In a stunning about face this week, Barack Obama announced that “I’ve got an economic plan that is similar to Bill Clinton’s.” On its face, this would mean that, if elected, Barack Obama would raise taxes on all taxpayers, support NAFTA and reduce welfare, three cornerstones of the Clinton economic legacy. This would be a serious reversal of Senator Obama’s campaign promises and his stated policies.

Other than a crass attempt to hitch his fate to the Clinton star, the comment highlights the serious risk to our current economic situation that is posed by Barack Obama’s pledge to raise taxes on the producers of jobs and capital, increase welfare and abrogate our commitment to NAFTA. These policies create a serious probability of leading our economy into further economic dismay.

Barack Obama is wholly disingenuous in implying that his tax policy will have the same success as the Clinton policy when, in fact, the economic environment inherited by Bill Clinton was vastly different from today’s economy.

Obama’s assertion is similar to saying that because an aspirin cures a headache it will do the same for cancer. President Clinton benefited from an economy that grew by 4.2% in the first quarter of his Presidency, the Dow was up 5.8% for the year prior to his election, total national debt was 54% of national output and information technology was in its infancy. Tax rates inherited by Clinton had been reduced by 60% under Reagan and Bush Senior since the Carter years. When President Clinton increased taxes, he simultaneously brought our national budget into balance in sixteen months. He signed NAFTA against the will of his own party.

Yesterday, the country’s growth contracted by .3%, providing one-half of the technical verification of the recession being felt around the country and certain to be inherited by the next President. The Dow is down 32.5% for the year, our national debt is at nearly 70% of total GDP (after WWII national debt was 102% of GDP and America was at the beginning of its stunning economic success). Currently, unless investors are able to forcefully advance new energy technologies, there is no analog to the 1990’s information revolution which can give us the necessary economic stimulus for innovation and job growth.

Supporters of the Illinois Senator not only ignore the current fragile economy, but also the obvious consequences of Obama’s opposition to NAFTA and his destructive economic philosophy. In fact, Senator Obama’s policy of higher taxes and higher tariffs for our fragile economy at this time is exactly the wrong direction for the country.

One of the reasons that Barack Obama could well lose on Tuesday is because voters are beginning to realize that his policies will tank the economy and the markets. The stock market looks forward, not backward, and there is a direct correlation between the declining Dow and the increasing poll numbers for Barack Obama. According to the June Gallop Poll, by a margin of 87 to 13, Americans care more about improving the economy than they do about redistributing wealth.

According to his rhetoric, Barack Obama is helping working Americans. In fact, John McCain offers bigger tax breaks to the working class than Barack Obama. (The only reason you do not know this is because you have not looked at the fact that no one earning under $50,000 will pay any tax under John McCain and, on the famous “Obama Taxometer”, the untruthful Obama campaign does not include the $5,000 health care tax credit that John McCain in giving to every American). Moreover, almost 75% of Americans making $100,000 have some capital gains. As the value of their investments turns negative they will suffer badly, even if Barack Obama does not raise their taxes. A declining economy is bad for everyone.

It is dishonest for Senator Obama to claim he will fix this economy by taxing the top 5%. His spending increases on programs alone amount to $300 billion per year. The dishonesty is to say that this will be paid by his tax on the top 5%. It is simply not possible. As the Obama plan makes clear, the additional taxes of the “rich” have already been committed to his “refundable tax credits”. According to the Tax Policy Center, the Obama tax plan will take $70 billion from the top 5% of earners in the country and redistribute it to the 60 million Americans who pay no tax.

Senator Obama’s economic philosophy will make America neither stronger nor fairer. Today, the top 1% of earners contributes 40% of the nation’s $2.6 trillion tax intake and the bottom 50% pay 2.9% of our nation’s total needs. This is in contrast to the 17% of total tax paid by the top filers under the Carter Administration when the top marginal rate was 70%. It has been shown that reductions in tax rates increase tax revenues because incentives to private enterprise strengthen the economy and create jobs and a larger tax base.

As he exploits the current widespread economic uncertainty in the nation and blames the richest, Barack Obama not only ignites an insidious class war, but also ignores the inconvenient fact that America’s top earners have paid double in taxes since the reduction of their tax rates under George Bush. Namely, in 2003 the richest Americans paid $136 billion in taxes and after the tax cut in 2006 they paid $274 billion. Times of economic uncertainty are exactly when our government needs to cling to business and the generators of wealth and jobs, not use them as scapegoats.

Along with my Democratic “friends,” I used to make fun of Republicans by saying that they lived in an “evidence-free zone.” Well, I now see that it is the Democrats, swept away in the “narrative” and “transcendence” of Barack Obama, that are refusing to look at the facts about the likely consequences of electing Barack Obama. The same media outlets that failed to vet the Iraq War are now failing to vet Barack Obama. Unfortunately, they will never accept responsibility; it will be our country that takes the hit. For me, that is very sad.

John McCain may not be the most eloquent or sexiest candidate in this race, but he is the candidate who will best serve this nation for the next four years. He is reducing taxes for all Americans further than Barack Obama, cutting federal spending and encouraging free trade and energy independence as engines for domestic economic growth. More importantly, he and Sarah Palin actually have a record of taking on the vested interests and their own party (while working with Democrats) to make tough decisions. I have yet to be shown the same evidence of the junior Senator from Illinois.

Regrettably, the road kill of Obama’s reckless rhetoric and policies is not the rich taxpayer, but the entire American economy. The pain will be felt mostly by those who lose their jobs in the economic downturn and are the owners of 401ks and other savings who suffer at the stock market continues to decline. Barack Obama has not been held accountable for the obvious consequences of his tax and trade philosophy and policies. If elected, it will be all Americans who will suffer.

PS. Most readers have probably not read this far into the piece, but if you have, I have one more comment…..Since speaking out about this election, I have seen the Obama response is to attack me personally, particularly on the Internet. Fine, but just to let you know, eighteen months ago my husband wrote in the Financial Times that capitalism was in retreat because of the greed on Wall Street. We have subsequently invested only in tax-free government securities. So, my opinion is not driven by my economic interests. I am driven by what I said in the New York Times in June, “I love my country more than my party” … and it is ok with me if you hate me. xoxoxo

Related: Lynn Forester de Rothschild: Barack Obama’s America

Up first, we have this lovely button:

For the family that prays for Obama, stays together, or something like that. Well, if what the NY Post had about Obama potentially violating the Logan Act* by attempting to delay troop withdrawal from Iraq to suit HIS political purposes is true, risking lives as a result, he’s gonna need a lot of those prayers. See, it’s illegal - some might even say TREASONOUS - for a civilian to work against a presidential administration in a foreign country. Oopsy daisy!!

Then there is this nice little bumper sticker for all you Catholics out there! You can put this right next to the sticker for your parochial school!

Oh, great! Now I know what to get my good friend, Divine Democrat! Ahem.

And finally, last but not least, there is this:

All hail, the Obama Faithful!! Oh, wait - am I misreading that? Nope, I don’t think I am. That may not be exactly what they WANTED to convey, at least consciously, but that’s about what they seem to expect from their followers - complete and utter devotion. Praise Obama - he has come to liberate us from our pesky morals, our integrity, our sense of decency and fair play! That must be the “Change” Obama promised to bring us!! Hallelujah!!

And just in case you think I am making this up, here is the letter from the Obama Camp:

Dear friends,
Great news! We now have faith merchandise available for you to show your support for Barack Obama as a person of faith.

Check out the Believers for Barack, Pro-Family Pro-Obama, and Catholics for Obama buttons, bumper stickers and signs….

Believers for Barack rally signs and bumper stickers, along with all Pro-Family Pro-Obama merchandise, are appropriate for people of all faith backgrounds. We’ll soon be rolling out merchandise for other religious groups and denominations, but I wanted to get this out to you without delay.

Take good care,

Paul Monteiro
Deputy Director of Religous (sic) Affairs
Obama for America

Oh, YAY! And God-O-Meter said there will be more to come, like “Clergy for Change.” Oh, I cannot WAIT to get one of those! Actually, yes, yes I can. Many of you will like THIS one: “Pro-Israel Pro-Obama.” I wonder how HAMAS and The Nation of Islam will feel about that one…I guess Obama can ask his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, about that.

Now some of you heathens out there might be just a bit sceptical about Obama’s reaching out to the religious among us. Some of you might just be bitterly clinging to his comments about religious folk bitterly clinging to their guns and religion. Oh, ye of little faith!! He cares about you, he really does. Didn’t you see the BUTTON?? Or the STICKER?? C’mon! Don’t play hard to get! Obama loves you, this I know! For his minions have bludgeoned me with that claim for weeks now! I mean - because he shows us in so many ways: FISA, public campaign funds, off-shore drilling, NAFTA, gun control…Oh, I could go on and on with all the ways Obama’s Words have touched our lives. Praise the One who can stop the waters rising, and slow their very movement! Now the Faithful may proudly display the object of their veneration right on their cars and their lapels! Will wonders never cease?!

But wait! There is one more left to see. This courtesy of my talented partner who wanted to make sure we were all represented. Here it is:

Step right up! Order yours today!!

* Text of the Logan Act: Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

• “Does he wear a flag pin on his lapel? Yes, but not always. Like many presidential candidates, sometimes he wears a flag pin, sometimes he wears a breast cancer awareness pin, sometimes he wears his U.S. Senate membership pin and other times he wears no pin at all.”

• “Is he a Christian? Yes. He is a committed Christian. In 1985, he began working as a community organizer with a Christian church-based group seeking to improve the living conditions in poor Chicago neighborhoods.”

The mailer missed the mark! It reminds of us those rumors, that he is unpatriotic and a Muslim, rather than dispels them. Once again our family, friends and neighbors will be discussing the rumors anew.

Here is the second mailer. Part of this mailer has an older white woman saying “I am voting for the candidate who will fix our health care system.” Today, it was revealed that a health care plan backed by the AFL-CIO and SEIU may derail Obama’s healthcare plan.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcdnlNZg2iM[/youtube]

And now this on a union backed health care plan is called “guaranteed affordable choice”. More on that:

If SEIU and the AFL-CIO get their way, the day that all Americans have affordable insurance will be pushed into the unforeseeable future.

The labor-backed plan, which they call “guaranteed affordable choice,” would create a public program like Medicare that would allegedly compete with the nation’s 1,500 insurance companies. Americans would get tax-financed subsidies to purchase insurance from either a private insurance company or the public plan. Competition, which has never worked in the health insurance industry, would magically come to life.

By leaving the bloated insurance industry smack in the middle of our health care system, “guaranteed affordable choice” would have taxpayers and premium-payers continuing to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on unnecessary administrative costs.

The other two faces on the mailer show white older males, one a retiree and one still employed. It will evoke memories of the comments spoken in front of wealthy donors in San Francisco. Here are Obama’s exact words:

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them,” Obama said. “And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

And of course we will be reminded of Obama’s stance on NAFTA. Or were those just words and he didn’t mean it?

“While Senator Obama was telling voters he would fix NAFTA, his chief economics advisor was telling Canadians that his position was just words.

The AFL-CIO wasted their money and time. The AFL-CIO needs to go back to the drawing board on these mailers! If the mailers evoke these memories in me, what will they do for the union members and the bitter people living in Pennsylvania? All those campaign gaffes during the primaries will haunt Obama’s dream again, while I sleep peacefully at night!

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. 

And now? He’s not standing on principle, he’s running to the center. He has reversed himself on public campaign financing, late term abortions, gun control, FISA, Iraq, MoveOn.org, NAFTA, and Iran. How bad is it?

I got a call this afternoon from the Barack Obama campaign. (Apparently, they have hired Meyer Associates, who can be reached at 301 851-4961, to help them with fund raising.) The woman on the other end of the line opened with a pitch about Barack Obama representing “hope and change,” at which point I cut her off. I recounted the litany of Barack’s flip flops. Imagine my surprise (and my delight) when the woman sighed and said, “I agree with you.”

She went on to tell me that 70% of the people she had talked to during the last two days were telling her the same thing. Most, she said, were unwilling to vote for McCain and were vowing to stay home. Needless to say the fundraising was not going well. I mentioned that I had heard that Barack’s campaign failed to reach their fundraising goals for the second quarter. She confirmed that this was true. We had a very pleasant conversation. I wished her good luck and hung up.

A few minutes later I was checking email and came across this message from a NoQuarter reader (thanks dude):

Incidentally, I just now received my first fund-raising call from the Obama campaign — not the DNC, DCCC, or DSCC, but the campaign (the D groups probably won’t be calling me again). You would have loved hearing that call from the campaign, not so much for my opening rant about how “I will not be contributing to the Obama campaign or any other national Democratic groups after their treatment of Senator Clinton, race-baiting, and race slurring”, but for the young caller’s response to my rant, which was an exasperated “what is all this I’m hearing about how we treated Hillary? We took all the flack for Wright with no help from her, and now you people are saying we called her a racist!”

That told me that their fund-raising operation is running into more Clintonistas than they imagined. Or else, that one poor guy is somehow getting ALL OF US on the phone!

The only way Barack raises new money (because most of his major existing supporters are maxed out) is to get some coinage from Hillary supporters or disenchanted Republicans. Well, that ain’t happening. And if traffic at Barack’s website is an indicator then it certainly appears that Barack is not having much success in expanding his base. In fact, the base is contracting.

Coyote Ugly used to refer only to a situation that started with too much alcohol and led to casual sex with a partner that, in the soft low lights of a bar, appeared to be cute. But when the sun rises and you open you eyes, you discover that the beauty you thought you bedded was actually a beast. Like a coyote caught in a trap, you will chew off your arm rather than risk moving it and waking the sleeping horror show at your side.

Let’s face facts–Super Delegates are slowly discovering that they climbed into bed with a Barack Obama that does not really exist. He is not a new and different kind of politician. Nope. He’s an old style Chicago politician who has feasted on graft, compromised principles, got public money for slum lords who put black folks in homes not fit for pigs, and is now pandering to an imaginary conservative center. His decision yesterday to abandon his promise to fight George Bush for shredding the fourth amendment was not an aberration, it was a window into his soul. Will Super Delegates come to their senses and put a halt to nominating the fraud that is Barack Obama? We will see.

“In the primary, Mr. Obama:

• supported pulling out of Iraq within 16 months,
• called the D.C. gun ban constitutional,
• backed the subjection of telecom companies to expensive lawsuits for cooperating in the terror surveillance program,
• opposed welfare reform,
• pledged to renegotiate Nafta,
• disavowed free trade and
• was strongly against the death penalty in all cases.

“But in the past few weeks, Mr. Obama has reversed course on all of these, discarding fringe liberal views for relentlessly centrist positions. He also flip-flopped on accepting public financing and condemning negative ads from third party groups, like unions.

“By taking Nixon’s advice, Mr. Obama is assuming such dramatic reversals will somehow avoid voter scrutiny. But people are watching closely, and by setting a world indoor record for jettisoning past positions, Mr. Obama may be risking his reputation for truthfulness. A candidate’s credibility, once lost, is very hard to restore, regardless of how fine an organization he has built.”

The above excerpt is from today’s Wall Street Journal.

The bullet points were added to emphasize the number of 180-degree reversals.

Moving towards the center is one thing. Displaying no adherence to principles is another.

As Medusa notes, this is very unsettling to Obama’s most passionate supporters, many of whom are protesting on his own Web site.

Speaking of Obama’s campaign Web site:

Change & Experience blog linked to a story here the other day, and displayed an astonishing trend graph that shows that Obama’s popularity indeed is on the wane:

NoQuarter is reporting that Daily Kos and Barack Obama’s base is fracturing. He couldn’t be more right. Right now BarackObama.com is tanking in website hits. He is currently at pre-Iowa caucus levels (currently at around Jan. 2nd). John McCain’s site and Bob Barr’s site have remain constant. Barack Obama’s polling numbers have remained unchanged since May 18th. For a “popular” presumptive candidate, you would think you would see his numbers increasing.

When you write, “Who are these women, and why are they such buzzkills?”

When you fail to acknowledge the primary reason that PUMAs oppose Barack Obama — which is his utter lack of qualifications and experience?

Especially since you did not interview a single member of the JustSayNoDeal.com or PUMA08 coalition? Particularly since, without referring to the group by name, or speaking with (let alone interviewing) any of its leaders, you refer to our top-of-the-tier organizing force, JustSayNoDeal.com, and only in passing, as “this one“?

We’ve posted two reactions to Rebecca Traister’s June 23rd Salon story, “Why Clinton voters say they won’t support Obama,” with the subtitle, “The attack of the PUMAs, or a dozen reasons why Clinton voters are still too angry to come home“:

• “Rebecca Traister’s Safe Expectations — No Deal,” by Charles Lemos
• “A Response to Salon’s Story on PUMA: The Most Important Reason Clinton Voters Will Not Support Senator Obama,” by Ani

Here’s Ms. Traister’s YouTube response to the torrent of comments and e-mails:

Our MALE contributor, Charles Lemos, replied to Ms. Traister’s question, “Who are these women, and why are they such buzzkills?.”

A buzzkill? A buzzkill would be a disasterous Presidency from a dangerously inexperienced 46-year-old Senator who misspeaks on issues ranging from the status of Jerusalem to meeting global dictators and sponsors of global terrorism without preconditions and has no core convictions and for whom everything is a matter of political expediency. That’s a buzzkill. And PUMA, at least for me, stands for People United Means Action.

Ani emphasized the primary reason that millions of us oppose Obama’s candidacy:

Here is the main thing your article fails to take into account, and the main thing every single media outlet in this country likewise ignores: The number one reason we will not support Senator Obama for President is that he is not qualified for the job.

Surprised? Let’s examine this more closely.

This man has missed over 40% of his votes in the Senate. If one examines the votes he has missed, they actually are politically risky and require moral courage. So far, he has exhibited little.

He voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois State Legislature and voted “wrong” six times, i.e., he said “oops, I accidentally pressed the wrong button” — so either he is incapable of multitasking, or he is dishonest, just making choices for political expediency.

Aah. Thou hast hit it. What are the clues to his actions as nothing more than political expedience and opportunism:

A man who sits in a divisive and racist church for 20 years and lies about his knowledge of the contents of these sermons, then throws the church under the bus when it becomes politically critical for him to do so.

A man who is closely associated with the likes of the convicted criminal Tony Rezko, buys a house with his help, receives $250K in campaign contributions and allows Rezko’s slum holes to flourish in his State Senate district while likewise claiming ignorance — yet lies before the American people and says he barely knows the man and only did five hours of work for him years ago.

I will not even delve into his long working relationship with the man from the Weather Underground, ex-terrorist Bill Ayers, which he has likewise downplayed and/or denied.

This is a man with a questionable record on women’s rights, voting ‘present’ numerous times, who has also said “many pro-choice Democrats don’t understand that abortion is a wrenching moral issue.” Really? How insulting.

This is a Democrat who campaigns in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an “ex-gay” man “reformed through prayer.” I wonder to whom Senator Obama was pandering in that state?

This is a man who runs slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton only to flip flop on every position he originally took including: public financing, FISA, his positions of Iraq withdrawal, the Iran threat, Israel, NAFTA and more.

Senator Obama is a man who insults the Bill Clinton presidency, a time of peace and prosperity, while extolling virtues of the disastrous Reaganomics. He calls himself a Democrat?

Most devastating, Senator Obama is a man who, together with his campaign manager and surrogates advantage themselves at every opportunity by playing the race card unjustly.

Senator Obama is the product of splendid marketing. Nothing more …

Read all of Ani’s story, “A Response to Salon’s Story on PUMA: The Most Important Reason Clinton Voters Will Not Support Senator Obama.”

A FINAL NOTE: Your story uses the pronoun “they” over and over and over. Did you SPEAK WITH any of the “they” PUMAs? Did you call a single one? Did you exchange any e-mails with any of the major activists in the JustSayNoDeal.com and PUMA collaborative movements? In Number 11 of your story, you link to 5 sites, at least one of which is not part of the PUMA / JustSayNoDeal.com movement.

Journalism 101 requires direct contact with, and interviews of, the principals involved in these movements — none of which you did for your story.

And then I got this email from Cathy in Michigan:

Larry,

I was a big Hillary supporter, but I just don’t understand why the negative stuff about Obama is coming from Dem Hillary supporters:

#1) Obama is ten times better than McCain

#2 The GOP will and is playing the race card (come on you got to face reality)

#3) I still think Obama and Hillary should run together

So where are you coming from? Do you really want McCain to win?

Cathy B.
Lincoln Park, Michigan

Fair questions Cathy, so here’s my answer.

I prefer that neither win. McCain, by virtue of temperament and his decision to put neo-cons in key foreign policy positions in his campaign, worries me. I cannot support him. But compared to Obama, McCain comes across as King Solomon. McCain at least has a history of legislative accomplishment and has demonstrated he can work with the most progressive of Democrats (McCain/Feingold anyone?).

Obama? He has no significant legislative accomplishments. He has claimed credit for things he did not do, but he has not actually put together the coalitions that he talks about in his stump speeches. The man, attractive and articulate, is an empty suit and a lightweight.

The color of Barack’s skin is irrelevant to the question of his qualification. People should not vote for him or against him because he is black. Doing either is racist. Similarly, you should not vote for or against Hillary because she is a woman. Her sex is equally irrelevant. Character and competence ought to be the issue and on both Obama is found wanting.

Consider how he has distanced himself from the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, the Reverend James Meeks, and the Reverend Michael Pfleger. [PHOTO: Father Pfleger, Rev. Wright, and Barack Obama.] We know now that these gentlemen espouse the most vile racist and homophobic messages.

Barack now claims he knew nothing about the views of these men. That is bullshit! Here is what Barack told Cathleen Falsani about his religious buddies in a 2004 interview:

GG:
Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:
Well, my pastor is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.
I have a number of friends who are ministers. Reverend Meeks is a close friend and colleague of mine in the state Senate. Father Michael Pfleger is a dear friend, and somebody I interact with closely.

GG:
Those two will keep you on your toes.

OBAMA:
And theyr’e good friends. Because both of them are in the public eye, there are ways we can all reflect on what’s happening to each of us in ways that are useful.

I think they can help me, they can appreciate certain specific challenges that I go through as a public figure.

And do you remember when Barack had trouble remembering whether he had heard Wright damn America or say any of the other outrageous crap that he spewed? In fact, Wright denounced the United States in 2001 after the 9-11 attacks. Barack now says he doesn’t remember being at Church when Wright spoke those words. Well guess what? That is not what he told Falsani in 2004:

GG:
Do you still attend Trinity?

OBAMA:
Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.

Ever been there? Good service.

I actually wrote a book called Dreams from My Father, it’s kind of a meditation on race. There’s a whole chapter on the church in that, and my first visits to Trinity.

But it is not just on matters of faith that he lies and dissembles. As we have documented in this blog over the last two weeks he has changed his tune about his position on FISA, about public financing for presidential campaigns, and about NAFTA.

If Barack had simply taken time to chair a hearing on NATO’s role in Afghanistan or had traveled to Europe to fulfill his duties as chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee with responsibility for NATO then I would give him the benefit of the doubt that he was trying to prepare himself. But he did not? Why? His words, not mine–he was too busy running for President.

And when it comes to playing the race card, Barack displays the gift of chutzpah. He recently told that Congressional Black Caucus that Hillary Clinton folks spread the rumor that he was a muslim. According to the Telegraph:

He reminded the congressmen and women that he had held his tongue even when Clinton allies had falsely suggested he was a Muslim and when the candidate herself had said he was not ready to be commander-in-chief.

It was not Hillary or her supporters. If anything, it was Barack himself who opened the door to the questions about Islam. He told Falsani:

As I said, we moved to Indonesia. She remarried an Indonesian who wasn’t particularly, he wasn’t a practicing Muslim. I went to a Catholic school in a Muslim country. So I was studying the Bible and catechisms by day, and at night you’d hear the prayer call.

We now know this was a flat out lie. He went to a Muslim school where he learned to recite the Muslim call to prayer. Nicholas Kristoff noted back in March of 2007:

Sorry to give offense to Alabama, but the reality is that Obama’s Muslim connections — his Muslim grandfather, his childhood in Indonesia, his middle name (Hussein), and, yes, his ability to recite the call to prayer — will turn off many voters in red states.

At the CIA we called that “no Shit” analysis. It is Obama’s own comments that raised the issue of his status as a Muslim (or not). That was not Hillary or her supporters. It was Barack himself. Like Nick Kristoff, I could care less if Barack is or was a muslim (I take him at his word that he was not affiliated formally with any religion until he signed up on the Jeremiah Wright Hate Train). What bothers me is he refuses to fully admit that Islam was a part of his life when he lived in Indonesia. He learned the call to prayer but nothing else? Yeah, that is change you can believe in.

Let me close with a terrific video, originating from New England Cable News (NECN), featuring Darragh Murphy. It is worth your time.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Here is the main thing your article fails to take into account, and the main thing every single media outlet in this country likewise ignores: The number one reason we will not support Senator Obama for President is that he is not qualified for the job.

Surprised? Let’s examine this more closely.

This man has missed over 40% of his votes in the Senate. If one examines the votes he has missed, they actually are politically risky and require moral courage. So far, he has exhibited little.

He voted “present” 130 times in the Illinois State Legislature and voted “wrong” six times, i.e., he said “oops, I accidentally pressed the wrong button” — so either he is incapable of multitasking, or he is dishonest, just making choices for political expediency.

Aah. Thou hast hit it. What are the clues to his actions as nothing more than political expedience and opportunism:

A man who sits in a divisive and racist church for 20 years and lies about his knowledge of the contents of these sermons, then throws the church under the bus when it becomes politically critical for him to do so.

A man who is closely associated with the likes of the convicted criminal Tony Rezko, buys a house with his help, receives $250K in campaign contributions and allows Rezko’s slum holes to flourish in his State Senate district while likewise claiming ignorance — yet lies before the American people and says he barely knows the man and only did five hours of work for him years ago.

I will not even delve into his long working relationship with the man from the Weather Underground, ex-terrorist Bill Ayers, which he has likewise downplayed and/or denied.

This is a man with a questionable record on women’s rights, voting ‘present’ numerous times, who has also said “many pro-choice Democrats don’t understand that abortion is a wrenching moral issue.” Really? How insulting.

This is a Democrat who campaigns in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an “ex-gay” man “reformed through prayer.” I wonder to whom Senator Obama was pandering in that state?

This is a man who runs slightly to the left of Hillary Clinton only to flip flop on every position he originally took including: public financing, FISA, his positions of Iraq withdrawal, the Iran threat, Israel, NAFTA and more.

Senator Obama is a man who insults the Bill Clinton presidency, a time of peace and prosperity, while extolling virtues of the disastrous Reaganomics. He calls himself a Democrat?

Most devastating, Senator Obama is a man who, together with his campaign manager and surrogates advantage themselves at every opportunity by playing the race card unjustly.

Senator Obama is the product of splendid marketing. Nothing more. Even MoveOn.Org, naively endorsing him without vetting his true positions, is starting to turn on him — realizing that, they too, have served their purpose and are now going to be thrown under the bus as he must move to the center to shore up his flagging presidential bid, as his initial “American Idol” appeal is now waning.

So, please, do all of us ‘bitter’ voters a favor and stop mischaracterizing our motives. Some of us actually have principles and put our country before our party. We care deeply about America and about our fellow citizens of every background. We would like a person of solid character with a consistent record and sensible, coherent policies to lead our nation. Someone with a 35 year history of working for the rights of children, women, veterans’ benefits, first responders, health care and education. Someone who will take a tough stand on the issues and have the courage of his or her convictions.

For your information, I have just described Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

:::::::

See my previous story here, “An Open Letter to Vice President Gore.”

This means, of course, that we have to take creative marketing guru David Axelrod’s word for it that he really spoke those words in 2002. By the way, after that unreported speech — unremarkable because he uttered those words safely ensconced in a very liberal neighborhood of Chicago — Obama never lifted a finger or spoke out again on Iraq. That is, until it became politically useful for him to make a major production out of that single unreported, unrecorded speech.

Sadly, his followers haven’t reviewed the true history of that one speech, haven’t questioned the authenticity of its reproduction in a recording studio, and haven’t factored in that Obama didn’t make any further effort to aid the anti-Iraq-war movement, even when he joined the U.S. Senate — where his voting record is identical to Hillary Clinton’s, except that he voted FOR the ill-suited Gen. George Casey, while Hillary Clinton did not. BELOW — and it’s a must-read — I have quoted Joseph Wilson’s writings about his memories of those opposed to the Iraq War and Obama’s notable absence from any participation in lobbying against the war before and since joining the U.S. Senate.

View more of TravisTCleveland’s videos. Like this one:

Now, the must-read section from Joseph Wilson’s op-ed, republished here at No Quarter:

A number of us, like then Illinois state senator Obama, opposed the second Gulf War. My own opposition from the beginning has been well documented. I fought the fight in the arena itself, Washington DC, against a ruthless administration and its supporters while the senator’s opposition came from a far distance and carried no risk, given that he represented in Springfield, Illinois the district encompassing the University of Chicago. As an obscure but safe provincial political figure, he never was granted access to the distorted intelligence that was used to drive the Congress and the media. When I looked to the left or to the right for support, I never saw the state senator. In fact, I never heard of Barack Obama until he announced his intention to run for the Senate in the 2006 election.

After he came to Washington, Obama’s views were thoroughly conventional and even timid. In 2004, he said about the 2002 congressional Authorization for the Use of Military Force: “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don’t know.” On Iraq-related votes in the Senate, Obama’s record identically matches Senator Clinton’s–with the exception that Senator Clinton voted against the confirmation of General George Casey as Army chief of staff. Obama’s vote was typically passive.

In the run up to the war and thereafter, I was in frequent discussions with senior Democrats in Washington, including Senator Clinton, and I was keenly aware of her demand for the full exercise of international diplomacy and allowing the weapons inspectors to complete their mission. Many of the most prominent early opponents of the war, including former General Wes Clark and former ambassador to the United National Richard Holbrooke support Senator Clinton for President, as do I. We do so because we know that she has the experience and the judgment that comes from having been in the arena for her entire adult life–and from close personal participation with her in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. And we have trust in her to end the war in Iraq in the most responsible way, consistent with our national security interests. …

Read all of Ambassador Wilson’s “The Real Hillary I Know — and the Unreal Obama.”