Barack Obama’s aunt is in the United States despite a judges deportation order back in 1995. More importantly, we now know that Barack Obama has conspired with the Governor of Massachusetts to illegally hide her in his state, to illegally house her in public housing, and to even illegally employ her by the state. Each of these involve likely violations of federal law.

It is a felony to conspire, aid, and abet a person under deportation order to remain in the U.S. (See section 8 U.S.C.A. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) ["conceal, harbor, shield from detection"] and (v) [conspiracy, aid, abet]).

The details of this provide for at least five years’ incarceration. In the past we’ve seen presidential cabinet nominees withdraw their nominations because they hired illegal maids, babysitters, and contractors. This goes way beyond that. If, as American Spectator alleges, that Obama, his campaign staff, David Axelrod, his company, and the Governor of Massachusetts did conspire, aid, and abet to hide, house, and employ Obama’s aunt, this tops anything previously facing a prominent presidential appointee, much less, as in Obama’s case, a presidential candidate.

What’s Going On?

As I wrote in I Did Not Know, I Did Not Hear, I Did Not See—Barack Obama:

[Obama would like everyone to believe] he did not know that his aunt’s asylum claim was denied and that she was ordered deported, did not know that she was in the country for the past four years illegally in defiance of that deportation order, did not know that she was living illegally in Boston public housing, and did not know that she had contributed several hundred dollars to his campaign. Further, it has been recently noted that he also did not know that his Kenya-residing grandmother, Sarah Hussein Obama, was living in squalor. On top of this incredulous set of circumstances, Obama’s nutroots gangs are pushing the talking point that this is all a smear, based on data that no one should know about.

Yeah, right. If there is no other defining character trait fitting for Barack Obama it is that he is a pathological liar always ready with an “I did not know, I did not hear, and I did not see.” In almost every case that Obama has used this defense it has eventually been proven a lie.

And proven the lie is exactly right.

The American Spectator wrote Monday:

Senior aides to Sen. Barack Obama and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick were aware that Obama’s aunt, Zeituni Onyango, was living in the United States illegally and in a South Boston public-housing project, and were monitoring her at the request of senior Obama campaign officials, according to a current employee for Obama’s key political consulting firm, AKP&D Message and Media.

If he squeezes out a win tomorrow, would this be grounds to impeach him come January?

Impeachment is a political decision, criminal action is likely far simpler. As J.G. Anderson writes in his blog, Centrist Net (and his full article is a must read for its detailed discussion on the topic):

[A]ccording to the two sources quoted by American Spectator, the Obama campaign was well aware of Auntie Z’s immigration status and presence in America in early 2007. Furthermore, if true, the Obama’s campaign used Axelrod’s client and Obama’s ally, Patrick, to keep watch over Auntie Z until after the election. The allegations of the two sources is confirmed in part by Auntie Z’s quoted response to the British press before they broke the story:

“I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”

It is well within the realm of possibility that Auntie Z would have only known to refuse comment if she was told to say that, likely by the Obama campaign. The two sources, Obama’s political consultant’s employee and the Obama campaign media aide, bolster this likely occurrence. The importance to tomorrow’s election becomes whether or not such agreement between the Obama campaign and Patrick to “monitor” Auntie Z until the election is a violation of federal immigration laws, namely 8 U.S.C.A. 1324(a)(1)(a)(iii) and (v), which prohibit as a felony:

(a) Criminal Penalties
(1)(a) Any person who…
(iii) knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that an alien has come to, entered, or remains in the United States in violation of law, conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien in any place, including any building or any means of transportation;…
(v)(I) engages in any conspiracy to commit any of the preceding acts, or

(II) aids or abets the commission of any of the preceding acts,

If the Obama campaign had knowledge of Auntie Z’s immigration status in early 2007, and then Axelrod worked with Patrick to suppress any uncovering of such status since then, there is an arguable violation of the statute above as such actions would each constitute an individual act which “conceals, harbors, or shields from detection, or attempts to conceal, harbor, or shield from detection, such alien”, as spelled out in (iii) in the statute above. Any Obama campaign employees or Patrick staffers could be liable for conspiracy to commit violations of the Section 1324 and aiding and abetting violations of Section 1324 under subsection (v).

A review of case law regarding this matter tends to support the position that the Obama campaign’s activities, in conjunction with Mass. Governor Patrick, could have violated Section 1324. Indeed, the entire purpose of Axelrod’s alleged contacts with Patrick regarding Auntie Z was to suppress the public disclosure of Auntie Z’s illegal alien status and the lawful, immediate deportation under the 2004 Order. If true, the statements quoted in the American Spectator make out a prima facia case for a criminal indictment under Section 1324.

Senator Barack Obama, Governor Devel Patrick, and David Axelrod’s apparent conspiratorial actions to hide, house, and employ Obama’s aunt Zeituni Onyango and by their reported action to aid and abet her defiance of a deportation order is outrageous and scandalous. If facts are as it appears, what explanation can they offer for their disrespect of our nation’s laws?

For Obama—presidential candidate, sitting U.S. president, and until recently a practicing attorney—is this the actions of a person worthy of our vote? I think not. Instead, this simply confirms Obama’s arrogance to say and do anything.

Obama’s Speechwriter: A Baby Faced, 26-Year-Old White Guy 

So, Obama is really, really successful at reading a teleprompter, and delivering someone else’s words. A puppet, you might say. 

Then we learned that Obama was regurgitating words originally given by his friend Patrick Deval. Not once, but many times. 

And we not only learned about *borrowed* speeches but also borrowed phrases. 

“Sí Se Puede” or “yes we can” is from the United Farm Workers. 

 “Together we can” was the campaign slogan of Deval Patrick in 2006

“Fired Up! Ready to Go!” is from the NAACP in South Carolina, used by Jondelle Harris Johnson in the Civil Rights marches. 

“We are the ones we’ve been waiting for.” is a Hopi Indian saying, used by Alice Walker as the title of her book.

But now we learn that not only is Obama a puppet when it comes to giving speeches, but his foreign policy isn’t his either. I knew he had very little foreign policy experience, if any, but doesn’t he have to do anything?? A cast of 300 prepare him daily? Who are these people that are affecting our foreign policy? Shouldn’t they be running for office, or at least vetted, since they are doing all the work? 

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign PolicyEvery day around 8 a.m., foreign policy aides at Senator Barack Obama’s Chicago campaign headquarters send him two e-mails: a briefing on major world developments over the previous 24 hours and a set of questions, accompanied by suggested answers, that the candidate is likely to be asked about international relations during the day.One recent Q. & A. asked, for example, whether Mr. Obama supported the decision by Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri Kamal al-Maliki, to include a timetable for American troop withdrawal in any new security agreements with the United States. The answer, provided to Mr. Obama with bullet points, was yes — or “a genuine opportunity,” as he put it in a speech on Iraq this week. Behind the e-mail messages is a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.   

I do take some comfort in knowing that many are from the Clinton White House and from Hillary’s staff. (funny how Obama always wanted to distance himself from the politics of the past, and from the Clinton’s, but he always surrounds himself with people from the Clintons years.) 

I know all candidates, and all Presidents have advisors. I know they all have speech writers. But, if you take away Obama’s great speeches, and you take away his foreign policy advisors, what is left? Seriously. He has not accomplished anything. Nada. Zilch. And the LITTLE that he does do, now, (give speeches or comment on foreign policy) is totally scripted and provided by someone else. And when he speaks to groups like African Americans about taking responsibility, he is threatened with castration. And when he has taken a firm stance on an issue, he completely FLIPS and FLOPS on them - FISA, NAFTA, the surge in Iraq, campaign finance, guns, abortion… 

Well, I think we have a pretty good idea of what happens when Obama is left to his own devices. Here are some new ones: 

“Great” Moments in Presidential Speeches: Obama

Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army? (what is that all about??)

The Real Barack Obama, The Flip Flop Kid

The Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand

Barack Obama “Uh” Count 

And of course, the classics:

Obama VS. Robert Gibbs on the surge

Obama on Iran

 The Game of Expedience

Obama Just words - just speeches - just think

Obama on Lobbiest bill

Obama on the Race Card

Obama Claims He’s Visited 57 States

Obama on his dad and the flag?

Barack Obama Sees Dead People

Obama’s Memorial Day Gaffe

Obama in Sunrise 

Obama rally in Sioux Falls

Obama on Rezko

Obama Gets Afghanistan Language Wrong 

So, again I ask, is he just a puppet? A flip flopping, do nothing, know nothing, present voting, change jobs every two years, never having accomplished anything, hangs out with bigots, racists, and terrorists, gaffe machine, judgment lacking, slumlord buddy, vain, pandering puppet. 

What does he stand for, really? We thought he was very left. But now he is moving further and further to the right. We can’t look at his voting history, because it is very un-telling (130 present votes on tough issues- intentional, me thinks) We can’t look at his resume because it is very, very short - he has spent more time campaigning then serving in the Senate (146 days). And his state senate job was part time, meeting 55 days a year.  

Hell, we can’t even look at his birth certificate to know if he is who he says he is! We can’t even look to his books for information, because they are full of mistruths, and fictitious characters and situations.

I can’t figure out if he is super calculating and dangerous, or a puppet.  

But, who is controlling his strings? 

Published at American PUMA in Italy. 

Ms. Van Susteren does an excellent job in this interview. She does not let Speaker Pelosi get by with a lot. My letter to Ms. Van Susteren in response to this interview is below:

Dear Ms. Van Susteren:

Thank you for your interview with Speaker Nancy Pelosi. You have consistently been one of the BEST interviewers during this campaign season. I have a lot of respect for you. And I should add, I have been impressed at your willingness to allow the interviewee to actually answer your questions fully. That is a skill sorely lacking among many currently in the media.

As to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, let me say this: I am a 50 yr old, FAR left liberal, lifelong Democrat who has chosen to leave the Democratic Party after the actions of Barack Obama, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi, the DNC elite, and the RBC of the DNC.

For Speaker Pelosi to blow off your question about the level of sexism in this campaign by saying, “well, I’m too busy being Speaker of the House, so I haven’t been able to document this…” was reprehensible. DOCUMENT it??? She was part of the PROBLEM!!

And she did not NEED to document it - it was blatantly OBVIOUS!! Since she seems incapable of acknowledging the sexism, the misogyny, with which Senator Clinton was met, perhaps this video by ShuttheFreudUp.com might give her a little clue: http://youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM Feel free to pass it along to her.

There is not a doubt in my mind that Speaker Pelosi’s derogatory comments toward Senator Clinton this Primary Season were born out of her own fear of having a woman who will show how INCAPABLE Pelosi has been by contrast. Senator Clinton works HARD on behalf of her constituents, and the American people. Her abilities, her intellect, her drive, would clearly show up Speaker Pelosi’s horrible leadership as Speaker. No doubt in my mind.

And Speaker Pelosi is wrong. Obama is NOT the nominee YET, as you reminded her - the Convention is not until the end of AUGUST!!! And his “better ideas” are ALL ones he has copied from SENATOR CLINTON!!!

Here is part two of the three-part Fox News video, with more commentary below:

Even his recent statements on gas prices are the SAME ones about which he criticized Senator CLINTON just last month!

He has NO original ideas - he is merely a copy cat, of Deval Patrick, of Chicago poltiics, and of Clinton’s policies. How many times did he say in the debates, “What she said”?? He has no firm stances, no firm policies, and certainly no NEW ideas. Seems we just went through 7 1/2 yrs of another candidate who was similar in many regards, except one - he was actually MORE experienced than Senator Obama is now, and we all thought BUSH was too inexperienced to be President! Oh, wait - Obama did take ONE stand - he voted for the Bush/Cheney Energy Bill!!

And for Pelosi to claim that Obama is not a Washington insider with ALL of the Washington insiders who have been running his campaign is just laughable. Daschle? Kennedy? Kerry? Pelosi? Dodd? Leahy? Axelrod?? The list goes on and on. Not only is he not the blank slate she pretends he is, he comes from Chicago politics, politics in which he gets elected by getting EVERYONE else off the ballot! Politics in which the Republican contender for the Senate seat mysteriously has his divorce papers unsealed, thus forcing him to drop out, and he competes against ALAN KEYES!!! A State Senator who did NOTHING on his own, having his name attached to legislation on which he did NOT work by Emil Jones, legislation he neither earned nor deserved. He is a US Senator who has done NOTHING, including not chairing his OWN subcommittee on NATO and Afghanistan, a Senator who has spent more time campaigning than working, a US Senator who won’t even vote on issues when he is in the BUILDING! He has NO real experience, and compared to Senator Clinton, he is SINGULARLY unqualified to be President. I will never, EVER vote for this arrogant, sexist, inexperienced man who is SORELY lacking in good judgment - his closest associates bears that out (Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Wright, Auchi, et. al).

I won’t even go into the behavior of Obama’s campaign and his supporters except to say, the vitriol he has spewed about Senator Clinton in his speeches has given rise to a tremendous amount of acting out by his followers. It has become unsafe for people to speak out against him for fear of retribution. It is hard to believe this is still the USA…And it comes from the TOP down, no doubt about it.

I won’t bore you with all of my retorts to her ridiculous responses to your excellent questions, but her response about Obama’s choice of church is absurd. People DO care about the kind of message to which he has been listening for 20 years! People DO care that he counts The Reverend Wright as family to him. People DO care about the connection between TUCC and the Nation of Islam! It is not enough that “at least he goes to church” - what KIND of church it is MATTERS!!!

Speaker Pelosi is COMPLETELY out of touch with the American people. And her behavior toward Senator Clinton will not be forgotten, OR forgiven.

Finally, the vote stealing by the RBC/DNC, voter fraud, and inaction by the DNC of numerous reports of unethical behavior at the least, and illegal activity at most, in the caucuses made it CLEAR that the DNC did not care who the people wanted, contrary to Pelosi’s constant refrain that Obama is the people’s choice.

I never thought I would see the DNC disenfranchise voters , especially after the 2000 Florida debacle, never mind STEAL votes and delegates as they did in MI, and so blatantly go against the will of the people, but that is EXACTLY what they have done. Their actions, especially the theft of actual votes and delegates from Senator Clinton TO Senator Obama, who was not even on the BALLOT in MI, have proven to me that the fix was in to shove this unqualified candidate down our throats. I am ashamed of what the Democratic Party has become. I am ashamed of how they have conducted themselves in this primary. And I am sad that the Party to which I have belonged for decades has become one of such immorality. The DNC’s candidate will get neither my money NOR my vote.

Thank you again for your outstanding work. You are a breath of fresh air in the Mainstream Media!

Sincerely,
The Rev. Amy
PUMA08
Just Say No Deal

Here is part three of the three-part interview:

And I’ll add: Does this guy have a single original thought that doesn’t come off a teleprompter?

This effective ad from John McCain’s campaign hits warns voters that his pretty speeches are meaningless because they do not translate into 1) solid positions or 2) policy that actually will be pursued, let alone enacted.

What this ad omits is that even Obama’s seemingly effective phrases — “Don’t tell me words don’t matter” and “words, just words” — were the recycled creation of his campaign strategist David Axelrod who gave the SAME phrase to another candidate he was employed by in 2006, the now rather unpopular Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick. Heck, even Obama surrogates like Sen. Bill Bradley mimed the same words on TV news shows. (SEE the video below the compares the two “Axelrod mix-and-match candidates” speaking).

Caveat: We are not at the moment endorsing John McCain, and are focused on trusting Democratic delegates will realize, before August, that Hillary Clinton is a far stronger candidate. Many NoQuarter writers and readers admire Sen. McCain, and will vote for him if Obama is the nominee, and we welcome the free and frequent expression of that viewpoint. After August, we will assess this blog’s official position.

But Democratic delegates to the national convention had better know this: Hundreds of thousands of Hillary Clinton supporters will NEVER vote for Barack Obama. And a great many will vote for John McCain simply because they believe he is qualified to be president, and that Barack Obama is NOT qualified or experienced enough — and we’re worried sick about such a teleprompter-dependent neophyte being handed the toughest job in the world.

Below is the ad’s transcript, along with excellent supporting materials, as well as that YouTube that proves Obama was fed even the simplest lines by his marketing guru:

Ladies and gentlemen, meet David Axelrod’s latest marketing products and promotion strategies:

From my story, “Just Words, But Whose Words?“:

On the left: Deval Patrick, ultimately successful Massachusetts gubernatorial candidate, responding to then-Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey in October 2006.

On the right: Barack Obama, speaking Saturday night at the Wisconsin Democratic party dinner following Hillary Clinton. Obama got great applause, although his enthused supporters had no clue he was just reviving a well-honed line not only NOT created by Obama but by another campaign, all engineered by guess who:

What do the 2006 and 2008 mimickers share in their quest to overcome their lack of substance with lofty rhetoric? The man who has the fix for just that kind of problem: “Since last year, observers have been noting that rhetorical similarities between the two candidates with vaguely similar biographies and campaign pitches — who also share political guru David Axelrod,” writes Jake Tapper in today’s ABC News Political Punch. That’s right, it’s David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager who in 2006 was Deval’s manager.

– Check out more NoQuarter stories on Axelrod feeding his clients the same lines — with more videos — here.

SEE ALSO: My story yesterday — “Father Pfleger, Obama’s Longtime Confidante and Adviser, Is Back at St. Sabina” — that proves that Obama’s chief strategist David Axelrod, who created those words, is also listed as a member of the parish fundraising committee for the extremist radical priest, a devotee of Minister Louis Farrakhan, along with other politicians of, shall we say, dubious character.

The point: David Axelrod runs with a disturbing, ethically challenged crowd in Chicago linked directly to racist, radical extremists.

The second point: Barack Obama runs with the same racist, radical crowd.

::::::::::::

Here’s the link to McCain’s YouTube channel. From the McCain campaign today:

Script For “Energy Security” (Web :48)

BARACK OBAMA (2/16/08): “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

BARACK OBAMA (6/29/06): “I strongly support public financing.”

BARACK OBAMA (2/26/08): “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.”

BARACK OBAMA (4/27/08): “I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system.”

BARACK OBAMA (6/19/08): “We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election.”

CHYRON: “Mr. Obama is breaking his word.” (The Washington Times, 6/20/08)

BARACK OBAMA (2/16/08): “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

CHYRON: “His decision deals a body blow to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” (The Boston Globe, 6/20/08)

BARACK OBAMA (2/16/08): “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

CHYRON: “Opportunistic and cynical.” (New Hampshire Union Leader, 6/20/08)

BARACK OBAMA (2/16/08): “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

CHYRON: “A large and telling Obama flip-flop.” (The Wall Street Journal, 6/20/08)

BARACK OBAMA (2/16/08): “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

CHYRON: “As disappointing as it is disingenuous.” (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/20/08)

CHYRON: CHANGE That Works For Him: Breaking His Word

AD FACTS: “Words” Web Ad

BARACK OBAMA (2/16/08): “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.”

· Barack Obama: “Don’t tell me words don’t matter.” (Barack Obama, Remarks, Milwaukee, WI, 2/16/08)

BARACK OBAMA (6/29/06): “I strongly support public financing.”

· Barack Obama Says “I Strongly Support Public Financing.” OBAMA: “Well, I strongly support public financing. And I know [Senator] Dick [Durbin] does too. He’s going to have some things to say about it because when we were having - as you’ll recall - the major debates around lobbying reform, one of the things that Dick, I think, properly pointed out was that you can change the rules on lobbying here in Washington, but if we’re still getting financed primarily from individual contributions, that those with the most money are still going to have the most influence.” (Sen. Barack Obama, Remarks At Constituents Breakfast, 6/29/06)

BARACK OBAMA (2/26/08): ” I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody

· Barack Obama Says “I Will Sit Down With John McCain” To Address Public Financing. NBC’S TIM RUSSERT: “So you may opt out of public financing. You may break your word.” BARACK OBAMA: “What I — what I have said is, at the point where I’m the nominee, at the point where it’s appropriate, I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody.” (Democratic Presidential Debate, Cleveland, OH, 2/26/08)

BARACK OBAMA (4/27/08): “I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system.”

· Barack Obama Says “I Have Promised That I Will Sit Down With John McCain And Talk About Can We Preserve A Public System.” FOX NEWS’ CHRIS WALLACE:” Wall Street Journal says that you are prepared to run the first privately financed campaign, presidential campaign, since Watergate. True?” OBAMA: Well, look. We’ve done a wonderful job raising money from the grassroots. I’m very proud of the fact that in March — in February, for example, 90 percent of our donations came over the Internet. Our average donation is $96, and we’ve done an amazing job, I think, mobilizing people to finance our campaigns in small increments. I have promised that I will sit down with John McCain and talk about can we preserve a public system, as long as we are taking into account third party independent expenditures. Because what I don’t intend to do –” (Fox News’ “Fox News Sunday,” 4/27/08)

BARACK OBAMA (6/19/08): “We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election.”

· Barack Obama: “We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public-financing system for the general election. This means we’ll be forgoing more than $80 million in public funds during the final months of this election.” (Barack Obama, Web Video, 6/19/08)

CHYRON: “Mr. Obama is breaking his word.” (The Washington Times, 6/20/08)

· The Washington Times: “Mr. Obama Is Breaking His Word And Is Altering His Principles According To What Is Expedient.” (Editorial, “Obama Reneges,” The Washington Times, 6/20/08)

CHYRON: “His decision deals a body blow to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” (The Boston Globe, 6/20/08)

· Boston Globe: “His Decision Deals A Body Blow To His Own Reputation As A Reform Candidate.” “Obama will be the first major party candidate since Watergate to reject public financing in the general election, instead relying on his base of more than 1.5 million donors for a war chest that could easily double or triple the $84.1 he would get in public financing. His decision deals a body blow both to the system of campaign finance and to his own reputation as a reform candidate.” (Editorial, “Obama Opts Out Of Reform,” The Boston Globe, 6/20/08)

CHYRON: “Opportunistic and cynical.” (New Hampshire Union Leader, 6/20/08)

· New Hampshire Union Leader: “Obama’s Decision Is Entirely Opportunistic And Cynical.” “Of course, Obama’s decision is entirely opportunistic and cynical. He claims he still believes in public financing, but that the current system, which he has championed all these years, he now thinks is so flawed that he cannot participate in it.” (Editorial, “Obama’s Financing: Private Beats Public,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 6/20/08)

CHYRON: “A large and telling Obama flip-flop.” (The Wall Street Journal, 6/20/08)

· The Wall Street Journal: “The Fact Remains That The Decision Is A Large And Telling Obama Flip-Flop.” “Is this the tone of the new postpartisan Obama era? One may wonder. The fact remains that the decision is a large and telling Obama flip-flop. He said early on that he would accept public financing for the general campaign, which runs between the conventions and November’s vote. But this was back when he couldn’t be sure he would be able to raise so much money by nonpublic means, or what he has since called his ‘parallel’ public financing system.” (Editorial, “A Reformer’s Progress,” The Wall Street Journal, 6/20/08)

CHYRON: “As disappointing as it is disingenuous.” (The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/20/08)

· Philadelphia Inquirer: “Barack Obama’s Decision To Turn Down Public Financing For The General Election Is A Disappointing As It Is Disingenuous.” “Barack Obama’s decision to turn down public financing for the general election is as disappointing as it is disingenuous. The presumptive Democratic nominee for president pledged last year that he would accept public financing and its accompanying spending limits in the general election if his Republican foe did the same. But now that Obama is a fund-raising sensation on the Internet, he’s breaking his pledge.” (Editorial, “Public Campaign Financing,” The Philadelphia Inquirer, 6/20/08)

One more video, from the great Flineo, because it perfectly illustrates the danger of a David Axelrod-created candidate:

The April issue of Fast Company® has a cover story on the Branding of Obama.  I thought now would be a good time to explore the marketing and polishing of the Brand.

The Fast Company article is favorable for Obama, please read it.

I’ve been somehow involved with marketing for most of my life and I love to step back from my Hillary supporter self and look at the marketing aspects of  this campaign.  From John Edwards as the people’s champion to Hillary as the stable mother figure, I’ve been intrigued at the approaches taken by the various marketeers.  

No campaign strategy in my memory comes close to the total control of message and outright branding of the persona of Senator Barack Obama.  And make no mistake, this is classic product branding executed as well as any major corporation would in launching their newest flagship product.  

My marketer’s cap must be tipped to David Axelrod.  What a job he has done.  We sometimes grumble about the millions people like Joe Trippi get for helping Howard Dean and John Edwards lose but Axelrod has earned every penny.  

From Fast Company

The fact that Obama has taken what we thought we knew about politics and turned it into a different game for a different generation is no longer news. What has hardly been examined is the degree to which his success indicates a seismic shift on the business horizon as well. Politics, after all, is about marketing — about projecting and selling an image, stoking aspirations, moving people to identify, evangelize, and consume. The promotion of the brand called Obama is a case study of where the American marketplace — and, potentially, the global one — is moving.

They go on to say

“Barack Obama is three things you want in a brand,” says Keith Reinhard, chairman emeritus of DDB Worldwide. “New, different, and attractive. That’s as good as it gets.” Obama has his greatest strength among the young, roughly 18 to 29 years old, that advertisers covet, the cohort known as millennials — who will outnumber the baby boomers by 2010. They are black, white, yellow, and various shades of brown, but what they share — new media, online social networks, a distaste for top-down sales pitches — connects them more than traditional barriers, such as ethnicity, divide them.

Let’s try and explore what David Axelrod has acomplished to create this brand.

Perhaps one of the most notable moves was to hire, on leave, a Facebook genius named Chris Hughes.  According to Fast Company Hughes has helped the campaign to play Facebook and other social networks with a skill the other campaigns know nothing of.

   The campaign’s secret weapon: a fresh-faced 24-year-old named Chris Hughes. Four years ago, he was at Harvard, helping launch Facebook with his roommates, kids named Mark Zuckerberg and Dustin Moskovitz. Just over a year ago, Hughes took a leave from Facebook to do online organizing for Obama. A history and literature major who did no coding at Facebook, he brought with him a mastery of the human side of social networking that has translated into real results for the campaign. Early on, when resources and credibility were in shorter supply, one insider told me, “We were completely focused on making sure that people knew on a very basic level how, where, and why to caucus in Iowa. And a local network, like Facebook, was ideal for that.” It was a cheap and effective way to leverage supporters’ personal connections.

Axelrod used new technology and new people to market the brand in ways unheard of in the past.

I suggest that everyone who is interested in marketing read the article.

So where you ask is this Hillary supporter going with this.  The article in the business magazine is thrilled with the marketing of Obama.   I’ve praised the skils of David Axelrod.  I am in awe of the Branding of Obama.

Many have looked at how Obama tries to be all things to all people.  His great skill and the main basis of his campaign is his ability to bring people together.  But I disagree.

I think what is sold, what the brand marketers have done is to create a different model for each of his constituencies.  Branding is much more than sticking a name on a product and advertising it.  Branding means market segmentation and the focusing of style, design and message for particular groups.

Perhaps the easiest way to understand is the example of Ford SUVs.

The following product groupings are all built on the same basic vehicle, on the same assembly line but with changes in visual design or parts quality.

Crossover SUV

Ford Edge
Mazda CX-7
Lincoln MKX

Compact SUV

Ford Escape
Mazda Tribute
Mercury Mariner

Quoted for emphasis

The same essential vehicle built for wildly differing markets and very different prices.  My Honda Pilot and an Acura MDX are much the same once the skin is removed.

Obama is actually 3 possibly 4 brands designed for his target markets.  I don’t know how he does it or even how he manages to remember who he is at different times.

The Professor.  The Obama I saw early on.  The Obama who appeals to my highly educated, upscale friends on our democratic town committee.  The Obama we heard at the San Francisco fund raiser.  This is the serious, thoughtful Obama we see on Meet the Press.

The Rock Star.  This is the Obama that speaks to crowds of young people with rock stars playing to warm up the crowd and Obama scratching his cheek with the middle finger.  This is the snarky Obama, the “I love you back” Obama and the one that is sold via text messaging, email and the blogs.

The Preacher. The Obama of the Trinity Church who could actually be an incredible preacher.  This is the Obama that makes the inspiring, rabble rousing speeches that have defined his campaign.  This is the Hope<sup>TM</sup&gt and Change<sup>TM</sup&gt Obama.

Three Obama brands that I bet, and I do not know, but I bet each segment of the market has it’s own team of responsible marketers.  In business those would be the brand managers.

The press fell in love early with all three Obama’s.  But they highlight the “Inspiring” one and the Rock Star.  Management of press by the PR consultants is another aspect that I must tip my hat to.  These consultants figured out how to make our lazy press accept their statements as gospel and do no digging.  They know how to make a negative into a positive, how to make their competition’s positive’s into negatives.  

The press is brought into play if the brand needs cleaning up after some error.  In business this would be a recall.  After Pastor Wright did his best to help his friend stay a Senator, Axelrod ordered up another strong dose of the Preacher Brand of Obama.  The press was then informed that Obama was beyond Wright and they were free to move back to asking why the issues are not spoken about, as Hillary gives speech after speech on the issues.  But the press is another issue, or is it?

—————————————-

————

Three Obama’s.  Three markets.  Three personae.

Three markets, three groups that rarely come together because the campaign segments them into events with their peers.  Townhalls for the elders, Rock events for the young and periodically a rallying speech after some bad news.

Three Obama’s and one Presidency for all of us.

   
• Which one would we get?
     
• Or would we get all three?
     
• Will they keep segmenting us?
     
• Are you glad the “corporatists” are not involved?
     
• Which Obama is yours?
     
• Which Obama attracted you?

Obama is a registered trademark and Hope and Change are Trademarks of Obama for President Incorporated. Copyright © 2008 NewHampster, All rights reserved.

  One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them,
    One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them,

Did you ever wonder why?

On Primary Day, the people of Massachusetts must have been laughing all the way to the polls that day, wondering just exactly how stupid America has to be to fall for a candidate who was unashamedly using Deval Patrick’s Monarch Notes for both his rally call and a campaign platform.

The Bluest State in the Country rejected Obama that day because, having stepped in it before, they recognized a pile of moose poop when they saw it. They recognized that “We are the change we have been waiting for” is just…….well…….just words.

No surprise to anybody who sees through catchy, mesmerizing rhetoric with precious few details, Deval Patrick is a dismal disappointment to Massachusetts. His flowery speeches and promises have turned out to be Just Words as, issue by issue, Patrick has proven to be either a coward or a liar - or inept.

But the two men differ in one critical area: Mr. Patrick has an executive record. And, unfortunately for the senator from Illinois, it reveals that the Patrick-Obama brand of politics isn’t really new. It is, in fact, something akin to the failed liberalism of old, in a new vessel.

I think it’s fair at this point to mention that Deval Patrick’s career was launched when he was appointed by the Clinton Administration as Assistant Attorney General to the Civil Rights Division. You know the Clinton Administration right? The suddenly “racist” administration that launched more careers for African Americans than all the other presidents combined?–including Donna Brazile, who now sprays mace in their face because a black man is running for office.

Massachusetts Democrats were all excited about this “Different” candidate, this “Historic” candidate, this candidate that was going to “change” things. His rhetoric soared. He asked people to “believe”. He eluded to people like JFK, RFK and MLK as if he and his “Words” belonged in in their league. Deval Patrick made plenty of Hope-y Change-y promises and the people of Massachusetts fell for it. They were going to get a new kind of leader, a different kind of politics. What they got instead was a wimp who caved in on every single issue he promised to address. In short, the dismal failure known as Deval Patrick helped Hillary Clinton, not only in the Massachusetts Primary, but in neighboring states that receive Boston News.

So what exactly did Deval Patrick do, or should I say not do, that made the people of Massachusetts not only wish they hadn’t fallen for his tripe, but also made them reject his obvious clone, Barack Obama?

Voters in Massachusetts had hoped Mr. Patrick’s reformist promises and appealing style would mean a makeover for a tired political culture that has long since stopped producing satisfactory results. Instead, they, along with voters in southern New Hampshire and northern Rhode Island (which receive Boston news), now seem wary of the Obama-Patrick connection. These areas turned out heavily for Hillary Clinton in the presidential primaries and helped her carry all three states.

Deval “Believe” Patrick not only wimped out on his promise for change, but he wimped out without so much as a fight, right from, if you will excuse the pun, Day One.

What the Bay State got, however, is a pedestrian liberal governor who is remarkably quick to retreat in the face of pressure from the status- quo.

Mr. Patrick’s first cave-in came just weeks after he was elected, and before he was even sworn into office. On the campaign trail he promised to cut $735 million in wasteful spending from the state budget. But when the Democratic Senate president rebuked him for it, the governor-elect backpedalled.

The Boston Globe summed up the wimped-out Patrick by seeing him as he really was: “Patrick backed off and said he didn’t really mean it.”

Another retreat came on a common sense issue that likely might have marked him as a true reformer had he made even a losing fight of it. Massachusetts is the only state that mandates that cops, not flagmen, direct traffic at road-construction sites. Earlier this spring, Mr. Patrick proposed loosening the requirement as a way to save taxpayers millions, but quickly recanted when the police union flooded the capitol with lobbyists. Within days, Mr. Patrick told listeners of his monthly radio show “the more I think about this, the less certain I am that we can fix this top down.”

Deval Hopey-Changey-Just-Words Patrick not only backed down but even worked to dismantle what good progress had been made before him, including opening teacher certification to just about anybody who wants it–in a State that has always been known for higher standards in teacher certifications. Not only that, but he apparently doesn’t think College Preparation programs in schools is all that and a bag of chips either.

Education may be the one area where Mr. Patrick could have done the most to demonstrate that he is indeed a new man of the left. Fifteen years ago, the state enacted strict testing requirements for both teachers and students and passed reforms that encourage the creation of charter schools. The Result:Massachusetts consistently places among the top performers on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Sticking by these bipartisan reforms – or even expanding them to help minority children in poor areas –
would seem to be an easy call.

But to the delight of education unions, Mr. Patrick instead appears to be laying the groundwork

to dismantle these reforms. He appointed antitesting zealot Ruth Kaplan to the state Board of Elementary and Secondary Education, where she repaid his confidence recently by disparaging the college preparation emphasis of some charter schools. She said these schools set “some kids up for failure . . . Their families don’t always know what’s best for their children.”

To recap: Under Deval Patrick’s concept of Change, teachers who fail the certification test three times can teach anyways. All you would have to do for Deval is take that test three times even if you don’t have a clue what is required of you. Basically, Deval Patrick wimped out and told the State of Massachusetts to say goodbye to the State’s highest teaching standards.

Does anybody see a similarity in style and Hope-y Change-y promises here? Both claim that their ability to work with people coupled with their miraculous ability to persuade people to do the “right thing” is a major reason for you to “believe” in their “new kind of politics”. Both of them made the same speeches. In fact, both of them are practically the same lame man.

One characteristic of the Obama-Patrick brand of politics is the assertion that they can personally persuade disparate political leaders to reach a consensus. Mr. Patrick’s biggest test of this claim came this year when he proposed bringing jobs to the state by allowing casino gambling in Massachusetts. The proposal angered an odd alliance of liberals and social conservatives because gambling is a highly regressive (if voluntary) tax. And it ended in defeat for the governor.

The Bluest State Of All sees what so many of us also see. Barack Obama is a recycled Deval Patrick in both word and intent, and they will not fall for that tripe again.

What should trouble Mr. Obama the most is that the stirring rhetoric of Mr. Patrick’s 2006 campaign, now being recycled by the Illinois senator (at times, word for word), is no longer connecting with Massachusetts voters. A mid-April poll found that 56% of the state’s voters disapprove of the Governor’s performance. Even among left-leaning Democrats, more than four in 10 disapprove of Mr. Patrick.

In short, Barack Obama not only has future problems with Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Ohio, but he has one with That Bluest State Of All. That is why Massachusetts will not be impressed in November, should he sadly become the Democratic Party’s nominee. But I suppose he can always depend on states he won, such as Mississippi, which hasn’t voted Democratic in a General Election since the 60s. Perhaps all the Republicans will stay home.

Good luck with that, Barack.

That was via Hot Air. And now U.S. News & World Report has added its own video:

And check out the Black Agenda Report, Obama’s privatizin’ Social Security adviser, and Hillary Clinton’s endorsement by Sen. John Glenn for her progressive space exploration policy:

• “blackagendareport.com - Holding Barack Obama Accountable“: “The presidential campaign of Barack Obama has become a media parade on its way to a coronation.” (BlackAgendaReport, another truthteller group, has been trying to hold Obama’s “feet to the fire” since 2003. The image alone is worth a click.)

• “Audiology of Hope 360: Special Topics in Health Care Reform,” by RonK Seattle: “[Obama's] Social Security wingman is an avid privatizer” — Harvard’s Jeffrey Liebman. “Liebman’s reputation: centrist alarmist and moderate privatizer.” (Yup, that’ll “unite the country” alright.)
• “HOUSTON WE HAVE A PROBLEM“: The diarist discusses Clinton’s detailed space policy plan, and Sen. John Glenn explains why he’s for Hillary Clinton: “Hillary released a science policy a month ago that includes a section on space policy. She is the first major presidential candidate that I am aware of to articulate in any detail what the government’s role in space should be…”

You know things are getting weird when you read Karl Rove’s op-ed in today’s WSJ and find your head nodding affirmatively! (I know that Rove is a rat, but he’s not stupid, and he’s a longtime observer of the political scene.) Rove believes that Obama “pivoted” on Tuesday night because he’s facing more effective accusations from both John McCain and Hillary Clinton on his readiness and his experience. Rove adds:

Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama’s promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn’t worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the “Gang of 14″ that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.

Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama’s lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama’s statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration — and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.

Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama’s declaration he won’t be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama’s laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.

The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. …

[...]

These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama’s credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people.

[...]

In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama’s rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes — establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world. …

“The one thing his voters can count on is that they will ultimately be disappointed.” Der Spiegel has it exactly right.

As Taylor observes, “This is about character. It’s about Obama’s con. It’s about presenting yourself as authentic, when the truth is just the opposite.”

Taylor also went to Obama’s site and found the speech, but no credit to Patrick is given. Jake Tapper at ABC News did some further digging and found that “Deval Patrick’s Timeline Doesn’t Mesh with Reality“:

“In a telephone interview on Sunday [with the New York Times], Mr. Patrick said that he and Mr. Obama first talked about the attacks from their respective rivals last summer, when Mrs. Clinton was raising questions about Mr. Obama’s experience, and that they discussed them again last week," the Times’ Jeff Zeleny wrote. "Patrick said he told Mr. Obama that he should respond to the criticism, and he shared language from his campaign with Mr. Obama’s speechwriters.”

But Obama was quoted using Patrick’s language before the Summer of 2007.

"’We hold these truths to be self-evident, all men are created equal.’ Those are just words," Obama was quoted as saying in a March 19, 2007 New Republic story. " ‘I have a dream.’ Just words.”

So….the claim that Patrick an Obama "first" discussed this last Summer does not make sense.

It should also be noted that in addition to the "Yes We Can" slogan that Obama used in 2004, Patrick used in 2006, and Obama uses today, other language from the two clients of political guru David Axelrod has come from both men’s mouths.

To wit:

Patrick in June 2006, at the Massachusetts Democratic party convention:  "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

Obama one year later, as quoted in USA Today: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

FOR MORE HISTORY ON THIS, see:

• “Plagiarism Stories Dominate News [UPDATED]”

• “Obama’s Books: Composite Characters, False Memories”
• “Obama’s Plagiarism Goes Wide””
• “Just Words, But Whose Words?“

As Tapper asks, This is just “about words”? Nope. It’s about character. It’s about being who you PRETEND to be.

This is an even better, pithy contrast video, via Taylor Marsh. Yes, it’s from ET, but that’s actually significant — it means that the story has long legs, reaching throughout the MSM, in all venues.

UPDATE: Paul Krugman on “Hype and glory” at his NYT blog:

One thing I worry about a lot if Obama is the Dem nominee — and he’s surely the frontrunner now — is that there will be a backlash against Obamamania. Actually,it’s already starting — probably too late to have much effect on the nomination fight, but in plenty of time to affect the general election.

… But I just have a very bad feeling about the way things are going.

Then Taylor gets into the lampoon sites on the “Messiah” factor of the Obama campaign (as does the above video, with the fainting phenomenon and Obama playing “EMT In Chief” (and not very sympathetically but more to act like the big shot pretending to care, imho):

“Is Barack Obama the Messiah?” asks one of several Web sites lampooning the hyperventilation of Obama’s more overwrought admirers.

An example came from Jan Young, a 56-year-old convert from Hillary Clinton: “It’s almost like the Messiah,” she said at an Obama rally in Minnesota. “You feel something coming from him.”

When Oprah Winfrey endorsed Obama in Iowa, she proclaimed, “I believe he is The One.” It was a line straight out of “The Matrix.” … (Check out Taylor for the rest of the quote.)

Now I simply have to show you this screenshot of a great spoof site — I laugh every time I see it!

Then there’s Slate magazine’s “The Obama Messiah Watch,” run by Timothy Noah:

Is Barack Obama—junior U.S. senator from Illinois, best-selling author, Harvard Law Review editor, Men’s Vogue cover model, and “exploratory” presidential candidate—the second coming of our Savior and our Redeemer, Prince of Peace and King of Kings, Jesus Christ? His press coverage suggests we can’t dismiss this possibility out of hand. I therefore inaugurate the Obama Messiah Watch, which will periodically highlight gratuitously adoring biographical details that appear in newspaper, television, and magazine profiles of this otherworldly presence in our midst.

And there’s “Is Barack Obama The Messiah” from Townhall.com in January 2007 (some people catch on faster than others):

Apparently, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, D-Illinois, is the Messiah. The New York Times reported on Sunday that in Obama’s time at Harvard Law School, he “developed a leadership style based more on furthering consensus than on imposing his own ideas. Surrounded by students who enjoyed the sound of their own voices, Mr. Obama cast himself as an eager listener, sometimes giving warring classmates the impression that he agreed with all of them at once.”

My admiration for Obama’s position as editor of the Harvard Law Review changed a bit after I learned it’s an elected job. (Bluntly, I suspected a bit of white guilt, as well as Obama’s very smooth style, was a factor in the vote. It’s just a guess, but i know a lot about how elite liberals think, and it had to play a factor.) Now we see that he was very skilled in maneuvering people, and getting them on board by making THEM think just how smart they were:

Also on Sunday, the Boston Globe reported, “These days, Obama is the hot new candidate for the White House, trying to end the warring in Washington with a warm message of unity and optimism. But years before taking that message to the national political stage, he was defusing battles large and small from the sharp-elbowed basketball games to the cutthroat classrooms at Harvard Law School.” And on the same day, the Los Angeles Times similarly reported, “At Harvard Law Review he showed that — on a much smaller scale — he had the savvy to maneuver through turbulent political waters.”

The next cracked me up:

Jesus didn’t get this kind of Sunday media coverage on Easter Sunday. It is no wonder Slate.com has a running Obama “Messiah Watch” dedicated to “considering evidence that Obama is the Son of God.”

The influential conservative Pajamas Media blog is taking a hard look at Obama, and the five “follies” that the GOP can get him on in “IN FOCUS: THE END OF THE OBAMA HONEYMOON?” — and remember, as Larry Johnson says, this is just a SAMPLING of what the GOP will do to Obama if he’s the nominee:

Barack Obama has glided along from long-shot to heir apparent with nary a scratch on him, writes Michael Weiss. All that is likely to change if and when he’s the Democratic nominee. Here are five random Obama follies to watch out for.

1. He plagiarizes his speeches (“Words, words, words.”)

2. His volunteers hang memorials to totalitarian mass murderers. [OBAMA-ITES, don't get hysterical; please remember this is what the conservatives will USE against Obama.]

3. His foreign policy guru travels to Syria to kibitz with murderous fascists.

4. He flip-flops on public financing.

5. He’s wavering on his Iraq withdrawal plan.

Weiss, the New York editor of the blog, provides links and detailed explanations for each of the five points.