CANNONFIRE

Women and men

2008-07-26T10:02:00.000-07:00

I had not planned to post anything today, but AnnaBelle's recent piece, Dreams from our mothers, deserves your attention.

First, she tells a moving bit of personal history, a family story that addresses issues of racial and sexual politics. She goes on to connect that history to Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father -- a book written (as AnnaBelle notes) by a son clearly resentful of his father's absence.

Why all this demonizing women and chasing after fathers who clearly don’t give a damn, as in the case of Obama’s father? Why didn’t he write a book about his mother’s great sacrifices and the dreams she gave up because she was the only parent willing to do the work of raising him?

Instead, Obama, like so many others in our culture, paid little attention at all to Stanley Ann’s contributions and sacrifices, or his Grandmother’s for that matter, choosing instead to focus on his obviously lazy grandfather and his absentee father, while the women toiled to support them all.

We're playing psychohistorian here, an avocation some hold in disrepute. Yet writers since Herodotus have attempted to understand the thinking of the notable. The most interesting parts of Shakespeare's history plays involve psychological insight, as opposed to the dry recounting of who-stabbed-whom. The proper study of man is man -- the mind of man.

As we study Barack Obama, we can't ignore the fact that he spent his life surrounded by, and controlled by, women. His father evaporated into legend during his infancy. He was raised by a mother and grandmother. The only sibling he knew while growing up was his sister Maya. His only children are daughters.

I can't blame him for formulating an idealized vision of his absent father, even though I've read little good about that man. The younger Obama's recent speeches decrying absentee fatherhood in the black community have angered many within that community, yet they make perfect psychological sense.

On this score, Barack Obama has my empathy.

I tend to have a romanticized view of my own father, who died before my seventh birthday. He was a brilliant scientist associated with the space program; he was also a semi-professional jazz pianist and a gifted painter. He introduced me to Beethoven and Bach, to the Renaissance masters, to reading, to politics, to history, to the dream of space travel -- to everything I revere.

Yet Mom once cryptically told me that my father and I might not have gotten along, had he lived longer. Apparently, he was not an easygoing person. His penchant for insulting those he considered intellectual inferiors (i.e., most of the human race) injured his career and caused needless rancor. Over the years, I've toyed with the idea of tracking down people who knew him -- only to think better of the project. Best to keep my romanticized portrait intact.

Unlike AnnaBelle, I can understand why Barack Obama wrote a book titled Dreams From My Father, as opposed to a similar volume about his mother (an admirable woman in many ways). A boy who grows up surrounded by the feminine will always see the female not just as That Which Nurtures but also as That Which Confines. We seek the lost king. That's the lesson of the Arthur legend -- at least, that's one of the lessons.

On that level, I get Obama.

What I cannot understand is this: Why did Barack Obama countenance a primary campaign which history books will damn as sexist? Although the paranoia directed at Hillary Clinton was driven primarily by "Clinton Derangement Syndrome," misogyny also played an undeniable role. Some of the insults directed at Hillary were also directed at Ann Dunham -- and at Malia Ann and Natasha Obama, and at my mother, and at yours. Yet Barack Obama could not find it within himself to denounce those among his followers who called Hillary a "cunt" and a "bitch."

Why?

Obama's GOP backers

2008-07-25T12:20:00.000-07:00

Two major new articles are up today. Taken together, they offer the most compelling Theory of Obama I've yet encountered.

The first is Greg Sherman's piece in The New Republic: "The End of the Affair." Pressfolk previously "in the tank" for Mr. O may now be de-tanking themselves.

A couple of weeks ago, the NYT published an article by Adam Nagourney titled "Poll Finds Obama Isn't Closing Divide on Race." It was hardly a hit piece. Nevertheless, the Obama camp pummeled him hard.

"I've never had an experience like this, with this campaign or others," Nagourney tells me. "I thought they crossed the line. If you have a problem with a story I write, call me first. I'm a big boy. I can handle it. But they never called. They attacked me like I'm a political opponent."

Reporters are grumbling more and more that the campaign is acting like the Prom Queen. They gripe that it is "arrogant" and "control[ling]," and the campaign's own belief that Obama is poised to make history isn't endearing, either.

Here's the most telling -- and troubling -- part:

Reporters who have covered Obama's biography or his problems with certain voter blocs have been challenged the most aggressively. "They're terrified of people poking around Obama's life," one reporter says. "The whole Obama narrative is built around this narrative that Obama and David Axelrod built, and, like all stories, it's not entirely true. So they have to be protective of the crown jewels." Another reporter notes that, during the last year, Obama's old friends and Harvard classmates were requested not to talk to the press without permission.

Just what sort of "crown jewels" are they protecting? The answers may reside in what may be the most eye-opening investigation of Campaign 2008 yet published...

Donna and Karl, sittin' in a tree. Did you know that Donna Brazile has long been chummy with Karl Rove? Take special note of the way Donna praised Rove and Bush in the wake of Katrina.

Turns out Donna's GOP pals have long taken an interest in Barack Obama. Please forgive a lengthy quote (emphases added by me):

Obama did score a landslide victory that year, but it had little to do with his age, energy level or the obsolete nature of the Democratic Party establishment. His campaign manager David Axelrod ran the classic Rovian smear campaign, first accusing Obama’s top primary contender of sexual impropriety. After disgracing Blair Hull out of contention, Axelrod used the same device against the G.O.P. primary winner, Jack Ryan.

Of course, this is where things get interesting. House Speaker Dennis Hastert decided he must stick his oar into the battle, calling on Ryan to end his senate bid. The candidate dutifully bowed out, and in his stead, the Illinois Republican Party fielded an unknown, African American bible-thumper from Maryland named Alan Keyes. Clearly, the G.O.P. wanted Obama to win that election. No other explanation can account for the party sacrificing a senate seat to a (supposedly) liberal Democrat who'd (supposedly) spoken out against the Iraq War in 2002.

A Hollywood script writer couldn't have come up with this storyline. Within a year of arriving in Washington, Brazile’s rising star – the product of a globe-trotting Kansas woman and a philandering tribal leader in Kenya - had launched his presidential exploratory committee. The Internet fundraising team of Howard Dean signed on for the ride. So, too, did some of Wall Street’s biggest investment banks, corporate law firms, and energy giants. By the end of 2007, Obama would post a record-breaking haul of $100 million in campaign contributions. And all while he was still "introducing himself", as Brazile and other analysts put it, to the American public.

Who exactly brought the banks and oil companies to the table still remains to be ferreted out, but it wasn't Dean or Brazile, or even the man who placed Obama on the speaker's list at the 2004 Democratic Convention, John Kerry. It's more likely that Karl Rove huddled with top Bush fundraisers to set that gravy train in motion. Among the candidate's money bundlers were George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar, both oil industry executives. Other Bush campaign pioneers joined the bandwagon soon afterward.

Allow me to add a further note about the Ryan business. He was running behind in most polls, and may have lost to Obama in any case. But no-one can deny that he would have been a tougher foe than Alan Keyes was. The strange (and possibly illegal) leaking of Ryan's sealed divorced records -- against the wishes of both himself and his famed ex -- could have created sympathy for Ryan.

Now let's fast-forward to the 2008 primaries.

Remember the prog-blog Big Lie about how Hillary owed her votes to a cross-over campaign masterminded by Rush Limbaugh? This propaganda meme spun the truth 180 degrees.

The Republicans had targeted Hillary for removal from the beginning:

As she would mention in the Washington Times article two years later, her “old friend” Rove had hit the ground running with the start of the 2008 election cycle, appearing on talk shows to bash frontrunner Hillary Clinton. Behind the scenes, G.O.P. rank and file activists were organizing crossover voting drives to knock Clinton out of the race before November.

That's not all. As you know, many have questioned the antics of the Obama team in the caucus states. Obama did much better in those elections.) Were the Obama supporters actual Democrats -- or were they Rovian changelings?

In the red states, they could easily outnumber Democrats at the caucuses, enriching Obama’s delegate count and allowing him to boast later “I’ve won more states.”

To recruit additional foot troops for this effort, New Hampshire G.O.P. leader Stephen DaMaura started the Facebook website “Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary).”

Although the Clinton camp didn’t realize it at the time, a caucus in Nevada (like a caucus anywhere) would naturally benefit Obama, since her base of blue-collar, older and non-English-speaking supporters would not be driving across town to attend some meeting run by disorganized volunteers. On the other hand, motivated Republicans could be counted on to show up, especially if the G.O.P. candidates could be persuaded not to campaign in the state. (They didn’t.)

And now we get into serious electoral fraud territory:

According to Cronin’s study, nearly all of Obama’s 138-delegate lead over Clinton could be traced to 12 red state caucuses. In most of these contests he routinely won by 2-1 margins, even though polls in those states showed the candidates much closer. In Idaho, for instance, with its scant African American population, few colleges and relatively few Starbucks outlets, he captured 15 of the state's 18 delegates.

Something fishy was going on here. Was Dean's so-called 50-state strategy for a DNC managed campaign to stack caucus locations with Obama supporters? Did the number of G.O.P. crossover voters wildly exceed expectations? Or was there just downright lying in the computation of the vote tallies?

Too bad "Thor" Friedman won't talk about this stuff. Fortunately, we have Rosemary Regello, author of the above. She also wrote this list of potential "October Surprises" awaiting the Lightbringer.

If Regello's analysis is correct, then Rove followed a clear one-two-three strategy.

1. Pick the Dem with the most skeletonized closet.
2. Set 'im up.
3. Knock 'im down.

Even if step three does not come off as planned, those skeletons will keep a President Obama in line.

What impresses me most about Obama...

2008-07-25T01:28:00.000-07:00

I got this from here:

"What impresses me most about Obama is how he and his crew survived for six days on coconuts after their PT boat was torpedoed in the Pacific Theater during WW2.

And to this day Obama still has back problems that resulted from the daring rescue of his men while under Japanese fire."

Truth be told, even I had to doff my cap to Obama when he led a team of SHIELD agents as they raided the headquarters of the Yellow Claw, who turned out to be a robot controlled by Dr. Doom. That was cool.

What's your choice for Obama's finest moment?

More unity

2008-07-24T11:29:00.000-07:00

Save this TPM page, which appeared just a few days ago. It explains why Obama has lost ground in Ohio, Florida, Colorado, Michigan and other states over the past week -- a week which should have had the opposite effect.

During that time, McCain has received mostly unflattering coverage while this nation's "journalists" have performed non-stop verbal fellatio on the O-Man during his "presidential" tour. And yet Obama keeps shedding support in the purple states, and in the head-to-head national polls. (Ignore this outlier, which comes to us via -- but of course! -- MSNBC.)

On the other end of the TPM link, Greg Sargent reprints (without much comment) the instantly-notorious Fowler/Germond attack on the Clinton donors. Anyone with any understanding of human psychology will instantly see that Fowler and Germond's bullying words could only have the opposite of the intended effect.

Sargent's post provoked interesting responses. The TPM commenters prove that Obots do NOT want unity. What they want is the emotional satisfaction that comes from projecting all of their personal frustrations and petty resentments onto anyone named Clinton. They prefer wallowing in CDS to victory.

Obama needs to focus on McCain, not on the traitors behind him. We need a unified party, and if you are not willing to be part of the unified party, then GET YOUR ASS OUT OF HERE, and FAST! We are SERIOUSLY TIRED of WHINING HILLARY-WACKS.

I pledge to NEVER VOTE FOR ANY WOMAN FOR POTUS if Obama is not elected.

It's about time the leadership of the DNC grew even the beginnings of a backbone - and started calling out those HillBillies who remain ensconced in their own fantasy world.

If you support Obama, good, you are welcome. If you do not, fuck off, asshole. Go and vote for McCain

Uh huh. I get it: You don't need the PUMAs. You hate them. Fine. One question: Why are DNC bigwigs asking them for money?

Hillary lost 5 months ago and is now self-destructing. Had she demonstrated she was a team player and worked to re-unite the Democratic party, she might have been an acceptable VP by convention time, but she made only two (2) appearances with Obama and is clearly not supporting him in private with her supporters either. By November, I doubt she will be able to win a Democratic primary for ANY office.

Judging from the droopy polls, Obama is the one doing the self-destructing. But hey -- it's all Hillary's fault, even though she has behaved with faultless party loyalty. Isn't it nice to have a scapegoat?

Prediction: Hillary Clinton will stay in the Senate as long as she likes. Obama will lose in November and will lose his Senate seat in 2010 or 2016.

embittered old corpse:

Boy, you're really hanging in there. Thought you'd have dropped over dead by now! Fingers still seem to be working though the synapses in that brain are clearly no longer firing! You must be some sorta' medical miracle! Now that I think of it - maybe a freak.

Now that's a unifying sentiment if ever I heard one.

Those PUMAs aren't really Democrats that a disinterested observer would recognize. They are all wealthy, and I assume largely apolitical...

Ah yes. The Cannon fortune is indeed legendary. And my years of blogging prove my apolitical nature.

I've made this suggestion before, but let's repeat it: If you really think that big GOP funders are behind the PUMA movement, put your paranoia to the test. Open up a PUMA site. If you pilfer lots of material, you can have an impressive-looking operation up and running in a few hours. Then ask Team McCain for some cash.

You won't get a dime.

And you won't get a dime from Hillary, either. In fact, the money flow has gone in the other direction. Meanwhile, Moulitsas, Stassinopoulos, Marshall, and Sullivan have barrels of cash.

The fact that the Clintons chief contribution to the Democratic Party was their rejection of traditional Democratic constituencies (e.g., African-Americans and Labor) only makes them more appealing to this group of supporters, who really do deserve the name "Limousine Liberals."

Get a clue, clown: Hillary had the majority of the black vote until Obama smeared her with false accusations of racism. No Democrat -- of any sort -- would ever be so stupid as to reject the black vote, the Latino vote, the Jewish vote or any other traditional group of supporters. Over the course of the past year, all (all) polls and pundits have agreed that Hillary appealed primarily to working class voters. Obama catered to the affluent -- and to what has been called "the creative class," which has neither creativity nor class.

What amuses me about this commenter is the arrogance of nescience. He actually thinks he knows something about politics!

It is time for PUMAs to SIT DOWN and SHUT UP.

But they can take out their checkbooks and make a contribution to Obama first.

Yeah, that approach will open up lots of wallets. You think this guy works in sales? "Buy this car, you ugly motherfucker!"

Either work with Obama or don't, but stop undermining the party. It's beyond annoying.

Why shouldn't we undermine the party? The Obots kicked us out of it! To wit:

At the end of WWII, all the French whores who serviced the Germans were rounded up. Their heads were shaved, and they were tarred and feathered.

At the end of a war, the victorious side settles its debts. If you helped, you get a reward. If you did not help, you are in serious trouble.

I like the shaven head and tar and feathering idea for Clintonistas!!

These idiots actually think that making threats of violence will impel us to send money to Obama. In any American schoolyard, that sort of behavior is called bullying.

And yet these monsters -- these vile, toxic, odious agglomerations of ambulatory sub-human fecal matter -- actually blame us for disuniting the Democratic party.

We created the rift, y'see. We didn't say "thank you" while they flogged us.

Obot insults have now gone too deep, and can never be retracted.

As long-time readers know, I was never a big fan of Hillary Clinton. As long-time readers know, I don't like John McCain and have never agreed with most Republican principles. I am, at heart, an FDR-revering, pro-big-guvamint lifelong Dem.

But thanks to the arrogance of the Obots, I would vote for John McCain even if he came out in favor of theocratic feudalism. I would vote for John McCain even if he espoused dropping nuclear weapons on California. I would vote for John McCain even if he killed my beloved dog with his bare hands.

Keep up the "unity" campaign, Obots. Keep piling on the hatred and the insults. You are doing a great job.

Noted...

2008-07-24T01:26:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan: Can the long-term battle there be won? What, in fact, would constitute "winning"? Our Australian friend Nick Possum offers an analysis which suggests that the war was lost the moment the invasion succeeded.

Even the US threw in just sufficient troops to push the Talibs out of Kabul and Kandahar and not much more. The doubters pointed out that the experience of Vietnam and Algeria (not to mention Afghanistan itself in the previous 150 years!) suggested that several hundred thousand troops would be needed to prop up a puppet government for long enough for it to establish legitimacy and stability. Rumsfeld and the rest of the neocon crew paid no attention.

For the Taliban, "winning" is simple: Just wait out the invaders.

The two previous posts recreated the toxic environment that led to the creation of the PUMA movement. Reaction on other blogs has been very positive. By contrast, many comments sent to this blog maintained the tradition of poison and had to be deleted on first whiff.

(I usually skim only a line or two of those messages, some of which are quite lengthy. Conscience permits me to delete freely, considering the rampant censorship on the big blogs. Besides, the O-creeps always violate one of my posted rules.)

The basic thesis of those two preceding posts holds that those crying for "unity" actually don't give a damn about it. If those telling us to "let-bygones-be-bygones" truly felt that way, they would cease insulting and begin demonstrating some humility. You don't express resentment toward an estranged girlfriend if you hope to reconcile, right?

Nevertheless, the Obots always respond to the PUMAs with insults, insults, and more insults. Until I see some other type of response -- something that demonstrates a little crow and/or hat in the diet -- I must presume that Obamafolk would prefer a McCain victory.

Liberal Rapture puts the matter well:

The Obama mob is dangerous. Why "dangerous?" Because they have no sense of their hatred. They never overhear themselves. Whether is it the mindless adoration of the empty suit or vicious attacks on the Clintons, self awareness is nil with these zombies. The most recent letter from the DNC is a case study in arrogant stupidity. No apology for the sexist Obama campaign. No humility. No gratitude for Clinton energizing the old Democratic base. Just "pony up." Followed by a thousand contradictory salvos of "Get Out!" and "You're Republicans!"

Yet another Obama lie: The signs of this man's addiction to deceit are obvious and serious. Progressives feel obliged to forgive outright fabrications that they would never have tolerated in a George W. Bush.

In Israel, Obama told his hosts to judge him by his "deeds," which, considering his nearly non-existent record, is a bit like judging a squid by its haircut.

“Just this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committee, a bill to call for divestment from Iran, as a way of ratcheting up the pressure to ensure that they don’t obtain a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Barack Obama is not on the Banking Committee.

I like the dry humor displayed by the LA Times' blog:

Some blogs...interpreted Obama's misstatement as intentional attempts to overstate his efforts. That would indeed be shocking in the middle of a political campaign.

The birth controversy: New information confirms that Obama was born in Hawaii. (I was informed of this find a few days ago, but was told to keep mum about it until TexasDarlin broke the news.)

Anti-Obama researchers in Hawaii found a newspaper announcement of the Blessed One's nativity. The birth occurred on August 4, 1961; the announcement appeared on August 12. Although the squib refers to "Mr. and Mrs. Barack H. Obama," I still hold to the belief that they never married. Many people fibbed about such things in the days when an illegitimate birth carried a stigma.

Can we please put this one behind us? Married or unmarried, Ann Dunham had zero motivation to leave the country when she gave birth.

The Obots dare to lecture US on "unity"?

2008-07-22T07:50:00.000-07:00

I just deleted a large number of the most hate-filled comments imaginable. All of these comments were directed at the PUMA movement and at myself.

These Obots actually dared to lecture me on the need for unity -- even after I documented the many, many times they told non-worshipers of the Lightbringer to leave the party.

Not only do these individuals lack all sense of self-awareness, they have proven themselves to be genetically incapable of refraining from insult, even when insults will only harm their cause. The Obots don't want unity. If they did, they would apologize. They would show some humility.

To prove the point, check out these excerpts from a letter sent by DNC bigwigs Don Fowler and Alice Germond. They want Hillary supporters to pony up some dough for the Lightbringer.

Do Fowler and Germond offer even a hint of repentance for the incessant Obot smears against Hillary and her followers? Do they apologize for the fact that Hillary's voters were repeatedly told to leave their party?

No.

Instead, we see these outrageous, bullying sentiments:

I must confess a bit of fatigue and irritation with people who continue to carp, complain, and criticize the results of the primary and lay down conditions for their support. The Los Angeles Lakers didn’t establish conditions to recognize the Boston Celtics as NBA Champions; Roger Federer did not demand concessions before recognizing that Rafael Nadal defeated him at Wimbledon.

It is time to act in a mature and resourceful fashion. It’s time to put the primaries behind us. It’s time to support Barack Obama without conditions or demands.

"Fatigue and irritation"? "Without conditions or demands"?

Let's take a few further trips down memory lane. For six straight months, we were subjected on a daily basis to messages like these...

The menses makes the ladies crazy and unhinged. That's why we can never have a woman as president. They'd get all PMS-ish and start a nuclear war.

yes, she is the ultimate fag hag, isn't she?...

and her campaign in pennsylvania proved many of the gay men in the midstate (100% of whom support her) are a bunch of racist queens...

The good news is if Clinton wins (steals) the presidency she will likely be assassinated within a week. She is a total lying gas bag hag and deserves to [go to] her maker for what will only be described as a truly karmic moment which will last for all eternity. Seriously- how in the hell did this manipulative press whore make it this far?

Time to board the O-train, ladies

Gee, that's not condescending, is it?

Hillary is divisive. She is polarizing the democratic party in the same manner in which she has polarized the nation. She is a divider, not a uniter.

The people who claim most loudly that Hillary would never murder a human being for her own power forgive and applaud her enthusiastic murder of a million innocent Iraqis for the same end. To her and them, it would be just one more, and since it's not even a white person, it doesn't even count towards getting into heaven.

Hillary Clinton is a monster, and a bitter hag.

Geeze, they weren't kidding when they said Hillary was pulling the uneducated vote.

The heinous Hillary hag with a bullseye on her forehead is reason enough to vote for Obama.

It's amazing how many times the "progressive" blogmasters printed calls for Hillary's death.

And a Drive-By Won't Be Out of the Question. What goes around, comes around. The stupid fucking bitch !!

Talk About WHITE TRASH that bitch better keep looking over her shoulder.

The worthless hag is finished

From a discussion of a possible Clinton campaign theme song:

How about "Arkansas Uber Alles"? Seig Heil to Mrs Clinton!

thanks to her fucking ovaries (and her last name, let's be honest here), while she continually refuses to concede — at the expense of the entire Democratic Party, and women's credibility in politics throughout the nation, even after Obama secured enough delegates to clinch the nomination — her rabid supporters stick by her like glue.

These people are like the candidate they backed: they have the emotional maturity of an 8-year-old.

Maybe Hillary should comment on her supporters being complete idiots?

Fucking idiots, all of them. But it's not big deal, just a little reminder that, as Sven said, 5% of the population is unhinged, and a decent chunk of that crowd are/were Clinton supporters.

Right. It's the Hillary voters who got a rep for fanaticism. Never mind the fact that Obama's supporters have been known to issue death threats. To wit:

if hillary is elected we're gonna be stuck with whomever she picks as a running mate for the remainder of the term after she gets assasinated.

Hillary is in this for her own personal power trip, and a sense of entitlement.

"Entitlement." This, from a supporter of the guy who put the presidential seal on his podium before securing the nomination, and who insists on giving his acceptance speech in a football stadium.

Hillary's gonna lose you feminazi cunts. Do the math, it's over.

Hillary is a liar and a cunt

One Salon correspondent wrote the following last January:

I've been seeing the word "cunt" in blogs and email to a staggering degree, all from men I thought were reasonable people. It seems like there's been a pent up need to describe women as a set of genitals again and has been released via some kind of tipping point.

The Obot response: Hillary deserves to be called a cunt.

It is less than misogyny. It is politically incorrect slamming of HRC, which many people think she well deserves.

Thus, the correct response to Jeremiah Wright's famous declaration is this: Obama ain't never been called a cunt. (I doubt that he has ever been called a "nigger," frankly.)

They're all crazy cunts,taze them all!!!!!!

Cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt cunt CUNT cunt cunt cunt CUNT cunt cunt cunt CUNT CUNT CUNT CUNT . . .

Yo! Cunt!

the Clinton's squirm and look like the reactionary idiots they are

it is really the Bush/Clinton crime family.

Note: That last one is from der Cheeto, not some wacky conspiracy site. The following is from Huffington Post:

Serves you right for putting your faith in the Bush Clinton Crime Family.

To Bill Clinton (after yet another Arrianist smear):

Maybe if Huffington Post existed in 1992 and Americans, especially ALL Democrats were able to understand who and what you are and represent, you would never have become our President. You, sir, are unquestionably, A DOUCHEBAG and a criminal one at that.

Again, this stuff doesn't come from sites run by Alex Jones or any of his ilk. From Democratic Underground -- just a few weeks ago:

Bush Clinton crime family must be eradicated.

8 years of being sold out by a DINO clinton is more than enough.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman, it has nothing to do with feminism, and everything to do with the clintonian, rovian campaign she ran and the damage she is still doing to the Democratic Party.

Incidentally, testimony in the Rezko trial established that the Illinois Combine -- the criminal conspiracy in which Obama played a key role -- has direct ties to the Bush White House.

On the April 10, 2008 Top 10 Conservative Idiots list, DU slammed a couple of right-wing radio yakkers for spreading yarns about "the brutal murder of Vince Foster."

What hypocrisy! In recent months, the one-stop-shopping resource for Clintonian conspiracy crankishness has been none other than Democratic Underground.

Here, several DUmmies blames Bill Clinton for the 1972 air disaster which killed congressman Hale Boggs. But that's not all:

I thought Vince Foster was on the Clinton Body Count list

The Clinton death list

The following is a partial list of deaths of persons connected to President Clinton during his tenure as Governor of Arkansas and/or while President of the United States and thereafter. Read the list and judge for yourself...

The list begins with Barbara Olson, who was killed during 9/11. Implication: Clinton did it!

Poll question: Did Hillary Clinton murder Benzir Bhutto as some rival campaigns suggest?

The poll results: Of 38 respondents, 95% said that Clinton killed Bhutto; five percent said that she did not. Comments in that thread:

i think she needs to come clean on where the bodies are

LIHOP!!!!

Unfortunately, many of the choicest bits of lunacy on DU are being wiped out of existence; on other sites, you can find references documenting what was said.

From Kos:

The Vince Foster Issue Should Be Investigated Again. Clintons just showed that their ambitions know no limit.

This one's from Huffington Post:

The Clintons and their surrogates are sounding and acting more and more like the mafioso. Now I'm really beginning to question all that I used to defend about the clintons -- Vince Foster, Whitewater, etc etc etc....Vast right wing conspiracy?? Methinks not!

From Crooks and Liars:

Unfortunately, very little if anything has been heard about the bizarre death of Vince Foster, Hillary’s sniper fire lie, and Whitewater

On Alternet:

Watch the 'The Clinton Chronicles', free on Google Video! A tale of cocaine Trafficing and murder in Arkansas!

Vince Foster, Vince Foster, Vince Foster

Remember: These sites were (usually) very careful to censor pro-Hillary sentiments. Thus, we know that these comments appeared only because the blog proprietors wanted them to appear. The "big bloggers" chose to spread right-wing conspiracy claims.

The following appeared in a newspaper, not a progblog, but I cannot resist quoting it here:

Hilliary is a LIAR, PERJURER AND SHE LAUGHS AT ALL OF YOU DUMMIES EACH TIME SHE LEAVES A RALLY.The Clintons shoud have been arrested long ago; Travelgate, Whitewater, Vince Foster's supposed suicide, the disappearance of files from his law office when investigators arrived there only to surface suddenly 2 years later, Republican files found all over her Whitehouse office that must have walked there, Jennifer Flowers, Monica, her refusal to make her financial statements available as required by law, their (Clintons) refusal to release the papers dealing with Hilliary's years as first lady and on and on. Where there is smoke there is usually fire. There is no smoke around Obama, only rumors deliberate started by the Clinton group. People, are you that dumb?

This is from Barack Obama's site.

McCain and Bill Clinton cut from the same mold!

Talk about projection:

Since then, Hillary has done nothing of note in the Senate except to vote for the Iraq War, a position she has since disavowed, and to win the applause of her colleagues for not being partisan and obstinate. Her main efforts have been directed at raising massive sums of money for herself and her colleagues and making a lot from writing and selling her memoirs.

I'll match Hillary Clinton's Senate record against that of Barack "Present!" Obama any day of the week. As we have seen, Obama raised more money -- from mysterious sources. And his main source of income (legit income, not counting the pay-to-play bribes he got as part of the Illinois Combine) came from selling his memoirs.

Have you ever noticed how the Clinton's surround themselves with less than savory characters?

Oh, pul-LEEZE! Rezko, Blagojevich, Daley, Auchi, Ata, Ayers, Wright, Pfleger...

This is unprecedented. In no previous primary campaign has any Democrat routinely allowed crap like this to appear in an official publication or website.

Let's never forget this popular item:

Does Hillary want to murder Obama? Probably not with her own two hands but one thing for sure: HILLARY WANTS BARACK OBAMA DEAD

Kay has a list of dead peoples somehow related to Clintons

Have we mentioned yet the established "fact" that Hillary appeals to bigots?

I'VE HAD IT WITH HER DOG WHISTLE RACISM...

Just like she dog whistled to all her racist friends in WV and KY

Has Hillary ever denouced the bigots who support her?

(That was a Kos headline.)

Her strategy is CLEARLY to try to amplify racial tensions so she can get more votes. Hillary = Palpatine.

Not voting for Hillary is blatantly sexist. But voting for her because you just won't vote for a black man is not racist at all. Didn't you get the memo?

Hillary is enabling racism which is why I could not vote for her. As a black person...it would be like voting for a Nazi sympathizer and apologist if I were a Jew. What amount of self-hatred would I have to have to do that?

She "enabled" no such thing, of course. Still, this misguided comment raises a good point. Some insults really do cut so deeply that one must vote against the nominee of one's party. So why do the Obots think we have to put up with their continuous insults? If the commenter prefers McCain over Hillary Clinton, then the PUMAs may surely pursue a similar strategy.

That racist block is the constituency that is keeping her fight alive.

Get the message, PUMAs? You're all racists!By the way, that same Kos thread has this laff riot:

Barack is all about unity -- he talks about it all the time, so there's no question about whether he wants people who foster divisions associated with his campaign. The thing is, Barack doesn't SAY one thing and ACT in a way that doesn't fit what he said.

FISA, anyone? Campaign finance? The Goolsbee "back channel" to Canada on NAFTA? Has Mr. Unity been "single faced" on any issue?

Back to "Hillbots are racists" meme:

Hillary proved that the White in American racism trumps the FEMaleness in Feminism.

When the dirty dealing 'sack Barack attack' was launched in New Hampshire and got shifted into high gear in OHIO, Mr. and Mrs. Clinton went fishing in the waters of the KKK and the Aryan nation's pool of most eligibles. Feminism and the Fem movement were the least thing on their Wealthy, White, Elitist, little minds.

Speaking of elitism, this one is classic:

President Elect Obama dose not need Hillary's Help

And yet these fools accused Hillary of operating with a sense of entitlement!

You and Salon are absolutely wrong to claim that Hillary's appeal is strong.

Many of her later votes were Rush Limbaugh fans. Others were people voting for her simply because she was white. She played on both of these to the maximum extent possible.

Her complicite votes, her silence, Her Campaign tactics all point to the fact they are nothing more then covert operatives for the Corps. Once I pulled Up a List of DLC members, I was able to decipher their coded agenda.... Honestly the Clintons cause me as much concern as do the Neo Cons.Their allegiences are the Same and their under handed tactics come from the same playbook (because they are One in the Same).

She certainly has not been acting like a Democrat. Neither has her husband. I do think she'll try to pull a Lieberman.

Let's take a closer look at the big Limbaugh lie:

There is all kinds of evidence suggesting that Limbaugh's legions of mouth-breathing morons made the popular vote difference in Ohio and Texas, at least.

Of course, no evidence suggests that anyone voted for Hillary on the basis of any statement by Rush Limbaugh. But, as we have seen in previous posts, the GOP began rooting for Obama to win after the Wright fiasco showed how vulnerable the Lightbringer truly was.

This blogger offered a previous collection of choice anti-Clintonisms. This list is more concise than mine:

She’s a monster who just won’t die. In fact, she really should just die. You can buy a urinal target with her face on it to express what you really think of her. OMG she’s got claws! She’s crazy. In fact, she’s a lunatic. She’s petty and vindictive and entitled. She’s a washed-up old hag. She’s “everybody’s first wifestanding outside probate court.” She’s a “scolding mother.” She’s shrill… shrill… shrill. She can’t take it when people are mean to her. She’s a “hellish housewife.” She’s Tanya Harding. She CAN’T be President, what with the mood swings and the menses.Any woman who votes for her is voting with her vagina, not her brain. Women only like Hillary because she’s a fellow Vagina-American. And because they vote with their feelings. Frankly, anyone who still thinks we need “feminine role models” should get over it and move on, already. Oh, and men who supporther are castratos in the eunuch chorus

It doesn't even occur to people like Don Fowler and Alice Germond that those "vagina-Americans" and "castratos in the eunuch chorus" might not want to shell out some unity dough until the Lightbringer's minions to show some remorse.

Fowler and Germond, you will recall, were the two DNCers who demanded that the pro-Hillary crowd demonstrate their "unity" by ponying up the dough. Their haughty, imperious attitude proves that the Democratic leadership doesn't give a damn about unity. They don't care about money. They don't really care about defeating McCain.

If they did, they would at least learn to feign humility. They would apologize for the nonstop smear campaign against the Clintons and their voters.

Pride prevents the Dem leaders from offering such an apology, even though doing so would be prudent from a purely tactical point of view.

These people are all about ego. They don't want unity. They want you to dine on their shit.

If Team Obama and the DNC finally do apologize: Look out for weasel words, and refuse any apology that minimizes the problem or pretends that both sides were equally at fault. Snub any apology that includes the words "Some" or "sometimes" or "little." As in:

"Sometimes in the heat of a campaign, some of the rhetoric gets a little out of hand."

Any such apology, if it comes, should be considered an insult. The division created by the Obots in 2008 was unique and monstrous, and nothing short of grovelling will begin to heal the wound.

Famous last words: "We can win without them!"

2008-07-20T18:11:00.000-07:00

This recent comment on MSNBC sums up the progblog position:

Hillary's supporters are not needed by Obama. He'll have enough votes without them. Those fat old poor white women can go pound salt.

Yep, all 18 million of 'em should just go away.

This, despite the fact that John Kerry's margin of defeat (or victory) in 2004 was razor thin. Keep in mind: At a similar point in that campaign, Kerry had a significant lead over GWB. Obi's lead over McCain has shrunk, and may soon exist only on the molecular level. In a year that should be a Dem "gimme," Obi struggles to run neck and neck.

Despite all of that, his supporters want fewer Democrats.

Why, then, does the PUMA movement arouse so much fury in Obot-land? After all, the bots spent months calling for a party purge. Even Donna Brazile said as much to a Hillary supporter, in a letter dated May 7, 2008:

Yes, please join Rush and McCain asap. The train has left. Catch it.

...Message to the base: stay home.

This bit comes from Donna's famous brouhaha with Paul Begala:

A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don't have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics. We need to look at the Democratic Party, expand the party, expand the base...

Y'see, Donna and Obi have done such a marvelous job of expanding the base that they don't need the PUMAs.

So I can't understand the anti-PUMA rancor. Instead of sending us death threats, why don't the bots thank us? We simply did what we were told to do: We left. On Democratic Underground, Kos, and Huffington Post, on all the prog-blogs, the message was loud and clear:

We can win without them.

We can win without them - but only by realizing what is actually at stake, and redoubling our own efforts for grassroots fundraising, volunteering, and being steadfast about our candidate, and our campaign.

"Do you believe Obama can become President without the votes of folks who support Hillary?"

ABSOFUCKINGLUTELY!

good riddance. You *should* leave the party. And people like you.

good riddance to bad trash, as granny would say.

The numbers of hysterical, crazed old females who have emotionally latched on to Hillary is simply a phenomenon that can't be denied. I don't know what is causing this but it's REAL and can't be swept under the rug. There's a BIG bunch of unhinged, old white females, far beyond self-embarrassment, who are acting like screeching Hags for Hill.

Obama does not have a white problem, he has a backwater inbred ignorant racist appalachian hillbilly problem. And we can win without them.

Gosh, and they wonder why the Hillary voters feel insulted...

You mean old white women? Yes, I do think that Obama can win without them.

As for their “threats” not to vote for Obama; I say good rithens. Not only do I not care if these people come around to support Obama or not, I would rather these vile, narrow minded, perpetrators of hate associated with the Democratic party, or Barack Obama.

I say F*ck 'Em. If they want to split the party and go their own way then more power to them. We don't need their sour grapes. Maybe the Puma's shouldn't be in the party anymore.

Good bye, good luck, and good riddance.

Good riddance. I'd prefer working on winning back the greens.

We can win without them, and we ought to! These are the same voters (perhaps a generation removed) that Nixon's southern strategy, and Reagan announcement speech in philidelphia mississippi declaring a "return to local control", were dog-whistles too...

And they wonder why the party fractured...

The following comes from Obama's own site:

These people are not Democrats they are Hillacrats. So I encourage them to vote McCain b/c with party members who are loyal to their candidate first and party second especially when that candidate has done as much as HRC and especially when that opponent is a Republican. We are better off without them, and I could care less who doesn't agree.

This, too, comes from the official Obama site -- from a writer who insists that Hillary Clinton was "destroying" the Democratic party:

Who cares if older white women stay home? Got news for you. With the coalition Obama has put together we can win without them.

Remember the "assassination" smear?

If they are complicit in assassination tallk by their candidate, who the hell wants their votes in the first place. We can win without them. I suspect not that many will go for McCain as they threaten with a new found power they think they have and if they do, the next book out will be entitled: What Is The Matter With Feminists?

LEAVE the party and form your own party. I think that a third of the Hillary supporters will either leave the party or stay home in November which is, in the final analysis, good for the Democratic Party because it will “purge” the party of the fetters of conservatism/negativism that keeps the party in disarray.

Hillary was never more than Bush in a dress, and her supporters were never more than the George Wallace / Joe Lieberman wing of the Party with a large dash of untreated menopausal psychosis.

NEVER FORGET THAT COMMENT. NEVER FORGIVE IT.

It's not about his supporters reaching out or being kind. Hopefully, we can win without them by making sure that we register as many new voters as possible...

In part, I agree. Obots have not shown any willingness to reach out or to be kind.

What would be the point of kissing azz for some old hags/bigots? Again, they will not vote for him under any circumstance. He can win without them!!

Here's an interesting variant:

If Obama doesn't win because the party is split, racism, or whatever, then so be it.

So PUMA is all about racism. It has nothing to do with Obama's infinitude of lies, his documented ties to crooks, or the vile smear tactics of the Obots. Isn't it nice to have an all-purpose excuse?

Back to the we-don't-need-no-stinkin'-PUMAs meme:

Obama can with her supporters or without them ....they have no power ...they hold no sway ....they are meaningless ...

I'm sure the 'bitter' working class will come around.

Obama doesn't owe them anything and can win without them.

We are not going to solve these problems by pandering to fools and bigots.

Obama can win without them and then he owes them nothing.

But again, these people are, simply, Hillary Clinton fans - as in, fanatics - and are not to be confused with Democrats.

Let’s let this voting bloc leave the party once and for all.

We don't need Hillary's supporters! They can go on and vote for McCain!

NO UNITY!!!

The truth is we can win without them, but they can't win without us...

This entire struggle with the corporate wing of the Democratic party may get ugly, but it is worth the fight.

she nursed the views of these crazies....Hillary made this mess.

Ah yes. The CUTI principle: Create Unity Through Insult.

We don't need Hillary's supporters!

Hate Hillary!

Hate McCain!

We don't need Hillary's supporters!

We can win without their help!

Blue collar white folks are not TYPICAL Democrats... Obama can win without them.

if the supporters of Sen. Clinton's should leave the Dem Party they would simply bid good riddance to them.

And all you people who say you have been lifelong democrats, but if Hillary gets the nomination, you will become republicans–I say good riddance.

To the people above who are threatening to leave the party (or -- ha -- the country) if Obama's the nominee, I know I'm not the only person whose response is: GOOD RIDDANCE!

The point I want to make is that we can win without them.

Fortunately, the Democratic coalition has expanded in recent years, and, as such, we no longer have to consider pandering to the worst elements of that bloc. We can win without them, and we will...

I will not be kissing the behinds of her supporters because I believe we CAN win without them!

This was published on the official Obama site just a couple of days ago...

We can win without them.

I say better off....

These clueless idiots still think that Republicans created the PUMA movement!

...those all-important "working class Americans, white Americans" that support Clinton are nothing more than ignorant rednecks. I think we can win without them because no true democrat would vote for McCain, the ones that say they will may never have been democrats in the first place, we don't know that, they could be republican females who crossed over to vote for the female candidate.

Fair-weather Dems: Don't let the door hit you ...

This next variant originally appeared on Obama's site. It was purged, but Google has a long memory:

All I can say to these whiny losers is please vote for McCain. We don't want you!...I never felt that a bunch of uneducated mobilehome dwelling hillbillies are representative of America anyway. On your way out, please don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you!

don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Anyone who would vote for McCain, just because Hillary lost, don’t let the door hit you. The Democrats nether want nor care a shit about voters like yourself.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out of th party.

Obama should send her packing and tell her, "Let the door hit ya' where the good Lord split ya'!"

That last one was directed at Hillary, not her supporters. Guess who published it? Josh Marshall. Later, the same author emphasized that the same sentiment applies to Hillary's 18 million supporters:

The bile of Hillary's dwindling constituency is a marvel to behold.

Again, don't let the door knob hit ya' ....

Now take your unprofessional remarks and your unprofessional wife and her unprofessional supporters and GO AWAY!

Go. The. Fuck. Away.

Note to all the whacked out Clinton supporters out there--please join the GOP immediately. I love to hear all the racist stuff from you guys too. Very enlightening. Your candidate sucks, she is a lying pro-war self-serving political hack.

A variant meme holds that PUMAs were Republicans all along -- thus, their loss should be considered no loss at all:

a lot of Hillary "supporters" in these exit polls are Republicans in disguise who voted for her because of Rush Limbaugh. They wouldn't vote for Hillary or Obama come November.

I'm sure they realize her millions of cast vote's were also partly a Rush Limbaugh gift....Many democrat's would not have voted if she were the nomination. I find it ridiculous we are still discussing her and her lousy husband. They have no ability to run anything let alone a country. The World detest's this couple with a passion...

Yeah, that Bill Clinton. He just ruined the economy. And what about all those massive protest marches against him, all throughout Europe and elsewhere? The world detested him, all right.

It's obvious that her die hard "supporters" were largely Republican operatives

Stop it, with the "healing the Democratic Party and win the general election..." B.S

You obviously have difficulty recognizing reality, just like your queen Hillary. Whether you like it or not, Hillary is despised by the majority of the nation

Uh huh. Then why does she do better than Obama against McCain, according to all available polls?

we can win without them. I think Obama puts the Dems in that position.

I don't see a "conspiracy theory" at all, just a nascent campaign to narrow party definition - the beginnings of a purge that some people would cheer.

Obama will win AR, FL, MS, NC, and many other states in the South. That’s a fact. He can win states Hillary cannot when all those ‘agents of intolerance’ stay home.

Hillary supporters, needless Democrats.

Also these Republican trolls masquerading as disaffected Hillary supporters are laughable and aren't fooling anyone.

Hillary supporters are Republican-lites to begin with. They never would have voted for a real Democrat in any case.

If some of Hillary's supporters say they won't back Obama if he is the nominee, so be it. It's their choice.

They can win without them if they increase their appeal to young people and independents which Obama has done with unprecedented success.

Uh huh. How's that attitude working out for you?

Dont worry Obama you can win WITHOUT them.

Many of these examples (and we could cite a hundred more) come from the Huffington Post. I'm toying with writing a song or a poem about dear Arianna. A sample couplet:

"And who is a Democrat? I shall define.
I've been here two hours but the party is MINE!"

Never forget: The Obots created PUMA.

Kos created it, Arianna created it, Marshall created it, Aravosis created it, their readers created it, the Obamabots created it. They knew that Obama could not win in a fair fight, so they race-baited, they smeared, they lied, they commandeered the caucus vote, they held illegal secret meetings and they rigged the DNC rules. They became, in short, Republicans.

In 2000, the Republicans told me: "Get over it." I never did. In 2004, the Republicans told me: "Get over it." I never did. In 2008, the Obots keep telling me:"Get over it." I never will.

You brought it on yourselves, Obots. After half-a-year's worth of eliminationist rhetoric and cries for a party purge, we finally left.

You brought it on yourselves. Don't you dare blame PUMA on the Republicans.

PS: I can't resist printing this example of Obot hallucination from June 6:

Clinton is a pathological liar. McBush will continue the unconstitutional wars and warrantless spying on Americans. Obama is the clear choice.

Let's talk about pathological lying, shall we...?

Obama's veep!

2008-07-20T09:24:00.000-07:00

We now know the name of Barack Obama's running mate. As some of you have already guessed, his name is Bris. Mr. Hugh Bris. He's of Greek extraction, and he has been a fixture on the American political scene for a long, long time.

Identity crisis -- UPDATE: CASE CLOSED!

2008-07-20T08:22:00.000-07:00

Controversy over Obama's birth certificate continues. A reader says that my earlier piece (which, frankly, should have settled the matter) has received a rebuttal. Can anyone provide a link? Is the rebuttal well-founded, or is it just blinkered gain-saying?

That said, I must now correct an earlier stance.

Previous posts averred that under American law, Barack Obama would be a natural born citizen even if the birth occurred overseas. That statement was based on SEC. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401], which you can find here.

(Yes, this is going to be one of those ghastly legal posts. I'll make it as painless as possible.)

The law states that a person is a citizen if he or she was born outside the U.S. even if only one parent was a citizen...

who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years...

This was not the way the law read in 1961, when Our Savior had his glorious nativity. The 1961 law does indeed make his citizenship questionable -- if he were born outside U.S. borders. However, the current law says...

This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date...

Case closed? I had thought so.

But a reader has pointed out that I may have mis-read the law by gerrymandering it. That all-important proviso may apply not to this whole paragraph, but to an immediately preceding sentence, which I had originally left out because it seemed irrelevant.

Damn. There's no escaping it -- we simply must look at the whole thing.

Yes, I'm going to ask you to read legalese. On a bloody Sunday morning. A thousand apologies -- but what must be done, must be done. In order to make the text clearer, let's break it up into parts and present it in a more poetic vein...

(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents

one of whom is an alien,

and the other a citizen of the United States

who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years:

Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government

or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act (59 Stat. 669; 22 U.S.C. 288) by such citizen parent,

or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person

(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or

(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 1 of the International Organizations Immunities Act,

may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph.

This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;

The question for today, my friends, comes down to this: Does the "This proviso" bit refer to all of section (g), or does it refer only to the irrelevant military service stuff that comes after "Provided"?

If the latter, and if Obi was born outside the U.S. -- then we really do have a potential problem.

Let me be clear: So far, I've seen no evidence -- none whatsoever -- that the glorious nativity occurred in any place but Hawaii.

TexasDarlin has suggested that Ann Dunham's strange trip to Mercer Island -- a mere three weeks after the glorious nativity -- may indicate that the Lightbringer was born in Canada. I can think of no possible reason why she would go to Canada or to any other country to give birth.

TD is on firmer ground when she discusses another anomaly:

The US Public Records Index via Ancestry.com, as well as other sources, say she was born Sept. 1971.

BUT, there are also several references, such as this Wikipedia report, that say Maya Soertoro was born on Aug. 15, 1970.

To buttress the August 15 claim, a TD commenter named Snoopy (isn't that cute?) cites a site called An American ExPat in Southeast Asia. That author has spent the last twenty years in Indonesia, and has done some good detective work in his attempt to track Our Savior's family during His Glorious Sojourn in that nation.

Interesting stuff, to be sure. Alas, I've seen no mention of the August 15, 1970 birth date anywhere on the ExPat's blog.

("Maya" means "illusion," incidentally. Just thought I'd mention that.)

UPDATE -- CASE CLOSED: A reader named citizen k has found a section of the law which settles the matter once and for all. Even if he had been born in another country, Barack Obama would still be a natural born citizen of the United States.

As you will recall, Michelle Obama recently confirmed that her husband was born out of wedlock. The following law therefore applies:

8 USC 1409(c), Children Born Out of Wedlock:

(c) Notwithstanding the provision of subsection (a) of this section, a person born, after December 23, 1952, outside the United States and out of wedlock shall be held to have acquired at birth the nationality status of his mother, if the mother had the nationality of the United States at the time of such person’s birth, and if the mother had previously been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year.

And that's it and that's it and that's it.

And they wonder why we oppose Obama

2008-07-19T05:44:00.000-07:00

The proprietor of this PUMA-friendly site lives in Allegheny County, PA. During the primary battle in that state, the local Obots literally terrorized her for displaying a Hillary sign on her property. When she became involved in PUMA, the threatening phone calls began.

One evening I received a phone call another death threat and then shortly after my son came in and yelled fire. Someone set my tree on fire. The fire department said the fire was arson.

She's hardly alone. This site is tracking those who have received threats from Obama cultists. Moreover,

The website for the petition calling for Obama to provide a certified birth certificate has been taken down because of threats against the host and their family.

You should see some of the deranged commentary I receive daily, sometimes hourly. I may let an example slip through...

See our previous story here. Also...

You may have seen this video compilation before. Add my voice to those crying "fake." Note that the "water bottle toss" motif enters the sequence only gradually, and then becomes an inescapable part of the ceremony. If these incidents were not staged, then why was every other politician able to give a series of speeches without the "fainting damsel" routine?

Here's the real tell. All of these fainting episodes took place in the fall, winter and spring. But now, in the summer, with temperatures in the 90s and 100s -- no more fainting!

Throwing Fitz

2008-07-18T16:11:00.001-07:00

Marcy Wheeler is to der shmartness as Aquaman is to der wetness, yet she may have missed a key point in her recent important story about Patrick Fitzgerald. The story confirms what we already knew: Rove had hoped to have Fitz removed.

Marcy thus quotes Fitz:

I learned some time in or about early 2005 from agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation ("FBI") that a cooperating witness (who later testified at the Rezko trial, but not about this topic) had advised the FBI agents that he had earlier been told by one of Mr. Rezko's co-schemers that it was the responsibility of a third person in Illinois to have me replaced as United States Attorney. I should be clear that I did not understand that any putative effort to replace me as United States Attorney was related to my conduct as Special Counsel but understood instead that it was related to the investigative activities of federal agents and prosecutors conducting a corruption investigation in Illinois.

Emphasis mine -- and the part I emboldened differs from Marcy's choice.

Hop aboard Dr. Doom's time machine and place yourself back in 2005. Hastert is the House Speaker, the Dems aren't split, Randi Rhodes is still tolerable, and Plamegate is all that anyone on the left wants to talk about.

Now imagine that a shadowy informant tells you: "The White House wants to can Fitzgerald."

"I'm not surprised," you answer. "They want to protect Libby, Rove, Cheney, Bush..."

"No," your informant tells you. "This ain't about Plame. They want to protect Tony Rezko and his crooked pals in Illinois."

How would you react? Probably with a dropped jaw and a loud "Whaaaaaa?" Or perhaps you would wave your hand dismissively. "Get outta here. Who the hell is Tony Rezko, and why would Rove give a shit about him?"

Pretty good question.

Protecting the Illinois Combine mattered more to this White House than protecting Scooter Libby. Think about that.

Marcy alleges that the attempt to fire Fitz occurred because the Republicans wanted to protect bigwig Republican donor Bob Kjellander. She cites the testimony of Ali Ata, the Blagojevich aide who testified at the Rezko trial. But that's not quite what Ata said:

"[Ata] had conversations with Mr. Rezko about the fact that Mr. Kjellander was working with Karl Rove to have Mr. Fitzgerald removed," Hamilton told U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve.

Kjellander was part of the problem, according the Ata. But he was hardly the sole motivating force.

The point is that Kjellander (pronounced Shelander), a Republican national committeeman who has received $800,000 in unexplained fees through a state bond-borrowing deal engineered by Democrat Blagojevich, is no fan of Fitzgerald's either.

Now go here:

One fellow in the federal documents of the Operation Board Games case was listed as “Individual K.” And his buddy appeared several times in those same documents as “Individual A,” for Alpha.

Individuals A and K have not been indicted. But the Tribune identified them as Big Bob Kjellander (pronounced $hell-ander) and his buddy, Big Bill Cellini, the political boss of Springfield.

Kjellander is the Republican committeeman of Illinois who flaunts his friendship with Rove and who recently resigned as treasurer of the Republican National Committee. Kjellander also represented the famous Carlyle Group before the teachers' pension fund board and he received $4.5 million in questionable consulting fees.

Get the picture? Taxpayer funds were being channeled into partisan races. That's the same thing Brent Wilkes tried to get away with.

Blagojevich, a nominal Democrat, was part of the Bush money machine. And never forget: Every time a pay-to-play contract resulted in a "donation" to Blago, Barack Obama (as we have seen in previous posts) also got a share.

Quick question

2008-07-18T15:56:00.000-07:00

If impeachment has hopped onto the table now, why was the idea disallowed in 2007? Could it be that the Democratic leadership wanted the Iraq war to drag on, thereby providing the party with a winning issue?

When insanity reigned supreme

2008-07-18T09:01:00.000-07:00

In this video clip, a black city councilman and a black judge object to the use of the scientific term "black hole," which they consider a racist insult. What alternative should we use -- "color deficient hole"?

Must we now rewrite the history books to remove all reference to the Black Plague? What are we going to call les films noirs? Should I take offense at the phrases "white noise" or "whited sepulchers"?

Here's another example of the same sort of foolishness -- an example that impacts my own field.

I've read in several places that cartoonists have been afraid to draw pictures of Barack Obama. Why? Because artists know that the usual wild exaggerations of physiognomy -- the humorous distortions which separate a cartoon from an illustration -- will be misinterpreted as visual racism. Our society is so beset by race-based hypersensitivity that cartoonists who routinely "uglify" everyone in the public eye feel constrained to make Obama look as handsome as possible.

This was not the case in 1984 and 1988, when Jesse Jackson ran. Cartoonists distorted his features -- just as they distorted the features of Mondale, Hart, Dukakis and Reagan. (For some reason, Reagan was always drawn with a huge simian gulf separating his nose from his upper lip, even though no such gulf existed in real life.) Nobody took offense at the Jackson caricatures. Everyone, black and white, understood that he received the same treatment that everyone else got.

Of course, one reason why cartoonists of that era had an easier time of it lies in the fact that Jackson is just plain easier to draw than Obama is. (It's the eyes. Once you get JJ's eyes right, you've captured him.) But I think changing times have also made cartoonists more skittish. Racism is hardly worse than it was twenty years ago -- but accusations of racism are tossed around with gleeful abandon. Back then, you were called a racist if you said something on the order of "I don't want my child marrying a black person." That was real racism. Now, you are called a racist if you say "What Barack Obama tells you about his Iraq war stance amounts to a fairy tale."

Which brings me to what I hope will be a final word about that damned New Yorker cover. God knows I usually love Bob Somerby, but the guy has written with uncharacteristic idiocy on this topic.

Candidate Gore was murdered by RNC-inspired “satire,” starting in March 1999. The RNC’s notions surged into the bloodstream, and almost no one complained. As a result, mainstream journalists kept pimping these notions and images for the next twenty months....

Yeah, but those satirical images were directed at Gore. The New Yorker cover was directed not at Obama but at his enemies.

"But people might misunderstand...!"

Only someone with a well-below-average IQ could possibly misunderstand. Why should the inane misapprehensions of the Forrest Gump legions have any impact on the discourse of people who possess normal-and-above intelligence? Why must The New Yorker (of all publications) be asked to dumb it down? What's next? Are we going to demand that Scientific American and The New York Review of Books stick to a fourth grade vocabulary?

At one time, anti-Irish prejudice in Britain was very real, and deadly in its impact. Do you honestly believe that "A Modest Proposal" should have been banned because a few dunderheads might have taken it as a cookbook?

I cannot believe that we are even having this conversation. My god, we are talking about a cartoon which showed Obama with a Bin Laden poster on his wall and the American flag burning in the fireplace. The point could not have been more obvious. Yet some morons actually seem to think that the artist's intent was to disparage Obama as a Bin Laden-worshiping flag-burner!

In 1984, a Doonesbury cartoon mocked Reagan's "Morning in America" campaign. The first five panels replicated the famous pro-Reagan TV commercial. The last panel depicted a typical morning in "Walter Mondale's America." We saw a 12-year-old girl walk out of the front door, chirpily saying: "Bye, Mom! I'm off to get my free abortion!" In the background, flags were afire and the Great Gun Round-Up was underway.

In 1984, nobody was stupid enough to take this image as a slam against Mondale. Everyone understood that Trudeau was making fun of the conservative media's over-the-top demonization of Democrats.

Are we really dumber now than we were in 1984?

"Don't dare disagree with Obama "

2008-07-17T14:34:00.000-07:00

Bill Maxwell, a columnist for the St. Petersburg Times, proved his bravery when he sharply criticized the Israeli government. He shows even more courage today, as he establishes himself as one of the few black voices willing to puncture the Obama myth.

You can't disagree with him. You can't question the legitimacy of his many platitudes and promises. And you had better watch it when you offer a litany of his flip-flops or point out his crass opportunism.

I'm not approving of Jackson's choice of words, mind you. But don't kid yourself. Thousands of other blacks dislike or even despise Obama, but they dare not let on.

Maxwell then turns to the New Yorker brouhaha:

If Obama's swooning, humorless supporters continue to force critics to whisper, to shut up or to explain their artistic renderings, our precious gift and right of free expression will diminish if Obama is elected in November.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 'bots send Maxwell a death threat or two. As I said: He's brave.

How many Obots does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

2008-07-17T09:55:00.000-07:00

Two. One does the screwing, while the other beats your face in if you don't see the light.

(If you know of a better answer, please share with the rest of the class...)