Apparently they do not think so.

I don’t have to replay all the past drops by the Obama campaign and all the other various uses.  Prime examples are as in the recent events file.

One was when Palin took the gloves off and attacked Obama over his association to unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayers. 

As this RNC faq sheet shows, he did have a close association, and Ayers has never recanted his terrorism.

And almost immediately, the race card was dropped on her.  Not by Obama, ironically, but by the Associated Press¹:

Analysis: Palin’s words carry racial tinge

By claiming that Democrat Barack Obama is “palling around with terrorists” and doesn’t see the U.S. like other Americans, vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin targeted key goals for a faltering campaign. 
 
And though she may have scored a political hit each time, her attack was unsubstantiated and carried a racially tinged subtext that John McCain himself may come to regret.

…

“Our opponent … is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he’s palling around with terrorists who would target their own country,” Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain’s ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

“This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America,” she said. “We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism.”

Her reference to Obama’s relationship with William Ayers, a member of the Vietnam-era Weather Underground, was exaggerated at best if not outright false. No evidence shows they were “pals” or even close when they worked on community boards years ago and Ayers hosted a political event for Obama early in his career.

…

The larger purpose behind Palin’s broadside is to reintroduce the question of Obama’s associations. Millions of voters, many of them open to being swayed to one side or the other, are starting to pay attention to an election a month away.

OK, I admit that I am no fan of Obama, but that is a matter of policy and ideology.

Now I have cause to dislike him personally, and I may official upgrade him to scumbag.

Via Hot Air:¹

Amir Taheri accuses Barack Obama of interfering in the attempt to negotiate a status-of-forces agreement with Iraq while making his trip to Baghdad in July. In his New York Post column², Taheri quotes the Iraqi Foreign Minister, on the record, telling him that Obama tried to convince the Iraqis to end the negotiations and instead ask the UN for another one-year extension to the current mandate. That would have left US troops in current position for another year, but more importantly, would have provided the US a diplomatic setback that Obama could have exploited on the campaign trail:

WHILE campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, Obama made his demand for delay a key theme of his discussions with Iraqi leaders in Baghdad in July.

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Obama insisted that Congress should be involved in negotiations on the status of US troops - and that it was in the interests of both sides not to have an agreement negotiated by the Bush administration in its “state of weakness and political confusion.”

Hypocrisy isn’t the issue here; it’s the interference of Obama in military and diplomatic affairs. Just on diplomacy, interfering with the United States in its diplomatic efforts is a Logan Act violation. Interfering with war policy treads on even more serious ground, especially since the primary motivation appears to be winning an election without regard to whether it damages our ability to fight the enemy or drives wedges between us and our ally, the elected, representative government in Baghdad.

Deal em up, here comes the race card.

First up is Joe Biden who finally says what everyone is thinking:  Vote for Obama because he is back:¹

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in North Carolina where black votes could help swing the state to the Democrats, said today that electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden said the policies of running mate Barack Obama make his presidency even more urgent and declared this to be the most important election that any living person has seen in their lifetime. But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.

“That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally,” Biden said. “That all by itself will be significant.”

So, why is this necessary?

North Carolina last voted for a Democrat in 1976, when Jimmy Carter won much of the South. But the state has a large population of blacks galvanized by Obama’s candidacy, and the Illinois senator has competed aggressively here for months.

Oh, yea, that.  If they won’t vote for you for your failed policies, go for something more elemental.

Now, I posted this in a forum, and was taken to task by a friend who pointed out that Biden never explicitly said to vote for him because he is black.

Here is how I responded:

Context matters <name>. 

If you want to stand on the exact words, fine. I will assume you are a literalist then, and cannot be trusted to look at hyperbole, idioms and metaphors.

A speech is a method (of) communication, and the communication process has four key elements, a sender (biden), a receiver (the audience), a message and feedback.

If you look at what he said, who he said it to, where he was when he said it and the circumstances of why he said it, it makes sense.

Hmm.  Naw, that may be how the Kos-freaks might treat this, if the same had happened to the conservative candidates of course, but I guess that I, having morals, have to draw the line somewhere.

The real headline should read “Biden and Obama make idiotic mistakes about Disabled people”.

First, Biden pulls this gaffe, asking a guy in a wheel chair to rise and walk (ok, stand up):

Ok, we can be adults and everything, and admit this was nothing more that a bone headed idiotic error.  He forgot, he had a momentary lapse of memory about who he was talking to.  But the chances to rip on him for it are wonderful.

I mean this means that not only are they comparing Obama to Jesus¹ they are now trying to heal people, along the lines of John Edwards in 2004, who told people John Kerry would make people walk again.

Yes yes, I know the guy he was talking to was gracious about it, and was not offended.  So what?  that’s no reason not to rip on it.  So, being a fair minded guy, I (until now) didn’t run the story here…because unlike the Kos-Freaks, Huff Po-lings, I realize that when these guys are on the campaign trail, they make what we poor schlups in the real world call a simple, stupid, understandable mistake.

But…

When Obama said this in his ad:

And when he decided to mock McCain for not being able to send an email, he, or what ever dipshit wrote, designed or filmed this commercial, failed to do their homework².

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain’s severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes.

Oops.

Apparently, at least part of the accusation, is based on his disabilities, which Randi Rhodes says she doesn’t have.

And maybe, just maybe, it isn’t totally true³

Q: What websites if any do you look at regularly?

Desperation. 

Nothing more, and nothing less.

The democrats have reached a severe point of desperation in the presidential race as they face something they cannot understand, and find to be anathema:  A woman who is feminist, successful, and unapologetically conservative.

The democrats would have you believe that conservative men are unibrowed atavistic chauvinists who want their women barefoot and pregnant.  They likewise consider conservative women to be ignorant slaves to their religion and men, and when one pops up that is strong willed, yet not subservient to the liberal agenda and dogma, they freak out, and begin to attack them for the very things that they claim to respect:  Women who are independent to their own ideals, dependent on no one and willing to fight for their beliefs.

The attacks on Palin are by far some of the sexist and most ridiculous attacks I can recall, and in their own way, they are a massive compliment to Ms Palin’s qualifications.  The democrats know she is not only capable and qualified, but that she brings a sense of life to the campaign that has never been seen. 

Politicians of all stripes rely on a simple tactic to try and resonate with voters, that of showing that they are “one of you” in word, deed or philosophy.  Politicians as a rule are so out of touch, that they instinctively feel the need to offer this olive branch of familiarity.

The problem is that Sarah Palin really is “one of us”.  She was raised in a small town, did not have the wealth and privilege and ivy school education that permeates Washington DC.  She did not get a law degree, she went for Journalism.

She was a mom raising her kids who answered a call to serve her community and her talents and abilities helped her rise to the top.  She came from no where and with her conviction and determination she unseated established politicians, and then went on to be so audacious as to actually do a good job.

Sarah Palin, in her acceptance speech, had a great line:

I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a “community organizer,” except that you have actual responsibilities.

 This has lead to a firestorm of complaints from community organizers who didn’t recognize that the diss was directed to a single such organizer but instead they took personal affront.  Fair enough.

Some attention has also been given to Obama’s contention that Jesus was a community organizer, though that is a fairly silly concept and somewhat self serving.

All we need is one more Obama/messiah vision…

One aspect less reported, and much more pertinent, is how Obama himself felt about community organizers.

James Taranto has the story:¹

Last week we wrote that ” ‘community organizer’ is to Barack Obama what ‘war hero’ was to John Kerry.” We didn’t know the half of it.

Kerry staked his claim to the presidency on the pretense that he was a war hero, notwithstanding his showy repudiation decades earlier of the war and his fellow veterans. According to a new exposé in the liberal New Republic, Obama, before embarking on a career in politics, similarly, albeit quietly, repudiated “community organizing,” only to re-embrace it decades later, apparently out of political expediency.

TNR’s John Judis tracked down Jerry Kellman, who in 1985 “hired Obama to organize residents of Chicago’s South Side.” Kellman describes a conversation the two “community organizers” had at a conference on “social justice” in October 1987:

“[Obama] wanted to marry and have children, and to have a stable income,” Kellman recalls.

But Obama was also worried about something else. He told Kellman that he feared community organizing would never allow him “to make major changes in poverty or discrimination.” To do that, he said, “you either had to be an elected official or be influential with elected officials.” In other words, Obama believed that his chosen profession was getting him nowhere, or at least not far enough. . . .

And so, Obama told Kellman, he had decided to leave community organizing and go to law school.

I am sure this will be followed with more claims of Foxes bias, but this is classic.

Megyn Kelly of Fox News was interviewing the editor of US weekly, and she owned him.  Pure and simple.

The story revolves around the US weekly cover of Sarah Palin, below:

As you can see, the picture has a pretty clear message.

The problems came when people compared it to the cover below from June:

The contrast is obvious.  The Obama’s get a fluff piece on how wonderful they are, whereas Sarah is portrayed alone, and her article is a rundown of any juicy rumor then can find.  Perhaps the fact that US Weekly is owned by the people who own Rolling Stone, who love Obama almost to the point of deification had some impact:

What a noble halo you have, Mr Obama.  Can there be any doubt these two magazines are in the tank for Obama?

Well, Megyn called the editor on it.  After you enjoy this clip, see below for the magazine cover US weekly should have run…

Here is the story they had 10+ months to run, but they chose not to…

Trackposted to Michelle Malkin, Dirty Harry, http://michellemalkin.com/2008/09/02/pds-alert-us-magazines-partisan-hit-job/, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, third world county, DragonLady’s World, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Cao’s Blog, Democrat=Socialist, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

I didn’t watch the acceptance speech Obama gave in ancient Greece Denver tonight, but not to fear, I had a friend who was watching it with a few of his friends, and they were good enough to record their observations for posterity.  He passed it on to me, so I in turn pass this on to you:¹

[20:59] A.Friend: earlier, they showed the stadium and were talking how many people were there — that he was giving the speech in front of 85000 people and they’d likely have to turn thousands away.  but when they showed wide angle views of stadium, even though there were people everywhere in the place, the were so thin in places that you could see the color of the seating in various sections.  Sure they could still be packing them in, but it was /NOT/ even close to being packed. 

[21:00] Me: somebody mentioned that the crowds looked like the people you’d see at an infomercial audience cheering wildly (and inanely) at any damned thing

[21:00] A.Friend: haha

[21:00] A.Friend: yeah mostly.  you could see them notice the camera and perk up

[21:00] Me: “hi, I’m on TV and cheering FOR NO GOOD REASON!  YAY!!”

[21:16] A.Friend: lol “with great humility” obama says he accepts nomination — great humility, as he felt the need to move /his/ speech to a giant stage in the middle of a football field because the other place wasn’t big enough to contain his ego

[21:30] A.Friend: today is the 45th anniversary of mlk’s “i have a dream” speech.

[21:31] Me: yeah - it’s no accident he’s standing in front of a facsimile of the white house, and speaking on the anniversary of MLK

[21:32] Me: omg, he’s back to the Change thing

[21:33] A.Friend: that’s all he’s got — change.  if he stopped saying that, people would forget what he’s about.

[21:34] A.Friend: nice to know in 10 years we’ll be oil free.  nice.

[21:34] Me: not driving isn’t an answer for me

Obama and his flock of acolytes have consistently portrayed him as the younger, hipper candidate.  The candidate of change.  The fresh wind in the sour air of politics, the new voice.  Someone not a part of politics as usual.

They have charged that John McCain is the old man, the voice of stagnation.  An old hide bound white guy in a sea of politics ruled by old white men.  A guy who has made a career out of politics as usual, and partisan bickering.

So it comes as no shock to learn that Obama has taken the fresh, bold and utterly hipper step of choosing a running mate who is an old white man, who has made a career out of politics as usual and partisan bickering.

Finally:  Change we can believe in. 

Why?  Frankly, because he wants to win.  Now, granted that Hillary has more support, and a ticket with her might be the golden ticket for a sure win, but imagine being president and constantly having to watch your back, waiting for the chance for her and Bill to stick a (figuratively speaking only here) knife into it.  Hillary is just too ambitious.

I found this to be an interesting and accurate assessment by Ron Fournier(AP):¹

Analysis: Biden pick shows lack of confidence

The candidate of change went with the status quo.

In picking Sen. Joe Biden to be his running mate, Barack Obama sought to shore up his weakness — inexperience in office and on foreign policy — rather than underscore his strength as a new-generation candidate defying political conventions.

He picked a 35-year veteran of the Senate — the ultimate insider — rather than a candidate from outside Washington, such as Govs. Tim Kaine of Virginia or Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas; or from outside his party, such as Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska; or from outside the mostly white male club of vice presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton didn’t even make his short list.

The abortion debate took an interesting turn.

Obama has been under fire for a while over his prior votes on abortion so it was obvious that would come up in the Saddleback interview.

When asked when a fetus gains human rights status, Obama took a clear stand:  Ask someone else.  ¹

Obama says pointed abortion query “above his pay grade”

DALLAS - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama side-stepped a pointed query about abortion on Saturday by “mega-pastor” Rick Warren during a televised forum.

Asked at what point a baby gets “human rights,” Obama, who strongly supports abortion rights, said: “… whether you’re looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question  with specificity … is above my pay grade.”

He went on to reiterate his view that it was important to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.

He is right in the sense that the root issue of abortion is unwanted pregnancies.  But that does not change the fact that you still need to answer the question and define the nature of life if you want to justify abortion.

The issue at hand is when an abortion is performed and the fetus is delivered alive.  A law requiring medical care to be given to such fetuses was voted down with the help of Obama.  In fact he opposed it directly for three years.

The issue seems pretty simple really.  if life begins at birth, a failed abortion that results in a live “birth” qualifies.  At the least some attempt should be made to save the life,

Obama’s response to his gaffe has been his typical tap dance nuance.²