Net the Truth Online

Huckabee Obama Ducked Gun Nixes VP to McCain?

2008-05-17T05:26:00.000-07:00

You'd think it would, but who knows...

Huckabee jokes about Obama ducking a gunman
Posted: 08:28 PM ET

From CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/16/huckabee-jokes-about-obama-ducking-a-gunman/

UN Investigation US Racism Exludes WV PA Primary

2008-05-17T05:09:00.000-07:00

So why ignore West Virginia during the United Nations investigation? After all, respondents in exit polls admitted "race" played a role in how they voted! Some 22 percent admitted the race of Democratic candidate Barack Obama factored into their decision to instead vote for Hillary Clinton.

Since most voters aren't so forthcoming about such personal preference add in double the amount or more who didn't have the guts to admit the role race played.

That puts the amount at closer to the 61 percent Hillary Clinton claimed as her prize West Virginia win.

The United Nations investigation of racism in the United States will be meaningless without analyzing the West Virginia Primary Election.

What a sham, and a shame.

EXIT POLLS: The Race Factor in West Virginia
One-Third of Whites Citing Race in Vote Would Support Obama Over McCain
ANALYSIS By GARY LANGER
May 13, 2008

The Race Factor
Racially motivated voting ran somewhat higher than elsewhere: Two in 10 whites said the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote, second only to Mississippi. Just 31 percent of those voters said they'd support Obama against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain, fewer than in other primaries where the question's been asked.

Indeed, as noted, among all West Virginia primary voters, only 49 percent said they would support Obama vs. McCain, far fewer than elsewhere and one of many signs of antipathy toward Obama in the state.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Politics/story?id=4844868&page=1

And don't forget Pennsylvania, either.

Any investigation of racism in the United States that ignores the exit polling results from those two states is not worth anyone's time.

Net the Truth Online

U.N. racism investigator to visit U.S. from Monday
Fri May 16, 2008 2:48pm EDT
By Stephanie Nebehay

GENEVA (Reuters) - A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The United Nations said Doudou Diene would meet federal and local officials, as well as lawmakers and judicial authorities during the May 19-June 6 visit.

...His three-week visit, at U.S. government invitation, will cover eight cities -- Washington D.C., New York, Chicago, Omaha, Los Angeles, New Orleans, Miami and San Juan, Puerto Rico.

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country's first African American president.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSL1684309820080516?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Clinton Dismisses Race Factor in West Virginia Primary
Democratic Contender Argues She's More Electable Than Obama Against McCain
By JENNIFER PARKER
May 14, 2008
A day after her landslide primary victory in West Virginia, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., dismissed exit poll results that suggest some of her supporters are voting against Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., because he's black...

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Politics/story?id=4854411&page=1

Clinton Wins Big in West Virginia Primary, Solidly Defeating Sen. Barack Obama
Clinton Wins White, Southern State as Obama Looks Toward General Election
By JENNIFER PARKER
May 14, 2008

...And, racially motivated voting appears to be running higher than usual, preliminary exit poll results suggest, with two in 10 white voters saying the race of the candidate was a factor in their vote. About 66 percent of those voters said they wouldn't support Obama in the general election against presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4846784&page=1

April 23, 2008, 3:52 pm
The Race Factor in Pa. Primary
By Katharine Q. Seelye

Updated Although 19 percent of voters in Pennsylvania said that race played an important role in how they voted, Gov. Ed Rendell, who was Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief architect in the state, says it did not appear to be “much” of a factor.
Mr. Rendell got into some hot water back in February when he said of the Pennsylvania primary: “You’ve got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”
Now, exit polls from yesterday’s primary appear to confirm that view. The polls, conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the five television networks and The Associated Press, asked voters if the race of the candidate was important: 19 percent said yes, while 80 percent said no.
Of those who said yes, 59 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 41 percent voted for Senator Barack Obama.
Of those who said no, 53 percent voted for Mrs. Clinton and 47 percent voted for Mr. Obama.
Broken down by race, 13 percent of whites said race was important to them, and 75 percent of those voters sided with Mrs. Clinton. Of the 66 percent of whites who said race was not important to them, 58 percent voted for her.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/the-race-factor-in-pa-primary/

John McCain Promises Weekly Q & A Sessions

2008-05-16T14:48:00.000-07:00

Not with the public, folks. With Congress... Should he become President, which is becoming more unlikely in the aftermath of his support of Bush's appeasement comment, John McCain promised a British House of Lords style question and answer session with Congress. Every week?

Right, the hot-tempered maverick will face opponents in Congress who oppose his positions on domestic and foreign affairs who really won't try at all to get his goat...

First question: Is HAMAS on your no-talk to list?

Second question: How many times did you use your wife's company jet to floop around the United States during your Primary campaign and how many lobbyists who were involved in your campaign will be involved in your Cabinet?

Net the Truth Online

McCain urges UK-style sessions for U.S. president
Thu May 15, 2008 8:04am EDT

Republican presidential candidate John McCain said on Thursday that, if elected, he would like to take a page from the British government and appear in question-and-answer sessions with lawmakers.

"I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the prime minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons," McCain said in excerpts of a speech he is to deliver later in Columbus, Ohio.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1517615720080515?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&rpc=22&sp=true

Bush spokesperson Says Obama Was Meant in Statement

2008-05-16T14:19:00.000-07:00

White House officials traveling with George Bush told reporters Bush's spokesperson relayed to them the paragraph in President Bush's speech did include Barack Obama among the unnamed. While no names were mentioned, Bush referenced "some" who would engage in false comfort of appeasement...

The confirmation came during CNN's The Situation Room Wolf Blitzer's interview with Mitt Romney...

Net the Truth Online

SITUATION ROOM
Obama Responds to Bush, McCain; McCain on Hamas Stance; Interview With Mitt Romney
Aired May 16, 2008 - 16:00 ET
BLITZER: The reason the president's comments at the Knesset yesterday were seen as being directed at Senator Obama and other Democrats is because White House officials traveling with the president told that to reporters after they spotted that paragraph in the speech. So it wasn't as if, Governor, this was something that just the Barack Obama campaign came up with. The news media traveling with the president, they were specifically making that connection.

ROMNEY: Well, I wasn't with the White House press corps there, so I can't comment on that. I can tell you that the comment by the president that we should not have direct discussions -- we should not have negotiations, rather, with terrorists, that's something which has been said time and time again. I think it's entirely spun (ph) up. And the real difference between John McCain and Barack Obama, both of them want to make sure that we have discussions and we talk with the bad actors in the world, but John McCain says no way would he sit down on his first year in office on an unconditional basis with people like Ahmadinejad and Assad.

And that's a big difference. And Barack Obama is going to talk about this a great deal, but, you know, he's the one that said he'll meet with them unconditionally. That's a wrong way to go, and I think it shows a level of naivete that Americans recognize is not right in a commander in chief.

BLITZER: There is a videotape that came out today by Jamie Rubin, who's a Clinton adviser. He used to work for Sky Television in London. He interviewed in Davos, Switzerland, John McCain a few years ago, right after -- a couple of years after Hamas won the Palestinian elections, and in that interview McCain said, "They're the government" -- referring to Hamas -- "sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them."

It seemed, at least the excerpt that was released today, it seemed to suggest that John McCain himself is ready to deal with "terrorists."...

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0805/16/sitroom.01.html

Bush sees calls for Iran talks as "appeasement"

Thu May 15, 2008

...Bush used his speech to ratchet up his rhetoric against Iran, saying Washington stood by Israel in opposing what he called Tehran's "nuclear weapons ambitions".

Bush's words also had implications for the U.S. presidential campaign, which has increasingly overshadowed him in his final year in office as the Democratic candidates have sharpened their criticism of his foreign policy.

Bush, who has refused any contact with Ahmadinejad, said the Iranian president "dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map", and lumped him together in an anti-Israel camp with Hamas, Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden.

"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history," he added.

Ahmadinejad has come under international criticism for saying that Israel should be "wiped off the map" and has questioned whether the Nazi Holocaust that killed 6 million Jews actually took place.

Iran also backs Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel's destruction...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUKN1524290920080515

Ed Henry being interviewed on CNN on the situation that unfolded today.

Top article includes transcript excerpt

Now we're wondering why Pat Buchanan, appearing on MSNBC's Morning Joe, where Joe is blissfully for us absent, was not asked a single question about Bush's statement, since ABC had already reported on it earlier, let's see just how early...

8:42 AM

By Michael Abramowitz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 15, 2008; 8:42 AM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051500733.html?hpid=moreheadlines

Because after all, look what Buchanan wrote back in August, 2006...

August 5, 2006
On Talking With Terrorists
by Patrick J. Buchanan

With the second Intifada and rise to power of Ariel Sharon, Israel abandoned Oslo and land-for-peace. We will never again negotiate with Arafat, said Sharon, because Israel does not negotiate with terrorists.

Two Israeli prime ministers, Rabin and Peres, had shared a Nobel Prize with Arafat. A third, "Bibi" Netanyahu, had handed over Hebron to Arafat. A fourth, Ehud Barak, had offered Arafat 95 percent of the West Bank and a capital in Jerusalem. Yet, Sharon not only made his policy stick, he got George W. Bush to sign on to it.

Where Arafat had been to the Clinton White House more times than Bob Dole, he was blackballed by the Bush White House.

Sharon's distaste of Arafat was visceral and real. He would not shake hands with him. But it was also politically astute. As security analyst Michael Vlahos has written, nations often declare adversaries "terrorists" to delegitimize them and absolve themselves of any obligation to talk peace with them. They fall back on the time-tested formula: "We do not negotiate with terrorists!"

And it is surely true that Arafat's Fatah, as well as his PLO, had committed acts of terror: the killing of the innocent for political ends, not only Israelis but U.S. diplomats. Yet, Sharon, in 1953, led a force called Unit 101 into the West Bank village of Kibya to avenge the Arab slaying of an Israeli woman and her children. Sixty-nine Palestinians were massacred, mostly women and children, as their homes were dynamited. Sharon was also the army commander when the IDF let the Phalangists into Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps, and fired flares to light the night so the killers could get on with their work.

What of us Americans? Do we negotiate with terrorists?...

...Which brings me to the point. America is a world power with a broader interest in the Middle East than Israel's, and if we are to protect those interests and play the role history has assigned us, we cannot allow any nation to exercise veto power over whom we talk to. While most Americans wish to maintain our commitment to the security and survival of Israel, we must declare our political and diplomatic independence of Israel, as Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan all did.

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9480

Bush equates talking to terrorists with appeasing Nazis
President Bush just made some interesting remarks about terrorism, going so far as to describe negotiating with terrorist groups as a "foolish delusion" akin to the appeasement that failed to stop Nazi Germany from invading its European neighbors.

Bush didn't explicitly criticize Sen. Barack Obama, but CNN says anonymous White House aides "are acknowledging" that the president was referring to the Democratic presidential hopeful, who has said he would be willing to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Click "Read more" for an excerpt from the president's speech before the Knesset in Jerusalem.

Update at 8:47 a.m. ET: The Obama campaign is none too happy about the president's comments.

"This is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs says on CNN. "It's, quite frankly, sad and astonishing that the president of the United States would politicize the 60th anniversary of Israel with a false political attack."

Gibbs goes on to criticize what he describes as "cowboy diplomacy."

Update at 8:54 a.m. ET: We just received a statement from Obama.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/05/bush-equates-ta.html

Obama says Bush falsely accuses him of appeasement
May 15, 9:37 AM (ET)
By LIZ SIDOTI

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080515/D90M3QM80.html

From CNN White House Correspondent Ed Henry

Bush aides say the President was aiming his remarks at Obama and other Democrats.
JERUSALEM (CNN) – In a particularly sharp blast from halfway around the world, President Bush suggested Thursday that Sen. Barack Obama and other Democrats are in favor of "appeasement" of terrorists in the same way U.S. leaders appeased Nazis in the run-up to World War II.

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along," said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. "As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

The remarks seemed to be a not-so-subtle attempt to continue to raise doubts about Obama with Jewish-Americans. Those doubts were already stoked by Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, when he recently charged that Obama is the favored candidate of the terror group Hamas.

“Obviously this is an unprecedented political attack on foreign soil,” Obama Communications Director Robert Gibbs told CNN’s John Roberts on American Morning Thursday, adding that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates had been quoted Wednesday making remarks about dialogue with Iran that were similar to the Illinois senator's.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/15/bush-suggests-obama-wants-appeasement-of-terrorists/

Bush: Talking to Hamas like talking to Nazis before WWII

In a speech before the Knesset, Bush compared calls to talk with unnamed terrorist groups as a "foolish delusion" that was suggested before World War II.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided,' " Bush said. "We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

Former President Jimmy Carter recently wrapped up a trip to the Middle East, which included talks with leaders of Hamas -- an Islamic militant group that controls the Palestinian territory of Gaza.

Carter hoped to persuade Hamas to negotiate with Israel in an attempt to reach a broader Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.

Hamas has not been included in peace talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders, under President Mahmoud Abbas, who control the West Bank. Israel and the United States refuse to negotiate with Hamas until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/bush.mideast/

Hamas Hysteria
Thursday, May. 15, 2008 By JOE KLEIN
How to deal with groups like Hamas should be an important debate in the coming U.S. election, but it won't be. It was taken off the table in the past few weeks. First, John McCain allowed his campaign to spread the word that Barack Obama had been "endorsed" by a leader of Hamas. That will be one of McCain's main lines of attack: Obama is soft on terrorism. He wants to negotiate with Iran. He has advisers like Zbigniew Brzezinski who have been "anti-Israel" in the past; the wantonly accommodating spirit of Jimmy Carter looms heavy over Obama's candidacy. Such accusations subtly reinforce the most scurrilous smears circulating about Obama — that he's a Muslim Manchurian Candidate, a secret agent sent to do us in.

Obama responded quickly and definitively to McCain's attack. He told Jeffrey Goldberg of the Atlantic, "I've repeatedly condemned [Hamas]. I've repeatedly said ... since [Hamas] is a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and abide by previous agreements." To reinforce this message, Obama dropped Robert Malley of the International Crisis Group (ICG) from his list of advisers.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1790973,00.html

Bush marks Israel's anniversary

http://video.aol.com/video-detail/bush-marks-israels-anniversary/2712060946

McCain Falls on own Wrong Words

2008-05-16T13:55:00.001-07:00

McCain: "Hysterical"
We'll do one more post on this Bush-McCain-Obama battle over Israel/Iraq/Iran/Hamas/Nazi-appeasement because it's one of the first extended exchanges of the campaign, and it sets down some markers.

McCain responds to Obama's remarks in two parts. The first is an e-mail (see full text after the jump) that begins, “It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned."

You can watch Obama in the item below. It doesn't even get close to the zone of a "hysterical diatribe." Perhaps the McCain campaign hopes to invent a fictional Obama by misdescribing his behavior, but it might be better to get some credibility with the press by showing some restraint and fidelity to observable facts.

It also says Obama doesn't understand that the US has enemies. Talking to our enemies like Iran is an actual issue on which McCain and Obama disagree, but how does the McCain press shop get to the point of claiming that Obama doesn't understand that America has enemies? When has he ever said Iran and North Korea aren't enemies?

http://weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/05/mccain_hysterical.html

McCain campaign responds: 'Hysterical diatribe'
politico.com ^ | 05/16/08 | bensmith

Posted on Friday, May 16, 2008 3:13:37 PM by TornadoAlley3

From McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds:

It was remarkable to see Barack Obama’s hysterical diatribe in response to a speech in which his name wasn’t even mentioned.

These are serious issues that deserve a serious debate, not the same tired partisan rants we heard today from Senator Obama. Senator Obama has pledged to unconditionally meet with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- who pledges to wipe Israel off the map, denies the Holocaust, sponsors terrorists, arms America’s enemies in Iraq and pursues nuclear weapons. What would Senator Obama talk about with such a man? It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don’t have enemies.

But that is not the world we live in, and until Senator Obama understands that, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.

Oddly, McCain's response also contained the claim he'd distorted Defense Secretary Robert Gates' willingness to meet the leaders of Iran, but didn't contest Obama's point that McCain had suggested meeting with Hamas.

UPDATE: Cancel that. The McCain campaign sends over video of a second 2006 interview from the same day in Davos in which, unlike in his interview with Jamie Rubin, McCain suggests that aid and the peace process can only "resume" when Hamas agrees to "renounce" their commitment to the state of Israel.

That's a different tone, though it doesn't really contradict the the first interview, in which McCain was asked directly about American diplomats meeting with Hamas, and seemed to answer in the affirmative.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0508/McCain_campaign_responds_Hysterical_diatribe.html

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2017001/posts

John McCain Connection Charlie Black Connection to Hillary Clinton's Penn

2008-05-16T13:38:00.000-07:00

It's all leaning in John McCain's corner... and it's very interesting...

and then, it's leaning in Hillary Clinton's corner and it's very

revealing...

Any bets the mainstream media will simply ignore a connection like this?

Search results

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=john+mccain+charlie+black&btnG=Google+Search

Mark Penn's lobbying shop is headed by John McCain's top adviser
by JedReport
Sun Feb 24, 2008 at 08:14:08 PM PDT

...Hillary Clinton's chief strategist is Mark Penn, and Charlie Black, John McCain's top adviser, is chairman of BKSH, the DC-based lobbying subsidiary of Burson-Marsteller -- of which Mark Penn is CEO.

Yes, this is the same lobbyist Barack Obama was referring to when he criticized John McCain for allowing lobbyists to conduct their business on board his bus.

BKSH is a bipartisan lobbying firm. Black, the chairman is the top Republican. The top Democrat is R. Scott Pastrick, who like Penn, supports Hillary Clinton.

Mark Penn's personal interests would clearly be best served by a Hillary Clinton victory.

A McCain presidency wouldn't be a bad consolation prize, however. It would be far better to have the head of his lobbying be tight with the president than to have a president like Obama who sought to impose new restrictions on his lobbyist operation.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/24/14518/2213/544/463202

don't miss this interview

http://www.buyingofthepresident.org/index.php/interviews/charles_h_black_jr/

Obama within sight untouchable absolute majority delegates

2008-05-16T13:33:00.000-07:00

According to Obama campaign email and website.

Barack Obama is just 17 elected delegates away from a majority...

At the start of this race, there were 3253 elected delegates at stake in primaries and caucuses across the country. After winning 32 of 49 contests, Barack is within reach of an absolute majority.

We believe that the winner of the majority of elected, pledged delegates should and will be the Democratic nominee.

Site Math

Total Pledged Delegates: 3,253

Pledged Delegates needed for a majority of pledged delegates: 1,627

Total delegates needed for nomination: 2,025

Edwards Pledged Delegates who are now Obama Delegates:7

Obama Pledged Delegates:1,603

Obama Super Delegates: 293.5

Obama Total Delegates:1,903.5

Delegates Obama needs for a majority of pledged delegates: 17

Obama need to secure the Democratic nomination: 121.5

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGBfLR

USA Today: McCain Connected Arizona Land Developer Fed Purchase

2008-05-16T13:29:00.001-07:00

Let's see if the mainstream media picks up on this piece after some of the appeasement controversy dies down for the evening, at least.

USA TODAY -- Action by McCain helped Ariz. land developer: "Sen. John McCain secured millions in federal funds for a land acquisition program that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer whose executives were major campaign donors, public records show. ... McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said the senator's ties to SunCor had nothing to do with his support for the project. The Air Force had a legitimate need for the land and asked for money to buy it in a March 2002 budget planning document, Rogers said in an e-mail."

Update at 10:15 a.m. ET. The McCain campaign objects:

"This story is absurd," McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers says in a statement he just e-mailed to reporters. "This project was requested by the Air Force and supported by virtually everyone in Arizona -- Democrats and Republicans, Governor Napolitano, the entire Congressional delegation and scores of local leaders -- but that's not even mentioned in this story. It's shameful."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/whats-new-10.html

James Rubin: McCain Hypocrisy on Hamas

2008-05-16T13:05:00.000-07:00

We've found both sides...

Net the Truth Online

Hypocrisy on Hamas
McCain Was for Talking Before He Was Against It
By James P. Rubin
Friday, May 16, 2008; Page A19

If the recent exchanges between President Bush, Barack Obama and John McCain on Hamas and terrorism are a preview of the general election, we are in for an ugly six months. Despite his reputation in the media as a charming maverick, McCain has shown that he is also happy to use Nixon-style dirty campaign tactics. By charging recently that Hamas is rooting for an Obama victory, McCain tried to use guilt by association to suggest that Obama is weak on national security and won't stand up to terrorist organizations, or that, as Richard Nixon might have put it, Obama is soft on Israel.

President Bush picked up this theme yesterday. Without naming Obama during his speech last night to Israel's Knesset, Bush suggested that Democrats want to "negotiate with terrorists" while Republicans want to fight terrorists.

The Obama campaign was right to criticize the president for his remarks and for engaging in partisan politics while overseas. Many presidents have said things abroad that could be construed as violating this unwritten rule of American politics. But it is hard to remember any president abusing the prestige of his office in as crude a way as Bush did yesterday. Charging your opponents with appeasement and likening them to Neville Chamberlain in the Knesset is a brutal blow. It is bad enough that Republicans use the politics of personal destruction here at home, but to deploy that kind of political weapon at an occasion as solemn as an American president addressing the parliament of a friendly government marks a new low.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Rubin Accuses McCain of Hypocrisy
This morning, James P. Rubin, an adjunct professor at Columbia University's School of International Affairs who was formerly the State Department's chief spokesman during the Clinton administration, penned an Op-Ed in The Washington Post recalling an interview he did with Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain two years ago, in which McCain took a position with regard to doing business with Hamas that Rubin says makes his present attacks on Democratic Sen. Barack Obama's Middle East policy positions hypocritical.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/16/rubin_accuses_mccain_of_hypocr.html

McCain camp denies he 'flip-flopped' on Hamas

John McCain's campaign said Friday that claims by a former State Department official that McCain had advocated unconditional dialogue with the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas were misleading.

James P. Rubin said on CNN Friday that McCain had told him during a 2006 interview that the United States would inevitably have to deal with Hamas. Rubin said criticism now of similar statements by Democrats was "the ultimate flip-flop in American politics."

The McCain campaign said Friday that his position had remained consistent: no dialogue with rogue or suspected terrorist nations or parties without pre-conditions...

On CNN's "American Morning" Friday, Rubin -- a former assistant secretary of state in the Clinton administration and a supporter of Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign -- said McCain's criticism of Obama's position was hypocritical. Watch Rubin accuse McCain of flip-flopping

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/16/mccain.hamas/index.html

USA Today blog
What's new: Was McCain's view of Hamas different in 2006?

James Rubin in The Washington Post -- McCain was in favor of talking to Hamas before he was against it: Writing on the Post's op-ed page today, former Clinton administration State Department spokesman (and current Hillary Rodham Clinton supporter) James Rubin says that when he interviewed Republican presidential contender John McCain two years ago, the Arizona senator was in favor of dealing with Hamas. "They're the (Palestinian) government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them," McCain told Rubin at the time. More recently, Rubin writes, McCain and his aides have been using a comment made by a Hamas spokesman to suggest that the group is "rooting for an Obama victory."

Related video at the liberal Huffington Post -- Rubin's interview with McCain.

Update at 2:15 p.m. ET. Another McCain video that puts things in a different light?

At the conservative Weekly Standard, Michael Goldfarb has posted video from another interview McCain appears to have done on the same day in 2006. In it, McCain talks about what he believes Hamas would need to do before "we can do business again" in Palestine. Most notably, McCain says Hamas would need to renounce its commitment to "the extinction of the state of Israel."

http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/05/whats-new-10.html

McCain’s Hamas comments, context restored Update: Video context added

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/16/mccains-hamas-comments-context-restored/

James Rubin: Lying, inept hack
by Beth C. — published on May 16th, 2008
While I was at TPM earlier reading the Greg Sargent piece on the McCain blogger call, I noticed the Left is pushing yet another blatant lie - that McCain wanted to have a dialogue with Hamas. Haha. As if.

Thankfully, I don’t have to tear that lie apart, because Ed Morrissey has already done it.

http://mccainblogs.com/2008/05/16/james-rubin-lying-inept-hack/

Jonathan Alter: Offended Bush McCain Appeasement Deliberate Confusion

2008-05-16T05:24:00.000-07:00

Jonathan Alter provided an eye-opening review of the statements President George Bush made yesterday in Jerusalem and the supportive position for those statements assumed by Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain.

Alter sat opposite Pat Buchanan on MSNBC's Morning Joe (Joe Scarborough has been absent all week long, relievedly, and that's why we're watching).

Another take over at Newsbusters we don't agree with the title of the post since Bush had no business making a comment of any kind on foreign soil regarding American politics, period, end of story. Plus, Bush clearly misrepresented "appeasement" and its meaning which was heatedly discussed on Matthews Hardball program yesterday with Kevin James who indicated he did not know the answer to Matthews' question "what did Neville Chamberlain do" that's regarded as "appeasement?"

Morning Joe's All Bush-Bashing Lineup
By Mark Finkelstein | May 16, 2008 - 06:35 ET

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2008/05/16/morning-joes-all-bush-bashing-lineup

Obama accuses Bush of 'appalling attack'
May 16 12:45 PM US/Eastern

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D90MRLLG0&show_article=1

Unfortunately, on Morning Joe, nobody asked Pat Buchanan about his 2006 article which we noted yesterday.

August 5, 2006
On Talking With Terrorists
by Patrick J. Buchanan

http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=9480

Buchanan made few comments overall, in fact, which struck us as odd, about the situation President Bush created by speaking about so-called appeasement positions of persons Bush did not name. After John McCain made reference to the statement, and brought in Barack Obama, however, it was fairly clear Bush's statement could be taken to apply to Obama's former comments about talking with certain leaders...

Alter said he was offended being Jewish by President Bush's and John McCain's obvious attempt to confuse talking which might be productive with "appeasement."

Alter effectively outed the political motivations of Bush to affect the outcome of the Democratic party primaries which remain.

Later on MSNBC programming, Alter noted there is a clear difference between talking with the "enemy" and appeasement. He said, Chris Matthews noted the difference in an exchange with a guest yesterday. Appeasement is giving away the store. Neville Chamberlain gave away half of Czechoslovakia to Hitler in 1939...

Barack Obama addresses the political attacks at a town hall meeting in South Dakota this afternoon...

Net the Truth Online

All sides take sides over remarks
WASHINGTON | President Bush’s remarks in Israel on Thursday stirred a controversy that spilled across the presidential campaign.

John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said he took Bush at his word that he wasn’t referring to Barack Obama.

But McCain said Obama was showing “naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment” in his willingness to meet with U.S. foes.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/nation/story/622314.html

April 1st, 2008 3:11 AM Eastern
Obama has “no experience or background” on national security, McCain says
by Mosheh Oinounou
Washington, D.C. — Sen. John McCain slammed Sen. Barack Obama Monday after the IL Senator again alleged that McCain is willing to wage a 100-year war in Iraq.

“In all due respect he does not understand…the fundamental elements of national security and warfare,” McCain told reporters aboard his plane during a flight to the Washington area, where he is set to deliver a speech at his high school in Alexandria, VA on Tuesday.

Obama has been hammering McCain for comments he made at a January town hall meeting where the AZ Senator said he would be comfortable with a century-long U.S. troop presence in Iraq. While McCain was alluding a peace-time military force, Democrats have used the comments to make the case that McCain is willing to fight a 100 year war in Iraq.

While the non-partisan factcheck.org gives more merit to McCain’s argument, the presumptive GOP nominee has still had to repeatedly explain what he meant while on the trail. Today he provided the context as a side entree to a main course of Obama roast.

“It displays a fundamental misunderstanding of history and how we’ve maintained national security, and what we need to do in the future to maintain our security in the face of the transcendent challenge of radical Islamic extremism. And I understand that because he has no experience or background in any of it,” McCain said. “(He) either hasn’t read or (doesn’t) understand…the history of this country in warfare, and the way that we secure alliances and secure the peace–and that’s through military government to government agreements that call for United States presence and mutual defense. Not only in that country itself, but also in the region. Our troops in Japan maintain a military presence in Asia. Our troops in Japan and South Korea maintain stability in Asia. The same thing was true after World War II about our troops in Germany.”

Asked if he is concerned whether Obama’s 100 years argument will win out, McCain said he trusts voters and took a second shot at the Democrat. “I think the American people are smart enough to figure that out….and they’ll understand over time if they don’t know that he has no experience or background on these issues,” McCain said.

http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/01/obama-has-no-experience-or-background-on-national-security-mccain-says/

Jonathan Alter on the Dictator Dust-up: Clinton, Obama Both Right ! Republicans Wrong
By Jason Aslinger | July 27, 2007

...So what exactly is going on here? The two leading Democratic candidates contradict each other, then trade verbal barbs for three days, but yet they're both sly politicians with "indistinguishable" positions? Is Alter reporting the news, or is he trying to keep the peace among the Democrats? Or, as Mark Finkelstein asked in a prior post, is Alter trying to preserve Obama's potential as a vice presidential candidate, notwithstanding the heated exchange?

After carefully explaining away any discontent within the Democratic party, Alter then turned his attention to Republican candidate Mitt Romney, tagging him as a demagogue for comparing Obama to Neville Chamberlain. By Alter's analysis, Clinton and Obama would be fabulous diplomats while Romney (and by extension, all the Republican candidates) would be out-of-touch...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jason-aslinger/2007/07/27/jonathan-alter-dictator-dust-clinton-obama-both-right-republicans-wr

2008-05-15T15:05:00.001-07:00

Bush appeasement Quote Supporter slammed by Chris Matthews

2008-05-15T14:22:00.000-07:00

Hardball Chris Matthews puts guest on spot in only the way he can do. We applaud him for his effort to get the facts out to the public from someone promoting themselves as knowledgeable.

The pummeling came during a discussion of comments George Bush made concerning appeasement

Posted on Thursday, May 15, 2008 email | print | tool nameclose
tool goes here
Bush slaps 'appeasement'; Obama takes offense
By Dion Nissenbaum and David Lightman | McClatchy Newspapers

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/37166.html

Matthews asked supporter of President Bush's comments, Kevin James, to explain his own reference in support of Bush who had referenced Nazi appeasement.

What did Neville Chamberlain do in Munich? Matthews asks guest James... over and over, for about five minutes. James could not answer, and instead continued his refrain about the statement Bush made.

Matthews got heated, and repeatedly said Kevin James did not know what Chamberlain did.

Asks Kevin James again, James admits he did.

Then Matthews explains, appeasement isn't talking, Chamberlain gave the half of Czechoslovakia away, that's what he did. don't speak about something you don't know anything about, he said.

Biden says read Richard Clarke's book.

James says read Path to 9/11.

Matthews says it seems to me Bush was in command when the Cole incident happened... you don't understand what appeasement is, it's not talking to the enemy, it's giving away things to the enemy...

(We'll have to check the Cole incident. Understanding is that happened during the Bill Clinton presidency.)

So Matthews was wrong there with the statement the Cole incident was when Bush was President. It wasn't. It was October 12, 2000...

Uh oh...

The USS Cole bombing was a suicide bombing attack against the U.S. Navy guided missile destroyer USS Cole (DDG 67) on October 12, 2000 while it was harbored in the Yemeni port of Aden.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing

And, James was right about Bill Clinton's approach to dealing with the World Trade Center bombings in '93

An Unheeded Warning
When al Qaeda attacked the World Trade Center in 1993, Bill Clinton shrugged.
by RICHARD MINITER
Tuesday, September 30, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

(Editor's note: This is excerpted from "Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton's Failures Unleashed Global Terror," which you can buy from the OpinionJournal bookstore.)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110004081

See Laurie Milroie's awesome work on that topic as well.

It's just too bad in his haste to chastize Kevin James for not knowing what Chamberlain did, Matthews didn't take a step back and look at the larger overall picture of what was going on with James' presentation.

Instead of the transcript being filled with you don't know, you don't know, it could have been filled with a decent back and forth.

Of course, after outing James for his lack of facts...

James is a (conservative) radio talk show host???

Search results

http://www.google.com/search?q=kevin+james+hardball&btnG=Search&hl=en

youtube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

Entertaining discussion

http://scotchandpolitics.com/2008/5/16/comedy-friday-kevin-james-on-hardball

Chris Matthews Eviscerates Right-Wing Host Kevin James Over Obama "Appeasement" Claims May 15, 2008 06:27 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/hardball-shoutfest-matthe_n_102020.html

(Net the Truth Online)

Britain's Munich Pact with Germany
In the early morning hours of September 30, 1938, British and French prime ministers Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier signed the Munich Pact with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, thus giving... In the early morning hours of September 30, 1938, British and French prime ministers Neville Chamberlain and Edouard Daladier signed the Munich Pact with Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, thus giving Czechoslovakia away to German conquest. Daladier abhorred this appeasement of the Nazis, but Chamberlain was elated, and even stayed behind in Munich to sign a single-page document with Hitler that he believed assured the future of Anglo-German peace. Later that day, Chamberlain flew home to Britain, where he read the document before a jubilant crowd in London and praised the Munich Pact for bringing ''peace in our time.'' The next day, Germany annexed Czechoslovakia's Sudetenland, and by March of 1939, nearly all of Czechoslovakia was under German control. On September 1, 1939, fifty-three German army divisions invaded Poland despite British and French threats to intervene on the nation's behalf...

http://www.truveo.com/Neville-Chamberlain-praises-Britains-Munich-Pact/id/3589618978

More

http://www.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_chamber.html

September 7, 2006
About Those Nazi Appeasers
Bush Family Values
By MICHAEL DONNELLY

It's astonishing to see how desperate our homegrown fascists have become. The entire cabal is in full-on media blitz mode with Rummy, Dick and Theodosius, er, Bush slamming their foreign opponents with the latest absurd tag "Islamic Fascists;" and, their domestic ones as "Nazi appeasers." Or, in the deranged mind of Condi Rice; domestic opponents are tantamount to folks who would have stopped the Civil War and allowed slavery to continue in the South.

It's not just desperate; it's monumentally moronic, given the real history. This bizarre trip on the Wayback Machine demands a deeper look--though don't look to the mainstream media. Given the opening, one would think that everyone by now would be fully informed that the Bush Family took "Nazi appeasement" to far greater heights and were actually part of an American faction of documented Nazi SUPPORTERS.

http://www.counterpunch.org/donnelly09072006.html

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_2108.cfm

BUSH BEGINS MEXICO APPEASEMENT…
[“An Immigration Munich” – let VDARE hereby be the first to name what seems likely to be another Day That Will Live In Infamy: the upcoming February 16 U.S.-Mexico summit. The difference is that Munich allowed Britain to re-arm.]

By Sam Francis

http://www.vdare.com/francis/fox_01.htm

United States chemicals to Iraq used

2008-05-15T06:54:00.000-07:00

More on weapons of mass destruction and Iraq... who among the Presidential candidates will at least acknowledge that the United States did provide Iraq with materials which could be used as weapons of mass destruction, biochemicals, and which were later used by Iraq against Iran?

Don't expect any to be forthcoming.

A caller to C-Span this morning noted a Washington times report for Sunday March 16, 2003

Keith Olbermann: American Snake Oil Salesman Dick Cheney

2008-05-15T06:50:00.000-07:00

thanks for transcript for Wednsday's Countdown, MSNBC host Keith Olbermann's latest "Special Comment" - we could not stomach Olbermann when he started off on his Special Section promo, and immediately switched channels.

Net the Truth Online

Olbermann Accuses Bush of 'Murderous Deceit,' Should 'Shut the Hell Up'
By Brad Wilmouth | May 15, 2008 - 07:58 ET

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brad-wilmouth/2008/05/15/olbermann-accuses-bush-murderous-deceit-should-shut-hell

Democrat Rules Committee to Determine Clinton Fate Fair or Foul

2008-05-15T05:16:00.000-07:00

And could net her 47 delegates...

Well, that may be the case, but by then, what if Barack Obama has the specified amount of 2025 overall delegates by May 31, 2008. Won't he be declared the Democrat Party nominee for President? Just like any other Party which holds elections before the national convention?

That's not to say Clinton shouldn't continue on into the the August convention whatever the rules committee determines, or whether Obama receives 2025.

But she wouldn't be able to claim Obama is unelectable, because he would have just been elected by the combination of committed delegates and superdelegates.

Net the Truth Online

NYT: Rules committee has big role in Clinton’s hopes
Candidate has key allies on Democratic panel that could boost her case
By Katharine Q. Seelye
updated 11:30 p.m. ET, Wed., May. 14, 2008

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign wants the delegates apportioned between her and Mr. Obama based on popular votes. That would give her a net increase of 47 delegates.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24638124/

Clinton Plight Leads to Call for Winner Take All Primary

2008-05-15T04:18:00.000-07:00

If only the winner take all way of doing it had been in place this election, the claim is Hillary Clinton would win the Democrat Party nomination for President.

think again. Not necessarily. Campaign styles would have dramatically changed. John Edwards was still in the race early on, remember. Edwards could have won a few states, and possibly more. Maybe a couple of others, Dodd and Kacunich would have decided not to run at all, or possibly have pulled out earlier, leaving a field of three, earlier.

More debates would have been held where John Edwards and Barack Obama would have been under more pressure - winner take all - act like a winner - to perform and Clinton would have had to release all of those documents relating to her "experience" when she was First Lady.

Her fabrication about sniper fire in Bosnia when she and her daughter landed there would have been outed earlier, and received far more news coverage. In addition, the remaining candidates would have had far more to bring out about the Clintons than has been done to day because - winner takes all - act like a winner is in play.

A winner-take-all Primary is not a more democratic process.

In fact, it is just the opposite.

The proportional distribution of delegates enables the little rural areas to have as much clout as the large urban areas in a state.

Areas are weighted according to other factors including population and demographics.

Why would the Democrat Party want to change that at this point?

They won't.

The Clintons lost their clout immediately after West Virginia's Primary where Hillary Clinton won by a "landslide."

Reason they lost clout? Barack Obama gained superdelegates which netted him more delegates after his smaller amount from WV were included, and Barack Obama showed he can weather the most difficult of travails in such a race.

News media headlines pummelled him after WV. Pundits have brought up only one aspect of his loss - he failed to capture over 20 percent of the so-called white blue collar hard-working Democrat voters in WV, so there goes the Presidency.

Yet, after all of the negative, Barack Obama comes out of the storm to capture even more elite superdelegates to Clinton's, and another prized supporter, John Edwards!

Now who wants to dispute that Barack Obama made the best decision of his campaign to stay out of West Virginia because he knew he would not be able to cut into Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton's legacy there.

Kentucky may be similar to WV in many ways. Going into the state, Clinton has little to crow about as anything she says from here on out about white, hard-working Kentucky voters will be heard for what it is.

The message John Edwards sent the day after Clinton's landslide pull-out there was exactly the message needed to be sent at this time.

Enough, Clintons, enough. That kind of talk ends tonight.

Net the Truth Online

The MSNBC Morning Joe program without Joe for one full blissful week

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/

Buchanan: Barack Obama is Adlai

2008-05-14T16:22:00.000-07:00

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC going on a tirade about Barack Obama and West Virginia. Difficult to understand what he's said. He said Obama is Adlai.

He went on to say panelists on the program yesterday after West Virginia's Primary results were known called voters there poor and racist.

Matthews asks Pat to explain who has done so.

Buchanan couldn't.

Matthews says exit polls asked questions about the role race played in voting. Answers were forthcoming there.

Buchanan goes on to spout something about why isn't anybody calling 91 percent black voters who vote for Barack Obama racist...

He's lost, totally lost. Obama is the first black person, happens to be a man, who has captured the attention of voters in the Democratic Party and others to the point where he has a real chance to win the nomination of the Party. That's why more and more black people are now voting for him. Remember, Pat, they didn't at first.

That proves, it's not all about solely race for blacks voting for a black man.

so why'd Buchanan call Obama, Adlai?

Hmmm

http://home.att.net/~jrhsc/ad.html

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USAstevensonA.htm

http://www25.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/adlaistevenson.html

And he's used the comment about Obama receiving 91 percent of the African-American vote before, to criticism by other panelists on Abrams' program...

Net the Truth Online

'Live with Dan Abrams' for March 12
Read the transcript to the Wednesday show

...BUCHANAN: Look, if Barack Obama thinks there‘s no correlation between the fact he‘s an African-American and his career has been so spectacular, he would be as delusional as George W. Bush saying the fact, he‘s president of the United States.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: (INAUDIBLE)

BUCHANAN: I don‘t care what he do or not. Had nothing to do with the fact that the first George Bush was president of the United States. Look, Barack Obama got 91 percent of the African-American vote in Mississippi. He was a state senator given a spectacular honor of keynoting the Democratic convention. Does anyone think that it had nothing to do with the fact that he‘s an African-American?

ABRAMS: Pat, I‘m literally having to stop Keli and Rachel from screaming.

BUCHANAN: Let them go, Dan. It‘s important that they go.

ABRAMS: Keli, go ahead.

GOFF: Pat, (INAUDIBLE) he didn‘t have securing the majority of the black vote and lead (ph) after South Carolina. So, to just make this blatant assumption, this generalization that he was winning all the black votes because of his being black is ludicrous...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23611997/

Playing by Obama's rules
Posted: March 14, 2008

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=58869

Pat Buchanan Compares Obama Speech To "Old Shakedown That Black Hustlers" Run
Buchanan | Pat Buchanan | March 24, 2008 11:45 AM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/24/pat-buchanan-compares-oba_n_93075.html

Pat Buchanan Misquotes Barack Obama's "Bitter" Line
Huffington Post | April 14, 2008 10:53 PM

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/pat-buchanan-misquotes-ba_n_96683.html

Obama Sweetie to Reporter Fake or Real?

2008-05-14T15:12:00.000-07:00

Not to be forgotten. Barack Obama's speech

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/stateupdates/gGBlX7

So where was Obama when he called somebody sweetie? Will the youtube clip showing what appears to be Obama uttering the word sweetie to presumably a reporter be the beginning of the end for Barack Obama?

Remeber the clip of an elderly woman far in the back of a room who tells Obama don't be mean, or something like that, to Hillary Clinton. Then the woman is asked to come up on stage.

Obama called the woman sweetie, then, right?

And in Allentown, PA back in "April" on April Fool's Day reportedly Obama calls a woman, sweetie.

May 14, 2008, 4:25 pm
Obama: Hold On, Sweetie
By Jim Rutenberg

Updated Back in Pennsylvania in early April, Senator Barack Obama took some heat for calling a female factory worker “sweetie,” in Allentown.
He did it again today at a Chrysler Plant in Sterling Heights, asking a reporter to “hold on one second there sweetie” when she asked, “How are you going to help the American auto workers?”...

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/14/obama-hold-on-sweetie/

Obama Pool Report from Allentown, PennsylvaniaIt may be April Fools Day, but Sen. Barack Obama was acting like it was
Valentine’s Day. He was in full charm mode while touring the Tama
Manufacturing plant, a JC Penny supplier of made-in-the-USA clothing in
Allentown.

Obama was especially flirtatious today, winking and grinning at the
female workers who were swooning behind their cell phone cameras...

http://thepage.time.com/obama-pool-report-from-allentown-pennsylvania/

Now, just today, Obama reportedly calls a reporter sweetie? Hmmm, wonder whether the reporter was Lynn Sweet? Ah well, obviously not...

We were thinking how easy it would be for someone in the media to splice the audio from the Allentown appearance into the more recent appearance?

And who ever heard of WXYZ? The world will now.

Remarks about WXYZ

http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/05/guess_the_relig_2.html

http://brilliantdetroitreporting.blogspot.com/

so it's real, in Detroit, Michigan...

Net the Truth Online

May 15, 2008

Obama says he's sorry for ‘sweetie’ comment
Democrat leaves voice mail for TV reporter saying he meant no disrespect

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24643711/

UPDATE: Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama has apologized to WXYZ reporter Peggy Agar for calling her "sweetie" during a campaign stop Wednesday in Sterling Heights.

Obama apologized in a voicemail he left on Agar's cell phone at 3:16 p.m:

"Hi Peggy. This is Barack Obama. I'm calling to apologize on two fronts. One was you didn't get your question answered and I apologize. I thought that we had set up interviews with all the local stations. I guess we got it with your station but you weren't the reporter that got the interview. And so, I broke my word. I apologize for that and I will make up for it.

"Second apology is for using the word 'sweetie.' That's a bad habit of mine. I do it sometimes with all kinds of people. I mean no disrespect and so I am duly chastened on that front. Feel free to call me back. I expect that my press team will be happy to try to make it up to you whenever we are in Detroit next."

LISTEN TO THE VOICEMAIL IN VIDEO PLAYER RIGHT (Voicemail is followed by video clip of the "sweetie" exchange)

(WXYZ) - Reporters on the presidential campaign trail are buzzing about Barack Obama calling WXYZ's Peggy Agar "sweetie" during a tour Wednesday of a Chrysler plant in Sterling Heights.

The comment came during a tour of the plant when the Democratic presidential candidate tried to brush off a question from Agar about help for autoworkers. "Senator, how are you going to help the American autoworkers," Agar asked Obama. "Hold on one second, sweetie," he replied, explaining he would answer in a later media availability.

In a posting on the New York Times Political Blog titled "Obama: Hold On, Sweetie," reporter Jim Rutenberg pointed out this wasn't the first time Obama used the word: "Back in Pennsylvania in early April, Senator Barack Obama took some heat for calling a female factory worker 'sweetie,' in Allentown."

Obama's comment to Agar has also been discussed by reporters for The Atlantic, Chicago Tribune, and Newsday.

http://www.wxyz.com/news/story.aspx?content_id=13d1f66a-488b-46d3-9d3b-6632e0a8f1f7

Obama Calls News Reporter ‘Sweetie’, Apologizes
Against Obama May 14th, 2008 News

http://www.againstobama.com/2008/05/obama-calls-news-reporter-sweetie-apologizes/

Marc Ambinder: Obama appears to call reporter sweetie

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=5968824&mesg_id=5968824

Baltimore Sun

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obama_calls_female_reporter_sw.html

Obama calls reporter "sweetie."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/obama_calls_reporter_sweetie.html

Wednesday, 14 May 2008
OBAMA AND "SWEETIE" Ken Berwitz

http://partisan.blogs.hopelesslypartisan.com/item_2829.htm

Michigan

http://news.aol.com/story/_a/obama-woos-working-class-voters-in/n20080514154709990056?ecid=RSS0001

Hope Sinks by Michael Crowley
The disappointingly conventional Obama campaign.
Post Date Monday, October 08, 2007

http://www.tnr.com/columnists/story.html?id=6e9936cc-d905-4114-ace6-ae7437fc63c4

Obamamania sweeps the Hill
By RYAN GRIM | 5/8/08 1:25 PM EST
Obama posed for photos with giddy pages on the staircase leading up to the House gallery. The normally staid and deferential pages, who walk the halls quietly on their best behavior, returned the favor, giving Obama a rousing ovation. Security guards reprimanded reporters and tourists for snapping photos with their phones — something that is strictly forbidden in many parts of the chamber unless you are a credentialed photographer — but to little avail.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) arrived after Obama and said she was not sure who had invited him. "I don't know if he was invited by members," Pelosi said. The visit to the speaker’s chamber, however, didn’t sway her from her officially uncommitted position, she said. "Me, I like combat," Pelosi said. "The best training for campaigning is campaigning."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10206.html

John Edwards Backing Barack Obama

2008-05-14T14:14:00.000-07:00

John Edwards is set to announce support and backing of Barack Obama for the Democrat nomination for President. Will release his delegates, who would be free to vote for any candidate.

Breaking on CNN

MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews

Fox News America's Election HQ

Kinda puts the damper on Hillary Clinton's landslide win in West Virginia, among a population in the state consisting of 95 percent whites.

More

Edwards gives long-awaited endorsement to Obama
May 14, 7:12 PM (ET) by CHUCK BABINGTON

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080514/D90LN58O0.html

Edwards To Endorse Obama
May 14, 2008 5:04 PM

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/05/edwards-to-endo.html

Hillary Clinton Shame on You Rewriting History Equal Obama Rejection VP Offer

2008-05-14T06:56:00.001-07:00

60 percent in a Quinnepac poll would want Hillary Clinton as Barack Obama's running mate? Who was polled? All Clinton all the time voters.

That's who.

It's simply ludicrous for Obama to even consider the politics of the past as part of his own message when he has been so outspoken about his vision based on change and a break from the tactics used in past politics.

Consider 67 percent of West Virginia Democrat voters voted for Clinton vs 26 percent for Obama. Realizing even with that win in her column she has little chance of capturing Obama in amount of committed delegates, poll takers had no other option than to say sure they'd like to see Clinton as Obama's VP. The 60 percent is down just 6 points from the percentage of those who voted for Clinton.

It would be disastrous for Obama to select Clinton as VP after all is said and done.

She's done everything she can to turn people away from Obama, whereas Obama has been overall inclusive of her and her supporters, and respectful of Clinton all along.

Maybe one time he was disrespectful, when Clinton came out and made the statement, "Shame on You," later Obama mocked that comment with one of his own: Shame on you.

Her chastisement of Obama in that way is the only reason needed for Obama to dismiss any offer to her to become his VP.

Clinton has equivocated if not outright lied about her support of NAFTA during her husband's administration. That she supported NAFTA then in comments made around the country at that time is well-documented.

To claim otherwise is rewriting history.

The tendency of the Clintons to do exactly that, simply adds another reason for Obama to outright reject any notion the Clintons can play a role in his Administration.

And absorb any of Clinton's self-inflicted campaign debt? Who came up with that gem of an idea.

If even a dime of contributors' hard-given monies goes to pay off Clinton debts, Barack Obama can just call himself no different than what he's supposed to be fighting against, the same old same old politics of the past, and what Rendell - Gov of PA once said a few months back - to survive to get things going your way you have to kiss ass, yep, Rendell actually said it.

And that's what Obama would do if he accepts either notion of Hillary as his VP or paying off any of her debts.

CNN discussing how Obama would help out Clinton on her debts, but so far, not a word from Obama on the idea.

See what the media is doing? Attempting to put that idea in our minds so we think less, not more of Barack Obama.

Net the Truth Online

Related

updated 9:11 p.m. EST, Sat February 23, 2008
Clinton tells Obama: 'Shame on you'; Obama fires back

Clinton jabbed the air with her hands as she told a crowd in Cincinnati, Ohio, that two Obama mailings spread lies about her positions on universal health care and the North American Free Trade Agreement.

"Shame on you, Barack Obama," she said...

...Obama denied Clinton's assertions that the literature was false.

"There's nothing in that mailing that is inaccurate," he said, adding that he was puzzled by the sudden scrutiny since the mailers had been around for days, if not weeks.

"We have been subject to constant attack from the Clinton campaign, except for when we were down 20 points. And that was true in Iowa. It was true in South Carolina. It was true in Wisconsin, and it is true now," Obama said.

He described Clinton's anger as "tactical" and defended his campaign.

"The notion that somehow we're engaging in nefarious tactics I think is pretty hard to swallow."..

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/23/clinton.mailings/index.html

Statistics Real Clear Politics

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Soul Time

2008-05-14T06:45:00.001-07:00

Poetry vs. fear
The Obama-McCain contest will hold up a mirror to America's soul.By Gary Kamiya

http://www.salon.com/opinion/kamiya/2008/05/13/obama_mccain/index.html

Hillary Clinton Past Remains Closed

2008-05-14T06:38:00.001-07:00

We agree with Paglia. The media has yet to really dig deep, so deep, into the Clintons' past and find what has been there all along.

We've postited will there be something the Clintons try to use in the way of their psychological warfare (first noted by Carl Bernstein) that will further attempt to erode Barack Obama's ability to engender a belief in change, a real belief, one that people actually act upon?

If that happens, the Press may have no other option than to bring out the bathroom toilet of the Clintons' past, one that includes names like Tucker, McDougal, Foster, and more...

How is it that Hillary Clinton's chief spokesman can get away with it? Lying outright? The Press obviously wants to keep the illusion going - Clinton has an opening, she really really does. Watch our programs for all the coverage of this race... the numbers aren't there, or are they?

Not only has McAuliffe lied, the Democrat Party leaders in the state of Florida have lied. The state representatives considered a measure to revamp the voting machines in the state, replacing them with paper ballots and optical scanners, and along with that included an amendment to alter the date of the Primary.

State Democrat Party leaders were well aware of sanctions that could be imposed, in fact, measures that could automatically be imposed on candidates who campaigned there as well in violation of national Party rules.

Yet, Democrats overwhelmingly voted for the entire bill. Another option they had was to hold their own election, and pay for it, and forego having the state apparatus hold the Primary. In other words, the state Democrat Party could have held their own election on the later date and suffered no penalties or punishment.

Yet, most of these same representatives attempt to point blame on the Republican Governor for signing the bill, and the state Republican representatives who tagged the amendment onto a bill designed to replace voting machines with paper ballots.

Why are they getting away with this? The Press doesn't want the dust to settle, they'd enjoy a revote, or retraction of penalties for Florida and Michigan so the race would become a bit tighter than it already is.

While we don't agree with everything posted at Democratic Underground, take a look at one extremely informative post

Madfloridian's Journal
On national TV Terry McAuliffe misleads about DNC rules. A former chairman should not do that.
Posted by madfloridian in General Discussion: Primaries
Mon May 12th 2008, 11:03 PM
It is not honest, and it is not fair to the party.

Terry McAuliffe was on Face the Nation last Sunday. While on there he did not tell the truth about the party rules.

He brushed Schieffer's statement off. Just shrugged it off. Then he flat out lied on national TV. He said the rules only said 50% of the delegates can be stripped. That is just not true. He knows it is not true.

Florida knew the rules when they voted 115 to 1 with the Republican in the legislature. They knew what they were doing.

The 50% strip of delegates is automatic without a vote of the rules committee. Since Florida openly defied and went before the comittee and said they acted in good faith...they were stripped 100%...well within the rules...

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/madfloridian/2087

Net the Truth Online

She won't go easy
Hillary will likely fight to the bitter end -- but she should be grateful the media let her off so easy. Plus: A Soap Opera legend, a disappearing Stevie and the Cream still rises By Camille Paglia

Republican operatives have been salivating for Hillary to be the nominee. Her vainglorious claim to have been fully "vetted" is ludicrous. She and her husband left a mountain of manure in Little Rock and Washington that hasn't even begun to be thrown. The mainstream media, despite its tilt toward Obama, has been amazingly protective of the Clintons during this campaign. Where were the chronologies of the voluminous Clinton scandals that voters (especially young ones) needed to evaluate Hillary's professional judgment and character? That the conservative Washington Times has now begun to make document drops about Hillary's stonewalling and duplicity (such as over the Rose Law Firm billing records) suggests that Republicans have concluded her candidacy is kaput.

Surely, given Hillary's claim of expertise on the basis of her service as first lady, every major or ambiguous episode in her husband's two presidencies should have been systematically reexamined by the media. I for one have renewed questions about the 1993 suicide of Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, Hillary's former law partner and longtime friend, whose files were purged by Hillary's staff before they could be examined for evidence. One must always be skeptical about Web rumors, but my interest was piqued last year by claims that Foster was shattered by the role he had played three months earlier in the outrageous order for federal agents to attack David Koresh's ranch at Waco, Texas, producing a conflagration that led to 76 deaths, including 21 children. Why has the Waco fiasco been forgotten? It triggered the worst case of domestic terrorism in U.S. history, the 1995 revenge bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/05/14/tarantella/

James Carville: When Obama Clear Winner Send Check

2008-05-14T05:14:00.000-07:00

Mica Brezinski doing a dynamite job all by herself with guests one after the other on MSNBC's Morning Joe.

Yesterday, guest Chris Matthews suggested Mica should continue hosting the show and it should be renamed, Morning Mica. We agree.

Scarborough failed to ask one hard question of Hillary Clinton when she appeared on the program a day or so before the North Carolina and Indiana Primaries. Clinton touted her proposal for a gas tax holiday on the program, face to face with economic conservative Scarborough. Yet, her proposal includes raising the monies to pay for the gas tax holiday by not only taxing "windfall" profits of oil companies, but actually taking the profits over and above the amount Clinton believes the oil companies should be making.

A proposal like that is as close to socialistic as one can get without being a dictator, yet.

Scarborough said nothing about this proposal. He didn't play devil's advocate, he didn't ask her something like: Isn't that socialistic? You're going to take the profits from the oil companies because you don;t think they deserve those kind of profits?

He remained silent. It was up to Mica to ask how the program would work if the oil companies simply raised prices, or prices remained high because supply would be decreased, or stagnant due to lack of investment or drilling wells anew.

Today, Mica meets the challenge of dealing with Clinton's campaign chair, Harold Wolfson, again, asking decent questions particularly about Clinton changing the delegate goal post.

Now Clinton claims the overall delegate numbers to claim the nomination should be 2220, or some such, not the 2025 now set by national Democrat Party rules.

During one report, James Carville's recent comment was announced.

Mica couldn't help but generate a laugh over it.

CNN plays the clip too.

Net the Truth Online

Related

Of yellow dogs and Democrats
THE WORLD ACCORDING TO CARVILLE
GREENVILLE — U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has likely locked up the Democratic presidential nomination, but political consultant and Clinton family adviser James Carville told about 500 people at Furman University that U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton should fight until the last dog dies.

“I still hear some dogs barking,” said Carville, the flamboyant Louisianan known as the left’s ragin’ Cajun. “I’m for Senator Clinton, but I think the great likelihood is that Obama will be the nominee.

“As soon as I determine when that is, I’ll send him a check.”

In an address peppered with his trademark sharp wit, Carville

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/403293.html

West Virginia: Clinton Prize Obama Must Gain in General

2008-05-14T04:10:00.000-07:00

Clinton captured the prize that was West Virginia voters. For now. But in the process, after her statements enveloping statistics concerning white "working class" voters, Democrats, Clinton has little to be proud about.

Race is an issue in this Presidential year. So is fear. How far will West Virginia Democrats grow over the next 7 months? That is the question.

Will Clinton supporters there come together for the good of the Democratic Party come the Fall election? Will WV voters come together for the good of the reputation of their own state?

Can't you read the new motto after the Fall Election should the same voters who accepted Hillary Clinton, reject Barack Obama over and above John McCain?

There should be a contest among high school students across West Virginia. What should our new motto be?

State of Bias? State of Intolerance? State of Racism? State of Xenophobia?

Or will change be embraced? A mind-set alteration, and growth that must take place in order for West Virginia to meet the future of the nation, maybe not first in line, but in line.

In her victory speech, Clinton says: I'll stand for you, if you stand for me.

Isn't that exactly the opposite of what Obama is saying.

He'll stand for you even if you don't stand with him. He'll represent a different America, a different United States on the road to a change so overwhelming a different America will emerge with you believing in you.

Clinton on the other hand is all about Clinton and her power.

Obama is all about you and your power.

Mica Brezinksi is doing a dynamite job hosting Morning Joe on MSNBC all by herself. Chris Matthews yesterday quipped the show should be called Morning Mica. We agree.

Joe Scarborough, former Congressman and conservative, unsure about Party status, didn't ask one hard question of Hillary Clinton about her proposal for a gas tax holiday when she appeared on the program just days before the North Carolina and Indiana primaries.

During Clinton's interview with Bill O'Reilly a few days earlier, Clinton admitted she'd like to get back to the tax rates employed on the wealthy in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, when she said there was a 70 percent taxation rate!

O'Reilly let that slip right on by, and seemed ok with her proposal for an increase in capital gains.

Amazing.

Yet, Barack Obama pulled out a huge win in North Carolina, which by the way, included some amount of white Democratic voters, and Clinton merely eked out a win in Indiana by a single percentage point.

West Virginia stats include 95 percent population which is white. Clinton captured 67 percent to Obama's 26 percent.

A landslide for sure, but with it, Clinton claims a politics of the past not a politics of the future, for the future of this country.

Clinton wants the full delegation of both Florida and Michigan seated. In her favor.

Pat Buchanan pushes the idea of Clinton as Obama's running mate, Vice President. He also said Barack Obama won to a corpse last night. Go figure, why should Obama choose a corpse - a dead horse - to help him out in the General Election.

Right, bring in the politics of the past alongside your message Obama and watch the presidency slip on by.

Maybe that's what has been at play here behind the scenes all along. Obama may win the Democratic Primary, but not have ever had a chance to win in the General as the powers that be want a race, but no real growth of the nation, no real change.

Give Democrats hope that change is in the wind, real change from the politics of the past, but go back on that near realistic idea in the end, using an excuse. We just couldn't have won without the Clintons.

But by choosing the Clintons as running mates, Obama will lose with them in tow.

Obama is winning now. He "lost to a corpse." Respect her for her tenacity, but deny her any claim to the future direction of this country as her future path includes one that itself relies on past notions. Notions like, white "working class" voters are choosing a white woman, not necessarily because she's the first woman seeking such a powerful position, but because she's white.

Nora O'Donnell stated the truth about West Virginia Democrat voters: it was about the racial aspects...

consider this. Every time Obama visits a state, really visits, with several days of touring, meeting, greeting in town halls and packed auditoriums and arenas, voters turn to Obama, not away from Obama.

While results from WV were largely about race, the results were as much about a mind-set which is hesitant to accept change, or accept a different way of looking at things.

Some 50 percent in polls reported they believed Obama accepted the views of Rev. Jeremiah Wright as his own views.

They may not have heard by now Obama is not a Muslim, as many in the polling afterwards reported they are still under that belief as well.

When you think about it, the most brilliant card Obama just played sight unseen was to stay out of West Virginia. Voters there weren't ready to hear the truth Obama had not only distanced himself from Wright's comments, he had outright rejected Wright after Wright's public comments at the National Press Club.

While Obama visited a few WV places, Charleston comes to mind, he largely stayed out of the state to campaign elsewhere. Had Obama visited the colleges, heavily, traversed the state for days before the Primary, and still lost by 40 percent, then the pundits would have been able to claim Obama failed mightily there.

See, they'd be able to say, even though voters saw his charm, heard his message, touched the man as others in other states, they were still not drawn to him or his message.

By not visiting the state, Obama can say he made an inclusive gesture, he'll return before the Fall and try his best to win over the good people of West Virginia who voted for Clinton, and more.

Pundits are left with commenting on how Obama didn't win the state, but then, he didn't visit the state, acknowledging Clinton's win as one Clinton was projected to claim anyway.

Yes, very brilliant move Obama Team. So pleased to see somebody outmaneuvering the Mighty Press.

Obama has ground to cover in West Virginia. The state that wasn't ready for Obama in the Primary, but he'll have to prepare them for him in the Fall.

Look for Barack Obama back in West Virginia with the Clintons nowhere to be seen.

Obama will stand on his own, and if he doesn't win West Virginia on his own, it will be because the politics of the past will have had a larger influence on Democratic voters there than a future with a Democratic President.

Clinton is interviewed on CNN The Situation Room by Wolf Blitzer...

Net the Truth Online

Commentary: No racism in the presidential election?
By Ruben Navarrette Jr.
Special to CNN

SAN DIEGO, California (CNN) -- In claiming victory in West Virginia last night, Hillary Clinton reiterated her last best argument as to why she should be the Democratic nominee: because only she can win in November.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/navarrette/index.html

Clinton: It'd be 'terrible mistake' to pick McCain over Obama

...Clinton last week drew criticism for comments she made to USA Today about having a broader appeal to white voters.

"There was just an [Associated Press] article posted that found how Sen. Obama's support among among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me," she told the paper.

"I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on," she added.

New York Rep. Charlie Rangel, a Clinton supporter, said "that was the dumbest thing she could have said."

Clinton conceded Wednesday that "he's probably right."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/14/clinton/index.html

Networks call West Virginia for Clinton
Well, no surprise here -- as soon as polls closed in West Virginia, at 7:30 p.m. EDT, the networks declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the state's Democratic primary.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/13/clinton/index.html

War Room by Alex Koppelman Tuesday, May 13, 2008 23:14 EDT
Matthews: Clinton "almost like... the Al Sharpton of white people"
Somehow, I can't imagine that Keith Olbermann handed Chris Matthews a grape after Matthews went off on another rant during MSNBC's coverage of the West Virginia Democratic primary Tuesday night.

While interviewing Sen. Bob Casey, Jr. (D-Pa.), a supporter of Barack Obama, Matthews began to get worked up about elitism in the Democratic race. "What are your feelings, as a Democrat, about this whole discussion -- you and I have never heard it in our lifetime, I mean we've known that racial and ethnic issues always get in the way of arguing over issues, real issues, but this conversation, as it's turned, I mean, I even hate saying things like 'white working-class voters," you know?" Matthews said. "I was taught, growing up, don't even say words like 'blue-collar,' don't even get into that kind of elitist talk. We're not sociologists, we're Americans."

As Matthews continued, he referenced a recent interview Clinton gave to USA Today in which some believed that she had implied the only "hard-working Americans" are "white Americans."

"How do we get back away from this, where these people like Hillary Clinton so loosely say hard-working white workers?" Matthews asked Casey. "It's almost like she's the Al Sharpton of white people. I mean, how do you get away from that?"

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/05/13/matthews_sharpton/index.html

Conservative Reaction John McCain Global Warming Manmade

2008-05-13T14:42:00.000-07:00

OK Rush Limbaugh, head-bent attack. Mark Levin finger-pointing rabid slams. Laura Ingraham... Michelle Malkin...

Ann Coulter...

McCain Breaks with Bush on Climate Change

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/05/12/mccain_breaks_with_bush_on_cli.html?hpid=topnews

McCain launches ad in Oregon on global warming
Posted by Jeff Mapes, The Oregonian May 12, 2008 08:01AM
Categories: Ad Watch, presidential race

http://blog.oregonlive.com/mapesonpolitics/2008/05/mccain_launches_ad_in_oregon_o.html

May 12, 2008
On Monday's Mark Levin Show: Mark discussed a very important topic that if continued will be disastrous for America - global warming. This policy will be more devastating than Hillary care, and this fictitious global warming theory will damage our constitutional government, our free markets, and also our own homes. And what's scary is that the so-called Republican, John McCain, hasn't the slightest clue about what he is saying or what he proposes.

Mark also explained the energy cap problem, and how this will bring energy costs up. Once these politicians are done taxing the corporations, they will go after us and impose regulations within our homes, what types of air conditioners and heaters we can have, and the amount of cars we can own.

http://www.marklevinshow.com/

McCain’s “climate change” tour bypasses cooler heads
By Michelle Malkin • May 12, 2008 10:43 AM John McCain kicks off his “climate change tour” in Portland today. The Associated Press regurgitates the McCain emphasis on how he will push “free-market principles” to reduce global warming, which he is convinced is real and primarily man-made. (Update: Allahpundit’s got the new accompanying campaign ad.)

A rational, free-market-based approach to environmentalism requires a commitment to scientific truth, accuracy, and honest cost-benefit analyses.

For the last several years, McCain has been committed to none of those.

Climatologist Patrick Michaels had McCain pegged four years ago, when The Maaaveerrick convened ridiculously, eco-Chicken Little-stacked hearings...

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/05/12/mccains-climate-change-tour-bypasses-cooler-heads/

Just had to post this

http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/07/ann-coulters-war-on-science.html