Wake up America

AP-Yahoo News: Race And Competency Drive White Democrats Away From Obama Posted: 20 Sep 2008 12:27 PM CDT With Rasmussen now showing Barack Obama with a one percentage point lead against John McCain, a new AP-Yahoo News poll finds that racial bias and competency doubts could cost Barack Obama the White House. Rasmussen shows Barack Obama taking a one percentage point lead against John McCain for the first time in a week-and-a-half, bringing the polling figures back to where they were before both the Democratic and Republican Conventions were held. Showing a disconnect from the polling results when issues of race and competency are specifically asked, a new AP-Yahoo News poll finds the two issues steering white Democratic voters away from Barack Obama. Race. The poll set out to determine why Obama and McCain were locked in such a tight race given the political landscape this election season which would suggest Obama should be much farther ahead. The poll was conducted in conjunction with Stanford University and finds one third of white Democratic voters hold negative views towards blacks, but that 58 percent of those will back Barack Obama. More than a third of all white Democrats and independents — voters Obama can't win the White House without — agreed with at least one negative adjective about blacks, according to the survey, and they are significantly less likely to vote for Obama than those who don't have such views. They find that 70 percent of self identified Democrats support Barack Obama while 85 percent of Republicans support John McCain. The survey also included racial attitudes among Independents stating they are likely to help determine the outcome of the 2008 election. Given a choice of several positive and negative adjectives that might describe blacks, 20 percent of all whites said the word "violent" strongly applied. Among other words, 22 percent agreed with "boastful," 29 percent "complaining," 13 percent "lazy" and 11 percent "irresponsible." When asked about positive adjectives, whites were more likely to stay on the fence than give a strongly positive assessment. Among white Democrats, one third cited a negative adjective and, of those, 58 percent said they planned to back Obama. The surveys methodology was geared to bypass what is commonly referred to as the Bradley effect which many, including Democratic strategists and lawmakers believe the recent polls are plagued , by as was reported recently by The Telegraph. The Bradley effect is named for black Democrat Tom Bradley, who lost the California governor's race in 1982 even though he was ahead in the polls. It refers to a tendency on the part of white voters to tell pollsters that they are undecided or likely to vote for a Black candidate, when, on election day, they vote for his/her white opponent. To bypass that effect, the AP-Yahoo News poll interviewed people online after randomly selecting and screening them over the phone. They used this method as is explained in the article because numerous studies have found people are more likely to report their embarrassing behaviors and in this case, biases, when answering questions via the computer rather than speaking with a stranger on the phone. Among white independents, racial stereotyping is not uncommon. For example, while about 20 percent of independent voters called blacks "intelligent" or "smart," more than one third latched on the adjective "complaining" and 24 percent said blacks were "violent." Nearly four in 10 white independents agreed that blacks would be better off if they "try harder." The survey also attempted to sort out the impact of a "huge swath of variables" such as race, ideology, party identification, the hunger for change and the sentiments of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's backers. Competency. The survey also concluded race is not the biggest factor for what is "driving Democrats and independents away from Obama," but instead it is the issue of competency. More than a quarter of all Democrats expressed doubt that Obama can bring about the change they want, and they are likely to vote against him because of that. Three in 10 of those Democrats who don't trust Obama's change-making credentials say they plan to vote for McCain. Clinton Supporters. They found 59 percent of white Clinton supporters stated they wanted Obama to be president, with 17 percent of her white supporters saying they will vote for John McCain Among white Democrats, Clinton supporters were nearly twice as likely as Obama backers to say at least one negative adjective described blacks well, a finding that suggests many of her supporters in the primaries — particularly whites with high school education or less — were motivated in part by racial attitudes. While the report from the AP-Yahoo news focused mainly on the racial divide they do state the larger issue influencing Democrats and Independents is the issue of competency. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 2.1 percentage points. .

Democrats Threatened Jewish Groups Over Palin Invite To UN Rally Posted: 20 Sep 2008 10:56 AM CDT Groups organized a rally outside the UN to protest Iran's Ahmadinejad, they invited politicians from both sides of the aisle. Clinton canceled upon hearing Palin would attend. Democrats threatened the Jewish Groups, forcing them to disinvite Palin. CBS2 has a Democratic politician on record with the story of why Sarah Palin's invitation was rescinded after Hillary Clinton pulled out of the event upon hearing that Palin was also invited and planned to attend the rally to protest Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speaking at the UN, with one Democratic lawmaker calling it "McCarthyism." Once Clinton canceled and announced she would not attend according to the report, the "axes were out for Palin" and the Jewish Groups which organized the event were told their tax exempt status would be jeopardized if Palin attended but Hillary Clinton or Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Biden did not. CBS 2 spoke to Assemblyman Dov Hikind, Democrat from Brooklyn, who said, "This is insulting. This is embarrassing, especially to Gov. Palin, to me and I think it should be to every single New Yorker." Hikind goes on to to declare, "It's an absolute shame that this has happened. To threaten organizations … to threaten the Conference of Presidents that if you don't withdraw the invitation to Gov. Palin we're going to look into your tax exempt status … that's McCarthyism." Hillary Clinton refused to answer any questions about it when CBS 2's Lou Young asked her about it on Thursday, brushing right past her without answering. Bob Kunst of Defenders.net is a Democrat fed up and states, "I'm absolutely appalled at the behavior of the Democrats. I'm a Democrat and for the first time in my life I'm going to vote Republican. I can't take it anymore." The Democrats, using Hillary Clinton, deliberately manipulated an event that should have been non-partisan with members from both sides of the political aisle standing up with the Jewish Groups at this rally, pulled Clinton for no other reason than to claim it was then partisan because Clinton chose not to attend, then threatened the Groups to assure themselves Palin could not attend. That is pathetic and low, even for them. Yourish.com states it beautifully: That's not a political party pressuring groups to do something. That's outright break-your-kneecap, Mafia-style blackmail threats. In fact, those are precisely the kinds of tactics that the Jewish groups will be protesting on Monday. We just never expected them from the Democrats. That is what the Deocratic Party has become and I cannot blame Kunst one iota for leaving the party and now voting Republican. .

An Email Exchange on the ACLU Posted: 20 Sep 2008 12:31 AM CDT Original email I received: Dear Jay I probably have some agreement with you that the ACLU takes seperation of church and state way too far.I don't see that a prayer at a graduation is any violation of a so-called seperation of church and state.Jay my problem arises when we look at some of the ultra conservative ideas to expand we have seen lately from the Bush Administration when it comes to shredding our Fourth Amendment and on those issues I'm thankful for the ACLU.In addition with our economy going into a tailspin in part because of the supply-side economics and sillly idea that the markets can regulate themselves of BUsh and MCCain.What I"m trying to say Jay is that the GOP and far right wing pro corporate agenda of the right is almost as sickening as some on the hyper secular left that you talk about.Look we are in a mess Jay, and its not democrats its the 6 years of GOP policy from 2000-2006 so when you combine your rehetoric against the ACLU with rhetoric attacking Obama and complimenting Bush and McCain you have destroy your credibility.TThere are many on the left who are not part of the secular left and would have some agreement with you but any effort to join the GOP team and group together absolutely destroys your credibility and doesn't help our cause to fight for more relisgous liberties and unlike you something i cherish "civil liberties.Travis My response: I'm gonna guess that you are a conservative leaning libertarian. I could be wrong, with the way you talk about the "right wing" though. However, I proudly call myself a conservative, and embarrassingly call myself a Republican. It isn't about party. I don't disagree with everything the ACLU does. I just think they are a fraud and dangerously misguided far to the left. I believe in civil liberties. I just think the ACLU take those liberties too far, to a dangerous level. Their advocacy of having child molesters live across the street from playgrounds and elementary schools is too far for me. Their advocacy that looking at child porn should be freedom of speech is too far. Their hypocrisy in fighting against listening in to phone calls to known terrorist over privacy issues while keeping a database of their member's personal financial history is too far. Their attacks on free speech for Christians are too far, and on top of that hypocrisy they have restricted their own board member's speech. I don't want to stop the defending of the bill of rights. I want to stop the perversion of the Constitution. I also want to stop taxpayer funding paying the ACLU's cases they convince left wing judges of, that the majority of American taxpayers don't agree with. I'm tired of these legal groups destroying the foundation of our Constitution. If homosexuals want equal rights, then convince enough people to amend the Constitution like they did for abolishing slavery. They only hurt their cause when they convince judges to push it on a population not ready to accept it. Then they only get reactions from politicians ready to represent the will of the people who put Constitutional amendments to ban such things before the people. The people react, just as you would expect, and it makes everything that much harder. They hurt their own cause by going the route of the judiciary. The ACLU is a partisan organization that should not receive any tax exemption as they do. They separate their organization into two so they can lobby and play the courts. They are evil. Should I have said more? I'll update this post if and when I get a response. In the meantime, chime in with your responses.

I Accuse... Posted: 19 Sep 2008 08:26 PM CDT "Since they dared, I too will dare. The truth I will say, because I promised to say it; if justice, regularly seized, did not do it, full and whole." J'Accuse...! Emile Zola We asked: Will the most damaging Obama scandal of them all be buried alive? And from the entire mainstream media we received our unequivocal answer: Yes. Did Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama attempt to dally in U.S. foreign and military policy during his first trip to Iraq in July? According to Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari in Amir Taheri's op-ed in Monday's New York Post, Obama used his trip to privately lobby Iraqi government officials to delay an agreement that would reduce the number of American soldiers in Iraq, while at the same time publicly calling for a unilateral withdrawal. - Obama's Questionable Diplomacy in Iraq From Pajamas Media September 16, 2008 - by Bob Owens This could be, should be, the biggest story of the campaign. This more than any other scandal, or rumor of scandal should be the end of Barack Hussein Obama. However -- and this is a huge 'However' -- will the media give it the attention it so obviously deserves? Or will they bury it under a mass of propaganda and lies? Or, worse still, will they just try to ignore it? This is going to be a test of wills. The will of the American people versus the will of the media elite and the Internationalist, anti-Americanist Obama crowd. This should be, must be the most important story in this election. If we are to stand a chance of keeping our great country free and American, we simply cannot allow this monumental scandal to be swept under the rug. I accuse...the major television networks of either gross dereliction of duty, or willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal. I accuse...the major print media of either gross dereliction of duty, or willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal. I accuse...the Obama Campaign of willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal. I accuse...the Democratic Party of willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal. I accuse...the United States Congress of either gross dereliction of duty, or willful obfuscation in the suppression of this outrageous scandal. Is this how it will happen? Is this how we will lose our country? Is this all it takes? Can we as a people be this easily manipulated ? Are we actually powerless to fight back? Are we going to just sit back and allow others to dictate what news stories will be covered and what news stories will be suppressed? Are we going to allow this cynical and heartless attempt to manipulate our brave military for the personal political gain of one ruthless politician to pass into oblivion without even a Congressional Inquiry? Has it really come to this? Because, if it has, if we as a people, as a country, can do nothing but meekly submit to the omnipotent will of one potential tyrant, then our great democratic experiment is finished, and we will justly deserve our awful fate. - rg For the previous Radarsite articles on this subject see here and here and here

Bill Clinton 'Lavished Praise' On Sarah Palin, ' Mistake To Underestimate Her' Posted: 19 Sep 2008 06:30 PM CDT CNBC had an exclusive interview with Bill Clinton, where the upcoming election were discussed as well as the topic of Sarah Palin, to which among the very objective things he said about Palin, he also said "It would be a mistake to underestimate her." Bill Clinton supports Barack Obama and makes it clear he hopes Obama wins the general election in November. He agrees more with Obama/Biden policies than he does with McCain/Palin issues and he states the recent economic problems will bode well for Obama. He states in the extended interview with Maria Bartiromo from CNBC "But, I think, on the issues that matter to our future, the Obama-Biden team is, is more right. And I believe they're gonna win. But, I think that it will be competitive until the end." ABC's Political Radar states it wasn't exactly a "ringing endorsement," for Obama and Clinton went on to say "Barring some unforeseen development like in-- something happens in the debates we don't know about. I-- I-- I-- it may not be apparent in the polls until last week or two of the election. But, I believe that it will be apparent on election day. I think that-- I think Senator Obama will win this election." The portion of the interview shown in the video above comes after Clinton tells Bartiromo "I've never concealed my admiration and affection for Sen. McCain. I think he's a great man," and they go on to discuss the upcoming elections. When Bartiromo asks Clinton if he was surprised at the bounce John McCain received in the polls right after announcing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential running mate, Clinton speaks about Palin, in what is described by ABC as "lavishing praise" on her. "No, she's a-- she's an instinctively effective candidate," he said, "And with a compelling story. I think it was exciting to some, that, that she was a woman. It was exciting that she was from Alaska. It was exciting that she's sort of like the person she is. And she grew up in a, came up in a political culture and a religious culture that is probably well to the right of the American center. But, she didn't basically define herself in those terms," Clinton said. "She handled herself very well," he said, "I get why she's done so well. She, she's, it's a mistake to underestimate her. She's got good intuitive skills. They're significant." The interview went on to discuss whether Hillary Clinton would run again, with Bill not committing one way or the other stating that Hillary will try to be a "national voice as a result of her campaign on economic and healthcare and energy issues that got her into this presidential race in the first place," continuing on to say he and Hillary were going to put aside "personal politics" for a while. While Clinton said the right things about Obama, there is no doubt that he isn't isn't about to lavish praise on him as he did on Palin. He spoke the words expected of him by the Democratic party, but it is pretty clear to see his heart is not in it. He always speaks highly of John McCain and now of Palin as well, which is not exactly the message the Obama campaign is hoping to see the former president relay. More at Fox News. .

Obama Bundler And Former Advisers' Connections To Fannie Mae Posted: 19 Sep 2008 01:24 PM CDT The ad below speaks about Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO and former adviser and bundler to Barack Obama. Watch the ad: Text: ANNCR: What Obama says… BARACK OBAMA: It would be unacceptable for executives of these institutions to earn a windfall. ANNCR: …Is not what he does. Meet Jim Johnson, former Fannie Mae CEO. Fannie cooked the books and Johnson made millions. Then Obama asked him to pick his VP. And raise thousands for his campaign. Barack Obama. More empty words. John McCain's speech today also references Johnson. The whole speech can be read at The Corner, but the references to Johnson I am putting below. Two years ago, I called for reform of this corruption at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Congress did nothing. The Administration did nothing. Senator Obama did nothing, and actually profited from this system of abuse and scandal. While Fannie and Freddie were working to keep Congress away from their house of cards, Senator Obama was taking their money. He got more, in fact, than any other member of Congress, except for the Democratic chairmen of the committee that oversees them. And while Fannie Mae was betraying the public trust, somehow its former CEO had managed to gain my opponent's trust to the point that Senator Obama actually put him in charge of his vice presidential search. This CEO, Mr. Johnson, walked off with tens of millions of dollars in salary and bonuses for services rendered to Fannie Mae, even after authorities discovered accounting improprieties that padded his compensation. Another CEO for Fannie Mae, Mr. Raines, has been advising Senator Obama on housing policy. This even after Fannie Mae was found to have committed quote "extensive financial fraud" under his leadership. Like Mr. Johnson, Mr. Raines walked away with tens of millions of dollars. Senator Obama may be taking their advice and he may be taking their money, but in a McCain-Palin administration, there will be no seat for these people at the policy-making table. They won't even get past the front gate at the White House. My friends, this is the problem with Washington. People like Senator Obama have been too busy gaming the system and haven't ever done a thing to actually challenge the system. Hot Air points out more about Johnson: Jim Johnson represents more of a challenge for Obama. He was no mere "informal adviser"; Johnson bundled money for Obama, and at least briefly helped run his VP selection committee. What else did Johnson do? He took over $2 million in sweetheart-deal loans from Countrywide Mortgage, through the "Friends of Angelo" program, while Fannie Mae did business with Countrywide. He hid two-thirds of his executive compensation at Fannie through evasive techniques designed to disguise it. In fact, both Johnson and Raines exemplify the kind of CEOs that Obama routinely demands regulation to control. These are the people Barack Obama showed the bad judgment in choosing to advise him. Next up is the second person McCain referred to in his speech. Franklin Raines. Weekly Standard gives us a little background about Raines and his connection to Barack Obama: The Washington Post reported on July 17 that Raines "has been consulting with the campaign on housing issues." A Post editorial on August 28 said that Raines was a member of "Obama's political circle." The Obama campaign never disputed these reports until yesterday. Raines was yet another Fannie Mae CEO. So, Obama's campaign was advised by men that made millions from Fannie Mae, who helped created the financila crisis we are seeing on Wall Street and when Mccain created an ad daring to mention these connections.....especially the Raines connection, the Obama tankers, those in the tank for obama, say the ad about Raines is ...RACIST!!!!!!!! AD below: Yup, you got it, Raines is black, so daring to mention his connection to Obama automatically makes McCain a racist. Do these people not understand how predictable and obvious their ploys are becoming to the American people? A connection is a connection no matter what color they are. Once again, the Obama campaign plays the race card....is it getting old for them yet? It sure is getting old to me. .

You are subscribed to email updates from Wake up America To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email Delivery powered by FeedBurner
Inbox too full? Subscribe to the feed version of Wake up America in a feed reader.
If you prefer to unsubscribe via postal mail, write to: Wake up America, c/o FeedBurner, 20 W Kinzie, 9th Floor, Chicago IL USA 60610