DISQUS

Fluff and nonsense. I am most concerned with Obama's political machinations that belie his message that concern me.

Handling of the Reverend Wright debacle -- one equivocation after another obfuscation;
association with Rezko -- eleven dilapidated affordable housing properties in his district;
association with Ayers and Dohrn -- confessed, convicted, and questionably repentant terrorists;
association with Auchi -- food for oil scams;
association with Exelon -- electric utility and nuclear waste disposal;
association with homophobes McClurken and Rev. Caldwell;
wife's huge pay raise after his election;
opposition to Feingold's censure of Bush over wiretaps;
rejection of Murtha's call for redeployment;
said Bush doing a good job in Iraq;
neglect of European Subcommittee -- ergo, missed opportunities for NATO cooperation;
support for the Bush Cheney energy plan;
vote for Bush's Class Action Fairness -- deprives legal recourse against large corporations;
correction for Bush's tax relief still favors upper incomes;
repeated votes for Patriot act;
skipped the Iran Resolution vote;
rhetoric invokes past Republican Administrations -- riddled with excesses and crimes;
has a weak record on FISA;
spokesperson equivocated on NAFTA while in Canada;
spokesperson equivocated on troop withdrawal while in England;
...;
Obama is afraid to debate H.R. Clinton.

I expected to see a rebuttal from Holly Yeager, Allison Silver, or Laura McGann. I'll check back tomorrow.

From the last paragraph, [Democrat X] "demands that the White House talk." We have read/heard that too many times before, and it has been of little avail. The Bushitistas will simply ignore it, and there will be little, if any, redress.

Both sides of the aisle now share responsiblity. Soon the clock will have run out, and all such issues will be wholly owned by the Democratic party. I am slightly tolerant (but wary) of the 'reach across.' I am absolutely incensed by the 'reach around.'

We lost the edge when Nancy Pelosi took impeachment off the table two years ago, her most notable achievement. Harry Reid cowered when faced by the neocons with regard to FISA immunity, and even blocked Democratic movements. [Aside: It looks like Steny Hoyer will get the Bush ball across the goal line.]

Bush may be a lame duck, but our leaders are simply lame. But, this important ingredient to the sordid tale is always omitted.

"Without shouldering blame for errors[?]" "Latest in a series[?]" How many of these Hillary R. Clinton errors are cited and sourced in this article? ZERO! Read Holly Yeager's other vacuous, journalistic attempts in WI. Except for spending a little more time on spelling and grammar, her articles barely surpass hastily written comments by readers in the blog-o-sphere. Did the WI editors, Allison Silver and Laura McGann, review and approve this?


Now, if one wishes to talk about a candidate's series of errors for which sources can be cited, merely look at Obama's record.

Handling of the Reverend Wright debacle -- one equivocation after another obfuscation;
association with Rezko -- eleven dilapidated affordable housing properties in his district;
association with Ayers and Dohrn -- confessed, convicted, and questionably repentant terrorists;
association with Auchi -- food for oil scams;
association with Exelon -- electric utility and nuclear waste disposal;
association with homophobes McClurken and Rev. Caldwell;
wife's huge pay raise after his election;
opposition to Feingold's censure of Bush over wiretaps;
rejection of Murtha's call for redeployment;
said Bush doing a good job in Iraq;
neglect of European Subcommittee -- ergo, missed opportunities for NATO cooperation;
support for the Bush Cheney energy plan;
vote for Bush's Class Action Fairness -- deprives legal recourse against large corporations;
correction for Bush's tax relief still favors upper incomes;
repeated votes for Patriot act;
skipped the Iran Resolution vote;
rhetoric invokes past Republican Administrations -- riddled with excesses and crimes;
has a weak record on FISA;
spokesperson equivocated on NAFTA while in Canada;
spokesperson equivocated on troop withdrawal while in England;
...;
Obama is afraid to debate H.R. Clinton.

Reverend Wright owes me no further explanations -- if he ever owed me any. Whether or not I agree with, endorse, rationalize, etc. his (many or few) words, I do recognize that he speaks from his own experiences and passions. He has every right to do so, and has remained true to his beliefs.

Obama should be the focus of attention. As in some other cases he has been all over the map for political expediency. He used Reverend Wright, then threw him under the bus. If Obama had been more forthright in the beginning, this need not have happened.

Now, I would like to see more debating between H.R.C and B.H.O. This is not likely, since he is apparently afraid to lose.

@grainneg
Sorry ctrl-s failed you on your long rebuttal. I find it safer to work in a text editor, then copy/paste into the comment block. Thus, I avoid the occasional time-outs, browser failures, and finger slips.

However, I would be very happy to assist you. Please feel free to select any number of my short list of complaints about Obama, and I will gladly provide you and others with links.

They'll look something like this random sampling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feat...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchi...
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/2008033...
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_...
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/genera_evely...
http://www.nysun.com/news/national/obama-advise...

What's your thinking on Obama being afraid to debate?

@grainneg -- unsupported, random, obamaniac drivel.

Depending on the 'who and how' of data analysis and extrapolation, it looks as if the split is close enough to 50/50 which warrants that the primary continue -- there is not yet a presumptive candidate. And as it continues, he acquires the stink of the transparent Dean, Pelosi, and Reid cabal.

What's your take on pastorhorace? Misogynist or not? He's in your camp.

Here is a short list of complaints I have about Obama (I could double this):
advocated Social Security privatization;
association with Exelon -- elect. util. & nuke waste;
association with Rezko -- 11 dilapidated properties in district;
association with Auchi -- food for oil scams;
wife's pay raise after his election;
supported the Bush and Cheney energy plan;
voted for Bush's Class Action Fairness (deprives legal recourse against large corps.);
denial of taking money from oil companies (both candidates have oil execs as bundlers individual donors);
correction for Bush's tax relief still favors upper incomes;
opposed Feingold's censure of Bush over wiretaps;
rejected Murtha's call for redeployment;
neglect of European Subcommittee (ergo, lost influence over NATO);
relationship with homophobes McClurken and Rev. Caldwell;
repeatedly voted for Patriot Act;
"present" and "oops, wrong button" on many votes in Illinois & U.S. Senates;
takes credit for ethics bill he had little to do with;
does not include adults in his health insurance program;
skipped out on Iran resolution vote;
spokesperson equivocated on NAFTA in Canada;
spokesperson equivocated on troop withdrawal in England;
invokes past Republican Administrations (riddled with excesses and criminal acts);
his handling of the Reverend Wright debacle.

Charisma is a thin veneer. It surely doesn't hide Obama's obfuscation, equivocation, misdirection regarding responses to some issues of his personal and political history.

For example, his Rezko connection still matters. Here, his denials usually referred to a narrow strip of land, returned campaign funds, or billable hours. Accepting those explanations, I can not ignore eleven dilapidated buildings designated as affordable housing in his district that received grants, loans and Federal tax credits. Many of these appear to be within five miles of the Obamas' home. Imagine that. His constituency shivering in the cold because of evictions and unpaid heating bills.

Don't believe me, watch this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feat...

Here's a map of the locations -- Obama's residence is three blocks east of the north side of Washington Park:
http://media.suntimes.com/images/cds/gmapsobama/

Now, tell me if you should also be praying that Obama grows a conscience.

By the way, there is no possible way that McCain will receive my vote, and I hope your cookies were a big hit.

@pastorhorace
The Reverend Wright issue was initially brought up by Fox News and not Hillary Clinton or her organization. For the most part, she has been involved in it by responding to direct questions put to her. That it has continued, is as much a matter of Barack Obama's obfuscation, misdirection, and equivocation during his long, drawn out explanation that progressed from denial of experiencing it to denial of the Reverend.

It is Obama that has some explaining to do here, and not Clinton.

I detect some latent misogynistic attitude in your text.

Now, if Dean, Pelosi, and Reid will just keep out of it. I have nothing but contempt for that creepy cabal.

First and foremost in this contest, I am concerned with issues such as the economy, health care, restoration of our Constitutional Rights, ending the war, relieving the disadvantaged, ....

As in at least a few other cases, it can not be blamed on media interference or political machinations, that the issue comes up again. Further, interest is not confined to particular social, religious, or ethnic groups. Most people seem to understand that the church clergy and congregation are not [Fill in the Blank]. And, the sermons reflect particular views and experiences and are not [Fill in the Blank].

The concern seems to be as much about Obama's handling of it as the content of the sermons. At first he inferred he was not present, then he stated he heard things that made him uneasy ('cringe'), and more recently he says that if Reverend Wright had not retired, he would have left the church or said something to the Reverend. The misdirection and equivocation matter to me.