting the story and I naturally found my way here. Here I shall stay. Hillary is my girl. She’s coming to town tonight, but alas, I’m too sick to fight the crowds (this is Clinton country for sure… NE Pa)
I’m sorry you’re not feeling well, Nancy, I hope you get better, soon.
If you are up to it, I, and I’m sure others, would appreciate any on the scene updates you can give, a first person view is always the most interesting.
How are the people responding to Hillary, what are the greatest issues Pennsylvanians are facing, how do they feel about the other candidates, how are they feeling, in general, in terms of economics, the war, the future?
Kathleen, another poster here, gave us wonderful updates from Ohio, a view we don’t get from the traditional press.
Again, I hope you’re feeling better.
Thanks so much, Simon. I got some good news since I wrote that. My husband has managed to clear his schedule, and will zoom home in time for us to go and see Hillary. I’m quite excited. I never could have gone by myself. (but if I have to stand for a long time, I’m finished)
I live outside of Scranton, Pa. Hillary’s father, Hugh Rodham, first settled here, and she still has relatives in the area. She says that this is the place she first learned to fish. The Rodhams still have a cottage at a nearby lake… it’s a 15 minute drive from here. Once in a while, Bill and Hillary show up here in August, when the Rohdams vacation. Local Democrats seem to cherish our Clinton connections, and I would be surprised if this area didn’t vote solidly for Hillary.
I would love to report back here. Thanks for asking.
Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico for breaking this story. That man is a true champion for truth and justice. He has the courage of his convictions to stand up for Hillary and tell the truth about that Un-American and his wife, Obama.
Just don’t read the comments sections. Let’s just say the Clinton supporters have been pushed out.
This is very hopeful. Maybe those pseudo-unifiers from Obama’s camp will self destruct as they did with Nancy. The sad thing is that the minds of many young people, who have been drawn to the game of politics over the past four years, are being manipulated by these empty speeches. Their real hopes and dreams of a decent political system will be sorely dashed by the true revelation of who Obama actually is. That will be an unfortunate by-product of the truth being realized and a necessary trade off to save this country from four more years of what we now have, or worse.
“…how stupid the Democratic party bosses are to promote someone like Obama without seriously vetting him first?”
They promoted him to siphon votes away from John Edwards, the REAL threat to Hillary Clinton and to the entire political establishment. Recall if you will that the nomination was Hillary’s for the asking because she was the choice of the state and national party hacks. Never mind what voters wanted; it was going to be Hillary despite the fact it would be uphill for her to win in the general election in terms of the electoral college. It was “her turn,” as Terry McAuliffe said, and no upstart like John Edwards was going to get it. That combined with the media’s marginalizing of Edwards and his exit from race after party hack pressure doomed the party’s chances in November.
Well, Edwards was gone but the party created a Frankenstein with Barack Obama and the media ran with it, the GOP decided to manipulate Democratic caucuses and primaries with crossover voting, and now the party has a giant turkey on its hands. Hillary Clinton may not make it as the nominee, and the party is in real danger of a split and a sure 50-state defeat in November.
We could have won this thing with either Edwards or Biden or both on the national ticket, but since when do the party hacks know anything about winning elections?
As a ex-Edwards supporter it does make a lot of sense. And it doesn’t surprise me in the least the party bosses wanted Edwards out of the way and used Obama to do it.
In a way I hope Obama does bring down the Democratic party as it is no longer responds to the people but to a bunch of corrupt insiders who think they can override the will of the people any time they choose.
“Thanks to Ben Smith at Politico for breaking this story. That man is a true champion for truth and justice. He has the courage of his convictions to stand up for Hillary and tell the truth about that Un-American and his wife, Obama.”
If this isn’t a Republican…. lol.
Un-American?
You people are using every single technique the Republicans use. What’s next, he fathered a white baby out of wedlock?
Ya wearin’ yer ‘mercan flag lapel pin there Cletus?
i say thank you hannity and anybody else out there that questions this obamanation taking place in our country. he is a fraud, a liar and associated with so many questionable people its ridiculous. his followers refuse to see the facts that keep surfacing about him. they blindly follow him and are soon to fall off the cliff with him. how in the hell does someone with that much controversy rise to power with no one paying any attetion ? the man is dangerous and so is his racist wife. what are the blacks thinking ? do they not know who they follow ? do they simply vote for him because he is black ? is white america afraid to stand up to him ? this is getting way to scary for alot of people. i hope that more media takes part of the bone and runs with it in the interest of humanity.
Obamanation? Are you kidding me? Jesus Christ, you people are waaaaaay the hell out there.
Seems to me you folks will say or do anything to get Clinton elected. I suppose you should be in her camp.
Artman,
It isn’t that we will do anything to get Clinton elected. As a feminist and a person who has spent her entire adult life fighting for civil rights, forgoing the big bucks, taking jobs in inner city schools after grad school etc, I had to make a choice on who I would vote for. I chose Edwards because he was the closest to my political heart and I felt his polices refelected my own value system. After Edwards was pushed out, once again, I had to choose. I was stunned by Obama and actually had tears in my eyes after hearing one of his early speeches. For weeks I vacilated between the two. As time went on and the more reasearch I did it became clearer to me that Hillary had the most experience.
But that is not why I made my decision. As time went on what I noticed was a new movement of people calling calling themselves progressives ( thats not new but all of them supported BO) So I listened to what they had to say and this is what I heard. Everytime they opened their mouths they projectile vomitied every single vile, sick, distorted,Rush Limbaugh HillaryHateing talking point all over the news, the internet, the blogs, the newspaper and the main stream media. I am voting for Hillary because you are not the “Party of Change” you are the “Party of Shame”
Well Said Indyrobin..
Thrown Up Chris Matthews too..
This is no time for the MSM to be playing thr games they are..VERY Irresponsible..wonder what TUCKER said that got him in Trouble..
YEH ARTMAN..
The Foods Better..So is the COMPANY..
Unlike OBAMA Supporters..I wouldn’t do anything to get Hillary elected..I Just Know she is the Most Qualified and Most Vetted..and MODERATE..
McCain has said enough to indicate he may have some emotional problems..that make him look like to school yard bully..and Obama is totally surrounded by extremist friends and supporters..with a very strange background ..
at a Very Unusual TIME..NOT a Conicidence..No Way..
If You believe that I will sell you a CHICKEN FARM..
I think McCain is a FAR Right Point Man..and Dick Nixons Crowning Revenge..(Along a Dirty Trail)full of LONE Gunmen..and Discarded BLACK BAGS..
Think About What McCain really says..
How He seems determined to Carry Out all of the Neo Cons Stated Objectives..Is anyone even Listening to what McCain is really saying..???
Does anyone think about what BAGGAGE McCain is carrying..what hidden anger or resentment he has..
How Trigger Happy He may really Be..??
And It looks to me like Senator Obama ..with His Background..Associations and Supporters…is a Neatly Packaged Version of the Protestors and Berkley
Mao worshippers ..and Weather Underground..and Black Panthers..and SLA..members…that
on from the Sixty and seventys ..to become TODAYS Organizers, Professors,
Financers, Party Officials, Activists..etc
who know that the way to Organizer todays YOUTH Effectively..Is NOT by getting them on the Streets as PROTESTORS..
But By Getting them into CAUCUS’S..as Political Activists..Let them carry a Bama Banner..let them take over the GOVERNMENT from the INSIDE..and NOT the OUTSIDE..
Understand HOW to use Current Means and Methods to Manipulate Public opinion and Politics and Elections..Know what will appeal to the Public the Most..Organize and Analyze..Tit for Tat..
Its ALL In the Timing..
The Neo Cons knew that on 9/11..
They PUT thier Package together..Played on EMOTIONS..
BAFFELED WITH BULLSHIT..
The OBAMA People Know that NOW..They knew it when they put the OBAMA~ Package together..Years ago..
They Knew PEOPLE were DESPERATE for CHANGE…a MESSIAH.. Its all about TIMING..Right..??
.and I think Obamas Background and Known associates and Thier Known Ideology is exactly what they Want to GET..when they BUY Ownership of Our Government..More BS and Deception..TOP DOWN..
Mc Cain…………………….FARTHEST RIGHT
Obama………………………FARTHEST LEFT
Just look at thier BACKGROUNDS…THINK..
Hillary is the Most Moderate and Best Candidate..and Smart People Know it..
“Hillary is the Most Moderate and Best Candidate..and Smart People Know it..”
lol. So if I support Obama I’m a mindless drone who just isn’t very smart?
Obviously I don’t agree with you. I am from Illinois and I have seen and read all about Obama for many years. I am no cult of personality drone.
Actually, I would have preferred Edwards over anyone. It was sad to see him leave the race. But my second choice was Obama. Of course it goes without saying that I will vote Clinton anyway if she wins the nomination because of the Supreme Court picks. Bottom line, we can’t afford anymore Roberts, Alitos or (gasp) that friggin torture advocate Scalia. That would be tragic and the end of the United States as we know it.
My main beef with Sen. Clinton is her McCain comments. You just don’t openly say the opposition candidate is better than your rival from your own party. It is very possible that Obama could get the nomination. But the thing that really got me was she apparently decided he was experienced enough to be a VP and 2nd in line for the presidency. That right there showed me a thing or two about her sincerity. Either he is qualified or he isn’t. I know some say this is just politics. I don’t agree. I don’t want to give the Republican any advantage no matter who the candidate is. She did. She shouldn’t have.
Artman.
Thanks for your voice of reason. You seem pretty unbiased for a obama supporter. My view is that at this point the MSM has done little vetting of BO and has done nothing but try to destroy HRC, As a result Hill’s campagin is left with the job of haveing NO CHOICE but to come out and speak the obvious. NORMALLY the press does this but it is just one big Man Crush with BO so the hard hitting has to come from us. IF you think that the Repugs are NOT going to do this if he gets the nom you are delusional. WATCH Sean Hannity (sp) on Fox. He is bringing up every sigle piece of trash that will come down the pike on BO. WHY has the Repugs been so quite until now? Why are they voting by the 1.000’s for BO? Why have they given MILLIONS to BO?
BECAUSE THEY KNOW THEY CAN BEAT HIM. YOU ARE FALLING INTO THE PLAN OF KARL ROVE. It hurts my heart to see good people like this fall for a Repug trick such as this. Thanks for listening.
Edwards too.
My main beef with Sen. Clinton is her McCain comments. You just don’t openly say the opposition candidate is better than your rival from your own party.
When it involves National Defense it is a true Statement. Can’t change the facts. Besides have you asked your self why would that be a goog political move on her part? Think about it.
It applies almost equally to her, of course.
But the thing that really got me was she apparently decided he was experienced enough to be a VP and 2nd in line for the presidency. That right there showed me a thing or two about her sincerity. Either he is qualified or he isn’t
Please Artman. Be reasonable. Was Dan Quyal QUALIFIED
to be veep?? Most of them are not and are chosen because they can deliever VOTES. After they are trained then they can run for Prez. BO does NOT deserve to be President YET. If he proves himself in the future I would vote for him in a minute.
I’m surprised it’s taken the MSM this long to get it’s head out of the sand on this story. Either the media is truly too “liberal” and doesn’t want to cover it or they plan to swiftboat Obama with it if he gets the nomination much like the NYT did to McCain with the lobbyist/affair story that they sat on.
hey artman, why dont you go do some research on line. like the trinity united church of christ. and how about the weathermen, the radical group in the 70s, you know obamas buddy. and theres always tony rezko, farrahkan, sharpton, the reverand jeremiah wright, all obamas dirty business dealings in chicago, and his half brother odingo in kenya. i would go on, but you seem to far gone on the kool-aid..obama will never get the presidency, he will just ruin it for the democratic party…..its all turning into a race war, how stupid are you ?
But — but — he’s been endorsed by Chavez! And Nasrullah! And Amadinejad! And Mugube! And Ortega! And Khameni! And Assad! And …
Thanks a lot. I try to talk you folks and you call me stupid.
I just don’t believe Clinton is the best candidate for the country. I am allowed that opinion. I think YOU’RE being irrational.
As far as someone bringing up Dan Quayle? After Cheney no one will EVER minimize the office of VP. The VP needs to be qualified to be president in case something strange were to happen and the pres is sick or worse. These days no one is pretending otherwise. So using the Quayle argument doesn’t wash at all. She claimed her and McCain were the only ones ready to go. That was a major insult. To portray it otherwise is foolish. She knew exactly what she was saying.
So susan, you’re the moderator? Nice. You set a hell of an example.
Hannity - find a new job in a new country. You are as unpatriotic and mean-spirited as any individual whom you’ve falsely accused of same. I am so sick of hearing you tell us all how you pray to the Father everyday. Has he taught you NOTHING?
What is it that is lacking in your life to reduce you to such hatred?
You’re a wimp, Sir. You have still not acknowledged your friendship with Neo-Nazi Hal Turner and yet to are hell-bent on reducing a good candidate, via rumor, in this important race of 2008. If you are as American as you say you are, you would not be stump-speeching for Hillary Clinton so that your John McCain will win the election.
UNPATRIOTIC is defined as Sean Hannity.
I BEG YOU……please allow those of us in the USA to come on your show when John McCain BEGINS to be vetted about his “spiritual pastor” Parsley and of course that wonderful guy John Hagge - who plays right into McCain’s hands of going to war with Iran. Wanna hear more about his end-game strategy?? Be careful what you wish for!!!! It might just happen before your friend Hillary is out of the primary.
You’re disgusting!
PS: And - how old exactly was Barack Obama when the incident happened with Ayers? Just wondering Sean. Was he EIGHT YEARS OLD!
You can pray all you want, but Sean “my friend”…… you’ll answer at the gates for all of the smears and hatefulness that you have brought into our world.