Obama: Merely Changing the Subject

Investor's Business Daily understands that Obama is merely changing the subject:

But Obama's recent troubles, which this much-hyped speech was supposed to put past him, are not about race relations. They're about one churchman who happens to be black, whose views from the pulpit are repugnant and from whom Obama doesn't seem to have the guts to distance himself.

...

The supposed divide between black and white is not the issue here; Obama's longtime association with Jeremiah Wright is.

Begging Tiger Woods to be a Democrat

This has been going on for years. Begging, pleading...

Today's blubbering attempt: Woods impressed by Barack Obama, via Drudge.

Tiger Woods is the consumate sports professional. He knows that, at the end of the day, he alone is responsible for the choices he makes.

See Tiger's response to the idiotic noose cover on Golfweek magazine:

"It was unfortunate," Woods said in a statement Monday. "Kelly and I did speak. There was no ill intent. She regrets saying it. In my eyes it's all said and done."

Some people actually cheer for the pathological liar, John Edwards...

Seriously...there are actually some real, live people out there who clap their hands and stomp their feet and get cherry red in the face dreaming about John Edwards, the "populist" candidate, gutting out a victory over his democratic compatriots, vanquishing GOP cannon fodder in the general election, and carrying this trial lawyer into 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, the address from which he will make poverty history, bring Christopher Reeves back from the dead, and end all bad things, period....BAM!

I can't help it. I get a kick out of it. Lots and lots of people love this fraud. He is exposed over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. No matter. We have to increase the minimum wage, save the whales from global warming, and help the poor and stuff...

The more his wife Elizabeth dabbles in public discourse, the easier it is to see how much these two are meant for each other. Are they both compulsive liars or just simpletons in over their heads? Sadly, contracting cancer clearly does not make one intelligent or honest.

In spite of it all, it remains quite enjoyable to sit back and watch the ineffectual supporters of these frauds spend money and get excited over a big cloud of nothing.

Yahoo News:

Plunging headlong into the Internet era, all seven candidates fought for the support of the powerful and polarizing liberal blogosphere by promising universal health care, aggressive government spending and dramatic change from the Bush era.

Edwards received a loud cheer when he suggested his rivals were tinkering around the edges — "I just heard some discussion about negotiation, compromise" — rather than overhauling government. He said the nation needs "big change, not small change."

The party's 2004 vice presidential nominee, Edwards called on the field to join him in refusing donations from Washington lobbyists. He suggested that accepting lobbyists' money would make Democrats no better than Republicans.

"We don't want to trade their insiders for ours," said the former North Carolina senator.

As Jack Marshall says:

Why are so many Americans willing to consider candidates for national office who obviously think the public is made up of morons?

You Tube Debate: Unintentional Comedy Scale off the Charts

Tonight's Democratic Debate was hosted by YouTubers -- and the unintentional comedy scale was off the charts. The self-importance of the questions from these people has me in stitches...Have these people ever even voted before? These are truly embarrassing - who are these people and what do they do in real life?

Here are some highlights. But check them all out - every one elicits a laugh.
























This lady is getting a bit ahead of herself. Universal health care for the world, paid for by you.


Pimple-faced, yet so superior in his dogmatic "secularism." All he wants to do is show off his atheism. Good for you, buddy...good for you...

"I want to believe in climate change"

"I am a partisan democrat - and climate change is good for my candidates. I am very clever. I am an advocate for science and reason."

- roughly 25% of the US population

"Guaranteeing Defeat"

By Donald Kirk via the NY Sun:

So great was anti-war pressure across America that Nixon, soon after announcing the foray into the communist base areas, placed a strict limit on the presence of American troops in Cambodia — no more than 60 days. Nor would they go down much beyond the Ho Chi Minh trail network which Hanoi had been sending supplies to for years.

That wasn't all. Just to pin down American forces still more tightly, the next January, our Congress passed the Cooper-Church amendment barring military operations inside Cambodia as a condition for the military budget.

The North Vietnamese suffered devastating blows while American troops were there but had plenty of time to regroup and mount a full-scale invasion of South Vietnam two years later — the Easter offensive — in which they were again thrown back, only to recover and return one last time in the winter and spring of 1975 when all American troops had gone.

Now Congress is playing the same game. Forgetting the lesson of 1970, the House and Senate want to set a limit on the duration of U.S. military operations inside Iraq.

The voting on this maneuver has broken down largely along party lines — the Democrats shouting down the Republicans, but you don't have to be a card-carrying conservative or a Republican to recognize this bid for legislative command of the armed forces as a betrayal of our troops.

We are not going to win a war, or get out with any semblance of honor, by telling our enemy to just lie low for a while and next month or next year we'll be gone. America lost in Vietnam as a result of anti-war opposition at home.

Read the rest.