Israel is engaging in the very act President Bush and John McCain have recently lit into Barack Obama over-

From Haaretz:

Vice Premier Haim Ramon on Monday acknowledged that Israel was holding talks with Hamas

The GOP outrage will no doubt be deafening... in its silence. This needs to get to the Obama campaign and into the American press.

I try not to attack Hillary, because although I am not a Democrat, I don't feel that Obama benefits from political infighting, and if by some miracle Hillary did force the supers to award her the nomination against the will of the voters, I would still like to keep McCain out of office.

But with Pew reporting that Obama is losing ground among blue collar whites, and Hillary shamelessly pandering to gun owners and attacking Obama for being out of touch, I think this is fair game.

Here is the clip from O'Reilly's show: "Rich people- God bless us."

If this bothers you as a Democratic, Independent, or crossover-Republican voter, please recommend this, or if someone else has posted on it recommend that instead. This needs to get more publicity than it's currently receiving.

Blue collar whites need to see her disingenous pandering for what it is.

Who are the latest cheerleaders for Team Hillary?

 

Neocons who begged for the voluntary US invasion of Iraq: <a target="_blank" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/opinion/28kristol.html">Bill Kristol</a>, who I assume needs no introduction, and <a target="_blank" href="http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.27889,filter.all/pub_detail.asp">Michael Barone</a> (see <a target="_blank" href="http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/barone040802.asp">here</a> for some background).

 

When Bill Kristol and the <a target="_blank" href="http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1431.html">AEI</a> are carrying water for a Democrat's campaign, it is a clear sign that the candidate has strayed dangerously from the path of reason.

Obama isn't a perfect candidate, and he won't be a flawless President. On the defining issue of this election, however, he is the clear choice.

I was going to offer my own analysis on the Pennsylvania results and the road ahead, but I'd like to hear some of Hillary's supporters weigh in first. What should an unpledged super delegate or Obama supporter take away from Clinton's performance in Pennsylvania?

Let's keep the comments civil.

Rove contributes to the Right Wing Echo Chamber in calling Obama's comments "Marxian".

Via Think Progress, Rove on Fox News:

I don’t find a lot of people in rural America, I certainly don’t find the dominant view to be — “I’m so bitter that I’m going to hold on to my gun or I’m gonna” — You know, it was almost Marxian in this they cling to their religion. I mean, you know, it’s sort of like it’s the opiate of the masses.

Introduced by Kristol and echoed by Lieberman, it seems as though the Right is trying to maximize the very class-based divisiveness Obama's original comments attempted to address, with a healthy dose of McCarthyism thrown in for good measure.

Does this mean Obama is no longer a Black Radical Christian? Or crypto-Muslim?

English, psych and, poli-sci majors will no doubt be churning out some interesting papers on Obama's function as the Other throughout this election.

Ten common attacks on mainstream science:

# Claim that mainstream science is akin to a religion/ideology.
# Claim that there is an establishment (liberal/intellectual/poltitical) censoring and/or persecuting those that "dare to dissent".
# Claim that a vocal minority making claims outside of primary literature justifies the claim that a controversy exists.
# Deliberately equivocate on the meaning of scientific terminology (e.g. theory, hypothesis, etc.) to persuade lay persons that mainstream science hasn't "been proven".
# Present claims made outside the primary literature as equal to or more credible than studies in refereed journals, even claims made by politicians, or think tanks with clear ideological agendas.
# Present self-contradictory alternatives to/criticisms of the mainstream view without apparent realization or acknowledgment of their mutually exclusive nature.
# Present admissions to or criticisms of problematic aspects relating to the mainstream view that have since been resolved for years, decades, etc. as though they are still relevant/make reference to past instances of scientific failure without evidence of how the same could be occurring.
# Attack opinions and/or statements made outside the primary literature, even claims made by politicians, or organizations with clear ideological agendas as if this is equal to or more credible than publishing criticisms in refereed, respected journals.
# Attack areas of remaining study or uncertainty that may or may not even fall under the scope of the basic premise to give the appearance of discrediting the main tenets.
# Assume any gap or error as positive evidence for the opposing position with no illustration of it being such.

I'm trying to come up with something that fits the mold for Creationists, global warming deniers, 9/11 Truthers, vaccine-autism theorists, HIV-AIDS deniers, etc.

Thoughts and criticisms are very much appreciated.

I'm not seeing any credible follow up to this.

My gut feeling is that while Gore likely does view Hillary as divisive, he wouldn't involve himself this directly in the process prior to the nomination being settled. His comments are tantalizingly vague on this however. Less than two weeks ago he cryptically predicted that the race would be resolved before the nomination, but also dismissed the idea that he would back a particular candidate- which an intervention with Clinton now would surely be interpreted as.

I've no reason to discount their characterization of Carter as pro-Obama, though without Gore his opinion alone seems insufficient to persuade her to end her run. Moreover, Carter is a polarizing figure on the subject of Israel, Obama has already been attacked on that front numerous times, and conventional wisdom has Hillary as the stronger pro-Israel candidate. McCain's strong anti-Iran stance has endeared him to the religious right and Israeli Hawk crowd, but Clinton could make a case, certainly superficially so than Obama, that she is the candidate to best facilitate Israeli security.

Gore's involvement feels unlikely at this point. Carter's alone would be not only be more than likely ineffectual, but potentially damaging, depending on how it would be spun by McCain and Clinton.

Scotsman:  It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid

So far this is the only source I've seen carrying the story and it seems pretty thin. More as this develops, or fails to as the case may be...

I noted previously that Paul Geraghty at NRO had uncovered a breaking scandal involving an inappropriate earmark by Senator Obama for University of Chicago hospital where his wife is a vice president (and was bribed with a raise so extravagant it rocketed her salary all the way up to other vice presidents' working there, thereby ensuring Barack would throw taxpayers' money the hospital's way). And true to shady Chicago politician form, Obama earmarked $1 million (of $770 million in requests) for a proposed pavillion for the hospital. Quips Geraghty:

Looks like that raise was worth it.

What NRO failed to report was that Ms. Obama's salary was apparently lower after the earmark request, which would seem to drive a stake through the heart of the alleged scandal.

However, it seems as though Senator Obama was unsuccessful in procuring the earmark- it died in the Senate. Clearly then, Ms. Obama's salary decrease was retribution by the hospital plutocracy for her husband's failure to deliver the goods.

Although the Obama campaign and University of Chicago Medical Center officials deny any link between the requested earmark and Ms. Obama's employment, citing Mr. Obama's requests for other area hospitals as evidence against any sort of favoritism, I have no doubt that NRO mastersleuth Paul Geraghty will expose this as part of yet a larger corruption conspiracy.

Good hunting, Mr. Geraghty. This election needs bloodhounds like you keeping America focused on the issues that truly matter.

With the release of Senator Obama's earmarks from 2005 and 2006, hasty scrambling for evidence of corruption comes as no surprise. NRO spared what appears to waste not a moment's hesitation (or thought) before jumping on one such "gotcha" item. Jim Geraghty at NRO writes:

As Byron noted, "In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that Mrs. Obama’s compensation at the University of Chicago Hospital, where she is a vice president for community affairs, jumped from $121,910 in 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, to $316,962 in 2005, just after he took office."

Looks like that raise was worth it.

In 2006 Michelle Obama's salary was only $273,618. Following NRO's logic, are we to presume that Ms. Obama was rewarded by the hospital for successfully procuring the earmark with a pay cut?