Is there a criminal punishment for perpetrating a hate crime hoax?

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/01/new-ad-targeting-obama-features-connection-to-rev-wright/#comments

An independent group affiliated with McCain has just brought up Rezko and Ayers and Wright.
Given the current ire the country has towards Wall Street corporate executives, and the momentum Obama has in the polls, its time to unleash Keating 5. If struggling Americans weren't angry at McCain and the "Republicans" yet, they will after that.

McCain had his college education paid for because he was the son and grandson of Admirals.

Palin had her college education paid for because she was in a beauty pageant.



So who are the celebrities now?

Disclaimer: I don't currently have a link for McCain saying this, but its a central tenet of his campaign, so a link isn't absolutely necessary.

Pray tell, John, but which war are you talking about? Vietnam?

This is what Clark was talking about. He's never had commanding or executive experience in terms of a war. For that matter, neither has Obama.

Or Clinton.

Or Kerry.

Or Bush.

The only problem is that McBush and the current still president are the ones running on the ability to win wars.

Some good that has done us.

Leave it to the American Election system to draw out some of the most idiotic and incredible statements and images that politicians and their surrogates are capable of portraying. There was the Dukakis tank, and I'm sure McCain will be a source of ridiculous things here and there for the next few months.

However, I have to say something about what is, in my opinion, the most ridiculous and frankly moronic things I have ever heard.

Women posing as passionate Clinton supporters claiming that they have been disenfranchised, that they have been stripped of their right to vote.

In an interview, Bartoshevich expressed lingering unhappiness over the Democratic nominating process, said Clinton was treated unfairly by the party, and said she has deep reservations about Obama's lack of experience and his judgment.

"I'm kind of disenfranchised," she said. (emphasis added)

The irrational old lady at the DNC Rules meeting, I am sure is a McCain mole, so I won't spend more time on her.

As for this Bartoshevich character, I wonder who disenfranchised her? The Wisconsin Democratic Party? No, she did that to herself by publically supporting one of the most misogynistic candidates to run for President in our day.

But, I digress.

What is disenfranchisement, really?

My parents emigrated from the Republic of China on Taiwan. Not the Taiwan we all know today as a miracle of sensible economics and democracy (relatively). The Taiwan of Chiang Kai-shek, which was a brutal military regime that posed as a Republic and denied the right to vote to millions, including thousands of people who pre-dated the presence of the Kuomingtang on the island.

My girlfriend's parents were driven out of mainland China by the even more oppressive Peoples' Republic. Her mother was guilty of one egregious crime: being the infant daughter of parents who, during the Period of 100 Flowers, mildly suggested that China should adopt democratic reforms, including enfranchisement. My girlfriend's parents to this day have no idea what happened to her grandparents, although, since what followed 100 Flowers in China was the Anti-Rightist Movement, and later on, the Cultural Revolution, we can be pretty sure that they were executed.

Executed simply for expressing the desire for enfranchisement.

I know many ardent supporters of Hillary Clinton. All of them are still behind her in regards to her future, and all of them have points of disagreement with Obama that are legitimate. I trust and know that they will make the choice that honors their conscience in November.

But to those supposed Hillary "supporters", or anyone else, who choose the easy path of claiming to be disenfranchised when the truth is far from it, I just have one thing to say.



You do not want to know what its really like to be disenfranchised.

I'll make it clear: I despise Lou Dobbs. I despise his holier-than-thou attitude, his do-less-than-the-do-nothing-Congress record, his irrational hatred of anyone other than blue collar workers, and, most of all, his belief that blue collar workers are as myopic as he is.

This recent poll conducted by his CNN show took the cake.

He accuses Obama and McCain of remaining inextricably tied to lobbyists and PACs and special interests, and then puts the question to his viewers (a mostly biased audience for sure and hardly a scientific poll). 96% of his (biased) respondents believe that Obama and McCain won't rid themselves of lobbyist influence.

McCain, we all know, is a lobbyist chum.

But did Dobbs even see the news that Obama forced the DNC itself to reject lobbyist influence?