There is no change evident in the Obama campaign. What we see is a potential third Clinton term; many of the Obama foreign policy advisers are holdovers from the Hillary campaign or retreads from the Bill Clinton administration. According to New York Times today a tight-knit group of aides supported by a huge 300-person foreign policy campaign bureaucracy, organized like a mini State Department, (are assembled) to assist a candidate whose limited national security experience remains a concern to many voters.” Here are some snippets to show the huge influence of ex-Clintonians in the Obama camp:
….an infrastructure that has been divided into 20 teams based on regions and issues, and that has recently absorbed, with some tensions, the top foreign policy advisers from Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s presidential campaign.
Most of the core members of his team served in government during President Bill Clinton’s administration and by and large were junior to the advisers who worked on Mrs. Clinton’s campaign for the Democratic nomination. But they remain in charge within the campaign even as it takes on more senior figures from the Clinton era, like two former secretaries of state, Madeleine K. Albright and Warren Christopher, and are positioned to put their own stamp on the party’s foreign policy
Most of them, like the candidate they are working for, distinguished themselves from Mrs. Clinton’s foreign policy camp by early opposition to the Iraq war. They also tend to be more liberal and to emphasize using the “soft power” of diplomacy and economic aid to try to advance the interests of the United States. Still, their positions fall well within centrist Democratic foreign policy thinking,
Mr. Obama’s core team is led by Susan E. Rice, an assistant secretary of state for African affairs in the Clinton administration, who has pushed for a tougher response to the crisis in the Darfur region of Sudan, and Anthony Lake, Mr. Clinton’s first national security adviser,
The core group also includes Gregory B. Craig, a former top official in the Clinton State Department who served as the president’s lawyer during his impeachment trial; Richard J. Danzig, a Navy secretary in the Clinton administration (emphasis added)
It seems that whenever another of Barack Obama’s associates becomes a problem the eloquent one offers the same explanation.
The racist Reverand Wright, a mentor to Obama, for over 20 years spewed hatred from the pulpit. When the chosen one was cornered, after several lame excuses, stated………………………………….. “The person I saw yesterday was not the person I met 20 years ago”
When Tony Rezko, Obama’s friend and fundraiser, was convicted was convicted of 16 of 24 corruption charges what did the Messiah say……..you guessed it……………………… “This isn’t the Tony Rezko I knew”
The idea is catching on: Rev Al Sharpton takes Rev Jesse Jackson to task for careless use of the “N” word (the hot mic episode).
Sharpton, who has joined Jackson in opposition of the word, said on CBS News’ The Early Show on Thursday that he was “very disappointed” by this latest revelation.
“I think this certainly does not reflect the Reverend Jackson that we all know and love,” Sharpton said. “I think that we have to be consistent. We have denounced the N-word at National Action Network and other groups. Those of us and many of us who have used it privately said we must refrain from it if we’re going to challenge people using it publicly.”
Voice of Arizona’s postman concludes with:
Im just waiting for the angry Michelle dust up to hear him say …………..
And what can I tell you my brother, my killer What can I possibly say? I guess that I miss you, I guess I forgive you Im glad you stood in my way.
(L Cohen: “Famous Blue Raincoat”)
These unfortunate women were accused of prostituting themselves to U.S. military and American contractors and were dispatched by the Taliban.
The women, dressed in blue burqas, were shot and killed just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan, said Sayed Ismal, a spokesman for Ghazni’s governor. He called the two “innocent local people”.
Remember when informal sports, i.e. basketball, were organized with shirts vs skins? I don’t know if they do that anymore but I remember it from my high school days. Our friends in Eastern Europe have taken the idea to a whole new level with organized brawls, or row boxing, no holds barred; Kicking is OK. This activity apparently is quite widespread in Ukraine and Russia. Apparently this is a traditional rural pastime where village vs village was the Saturday night pastime; now it’s transferred to urban settings. It musts be something like the pitched battles of the ancient world only without the knives and spears. These kids don’t fool around; kicks to the downed person’s head seem routine. Interesting comments from this site :
After (or before) watching or visiting the football match, some Russian football fans like to go out, gather in groups and fight with each other. They call such fight a “mahach”, from the word “mahatsia”, which means to fight with somebody. Here are the pictures and the video of the typical fans “mahach” that took place in Rostov-On-Don. Probably this tradition goes from the ancient Slavonic fisticuffs; it was a real national fun in Ancient Russia when village met village each weekends in a row on row boxing fun.
So in modern Russia it’s not considered to be violent like a corrida (bullfight) in Spain or Boxing in USA, it’s the same like a boxing but at the same time hundreds of athletes fight on their good will. Maybe someday organized crowd row boxing would be included into Olympic Games official sports list?
Democrats are so desperate to win the presidency that they don’t care what Obama has to say to get elected. Case in point: Yesterday, on his radio program, Colin McEnroe remarked he was just barely exaggerating when saying Obama should even approve of capital punishment for jaywalking if that would get him elected.
“He seems willing to say and do anything to win the election, and that’s sad.”
Those are the words of Senator Lindsey Graham (R - S.C.) of South Carolina speaking about Senator Barack Obama on “Meet the Press” the NBC news show on Sunday June 22….
“There’s only one thing different about Barack Obama when it comes to being a Democratic presidential candidate. He’s half African-American,” Nader said. “Whether that will make any difference, I don’t know. I haven’t heard him have a strong crackdown on economic exploitation in the ghettos. Payday loans, predatory lending, asbestos, lead. What’s keeping him from doing that? Is it because he wants to talk white? He doesn’t want to appear like Jesse Jackson? We’ll see all that play out in the next few months and if he gets elected afterwards.”
Obviously Nader is referring to the Obama campaign strategy and not BHO’s manner of speaking which is in the best tradition of English locution and oratory.
See Booker Rising (black perspective) blog for additional responses to Nader’s foolishness:
…in Mr. Nader’s mind black = poor. Never mind that 74% of black Americans are not poor…and most black Americans haven’t been poor since the 1960s. Perhaps Mr. Nader hasn’t heard Sen. Obama talk about these issues, because Sen. Obama is aware of the social class diversity and progress in Black America. Last night, I was discussing this very topic with a black liberal guy from Denver who was visiting Chicago. Although we are ideologically different, we both agreed that Mr. Nader was out of order on this one.
See Hot Air (white perspective) where Ed Morrissey berates Nader:
Talk white”? Do people still think this way? Apparently Nader does, and the arrogance here is simply stunning. On what basis does Ralph Nader think that he qualifies to be the arbiter of black authenticity? Nader doesn’t even bother to go for subtlety or code words here. He doesn’t actually utter the words “Uncle Tom” in this outburst, but the meaning is plain. Nader accuses Obama of selling out the poor and his own constituency in order to ingratiate himself with the “white
Yahoo News reports:
A new seal debuted on Obama’s podium Friday, sporting iconography used in the U.S. presidential seal, the blue background, the eagle clutching arrows on left and olive branch on right, but with symbolic differences. Instead of the Latin ‘E pluribus unum’ (Out of many, one), Obama’s says ‘Vero possumus’, rough Latin for ‘Yes, we can.’ Instead of ‘Seal of the President of the United States’, Obama’s Web site address is listed. And instead of a shield, Obama’s eagle wears his ‘O’ campaign logo with a rising sun representing hope ahead.
Dodd also behind a huge privacy invasion and money grab hidden in his Senate Housing Bill:
Washington, DC - Hidden deep in Senator Christopher Dodd’s 630-page Senate housing legislation is a sweeping provision that affects the privacy and operation of nearly all of America’s small businesses. The provision, which was added by the bill’s managers without debate this week, would require the nation’s payment systems to track, aggregate, and report information on nearly every electronic transaction to the federal government.
Making law from the bench, five out of control, radical leftist Supreme Court justices* ignored the constitution and precedent to allow overseas detained terrorists, “unlawful enemy combatants”,access to civilian courts here at home. Never before in our history as a nation have prisoners of war been entitled to constitutional protections. Constitutional scholar, and one of our best legal minds, Mark Levin has this to say about the tragic decision:
“….what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.”
I am publishing the entire Levin piece below; it is deserving of a wide audience.
The Gitmo Defeat [Mark R. Levin]
While I am still reviewing the 5-4 decision written by Anthony Kennedy, apparently giving GITMO detainees access to our civilian courts, at the outset I am left to wonder whether all POWs will now have access to our civilian courts? After all, you would think lawful enemy combatants have a better claim in this regard than unlawful enemy combatants. And if POWs have access to our civilian courts, how do our courts plan to handle the thousands, if not tens of thousands of cases, that will be brought to them in future conflicts?
It has been the objective of the left-wing bar to fight aspects of this war in our courtrooms, where it knew it would have a decent chance at victory. So complete is the Court’s disregard for the Constitution and even its own precedent now that anything is possible. And what was once considered inconceivable is now compelled by the Constitution, or so five justices have ruled. I fear for my country. I really do. And AP, among others, reports this story as a defeat for “the Bush administration.” Really? I see it as a defeat for the nation.
UPDATE: The 5-4 GITMO decision brings to the front, yet again, John McCain’s position on judges versus his own policies. McCain undoubtedly supports the 5-4 decision, yet the justices who voted against it, and argued strenuously against it, are of the kind McCain claims to want on the bench. We have seen the same issue arise respecting campaign finance. This is not to say that McCain won’t nominate originalists to the bench. But if he does, he will be nominating to the Court individuals who are better adherents to the Constitution than he is.
Meanwhile, the always predictable Bush hating New York Slimes editorializes today with the heading: Justice 5, Brutality 4!
