Not unlike a naughty child who just threw a water balloon at teacher and doesn’t want to get caught.

First we have the Obama Presidential Seal – i.e., Obama as Übermentsch. This blue hellaciousness was a grotesque lift of the real Presidential seal even though he is only the presumptuous nominee. Remember, he hasn’t yet ‘arrived’ at the Convention. How arrogant and how sad. To think he needs to stand behind a symbol like this to make himself “look” more presidential. You know, sort of like subliminal advertising in commercials and/or the ‘Vulcan mind-meld.’

Gee, Senator, how about doing your job once in a while? You know, like holding even one subcommittee meeting on Afghanistan these past 18 months, you know, since, umm, you are, like, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on European Affairs. That might be kinda presidential. And our troops and our citizens might really appreciate it. (more…)

There is discussion that by moving the Democratic National headquarters to Chicago, he is not only increasing revenue for these characters, he is setting up Chicago as a site for the Olympics. Knowing Obama’s associations in the Windy City suggests that this move is not altruistic.

Now we are hearing that Obama will once again break with tradition during the Democratic National Convention to give his acceptance speech at a huge rally in the stadium of the Denver Broncos, known as Invesco Field. (See NewHampster’s post for some financial information on Invesco.)

The New York Times describes it this way: (more…)

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.

(more…)

That is why the Obama campaign is trying so hard to tie McCain to Bush — it’s the maverick thing. If Clinton voters see that McCain can be “worked with” they might jump to him rather than hang with a nominee who has so offended them for the past several months.

Obama advisors are confident the Clinton supporters’ flirtation with candidate McCain will wane and they will vote Democratic in the fall.

Polls do not necessarily bear this out, however. (more…)

You especially can’t rewrite what you originally said to make yourself again palatable to Democratic voters who are furious with 1) your expressed admiration for Ronald Reagan and 2) with your specious claim that the GOP has been the “party of ideas” for the last 10 to 15 years.

What he said tonight: Barack Obama lied in the CNN debate tonight. He told Hillary Clinton, in a heated exchange (I backed up my DVR and typed each word):

You just said I complimented the Republican ideas. That is not true. That isn’t what I said, and I will provide you with a quote, what I said was is that [sic] Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to because while I was working on those streets, watchin’ those folks …

What he really said: Here is exactly what Barack Obama told the conservative editorial board of the Reno Gazette, via Matt Stoller at Open Left — who provides both the video and a transcript:

I don’t want to present myself as some sort of singular figure. I think part of what’s different are the times. I do think that for example the 1980 was different. I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn’t much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.

DO YOU SEE ANYWHERE IN THAT ORIGINAL TRANSCRIPT that, as Barack claims tonight, he said that Reagan “was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests”? No. Because he never said that until TONIGHT.

Here’s Paul Krugman’s take, and the kicker line is bold-faced. From “Debunking the Reagan Myth,” Paul Krugman, New York Times, January 21, 2008:

… [T]he furor over Barack Obama’s praise for Ronald Reagan is not, as some think, overblown. The fact is that how we talk about the Reagan era still matters immensely for American politics.

Bill Clinton knew that in 1991, when he began his presidential campaign. “The Reagan-Bush years,” he declared, “have exalted private gain over public obligation, special interests over the common good, wealth and fame over work and family. The 1980s ushered in a Gilded Age of greed and selfishness, of irresponsibility and excess, and of neglect.”

Contrast that with Mr. Obama’s recent statement, in an interview with a Nevada newspaper, that Reagan offered a “sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing.”

[HERE’s THE PUNCH LINE.] Maybe Mr. Obama was, as his supporters insist, simply praising Reagan’s political skills. (I think he was trying to curry favor with a conservative editorial board, which did in fact endorse him.) But where in his remarks was the clear declaration that Reaganomics failed?

Exactly. (more…)

Today’s San Francisco Chronicle has a must-read story, “Edwards still has a role in nominating process,” which begins with a contrast between the latte-elite crowd that Barack Obama attracts with the budgeting middle- and lower-class Americans that John Edwards attracts:

On a sunny weekend day in front of San Francisco’s Ferry Building, volunteers at the Barack Obama for president table were selling an inch-thick booklet explaining Obama’s policy positions for $5. A few feet away, volunteers supporting John Edwards were handing out campaign flyers - that they made and paid for themselves.

(more…)

Mr. Obama, get over your iconic view of Ronald Reagan’s message: Reagan was a racially divisive and socially regressive president. From the New York Times editorial page on March 21, 1988:

Ronald Reagan appears determined to go down in history as a President who sought actively to set back the cause of civil rights. How else can one read his veto of the four-year, bipartisan effort to restore the reach of antidiscrimination laws narrowed by a Supreme Court ruling? Congress appears to have the votes to override the veto. Decency argues for doing so, without delay. […]

The Administration has consistently pursued a disruptive policy on civil rights, from its attempt to give tax exemptions to racially discriminatory Bob Jones University to its efforts to weaken the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. …

Yes, President Ronald Reagan fought the IRS denial of tax exemption to the racist Bob Jones University. President Reagan also:

• introduced an amendment to the Voting Rights Act would require evidence of intent to discriminate and thus weaken the act;
• expressed concern over the cost of honoring Martin Luther King with a national holiday (but signed the law because Congress seemed “bent” on it);
• launched his 1980 election campaign with endorsements of “states rights” in Philadelphia, Mississippi, a city famous for the murder of three civil rights workers; and
• joined Barry Goldwater in opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And what about President Bill Clinton, whose two terms in 1990s you disparage and discount? (more…)

Two more videos, including the above, have emerged from Sen. Barack Obama’s interview with the rightwing editorial board of the Reno Gazette-Journal which later endorsed him (small wonder). [EDITOR’S NOTE/Correction: It is the Las Vegas Gazette-Journal that is conservative, according to MyDD. But it’s a small point in that Obama’s words stand, as do John Edwards’ words below.]

It’s not just more evidence that Obama was willing to say whatever it took to get the conservative editorial board to endorse him. It’s worse. It’s much worse.

It is further evidence that not only does Obama have no sense of the history of the last half of the 20th century — wait until you see the video below the fold — but also that he really is as conservative as his weak health care plan and far weaker economic stimulus plan have hinted. (Then there’s his use of GOP scare-tactic talking points on Social Security, and how he has been embraced by the right — including George Will who last year compared Obama to Ronald Reagan [See “Obama Channels Reagan II.”] .)

Paul Krugman is clearly dumbfounded, as am I. Here is the entirety of Krugman’s New York Times blog post today at 3:41 pm:

Reagan and Obama

Read Rick Perlstein. Rick is our premier historian of the rise of modern movement conservatism, and knows whereof he speaks.

What does Perlstein say?

(more…)