Posted: 24 Sep 2008 12:00 PM CDT
There are two themes of going around the Internet of what the reason will be, preemptively, if Barack Obama loses the election for presidency in November 2008 despite his lead in polls. Racism or the fall back of "It is all the Clinton's fault."
In August of 2008, Slate magazine declared the only reason Barack Obama could lose the election was because of racism and because the majority of Americans are racists.
If it makes you feel better, you can rationalize Obama's missing 10-point lead on the basis of Clintonite sulkiness, his slowness in responding to attacks, or the concern that Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected. But let's be honest: If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn't ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.
Today we see there is another reason why Barack Obama could lose and if he does, according to Huffington Post, it will all be Bill Clinton's fault.
Bill Clinton has come out in support of Barack Obama and lately has made the rounds with talk shows and interviews, in doing so, he is being accused of not showing "enough" support for Barack Obama and also being criticized for speaking well of John McCain and "lavishing praise" on Sarah Palin by saying she should not be underestimated.
Popular opinion among Obama supporters is that Bill Clinton's support for Obama is "tepid", his heart isn't in it and some think he is deliberately trying to sabotage Barack Obama is a stealthy manner.
Yesterday Barbara Sowell pointed out Clinton's appearance on The View, with video, as well as a New York Times' Caucus piece stating Clinton was "waxed folksy" about Palin.
Huffington Post writer Paul Slansky declared yesterday that if Barack Obama loses it will all be Bill Clinton's fault.
If Obama loses a close election -- one in which even one state where you could have made a difference goes for McCain because you sat home and pouted -- it will be on you. We will remember that you couldn't be bothered to rise above your petty resentments for something as trivial as saving your country from the enemies of everything you profess to believe in. We forgave you for Monica, Bill, but we won't forgive you for this.
The presidential debates are schedule to start Friday, September 26, 2008, yet some are wondering why Slate and Huffington Post as well as many others are already coming up with excuses of why Barack Obama "might" lose despite the fact that he holds a two percentage point lead in today's Rasmussen poll, bringing the poll numbers back to the pre-convention figures.
This makes me wonder why Obama supporters assume if Barack Obama wins, it will be based on policy issues, economy, public stances on a variety of topics, yet if Obama loses to John McCain in November, it is Bill Clinton's fault or America is a nation of racists in the minds of Obama supporters?
For some race might be an issue, just as for others McCain's age might be an issue, some may vote for McCain because they like his choice of Sarah Palin and some might vote for Obama because of his choice for Joe Biden, but those issues aside, one would hope the majority of voters would simply vote for the person they think will do a better job, best represents them and who they feel can run the U.S. best, and casting blame on something or someone "preemptively" is no more than creating "excuses" ahead of time to fall back on if the election doesn't go how they think it should.
They should quit making excuses and understand that neither candidate has been able to grab a double digit lead against the other since the primaries ended and barring some massive mistake on either candidate's part during the debates, we are likely to go into election day with a neck-and-neck race with no one knowing for a fact who will be the president elect the following day.
I have said it before and I will say it again, the day after the November 4, 2008 election, no matter who wins or who loses, I am popping the champagne to toast the end of this particularly grueling campaign season but the one thing I will not be doing is blaming McCain's age, Obama's race or either of the Clintons for the person who loses in November.
The candidates stand or fall on their own records, stances and campaigns and those who cannot admit that are the ones that will be whining for the next four years after the election about how it was all so unfair.
Posted: 24 Sep 2008 03:05 AM CDT
When the German Army mounted its Western Offensive in 1940, it had 2.5 million men and 2,500 tanks. Whereas the French Army had the ability to mobilize 5 million men, the German army supported by motorized infantry units and aircraft easily secured victory.
Germany's subjugation of France took just six weeks, and on June 14, 1940 German troops marched into Paris. The shocking and ignoble surrender was made official when the French formally signed the infamous Second Compiegne Armistice on June 22, 1940. Under the terms of the armistice the Germans were to continue to occupy Northern France, while the southern unoccupied third of France was ostensibly left free to be governed by the French. A collaborationist Government was formed under the aged WWI War hero, Marshal Phillipe Petain, and its new capitol was to be in the small town of Vichy, in central France, a name forever to be associated with her dishonor.
Pétain and the Vichy regime willfully collaborated with the German occupation to a high degree. The French police and the state Milice (militia) organized raids to capture Jews and others considered "undesirables" by the Germans in both the northern and southern zones.
How could this have happened? How could a once strong, proud nation, a nation with a long and glorious military tradition, a nation with one of the most powerful armies in the world, totally cave in and capitulate in a matter of mere weeks?
In 1940 the world had witnessed the tragic results when an entire nation lost its nerve and resigned itself to failure. Dumbfounded, we watched a much larger army defeated by a much smaller army with a much larger will to win. Resignation, accommodation, capitulation. One inevitably following the other, until that final, unequivocal and inescapable humiliation.
Sorry France, we tried. Sorry Poland, we tried. Sorry Czechoslovakia, we tried. Sorry all you poor doomed Jews, we tried.
On September 23, 2008, a defiant Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke to the United Nations General Assembly. Ever the showman, obviously enjoying the world's undivided attention, and obviously undeterred by those virtually toothless sanctions, the Evil Dwarf spewed out his usual defiant harangue of unrelenting hate and vicious lies. Iran, he promised, or warned, would continue on her steady course to fulfill her sacred destiny, whether we in the West liked it or not. Iran would neither be intimidated nor deterred by the machinations of the imperialistic Zionist powers.
Posted: 23 Sep 2008 08:44 PM CDT
Not like they had any choice considering they didn't have enough votes to pass an energy bill without drilling, they didn't have the votes to pass their sham drilling bill that was all show and no meat and they didn't have the votes to continue to the ban....so, they were forced to concede defeat.
Democrats have decided to allow a quarter-century ban on drilling for oil off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts to expire next week, conceding defeat in a months-long battle with the White House and Republicans set off by $4 a gallon gasoline prices this summer.
Game. Set. Match.
Thank you to the Republicans that fought so hard to see to it that the Democrats couldn't thwart the will of the people who by a good majority told them to get on with it and lets start drilling so that some day we can achieve more independence.
Posted: 23 Sep 2008 06:49 PM CDT
Breaking news shows the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) is investigating the financial institutions which have triggered the $700 billion bailout plan.
Associated Press is reporting the FBI is investigating Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., and insurer American International Group Inc., (AIG) for potential fraud.
Details are sketchy but these investigations will bring the total of corporate lenders under investigation to 26.
[Update] Another Associated Press article says a senior law enforcement official spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigations are in the early stages.
They have received no public comments from the spokes people for the financial groups at this time.
Just last week, FBI Director Robert Mueller put the number of large financial firms under investigation at 24. He did not name any of the companies under investigation but said the FBI also is looking at whether any of them have misrepresented their assets.
Posted: 23 Sep 2008 06:28 PM CDT
The Stop Iran Now being held outside the United Nations made major headlines last week when Clinton canceled because Palin was attending, then Jewish groups were pressured into disinviting others including Palin. Today we see protesters protested against Obama.
WCBSTV's report on the "Stop Iran Now" rally headlines their article with "Anti-Iran Rally Turns Into Anti-Obama Rally," when protesters not only protested Iranian President Ahmadinejad, but also protested the event's organizers for rescinding Sarah Palin's invitation after Hillary Clinton canceled her appearance, as well as protested Barack Obama.
A number of American Jewish Groups planned a rally to be held outside the United Nations to protest Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and invited members from each political party. Clinton accepted the invite then canceled when told Palin would attend.
Then CBS2 reported on Democrats threatening the Jewish groups until they rescinded a number of politicians invitation, claiming that with Palin attending, it made it a partisan gathering which would endanger the groups' tax exemption status.
CBS 2 also got a Democratic politician, Assemblyman Dov Hikind, on record as saying at the time, "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."
Today's report by WCBSTV says protesters, much to the anger of the organizers, were not only protesting Iran and Ahmadinejad, but were also protesting the event organizers, with signs reading "We Want Sarah. Shame On The Rally Organizer." The protests didn't stop with the event organizers either, people also protested Barack Obama with signs saying "Jews Against Obama & Ahmadinejad."
Janice Shorenstein, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council, was upset because the rally was always intended to be a non-partisan group protest against the presence of Ahmadinejad, but the situation rapidly changed changed.
Shorenstein asserts "I am upset by the sign because this is a non-political event. We are here today to cry out against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not political. American elections are not part of this event."
Congressman Anthony Wiener, D-NY., disagreed with Shorenstein and stated "I think this is a classic political event in the best sense of the word. Politicians from all corners come here to speak out against Iran. I think it would have been fine for Sarah to speak. We just needed someone of equal stature from the Obama campaign to speak."
The Democratic Congressman wasn't the only one that disagreed with Shorenstein and the organizers decision to disinvite Palin just because Clinton canceled.
One protester by the name of Howard Webber from Brooklyn saying, "As important an event as this is, you needed a unity of Democrats and Republicans to show Ahmadinejad that we're not going to accept a nuclear Iran."
Buddy Macy of Little Fells, New Jersey agreed with Webber, saying ""I'm so disappointed, upset. She would have brought 10,000-20,000 more supporters of Israel. People who were curious were stopped because of partisan action," referring to Palin's invitation being rescinded.
The question is what are the political repercussions not to have politicians speak at the rally?
Anger was evident at the rally with no one appearing to be happy at the turn of events and no matter who political consultants, pundits and the media think benefited politically from those turn of events, others seem to think this was one area where politics could have been set aside and all affiliations could have stood together as one against Ahmadinejad.
Posted: 23 Sep 2008 02:31 PM CDT
It was announced last week Sarah Palin would privately meet with world leaders here for the United Nations annual autumn General Assembly Session. Earlier reports said campaign aides were excluding print and wire media outlets from covering the meetings.
There is much buzz going around the Internet about Sarah Palin's meeting with Afghan President Hamid Karzai, Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and how campaign aides originally told print and wire service journalists they were barred from the pool of reporters accompanying Palin to those meetings.
They were told photographers could attend the meetings but not the writers, which set the press into a full scale revolt.
Journalists protested the campaign's decision to exclude all but photographers and a TV crew from Palin's sessions with foreign leaders. CNN decided to withdraw its TV crew, effectively denying Palin the high visibility she sought for her initial foray into world affairs. The campaign then reversed course, saying pool reporters — a small group that provides information to all media — could attend the meetings planned after Karzai hosted Palin at his suite in The Barclay New York Hotel.
(Example of a pool report further down in the article.)
Later campaign spokeswoman, Tracey Schmitt, said it was a "mix-up" and the flap was from miscommunication among the staff and later agreed to allow some pool reporters in.
The Associated Press reports a television producer with a notepad was originally denied access into President Karzai's suite, but a Palin campaign official stepped in and allowed him to pass according to a pool report.
More on that exchange from The Politico, the reporter which was first barred access was CNN's Peter Hamby and he reports the "handler" who tried to deny him access by saying "no writers" appeared to be with Karzais' entourage and the Palin official that stepped in was Palin's deputy chief of staff, Chris Edwards.
The Caucus reports that word now is that a print reporter will be allowed in at the next two meetings.
Subsequently a CNN producer into the room for the meetings, reports LA Times' Top of the Ticket, and as of the latest reports, reporters will have access to her meetings with remaining leaders.
Routinely reporters are allowed to witness the beginning of private meetings with world leaders, although not allowed to stay for the whole meeting. Generally they are allowed to snap pictures, report the general "meet and greet" portion of the meetings, sometimes yell out a few questions which are usually ignored, then are escorted out.
The flap here was about campaign staff refusing to allow the writers in since Palin nor Karzai were taking questions and simply allowing cameras, and when the press threatened to revolt, the campaign reversed their position and allowed some pool reporters in.
Example of a pool report:
Play-by-play: After the conclusion of the Karzai meeting, your pooler departed the InterContinental shortly after 12:35 p.m. EST in the motorcade headed for 14 E. 76th St. We arrived 12 minutes later, and your pool held briefly in an unlit, musty hallway. We then climbed a white, carpeted staircase and were escorted into an ornate room with a large glass chandelier where the meeting was held..
The Politico article provides the standard pool report from the Karzai meeting and the Uribe meeting, which included a description for each scenario, who sat where and what they were wearing and the what they heard of the greetings and beginnings of conversation, which is one case wasn't much over the loud clicking of the cameras, the reporter says.
Palin has not held a news conference since she was chosen as the GOP vice presidential candidate to John McCain and has had three sit-down interviews, one with ABC's Charles Gibson, one with Sean Hannity from Fox News and an interview along with John McCain for People magazine.
Palin's next interview with be with CBS's Katie Couric.
As you can see from the example of the pool report above, the whole flap is simply amusing. I don't care what kind of earrings Palin wore or her shoe preference or what they two looked like sitting together. All that can be seen from the photos, which makes the actual reporters, redundant.
|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|