Is Obama’s Life at Risk?
AMIL IMANI BLOG
In eloquent speeches presidential candidate Obama has made copious promises, understandably to attract voters. He talks about “change,” without really spelling out change from what to what. It just sounds good: “change.” A great sound bite, indeed. Change is exciting, while status quo is viewed as stagnant and boring. It is all part of the political game of telling people what they want to hear, getting elected, and worrying about delivering later.
The electorates are both short on memory and long on forgiving. So, the farce of empty high-sounding promises fills the air at campaign times. But there are instances that a promise during vote-gathering can later haunt the person. This may indeed be the case with at least one of Barack Hussein Obama’s promises.
Obama boasted that he would embark on a personal diplomacy to solve our foreign policy problems with countries such as Syria and Iran. He said that he would meet their leaders without any preconditions to settle our disputes. Doesn’t that sound like change, a real change of great relief to us all? Never mind the fact that he has about zero experience in foreign policy matters, he is foolish enough to aim to negotiate with the ever-conniving Assad of Syria and masters of deceptions such as the Mullahs of Iran.
Okay Obama, don’t claim that no one warned you. If you get elected President and you receive an invitation from your fellow Muslim brother Ahmadinejad to make good on your promise and visit him in Tehran for a tête-à-tête, don’t you do it. BBC’s recent report ought to be enough for you to recant your foolish and naïve promise:
“The European Union has criticized the new penal code being drafted in Iran, particularly a section that imposes the death penalty for giving up Islam...Death for apostasy already exists in Iran under Sharia or “Islamic - law.” But the changes would for the first time bring the punishment into the criminal code. An EU statement expressed deep concern about what it calls the ongoing deterioration in the human rights situation in Iran. It singled out Section Five of the draft penal code currently before the Iranian parliament, imposing the death penalty for apostasy. In the past, Iranian courts have handed down the death penalty in such cases, but have done so relying on Sharia law. If the draft is approved by parliament, the sentence will be formalized in the country's criminal code.”
Who is an apostate according to the legislation? Anyone in the world, not just Iranians, born to a Muslim parent; also, any convert to Islam who leaves it. Only one parent needs to be a Muslim at the time of conception for Islam to own that child for life. Islam is Ummehist. Islam doesn’t recognize nationalities and national boundaries. And these Islamist zealots are very serious and have no sense of humor. Some say they have no sense at all, and they may be right. What they certainly have is a thirst for blood, particularly for the blood of infidels and apostates.
My advice, Obama: Elected President or not, don’t you hazard a trip to the Islamic Republic of Iran. In fact, don’t you go anywhere near where the crazed Islamists can get their hands on you. You don’t even rate a fatwa from one of the many bloodthirsty crafty Ayatollahs or Moftis, asking for your head. Your fate is already sealed. You are on automatic, so to speak-- a person who was given the gift of Islam and who ungratefully turned his back to the one and only faith of Allah, so the Muslims believe. The punishment for this kind of betrayal is prescribed as haad (most severe), meaning death.
You may protest that you are free to choose your religion and that you have chosen to be Christian. Nothing doing! You are stamped as Muslim at conception because your father was Muslim. Further, you have been doubly-stamped by your middle name Hussein. Muslims name their sons Hussein in honor of one of Islam’s most revered saints. Hence, the Muslims want what is theirs and you either repent and return to the fold or prepare yourself for the ultimate punishment: Death.
The only time that these inveterate liar killers of Allah mean what they say is when they threaten violence and killing. So, please be careful. Stay close to home where a whole platoon of Secret Service at the taxpayers’ expense is shielding you from the thugs who would be just too happy to slash your throat while they joyously scream: Allah is the greatest.
http://www.amilimani.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=99&Itemid=2
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Is Obama’s Life at Risk?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
" Shame on you," Clinton tells Obama
-"Shame on you," Clinton tells Obama
Sat Feb 23, 2008 2:05pm EST
By Claudia Parsons
CINCINNATI, Feb 23 (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton slammed rival Barack Obama on Saturday for campaign leaflets on her health-care plan that she called "blatantly false" and accused him of using Republican tactics in their contest for the Democratic U.S. presidential nomination.
In a bitter exchange, the Obama campaign defended the leaflet as accurate, and decried Clinton's "negative campaign."
"Shame on you, Barack Obama," Clinton said, speaking to reporters after a rally in this state that is key to her struggling campaign.
Brandishing a leaflet, Clinton said the Obama campaign was spreading "false, misleading, discredited information" about her health-care plan.
MORE
http://www.reuters.com/article/bondsNews/idUSN2362250120080223
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Karl Rove on Obama
Obama's New Vulnerability
By KARL ROVE
WSJ.COM
February 21, 2008; Page A17
In campaigns, there are sometimes moments when candidates shift ground, causing the race to change dramatically. Tuesday night was one of those moments.
Hammered for the 10th contest in a row, Hillary Clinton toughened her attacks on Barack Obama, saying he was unready to be commander in chief and unable to back his inspiring words with a record of action and leadership.
[Obama's New Vulnerability]
John McCain also took on Mr. Obama, with the Arizona senator declaring he would oppose "eloquent but empty calls for change that promises no more than a holiday from history and a return to the false promises and failed policies of a tired philosophy that trusts in government more than people."
Mr. McCain, too, raised questions about Mr. Obama's fitness to be commander in chief. Mr. McCain pointed to Mr. Obama's unnecessary sabre-rattling at an ally (Pakistan) while appeasing our adversaries (Iran and Syria). Mr. McCain also made it clear that reining in spending, which is a McCain strength and an Obama weakness, would be a key issue.
Mr. Obama had not been so effectively criticized before. In the Democratic contest, John Edwards and Mrs. Clinton were unwilling to confront him directly or in a manner that hurt him. Mr. McCain was rightly preoccupied by his own primary. On Tuesday night, things changed.
Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.
Mr. McCain can now question Mr. Obama's promise to change Washington by working across party lines. Mr. Obama hasn't worked across party lines since coming to town. Was he a member of the "Gang of 14" that tried to find common ground between the parties on judicial nominations? Was Mr. Obama part of the bipartisan leadership that tackled other thorny issues like energy, immigration or terrorist surveillance legislation? No. Mr. Obama has been one of the most dependably partisan votes in the Senate.
Mrs. Clinton can do much more to draw attention to Mr. Obama's lack of achievements. She can agree with Mr. Obama's statement Tuesday night that change is difficult to achieve on health care, energy, poverty, schools and immigration -- and then question his failure to provide any leadership on these or other major issues since his arrival in the Senate. His failure to act, advocate or lead on what he now claims are his priorities may be her last chance to make a winning argument.
Mr. McCain gets a chance to question Mr. Obama's declaration he won't be beholden to lobbyists and special interests. After Mr. Obama's laundry list of agenda items on Tuesday night, Mr. McCain can ask why, if Mr. Obama rejects the influence of lobbyists, has he not broken with any lobbyists from the left fringe of the Democratic Party? Why is he doing their bidding on a range of issues? Perhaps because he occupies the same liberal territory as they do.
The truth is that Mr. Obama is unwilling to challenge special interests if they represent the financial and political muscle of the Democratic left. He says yes to the lobbyists of the AFL-CIO when they demand card-check legislation to take away the right of workers to have a secret ballot in unionization efforts, or when they oppose trade deals. He won't break with trial lawyers, even when they demand the ability to sue telecom companies that make it possible for intelligence agencies to intercept communications between terrorists abroad. And he is now going out of his way to proclaim fidelity to the educational unions. This is a disappointment since he'd earlier indicated an openness to education reform. Mr. Obama backs their agenda down the line, even calling for an end to testing, which is the only way parents can know with confidence whether their children are learning and their schools working.
These stands represent not just policy vulnerabilities, but also a real danger to Mr. Obama's credibility and authenticity. He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.
Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left.
In recent days, courtesy of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Mr. Obama has invoked the Declaration of Independence, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Franklin Roosevelt to show the power of words. But there is a critical difference between Mr. Obama's rhetoric and that of Jefferson, King and FDR. In each instance, their words were used to advance large, specific purposes -- establishing a new nation based on inalienable rights; achieving equal rights and a color-blind society; giving people confidence to endure a Great Depression. For Mr. Obama, words are merely a means to hide a left-leaning agenda behind the cloak of centrist rhetoric. That garment has now been torn. As voters see what his agenda is, his opponents can now far more effectively question his authenticity, credibility, record and fitness to be leader of the free world.
The road to the presidency just got steeper for Barack Obama, and all because he pivoted on Tuesday night.
Mr. Rove is a former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120355939956381797.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Monday, February 11, 2008
Obama’s Path to Victory
Obama’s Path to Victory
By WILLIAM KRISTOL
The New York Times
February 11, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Last summer, George W. Bush told The Washington Examiner’s Bill Sammon that Hillary Clinton would probably be the 2008 Democratic nominee. “She’s got a national presence and this is becoming a national primary,” he said. “And therefore the person with the national presence who has got the ability to raise enough money to sustain an effort in a multiplicity of sites has got a good chance to be nominated.”
This seemed a reasonable judgment at the time. It may still turn out to be right. But today Barack Obama is neck-and-neck with Clinton in the national polls — and he’s shown a greater ability to raise money. After his strong showing over the weekend, it is Obama who now has the clearer path to his party’s nomination.
I’ll avoid a false precision in the numbers that follow. There are minor differences among news organizations in projecting delegate allocations in states that have already voted, and in counting preferences among the 796 elected officials and party leaders — the “superdelegates” — who vote according to their choice, not voters’ instruction.
Obama leads Clinton by roughly 70 delegates among about 2,000 chosen so far in primaries and caucuses. (There are still about 1,200 delegates outstanding.) Among the superdelegates, Clinton is ahead by about 100 superdelegates among the 300 who have declared a preference (though any of them can change their mind, so a count of them now is in large measure premature). All in all, Clinton seems to be slightly ahead.
She won’t be for long. On Tuesday Obama is expected to prevail in Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia. So around 9 p.m. Tuesday night, television networks probably will be announcing, for the first time, that Barack Obama holds an unambiguous delegate lead.
His lead in votes — which is already in the neighborhood of 200,000 — will probably have widened. And Obama should be able to increase those delegate and popular vote totals on Feb. 19, when Wisconsin and Hawaii go to the polls.
Next comes March 4, when Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island vote. Clinton’s campaign believes Ohio and Texas will constitute her firewall. Will it hold?
I suspect not. Obama will have momentum. He will likely have more money than Clinton for advertising. His ballot performance among Hispanics and working-class whites has generally been improving as the primary season has gone on. He intends to push a more robust economic message that could help him further narrow the gap among lower-income voters. And an interesting regression analysis at the Daily Kos Web site (poblano.dailykos.com) of the determinants of the Democratic vote so far, applied to the demographics of the Ohio electorate, suggests that Obama has a better chance than is generally realized in Ohio.
As for Texas, look for a couple of possible endorsements to help Obama there. If John Edwards campaigns for Obama in East Texas, and Bill Richardson defies the pleas of Bill Clinton and travels across the border from New Mexico to help out, Obama could prevail.
If Obama wins Ohio and Texas — or even wins one — he’ll be in good shape. He should take Wyoming on March 8 and Mississippi on March 11. Then there’s over a month until the next contest, in Pennsylvania on April 22. That stretch of time could be key. It could be the moment for many of the uncommitted superdelegates to begin ratifying the choice of Democratic primary voters, and to start moving en masse to Obama.
Many of these superdelegates are elected officials. They tend to care about winning in November. The polls suggest Obama matches up better with John McCain. And the polls are merely echoing the judgment of almost every Democratic elected official from a competitive district or a swing state with whom I’ve spoken. They would virtually all prefer Obama at the top of the ticket.
All of this will move the superdelegates to Obama — perhaps as early as just after March 4, or perhaps not until April 22, or perhaps not even until the last match-up on June 7. But the superdelegates will want to avoid a situation in which they could be in the position of seeming to override the popular vote, or of resolving a bitter battle over whether and how to count votes from Florida and Michigan, at the convention.
And there are, as a final resort, two super-superdelegates (so to speak) who would have the clout to help Democrats achieve closure: Al Gore and Nancy Pelosi.
If they stepped forward at the right time, they would earn the gratitude of their party. And they might also enjoy contemplating a derivative effect of their good deed — the fall of the house of Clinton.
Thursday, February 7, 2008
Obama has the money and the Momentum
More and more , it is plain to see who is building momentum and strength. MJ
============================
Obama Raises $7M Post Super Tuesday
Feb 7 11:28 AM US/Eastern
By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer
NEW ORLEANS (AP) - Democratic Sen. Barack Obama has raised $7.2 million for his presidential campaign since the first polls closed on Super Tuesday night, his campaign said Thursday, a remarkable figure that is causing concern among supporters of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Meanwhile Thursday, the Clinton campaign asked Obama to debate once a week, but he demurred.
Obama, riding a wave of fundraising from large donors and small Internet contributors, also raised $32 million in January.
Clinton acknowledged Wednesday that she loaned her campaign $5 million late last month as Obama was outraising and outspending her heading into Feb. 5 Super Tuesday contests. Some senior staffers on her campaign also are voluntarily forgoing paychecks as the campaign heads into the next round of contests.
MORE
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8ULI8980&show_article=1
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Obama claims delegate lead
Obama claims delegate lead
By: Mike Allen
February 6, 2008 11:09 AM EST
In a surprise twist after a chaotic Super Tuesday, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) passed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) in network tallies of the number of delegates the candidates racked up last night.
The Obama camp now projects topping Clinton by 13 delegates, 847 to 834.
NBC News, which is projecting delegates based on the Democratic Party's complex formula, figures Obama will wind up with 840 to 849 delegates, versus 829 to 838 for Clinton.
Clinton was portrayed in many news accounts as the night’s big winner, but Obama’s campaign says he wound up with a higher total where it really counts — the delegates who will choose the party’s nominee at this summer’s Democratic convention.
With the delegate count still under way, NBC News said Obama appears to have won around 840 delegates in yesterday’s contests, while Clinton earned about 830 — “give or take a few,” Tim Russert, the network’s Washington bureau chief, said on the “Today” show.
The running totals for the two, which includes previous contests and the party officials known as “superdelegates,” are only about 70 delegates apart, Russert said.
The bottom line is that the two are virtually tied.
Race, sex divide Dems; ideology splits GOP
Super Tuesday: A split decision
Media restrained in Super Tuesday coverage
Obama won 13 states, some of them smaller, and Clinton won eight.
On Wednesday morning, the battle was on to shape public perceptions about Tuesday.
The Clinton campaign said it was crunching its delegate numbers but was not sure it was correct that Obama got more.
The Obama campaign sent an e-mailed statement titled: “Obama wins Super Tuesday by winning more states and more delegates.”
Campaign Manager David Plouffe said: “By winning a majority of delegates and a majority of the states, Barack Obama won an important Super Tuesday victory over Sen. Clinton in the closest thing we have to a national primary.”
“From Colorado and Utah in the West to Georgia and Alabama in the South to Sen. Clinton’s backyard in Connecticut, Obama showed that he can win the support of Americans of every race, gender and political party in every region of the country,” Plouffe said. “That’s why he’s on track to win Democratic nomination, and that’s why he’s the best candidate to defeat John McCain in November.”
The Obama campaign attached an Excel spreadsheet containing “state-by-state estimates of the pledged delegates we won last night, which total 845 for Obama and 836 for Clinton — bringing the to-date total of delegates to 908 for Obama, 884 for Clinton.”
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Super Tuesday...Cheat sheet
Here is the cheat sheet for watching Super Tuesday. MJ
Barnes: States to Watch Today
FRED BARNES
In Super Tuesday
You don't have to pay attention to every state on Super Tuesday. Some are more important than others. So concentrate on those and you'll get a pretty good understanding of what the results mean for the presidential races in both parties.
On the Democratic side, three states stand out in my mind: New Jersey, Missouri, and California. America is a nation of suburbs and New Jersey is a state of suburbs. That's reason enough to pay attention to it. Missouri is a microcosm of America, with big cities, suburbs and lots of rural areas. It's a bellwether state. And California is, well, California. It's important because it's big. If Barack Obama wins all three of these states, he becomes the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination. If he wins two of three, he's still in good shape. Winning one would be painful for his campaign. Losing all three - that would be Hillary Clinton's dream come true.
On the Republican side, John McCain should win a majority of the states and the delegates. But he may do more, namely put together a delegate blowout by beating Mitt Romney in the winner-take-all states. That means New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut in the East, plus Missouri and four other states. McCain could pile up such a large lead in delegates that it would sharply reduce Romney's chances of overtaking him. So on the Republican side, the delegate count is the name of the game.
Sunday, February 3, 2008
Super Tuesday: Is This Hillary's Last Hurrah?
Super Tuesday: Is This Hillary's Last Hurrah?
February 3, 2008 8:04 AM
Kareem: Sky hooks for Obama
by Roger L. Simon
If either party's nominating process reaches a conclusion on Super Tuesday, conventional wisdom has it that it will be the Republicans with McCain sweeping the Northeast and California.
But a surprise may be brewing on the Democratic side. Obama fever is clearly growing.
Support Pajamas Media; Visit Our Advertisers
The latest California Field poll shows McCain up eight, but more unexpectedly shows Obama within two points of Clinton in the nation's most populous state. Other polls are less favorable to Barack, but it's clear the younger man is surging.
Hillary is lucky the primary is this Tuesday. Another week and she could be toast. In the long run, she could be anyway.
What does this mean for the Republicans? Nothing good. Running against Hillary would not be difficult for them. The country is experiencing Clinton fatigue and what with recent revelations like Bill's nuclear finagling in Kazakhstan (probably just the tip of an endless iceberg) Hillary presents them with an easy target and likely victory.
Not so Obama. He is the "cool kid" on the block and getting cooler. Everyone wants to be part of him. "Yes, We Can" - a new video by Black-Eyed Peas featuring Scarlett Johansson and Kareem Abdul Jabbar, among others – although based on the usual campaign rhetoric, radiates an optimism about a future with and through Obama, which we haven't seen since Reagan, ironically.
Furthermore, Obama's lack of record or experience, while obviously something any concerned voter should be concerned about, may be an advantage for him. There's less to shoot at.
In a head-to-head, Obama's glamour could be lethal. McCain would look like Barack's crotchety old father and Romney—even worse—a starchy, clueless businessman (in Huckabee's words, "the guy who fires you"). I don't have to tell you, the facts are not operative here. Images rule.
This was writ large by Frank Luntz's focus group after the recent California debate at the Kodak Theater. Unlike the pundits, the people in Luntz's group overwhelmingly declared Obama the winner, although he had spoken largely in generalities throughout the entire debate. Hillary, the wonk, had focused on the details of her programs. Who wants to hear about them? Again ironically, they just contribute to Clinton fatigue.
Like it or not, people are more interested in being inspired.
So, on Super Tuesday, all eyes will be on whether McCain can administer a knockout blow on the Republican side.
But the spotlight should be shared equally with the Democrats. Hillary, even more than McCain, needs to win with some deciseveness on Tuesday. Otherwise, she will be on the wrong side of a juggernaut.
http://pajamasmedia.com/2008/02/super_tuesday_is_this_hillarys.php
