SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: MJ who wrote (37619)8/3/2008 12:18:54 PM
From: Ann Corrigan  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 
Did you suspect the BO hecklers were a plant? Obama needs to soothe his supporters who are starting to salivate at the prospect of complete government control--they've become so over confident their retribution priorities are oozing through his well-orchestrated "hope and change" smokescreen.



To: MJ who wrote (37619)8/6/2008 1:12:07 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 224748
 
This new book — "The Case Against Barack Obama" is published by the same group that brought you "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry" — the book that defeated John Kerry in 2004.

Already the liberal media has condemned "The Case Against Barack Obama" because it could change the outcome of the election.

Make no doubt about it, Barack Obama is the media's darling, the fresh face of the Democratic ticket. But what does Barack Obama really stand for — and will his extreme liberal agenda and complete inexperience in global affairs endanger the country?

That's what David Freddoso, investigative reporter and National Review Online columnist, examines in "The Case Against Barack Obama."

Has any major candidate for president of the United States ever received less critical examination than Barack Obama? Who is this man, who was only elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004?

How did someone with his meager record of accomplishment become the Democratic nominee for president? How did someone with the most liberal voting record in the U.S. Senate and long-standing relationships with a former terrorist, a racist minister, and the corrupt operators of Chicago Machine politics end up as a supposed beacon of a newer, cleaner, bipartisan politics?

Investigative reporter David Freddoso has the answers. Doing the legwork that the mainstream media has neglected, applying a critical eye while the media swoons before the Obama-messiah, and posing the hard questions that Obama needs to answer, Freddoso reveals a politician as calculating as any other, a far-left Democrat who goes beyond "abortion rights" to supporting de facto infanticide, whose "new politics" amount to Chicago-style hardball overlain with lofty rhetoric, and who, from his positions of power, has helped his patrons.

In "The Case Against Barack Obama", you’ll learn:

How Obama’s friendship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was no accident, but a carefully thought-out personal and political decision
The inside story of Obama's association with terrorist Bill Ayers wouldn’t matter — an exposé of the insular radical chic of Chicago's Hyde Park politics
The real story of Obama as a puppet of Mayor Daley's corrupt Chicago political machine
What Obama really did for convicted developer Tony Rezko
Debunking the myth of Obama’s "new" politics: how Obama won his first election by throwing all of his competitors off the ballot
The new 'Dirty Politics': how underhanded politics sabotaged Obama's opponents in his 2004 Senate race
A story Obama would like to stay buried in Chicago: how he used his clout as a U.S. senator to save the corrupt Cook County Political Machine when reformers of both parties tried to challenge the entrenched political bosses
How Barack Obama opposed a bill banning infanticide-by-neglect — a stance too extreme even for Nancy Pelosi. (Freddoso has an exclusive interview with the nurse central to the case.)
Why the National Abortion Rights Action League says Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate they have ever backed
How Obama has repeatedly steered taxpayer money to campaign donors
And much, much more.
Sober, fair, and thoroughly researched — and all the more powerful and provocative because of it — "The Case Against Barack Obama" removes the halo from a man less qualified, and more radical, than the mainstream media has let you know.

Find out why electing this man as our Commander-in-Chief could be the most dangerous decision in American history.

David Freddoso covers Capitol Hill for National Review Online, and was previously a political reporter for the Evans-Novak Political Report and Human Events. A graduate of Notre Dame and the Columbia School of Journalism, he lives in Washington, D.C.



To: MJ who wrote (37619)8/7/2008 11:29:20 PM
From: Hope Praytochange  Respond to of 224748
 
Hillary Shadow Lengthens As Obama's Fades
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON | Posted Thursday, August 07, 2008 4:30 PM PT

Barack Obama and John McCain are running neck and neck. Impossible? It would seem so.

Republican President Bush still has less than a 30% approval rating. Headlines blare that unemployment and inflation are up — even if we aren't, technically, in a recession.

Gas is around $4 a gallon. Housing prices have nose-dived. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, has been indicted — another in a line of congressional Republicans caught in financial or sexual scandal.

Meanwhile, the GOP's pending nominee, John McCain, is 71 years old. The Republican base thinks he's bland and too liberal.

So everyone is puzzled why the Democratic candidate isn't at least 10 points ahead. It seems the more Americans get used to Barack Obama, the less they want him as president — and the more Democrats will regret not nominating Hillary Clinton.

First, Obama was billed as a post-racial healer. His half-African ancestry, exotic background and soothing rhetoric were supposed to have been novel and to have reassured the public he was no race-monger like Al Sharpton.

On the other hand, his 20-year career in the cauldron of Chicago racial politics also guaranteed to his liberal base that he wasn't just a moderate Colin Powell.

Yet within weeks of the first primary, the outraged Clintons were accusing Obama of playing the race card — and vice versa. Blacks soon were voting heavily against Hillary Clinton.

In turn, Hillary, the elite Ivy League progressive, turned into a blue-denim working gal — and won nearly all the final big-state Democratic primaries on the strength of working-class whites.

Americans also learned to their regret how exactly a Hawaiian-born Barack Obama — raised, in part, by his white grandparents and without African-American heritage — had managed to win credibility in what would become his legislative district in Chicago.

That discovery of racial chauvinism wasn't hard once his former associate, his pastor for over 20 years, the racist Rev. Jeremiah Wright, spewed his venom.

Obama himself didn't help things as he taught the nation that his dutiful grandmother was at times a small-minded bigot—no different from a "typical white person." And in an impromptu riff, Obama ridiculed small-town, working-class Pennsylvanians' supposed racial insularity.

The primary season ended with a narrow Obama victory — and a wounded, but supposedly wiser, Democratic candidate.

Not quite. Without evidence, he unwisely has claimed his opponents ("they") will play the race card against poor him. In contrast, on the hot-button issue of racial reparations, he played to cheering minorities by cryptically suggesting the government must "not just . . . offer words, but offer deeds." He later clarified he didn't mean cash grants, but his initial words were vague.

Second, many are beginning to notice how a St. Obama talks down to them. We American yokels can't speak French or Spanish. We eat too much. Our cars are too big, our houses either overheated or overcooled. And we don't put enough air in our car tires.

In contrast, a lean, hip Obama promises to still the rising seas and cool the planet, assuring adoring Germans that he is a citizen of the world.

Third, Obama knows that all doctrinaire liberals must tack rightward in the general election. But due to his inexperience, he's doing it in far clumsier fashion than any triangulating candidate in memory.

Do we know — does Obama even know? — what he really feels about drilling off our coasts, tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, NAFTA, faith-based initiatives, campaign financing, the FISA surveillance laws, town hall debates with McCain, Iran, the surge, timetables for Iraq pullouts, gun control or capital punishment?

Fourth, Obama is proving as inept an extemporaneous speaker as he is gifted with the teleprompter.

Like most rookie senators, in news conferences and interviews, he stumbles and makes serial gaffes — from the insignificant, like getting the number of states wrong, to the downright worrisome, such as calling for a shadow civilian aid bureaucracy to be funded like the Pentagon — which would mean $500 billion per annum.

If the polls are right, a public tired of Republicans is beginning to think an increasingly bothersome Obama would be no better — and maybe a lot worse.

It is one thing to suggest to voters they should shed their prejudices, eat less and be more cosmopolitan. It is quite another when the sermonizer himself too easily evokes race, weekly changes his mind and often sounds like he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

In a tough year like this, Democrats could probably have defeated Republican John McCain with a flawed, but seasoned, candidate like Hillary Clinton.

But long-suffering liberals persuaded their party to go with a messiah rather than a dependable nominee — and thereby they will probably get neither.

© 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.