Cartoon videos about the Democrat convention
The racism is coming from the Democrats -- as it always has done
Thinking in simplistic ways is characteristic of them
Racial infighting among Democrats, which marred the presidential primaries, has flared up again at the party's convention in Denver, where a black Hillary Clinton delegate is accusing a black Barack Obama delegate of calling her an "Uncle Tom." Delmarie Cobb of Chicago told FOX News Monday that Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, whom Obama called his "political godfather," hurled the racially charged insult against her late Saturday for speaking out in support of Clinton. Although Democrats at the convention are trying to project an image of unity, there is lingering bitterness between the Clinton and Obama camps, in part because each side accused the other of playing the race card during the primaries.
On Monday, Illinois' National Organization for Women President Bonnie Grabenhofer reportedly called on Jones to resign immediately from the Illinois state Senate for using the racial slur. "That was a pretty horrible comment," Grabenhofer, also a Clinton delegate, told The Sun-Times.
Cobb said Jones called her "Uncle Tom" in front of a group of Chicago aldermen in a hotel lobby after the two began a playful conversation that turned edgy as Cobb accused Jones of gloating over Obama's victory. Jones then insinuated that Clintons played "gutter politics," according to Cobb, who ended the conversation by announcing it was "time for me to go." "I walked away and said good night and walked over across the hall to the elevators," she recalled. "And he shouted across the lobby, `Uncle Tom!'
"And I came back over and said, `Excuse me, what did you just say?' And he grabbed me by my arms and started laughing. And I said, `No, no. What did you just say?' And he didn't repeat it. And I said, `Did you call me an Uncle Tom?' And then I came back with a barrage of things that I won't repeat publicly."
The epithet comes from the title character of Harriet Beecher Stowe's 19th century anti-slavery novel "Uncle Tom's Cabin," and typically it is construed as an insult meaning a black person who acts passively or submissively toward whites.
Initially, Jones denied calling Cobb an "Uncle Tom" and refused to elaborate. However, he is now telling reporters that he called her a "doubting Thomas" and that Cobb must have misheard the remark. "She was spouting things about Barack," Jones said. "What I said was, `Come on board, he's a nice, clean cut guy and everything.' I said, `We've got to stop all this. We've got too many doubting Thomases and we've got to get together.' "And she was walking away and therefore she heard the last part of the word; she didn't hear the whole part," Jones added. "I cannot apologize for one misinterpreting what I said."
Cobb questioned why the "doubting Thomas" explanation never came up when she first confronted Jones and he refused to repeat his remark. "If he had said `doubting Thomas,' he should have said it right then and there, said, `No, I did not say Uncle Tom, I said doubting Thomas.' And it would have been over with," Cobb said.
The Chicago Sun-Times quoted several aldermen who witnessed the exchange and confirmed that Jones called Cobb an "Uncle Tom." "I am firm in my convictions," Cobb told FOX News. "Supporting Hillary Clinton is not a litmus test for being black."
The Thin Man: Obama's slender record.
This week, the least qualified man to receive a major party nomination for the presidency of the United States in modern times will be anointed by his party. He could well win the general election.
Republicans have held the presidency for the last eight years. On five occasions since the FDR-Truman administration, voters have had a chance to change parties after a two-term presidency. Four of those times (1960, 1968, 1976, 2000), they have done so. The fifth occasion was 1988, when Republicans held the White House after Reagan's two terms. But Reagan's approval rating was then close to 60 percent; George W. Bush's is around 30 percent.
What's more, the Democrats now lead the GOP by about 10 points on the generic ballot. Economic growth this election year will be minimal. And a majority of the public are more focused on the economy than foreign policy. In any case, a majority of the public still think the Iraq war was a mistake.
These are the underlying political conditions. As for the candidates, Barack Obama is the beau ideal of a modern contender--and John McCain is not. As for the campaigns, Obama's will outspend and out-organize McCain's. And all the powers of the old media, the old academy, and old Hollywood--all the forces of political correctness and establishment progressivism--have entered into an alliance to try to ensure an Obama victory.
Only two things stand in the way: John McCain and Barack Obama. John McCain is a man of wide experience, demonstrated courage, and strong character.
Can one say the same of Barack Obama? Here is Obama's resume: an Ivy League law degree, a few years of community organizing, seven years in the Illinois senate, three and a half years as a U.S. senator. Kind of modest. What has he accomplished in any of those jobs? Not much, not much at all.
Has he shown great courage in his political career? Has he shunned the easy path or broken with the conventional liberal pieties of those around him? Has he taken on his own party on a major issue? Nope.
Has he shown exemplary character? He has undoubted skills and abilities. He has always had great potential. But has he followed through on it? Is there a moment in his public life that one looks to and says: Agree or disagree, that was impressive?
His defining moment so far was his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic convention. If one rereads that speech today, one sees more clearly the emptiness beneath the eloquence, the lack of substance behind the sizzle. But one paragraph does stand out:
Our party has chosen a man to lead us who embodies the best this country has to offer. That man is John Kerry. John Kerry understands the ideals of community, faith, and sacrifice, because they've defined his life. From his heroic service in Vietnam to his years as prosecutor and lieutenant governor, through two decades in the United States Senate, he has devoted himself to this country. Again and again, we've seen him make tough choices when easier ones were available. His values and his record affirm what is best in us.
Leave aside whether John Kerry deserved Obama's encomia. Doesn't Obama's praise of Kerry highlight how thin Obama's own claim to leadership is? After all, Obama has done none of the things for which he praises Kerry. Is he ready to be president of the United States? I think a majority of American voters will conclude not.
What's more, they'll realize that the Democratic party will control Congress for the next two years. There's no chance (unfortunately) that a conservative domestic agenda will be much advanced, no matter who's president. So moderates and independents wary of Republican governance or conservative enthusiasms will have little to fear from a McCain presidency. They may conclude they have quite a bit to fear from the team of Obama-Pelosi-Reid governing unchecked.
And we're at war. We're electing a commander in chief. It's not so much that Obama would, like the Democrats of his youth, blame America first. It's that he would wish away the dangers to America--and react too little and too late to threats to ourselves and our allies.
Obama said in 2004, "We coach Little League in the blue states and, yes, we've got some gay friends in the red states." I suspect Barack Obama would be a great Little League coach--sensible but also inspiring, balanced and empathetic, able to deal with both crazed parents and immature kids. And I suspect that, on November 4, the American people will decide to allow Barack Obama plenty of time to coach Little League in the next four years by keeping him in the Senate, and entrusting the presidency to a major leaguer, John McCain.
Would You Hire Barack Obama? The resume of a chronic underachiever
For over a decade I worked as a headhunter specialized in placing lawyers. I've often wondered what I would have made of Barack Obama's rwsume if it had come across my desk. I'd start off being impressed--very impressed. In the legal industry, almost regardless of a candidate's seniority, the first thing anyone looks at is the candidate's education. Even 17 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, Obama's work there remains his greatest strength. Obama graduated magna cum laude, near the top of the class. This is a real achievement. Being editor in chief of the Harvard Law Review is an even greater one.
It's when Obama leaves law school in 1991 that his resume starts raising questions. He didn't begin a full-time job until 1993. Between 1991 and 1993, Obama divided his time between lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School, writing a book, and returning to his pre-law school activity, community organizing.
In 1993, Obama went to work for the small Chicago law firm of Davis, Miner, Barnhill and Galland. He could have gotten a job with any major law firm in America. His belated selection of a boutique law firm that offered lower pay but a better lifestyle than the top firms is striking. A lot of people in the legal industry, rightly or wrongly, would infer a certain softness from Obama's chosen path.
Between 1993 and 1996, Obama was a full-time associate at Davis, Miner. On the side, he continued lecturing at the University of Chicago Law School, and his autobiographical Dreams From My Father came out in 1995. (Initial sales of the book were poor, though they would take off years later, once Obama became a national figure.) By 1996, Obama was also running for the Illinois legislature. After winning that race, he became a part-timer at Davis, Miner and a member of the Illinois senate, also a part-time job, while continuing to lecture at Chicago.
What is striking about Obama's r‚sum‚ circa 2004, as he began his U.S. Senate campaign, then, is that 13 years out of law school, he had yet to commit himself to one line of work. More important, potential employers would wonder about a gulf between the ability Obama showed at Harvard and his actual accomplishments. Obama never made it beyond lecturer at Chicago, where he wrote no scholarly articles. He wrote one book, then stopped writing for over a decade. And he was less than a force in the Illinois legislature. After roughly three years practicing law, he had turned away from that career.
As a former legal headhunter, I am interested in Obama's law firm work. Last week, I spoke with George Galland of Davis, Miner--now known as Miner, Barnhill and Galland. When I asked about Obama, Galland raved. His enthusiasm was unqualified. I asked Galland how his relatively tiny firm managed to get a guy with Barack Obama's multitude of options to choose them back in 1993 over the better paying big boys. He said his partner Jud Miner "spent months convincing him it was a better place to work" and that Davis, Miner offered a "superior lifestyle."
Galland added, "Barack could have been as good a lawyer as he wanted to be." This is high praise, and reflects Galland's genuine regard for his erstwhile associate. At the same time, the pattern is familiar: Obama did fine work for Davis, Miner, but his vast potential remained untapped.
So if you'd hired Barack Obama at the end of 2004, let's say to be a United States senator, you would have been on notice: You were getting a wonderfully gifted individual, but one with a history of failing to focus for long on the task at hand. And that's exactly how it worked out for Obama's constituents in Illinois. Shortly after becoming a senator, Obama began writing his second book, and shortly after that he began running for president. His accomplishments in the Senate have been virtually nonexistent.
Looking at Barack Obama's resume today, part of you would really want to hire him. Talent like his is rare. The feeling would only intensify after an interview process, in which Obama would certainly shine. But you'd still have the cold, hard facts of his resume staring you in the face. You'd reluctantly have to conclude that Obama's failure to commit himself to any career sufficiently to excel at it suggests some unexplained restlessness. The net effect is this: His accomplishments haven't been commensurate with his talents.
Obama/Biden: Escalating the War on Fathers and Families
Tragically -- but true to the radical feminist agenda -- the Obama/Biden Democratic ticket portends an escalating war on boys, men, fathers, and families. On Father's Day 2008, Sen. Obama could have spoken on any number of topics. His choice was to castigate African-American fathers and blame fathers, and fathers alone, for the ills of the African-American family.
He called upon African-American fathers to be more involved in their children 's lives (certainly a worthwhile call) but he also castigated them for failing to endorse "responsible fatherhood" which essentially means signing up for 18 years of overly highly calculated child support. Economists understand, but Sen. Obama ideologically overlooks, the reality that child support currently is calculated at a level far above what the majority of fathers -- including poor and unemployed fathers -- actually are capable of paying or that children require (see W. S. Comanor, The law and economics of child support payments, 2004).
So, what then does Sen. Biden bring to the ticket? Sen. Biden brings the divisive Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) which he originated, expanded, and vigorously supported in subsequent years. Unfortunately, substantial evidence now indicates that VAWA not only fails to protect women from domestic violence but in many cases increases their risk of harm and contains much fraud. What VAWA does best, however, is squander billions of taxpayer dollars annually to finance the war on fathers and families.
As promoted by divorce lawyers (see The American Bar Association's position on Domestic Violence) and domestic violence shelter operators, mothers are advised that the surest path to fortune and child custody is to obtain a restraining order through VAWA by telling a judge that they are "afraid" of their husband. No physical evidence of violence or abuse is required, only her claim of "fear." Based on this "evidence," judges routinely and immediately grant ex-parte temporary restraining orders against husbands.
With the restraining order in hand, Sen. Biden's VAWA removes the father from his home at any hour of the day or night, separates him from his children, requires him to stay away from his wife, and immediately orders him to begin paying child support to his wife based only on her self-reported "fear."
VAWA explicitly denies the father his Constitutionally guaranteed due process protections. Children explicitly are denied the love and companionship of fit fathers. In short, the feminist objective of destroying family life is achieved and the only real beneficiaries are the lawyers.
While Sen. Biden's contribution to the war on fathers and families is clear, much remains to be learned about Sen. Obama and his attitudes towards fathers and families. The problem is that Sen. Obama's book Dreams from My Father and material emanating in the media and on the web differ very substantially from one another.
In closing, and of critical importance for the balance of the presidential race, it must be noted that "change" was the seminal issue which propelled Sen. Obama from obscurity to the Democratic Nomination. Is it then not fair to ask-- after three decades in the Senate -- where voters are going to find " change" in Sen. Biden? And, above all else, what does Obama's selection of Sen. Biden portend for his future appointments and the future of the American family?
Message of change will doom Barack Obama, swing voters warn
Barack Obama will lose the November election to John McCain unless he overhauls his message of change, outlines specific plans and reassures Americans that he is one of them, according to swing voters in Denver.
The results of a focus group held by Frank Luntz, the leading American pollster, on the eve of the Democratic convention should sound alarm bells for the Obama campaign after a month in which Mr McCain, the Republican, has drawn level in the polls. "The way that he gets here to the Democratic nomination - 'change' - is not how he gets there, to the White House," said Mr Luntz. "If it's change, by itself, he will fail. Change what? Change how? Change why?" Mr Luntz is a Republican but his work on focus groups is respected on both sides of the aisle.
Some 21 carefully-selected undecided voters were gathered in a conference room in a downtown skyscraper. Observed by The Daily Telegraph and a small group of other media through a one-way mirror, they were grilled by Mr Luntz about their views of the candidates in a two-hour session. Although 12 said they had voted for President George W. Bush in 2004, not a single person described themselves as a Republican - bad news for Mr McCain, who has to shake off his party label to claim victory.
But these undecideds were willing to separate their disdain for the Republican party from the individual candidates. The one-word descriptions of Mr Obama showed he has mountain to climb to overcome the doubts of these swing voters in the swing state of Colorado - a top Democratic target in November.
Among the words offered for Mr Obama: apocalypse, terrifying, scary, pizzazz, unknown, inexperienced, innovative, new, charismatic, smooth, unaffordable, change, hopeful. Mr McCain's name inspired: dependable, strong, experienced, scary, patriot, veteran, experienced, Bush Two, veteran, older generation, little boy, integrity, frightening, honest, older, cantankerous, repeat.
The reason why the Obama campaign is trying so hard to link Mr McCain to Mr Bush was clear from the reaction to the current president: self-centred, disciplined, unreliable, disappointing, conventional, dishonest, idiot, crook, nightmare, felon, self-assured, irresponsible.
But another disturbing element for Mr Obama was how sceptical and even dismissive most of the group was about the word that has been central to his campaign - change. Some voters believed Mr Obama could not relate to them and did not share their everyday concerns. "Stop giving me all these general things," said Doug, 48, a fireman. "I want specifics, not pie in the sky. There were nods around the room. "He has to put some substance behind the charismatic talk," interjected another man.
A woman in her 60s said: "I want less oratory; show me what you have done and what you are going to do." Sondra, 43, a catering manager, said: "Change for change's sake got us in this mess. We want change but we're afraid of what it might bring."
Asked to address Mr Obama directly, the voters said: "How are you going to get it done?"; "Prove you have experience."; "How will you fix things?"; "Stop the dramatic talk, we want reality."; "Focus on issues, not personality."; "Don't just give me an empty balloon."
Most of the undecided voters said they wanted "accountability" rather than change. From a long list of election concerns, 17 highlighted a top theme of Mr McCain's: "Ending wasteful Washington spending and balancing the federal budget."
The next most important concern was "reducing inflation and keeping costs down", with ten votes while "Ending American dependence on foreign oil" and "bringing accountability and honesty back to the government" got nine.
Some favourite concerns of Democrats were virtually ignored. "Holding President Bush accountable for all his mistakes and failures" got two votes and "Improving our global image and public support internationally" just one - another indication that Mr Obama's recent foreign trip and speech in Berlin were mistakes.
Using electronic dials to register their second-by-second reactions, the voters were shown television advertisements from each candidate. Again, the results were encouraging for Mr McCain. Although most of the 21 said they did not like the concept behind Mr McCain's notorious "Celebrity" ad, which compared the Democrat with Paris Hilton and Britney Spears - one said "crap", another "ridiculous" - a dozen conceded it made Mr Obama look bad.
The Obama ad that attacked Mr McCain for having seven houses and not being able to recall the number fell flat. But Mr McCain's response ad that highlighted a land deal Mr Obama had struck with Tony Rezko, a real estate dealer subsequently convicted of corruption, prompted more than half the dials to shoot up.
A couple of the voters suggested that Americans did not resent wealth. "I really don't care how many houses you have but it does matter how you got that house," said Doug.
A CNN/Gallup poll released on Monday showed Mr Obama and Mr McCain tied with 47 percentage points each, despite the abysmal favourability ratings of Mr Bush and Republicans, the ailing economy and the unpopular Iraq war. It is too early to tell if the choice of Joe Biden, the experienced senator, as Mr Obama's running mate will alter the polls. "There's a golden opportunity for either candidate to seal this but neither has done it yet," said Mr Luntz. "If Obama comes across as just another typical politician, he won't be president. If McCain thinks experience alone is going to do it, he's wrong. It's dead level."
Obama disguising ties to radical leftist group?
Organization convicted of voter fraud, pushes 'authoritarian socialist' agenda
Did Sen. Barack Obama's campaign attempt to hide a paid working relationship with a radical leftist organization that has admitted to major financial improprieties and has been convicted in numerous major voter fraud scandals? That question is being openly asked by the Republican National Committee after it was disclosed Obama's campaign paid more than $800,000 in services to Citizen Services Inc. (CSI), a nonprofit organization that is an offshoot of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN.
ACORN is the nation's largest community organization of low- and moderate-income families. It has held violent, disruptive protests, seeks to regulate banks, supports left-leaning education policies, is accused of working on urging partisan voter turnout for elections, and seems to promote driving businesses from cities.
CSI is headquartered in New Orleans in the same building as ACORN. The three directors of CSI are also top leaders of ACORN. The two groups have close financial ties.
The Obama campaign's payments to CSI - first reported by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - raise questions about the nature of Obama's current relationship with ACORN. Obama has been closely linked with the radical group and may have even helped drive large amount of money to the organization.
According to FEC records reviewed by the Tribune-Review, the Obama campaign paid CSI $832,598.29, from Feb. 25 to May 17, including $564,342.21 for "stage, lighting and sound." That payment immediately stood out after a pro-Hillary Clinton blogger contacted CSI Director Sunday Alabi, who also serves as an ACORN leader. Alabi said CSI doesn't perform stage, lighting or sound services.
Also unusual was payment to CSI of $63,000 and $75,000 for advance work. Excluding the large payments to CSI, the average amount the Obama campaign spent on advance work paid to other organizations was $558.82. The Obama campaign on Friday announced it was amending its FEC filings to indicate it hired CSI for "get out the vote" projects instead of stage, lighting and sound.
FEC spokeswoman Mary Brandenberger told the Tribune-Review it is not unusual for campaigns to amend FEC reports, even in the case of large sums of money.
The RNC immediately pounced, accusing Obama of hiding a deeper relationship with ACORN:
"Barack Obama's failure to accurately report his campaign's financial records is an incredibly suspicious situation that appears to be an attempt to hide his campaign's interaction with a left-wing organization previously convicted of voter fraud. For a candidate who claims to be practicing 'new' politics, his FEC reports look an awful lot like the 'old-style' Chicago politics of yesterday," stated RNC Spokeswoman Blair Latoff.
Obama's camp fired back, accusing the RNC of "outlandish conspiracy theories" and pointing out Sen. John McCain was forced to return $50,000 "raised by a foreign national through a number of contributors who weren't even supporting McCain."
But the Obama campaign did not address the larger issues of the presidential candidate's ties to ACORN and why Obama would hire for a "get out the vote" drive a reported subsidiary of an organization whose leadership was convicted in multiple voter fraud cases.
Last July, ACORN settled what was described by the Washington Secretary of State as the "largest case of voter fraud in the state's history." Government prosecutors had filed felony charges against seven ACORN workers, who ended up receiving jail time.... ACORN has been accused in multiple other voter fraud cases in other states. Some investigations are still pending......
ACORN protests have turned violent, at times as soon as the rallies began. Some protests disrupted Federal Reserve hearings and busted into closed city council meetings. Stern noted that in 2003 that in Baltimore ACORN underlings piled garbage in front of City Hall to protest lack of services in poor neighborhoods, wielded huge inflated rubber sharks to disrupt a bankers' dinner, and even staged a profanity-laced protest in front of the home of the city's mayor, Martin O'Malley.
"They unloaded a busload of people shouting pretty ugly things and scared the daylights out of my wife and kids," O'Malley told the Baltimore Sun. "I thought it was a pretty cruddy thing to do."
ACORN is very active in Obama's native Chicago, where in 1997, some 200 members attempted to storm a City Hall meeting, resulting in six members being arrested, including Madeleine Talbot, ACORN's Chicago director.
(For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, GREENIE WATCH, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, EYE ON BRITAIN and Paralipomena . My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.)