Palin Attacks Obama's Character

Sarah Palin today on the campaign trail:

Palin told a group of donors at a private airport, "Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country." She also said, "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

The Obama campaign called Palin's remarks offensive but not surprising in light of news stories detailing the campaign's come-from-behind offensive. "What's clear is that John McCain and Sarah Palin would rather spend their time tearing down Barack Obama than laying out a plan to build up our economy," Obama campaign spokesman Hari Sevugan said in a statement.

More desperation to come. The New York Times reports McCain said yesterday at a rally in Pueblo, Colorado "the gloves will come off" against Obama Tuesday night. Meaning, during the debate and in the ads to follow.

< Saturday Afternoon Open Thread | Obama Attacks on Health Care, McCain Campaign Goes Dirty >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    McCain's last chance is to go 100% negative (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by barryluda on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:40:25 PM EST
    and since his "Country First" slogan, in his mind, means "I need to do every dirty thing possible to win this election" he, Palin, and all repubs are going to go all out.  Hopefully they'll go too far and their hypocrisy will show.  But I fear it'll tighten up the race and Obama will win in a nail biter (sorry Larry and BTD).

    McCain's last chance to demonstrate (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by byteb on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:56:02 PM EST
    how completely lacking in honor or character the real John McCain is.

    Also His (Their) Chance To Demonstrate (none / 0) (#102)
    by daring grace on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:51:17 PM EST
    how lacking in ideas and vision their administration would be...

    It is sickening though (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:46:23 PM EST
    not surprising.  Palin can be nasty.  I think it comes naturally to her.  Seh will do McCain's sirty work.  

    She is absolutely right ... (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Meteor Blades on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:49:03 PM EST
    "This is not a man who sees America as you see America and as I see America."

    I, too, am not a man who sees America the way Sarah Palin does, or the way somebody likely to be in the audience at a Sarah Palin rally sees America.

    Thirty-one more days of fame for Palin. And then she can go back to misgoverning Alaska.

    Whenever Palin uses that talking point (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:51:23 PM EST
    that 'Petreus and Osama bin Laden agree that Iraq is the central front on the war on terror' I want to shout at her that bin Laden says that from the safety of Waziristan!!!

    From your mouth. . . (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:53:31 PM EST
    So Sarah Palin admits that (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by litigatormom on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:56:08 PM EST
    General Petraeus shares the views of Osama bin Laden?

    spoken like (5.00 / 0) (#8)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    a true litigator!!!

    Yup - thank god for that (none / 0) (#11)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:06:00 PM EST
    If the election is about who has a better vision of and for America, we win.

    Charming (5.00 / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:01:40 PM EST
    That sounds like America's Sweetheart for sure.

    Why does he need a better answer? (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by mrmobi on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:25:02 PM EST
    Obama better have a better answer about Ayers than that he is an English professor he sees around the neighborhood.

    If this is all the McCain campaign can come up with, Obama has nothing to worry about. There's an article in NYT on this today, and it's a big, fat, nothing. Is this all they've got?

    Obama worked on the boards of two charitable organizations with Ayers, he is Ayers' neighbor, and, aside from having denounced the kind of radical violence that Ayers engaged in, Obama was eight years old when that stuff happened.

    I see a lot of desperation in the McCain camp right now. It's nice to see, and I hope it continues. With luck, we won't be seeing any more Palin impersonations by Tina Fey after November 4th.

    The really good news about the gloves coming off is that we'll be seeing a lot more of Rev. Wright, (forgive me, but I really, really like the church Obama used to belong to) but that is so "primary season" of them. Can't they come up with something better?

    You know, like Obama's wife stealing drugs and hiding her addiction, or one of his daughters being pregnant out of wedlock, or Obama being disciplined by the Senate for influence peddling.

    Oh, I forgot, McCain's team has already done those things.


    It's because of this (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by joanneleon on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:59:37 PM EST
    "When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the living room of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn," Warren wrote on her blog in 2005. "They were launching him -- introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread."


    and because of other stories that claim that Ayers and Dohrn helped Obama get his start in politics.


    Obama chaired the Ayers board (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:34:27 PM EST
    and was paid for it, for years, by Ayers -- and then Ayers and Dohrn (who did not get off like her spouse but is, as I recall, a convicted felon) held in their home Obama's first fundraiser.  And there are more connections, all of which make Obama's lie in the debate about this a problem, period.  No way around it.

    Nobody cares (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Gabriel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:45:27 PM EST
    That's why Obama is getting close to landslide numbers.

    Nobody knows a lot of it yet (3.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:50:00 PM EST
    as I've had to piece together a lot to see the Ayers Foundation board influence in my city, for example (with disastrous impact on our schools and more).

    But yeh, probably it won't matter -- until January 21.  Then Repubs stick the Dems with the mess but start right away with Obamagate (a la Whitewatergate) and take back Congress in 2010.  That's where I think this is going.  See 1992.


    Haha (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Gabriel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:35:32 PM EST
    Weren't you one of those saying Obama couldn't win?

    The GOP is worried the Dems will have 60 in the Senate come January. Take back Congress in 2010?


    I'm not sure about that. These are all now (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Christy1947 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:01:05 PM EST
    in reruns and if there was going to be an electoral meltdown about this, it would have happened last Spring when it all came up and was a hot topic for a while in the many weeks between early March and late April, when there wasn't much else to talk about. I think they're using them because, as I have said before, O is boring on scandalous stuff, and this is all they got.If the R scandal machine had better or fresher or even an expansion, they would be using it.

    God Love the Clintons (none / 0) (#50)
    by WS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:19:21 PM EST
    but the drama that always surrounds them does help to feed the Republican noise machine.  Obama is boring by comparison and I mean that as a compliment and as an insult!    

    hm (3.66 / 3) (#39)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    You sound a bit antsy lately.  McCain numbers got you down?

    Ha. I don't care either way (2.00 / 0) (#69)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:51:51 PM EST
    as I don't think either nominee is prepared to handle the problems already and worse ahead.  I've never voted for a Republican and never will.  But as I'm no longer in a swing state, I just don't need to worry about voting at all.

    But although this campaign is only spectator sport for me, the situation of the country is cause to be concerned about a repeat of an administration that will make it even easier this time for Repubs to bring to a grinding halt the process of government when we will most need it to be effective.

    With neither nominee up to the job, we need the winner to be someone like an FDR or JFK, willing to surround himself with the smartest people around.  McCain picked Palin, and Obama didn't pick Clinton.  So both failed already.


    surround himself (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:53:02 AM EST
    You speak as if the president has only one advisor they can select. BO has already been working with people like Reich, Rubin, Buffet, Goolsbee and others who have wonderful reputations. If you knew anything about Obama, you would know that this hallmark is to gather the brightest minds, listen to them, and make a decision...contrary to most of our recent (and current) politicians.

    I know with certainty that is exactly how he will go about constructing his advisors. So, BO hasn't failed. He actually has been doing during his campaign what you want him to do.


    Though I have no doubt (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by lilburro on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 05:25:27 AM EST
    Obama will surround himself with far better people than McCain, Goolsbee is not the guy I would put forth in support of that, considering the Canadian memo on NAFTA that he put out with the Obama people.

    Nor Rubin, (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by rennies on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:44:47 AM EST
    who lobbied for the passage of the Gramm etc Act to break down the firewalls between banks and other financial institutions (being head of Goldman Sachs -- just like Paulson was.

    Financially, it looks as though Obama is very much a creature of Wallstreet economics.

    Let's see.


    No, I speak of one example (none / 0) (#97)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:33:18 AM EST
    -- repeat, example -- as has been discussed often on this blog, the VP decision being the best and only example we have now of what each man would do in selecting advisers.  

    I used the example because I really don't want to bother again going over all that is wrong with the campaign advisers on both sides.  On your side, see archives on Axelrove, Plouffe, Goulsbee, Sunstein, Kmiec, etc., et al.


    Hillary is but one of the advisors (none / 0) (#111)
    by Iris on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:24:41 PM EST
    Obama can draw on, it's not like they are enemies.  We didn't think Obama could come this far; maybe it's time we start re-evaluating our early skepticism.  

    We've been defending (none / 0) (#48)
    by WS on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:15:42 PM EST
    so long, we forgot what its like to actually advance our agenda.  We've only won 2 Presidential elections since 1980 (and three elections since 1968) so its easy to think that we'll be back in the woods in no time but we have a chance to change America for the better and pave the way for more Democratic Presidents in the future including Hillary if Obama is successful.  

    You must be new to this (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:33:37 PM EST
    and not one who has watched the Repubs for decades.  They're not new to this.

    Lets hope (5.00 / 0) (#89)
    by WS on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 06:57:41 AM EST
    we beat them this time.  The past doesn't have to be the future.  We just have to learn from it.  

    A scary idea, but exactly the kind of thing (none / 0) (#66)
    by sallywally on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:39:56 PM EST
    the Repubs do. And they never give up, no matter  how far down they seem.  
    Some folks now in the voting age public aren't old enough to remember how they went after the Clintons for eight years and to the tune of many millions of dollars and a stupid, deeply destructive impeachment effort.

    And it all distracted from the need to find and eliminate Osama bin Laden - Clinton's attempts to do so were called "Wag the Dog" by Republicans, I believe.

    There was even a movie based on that idea, that Clinton was using the attacks in areas where bin Laden had been seen to distract from his impeachment. It was the other way around.

    The thing is, they went after the Clintons in every possible way and over every possible issue they could find, no matter how insignificant or irrelevant, and in the end they could not destroy them.

    Some people, Dems included, blame the Clintons for this, but it was the Repubs and their endless zeal for revenge that were behind this.

    And they'll do it again if they can.  Which is why we need a majority in both houses of Congress.


    Actually, they did destroy them. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by rennies on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:47:42 AM EST
    Most of the left wing attacks on Hillary during the primary were the GOP attack points from those eight years. Remember the really slimy stuff?

    Yep, exactly. That's why (none / 0) (#98)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:37:05 AM EST
    I can't support the DNC or its pick -- they became the Repubs of the '90s . . . but went even worse by calling them racists.

    Frankly, anyone who supports what was done to the Clintons in the primaries just has nothing to say that I want to hear, because they sound like Repubs to me.


    Ah, you remember (none / 0) (#70)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:52:51 PM EST
    and see it coming again, too.

    Relax (none / 0) (#83)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:55:49 AM EST
    It is ridiculous to think they will go back 12 years to look at anything associated with Ayers. And besides, no one is saying there is anything illegal about Ayers...it is all about character assination.

    There is nothing there.


    Ha. You not only missed the '90s (none / 0) (#99)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:38:08 AM EST
    but you also missed 2004 and what was done to Kerry.  Or you don't know when the Vietnam War was.

    nothing there (none / 0) (#104)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:52:13 PM EST
    there is no there there. And if mccain really wants to go there (as has been messaged by Obama's people today), you will be seeing ads about something that actually robbed taxpayers of money, his close involvement with the Keating 5.

    So Obama had a peripheral involvement with an ex-revolutionary, all of which happened before he knew Obama. Meanwhile McCain was politically helping people like Keating. He may have been found not guilty, but he admitted at the time his poor judgment.

    Besides, he is erratic. His behavior during the last two weeks shows that. He was before his own campaign reform before he was against it; he was against drilling before he was for it; he was against the Bush tax cuts before he was for it. If i were obama, i would run non-stop ads just showing this to show the guy is erratic and can't be trusted.

    And how do all the ultra-conservatives feel about his behavior towards his first wife and his cheating? It just shows the hypocrisy of their positions.


    and you're obviously intimidated (none / 0) (#112)
    by Iris on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:30:27 PM EST
    by the GOP.  Caution is good, but fear can become paralysis.

    Try these facts: (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by steviez314 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:00:17 PM EST
    In fact, according to several people involved, Mr. Ayers played no role in Mr. Obama's appointment. Instead, it was suggested by Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation, a Chicago-based group whose board Mr. Obama, a young lawyer, had joined the previous year. At a lunch with two other foundation heads, Patricia A. Graham of the Spencer Foundation and Adele Simmons of the MacArthur Foundation, Ms. Leff suggested that Mr. Obama would make a good board chairman, she said in an interview. Mr. Ayers was not present and had not suggested Mr. Obama, she said.


    Archives of the Chicago Annenberg project, which funneled the money to networks of schools from 1995 to 2000, show both men attended six board meetings early in the project -- Mr. Obama as chairman, Mr. Ayers to brief members on school issues.

    It was later in 1995 that Mr. Ayers and Ms. Dohrn hosted the gathering, in their town house three blocks from Mr. Obama's home, at which State Senator Alice J. Palmer, who planned to run for Congress, introduced Mr. Obama to a few Democratic friends as her chosen successor. That was one of several such neighborhood events as Mr. Obama prepared to run, said A. J. Wolf, the 84-year-old emeritus rabbi of KAM Isaiah Israel Synagogue, across the street from Mr. Obama's current house.

    "If you ask my wife, we had the first coffee for Barack," Rabbi Wolf said.

    In 2001, Mr. Ayers donated $200 to Mr. Obama's re-election campaign.
    In addition, from 2000 to 2002, the two men also overlapped on the seven-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago charity that had supported Mr. Obama's first work as a community organizer in the 1980s.

    Yes, those are part of the facts (3.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:24:21 PM EST
    but you're omitting others even in that NYT story, such as that Obama and Ayers served together on two boards (I didn't know that 'til now), so saw each other more than "sporadically" -- other sources said they met often for a while, and certainly more than Obama's dismissive debate comment suggests.  Of course, we still await access now rescinded to the Ayers foundation papers.  And you're also omitting other information that has surfaced for months.

    But sure, yeh, trust the New York Times now.  So you bought its line about weapons of mass destruction, too?  jeesh.


    If you notice, I excerpted the parts (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by steviez314 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:30:40 PM EST
    about BOTH boards.

    And frankly I trust the NY Times more than your "other sources", and "information that has surfaced for months."

    But feel free to go down the same useless dead end.


    I could go into detail (2.00 / 0) (#63)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:35:05 PM EST
    on the other information on this connection, but it would be a waste of time with someone who cites the New York Times -- and it's all in the archives here, if you care to learn.  Bye now.

    to what end... (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:59:08 AM EST
    they may try to make a campaign issue of it, but only for character asassination. There is nothing illegal in anything to do with Ayers. For crying out loud, Ayers did his stuff when Obama was 8...

    So, the most you will have is that Ayers supported Obama. Big deal. No one will care except for the Republican base.


    Don't forget (2.00 / 0) (#90)
    by BernieO on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:00:54 AM EST
    that Obama has touted his superior judgment as a big reason he is the most qualified, yet his associations - PLURAL - really do cast doubt on that. The Rezko thing is more damaging but you would be surprised how many people really don't know much about that either. Obama lied about his closeness to Rezko, too. And of course there is also his crackpot, white-bashing minister. Superior judgment, indeed.

    As for whether the Republicans will be up to their old tricks, I just don't know. When Clinton ran, they had already been trashing him during his last run for governor, since Lee Atwater had i.d.'d him as the one person who could defeat Bush I. They tarred Gore as a liar early in the process by twisting his words and mocking him. They have had a lot of ammunition to use against Obama, but have not really gone after him. Republicans appear really demoralized, IMO. Of course one huge difference is that the media really hated Clinton and Gore. Had they not gleefully gone along with the sliming the Republican tactics would never have gone beyond their base. This time the media, while not hating McCain favors Obama.

    I do think if McCain reclaims the mantle of fighting against corruption and cronyism he stands a chance of turning things around. Palin certainly hit that theme in the debate but so far McCain is only talking in generalities. If he decides to go for it and throw caution to the winds and get specific about oversight, appointing competent people instead of ideologues to government, (again something Palin brought up), depoliticizing Justice, and cleaning up corruption he stands a chance. He has been so afraid of his base that he has pussyfooted around this issue. He can make a reasonable argument that the only way we can clean up our economic mess is to clean up the system. If we don't it won't matter about tax cuts, rebuilding the infrastructure, etc. because the fat cats will continue to game the system and it will continue to implode every few years. When it comes to fighting corruption, Obama does not have a lot of credibility on this issue. He has never taken a risky stand against his own party they way both Palin and McCain have done.


    he is playing with fire (none / 0) (#103)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 02:44:09 PM EST
    Begala and an Obama aide  whose name escapes me are already signaling what will happen. If you want to bring up Rezko and Ayers, then the Keating 5 scandal will be brought out and that is much more of a scandal than either of these. Especially since our so-called maverick was involved with another banking issue. Won't exactly endear him with people given the current situation.

    Then there will be an attack that says he is actually not a reformer at all, but a stubborn inflexible cynical man.

    That is the message anyway that the Obama surrogates are putting out there. If you go hard with this stuff, we will not be afraid to fire back.


    the NY times isn't credible at all in your view (none / 0) (#113)
    by Iris on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:31:33 PM EST
    but internet sources are?

    Try reading the full story (none / 0) (#93)
    by rennies on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:53:44 AM EST
    by Steve Diamond of globallaborpolitics instead of parroting the NYTimes biased and politically motivated "reporting." I'd also watch for the "Letters to the Editor" section on Monday.



    the link goes to No Quarter (none / 0) (#114)
    by Iris on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:36:52 PM EST
    purveyor of race baiting lies about Obama...

    What an odd opinion! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by robert72 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:00:19 PM EST
    Good to hear more Rev Wright?? I may be from another generation as you, but that man is a horror. Peddling hate is good? Humping the pulpit is good? His preacher cursing America is good for Obama?

    Yeh, bring back Rev. Wright (3.66 / 3) (#37)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:27:54 PM EST
    and the video of him dry-humping the pulpit, pretending that he was the Dem president.  A lot of voters weren't paying attention yet in the primaries, so we'll go with this great advice to get those videos going the rounds again.

    You called it -- but actually, the commenter must be a McCainite to want to bring back Rev. Wright.


    Or.... (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by robert72 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:34:40 PM EST
    so far to the left that he may never find his way back to common sense.

    This stuff could hurt Obama to an extent... (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Thanin on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:35:37 PM EST
    but at this point, with real issues very much on the mind of voters, I dont think it will overturn the damage mccain has done to himself.

    peddling hate like (1.00 / 1) (#57)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:20:15 PM EST
    Hagee.... a man that McCain ACTIVELY COURTED for his endorsement before dismissing him (in the same way that Obama dismissed Wright)

    the guy that believes the Catholic Church is the great whore...the guy who believes that God made the determination that the Katrina disaster was needed...the guy who wants to end us all in the matter of a generation, so that he can be hear to see the second coming...

    along with all those that have the same views: Falwell, Robertson, Strang, just to start out...not to mention that these are ALL people that have heavily supported Bush, McCain and Palin...

    ya, but that hate-spewing is fine b/c you agree with it...ya...


    Oh, come off it. (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by robert72 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 01:05:27 AM EST
    Wright was Obama's mentor and preacher and friend for 20 years.
    Hagee supported McCain in the primaries.
    Equal? In your kool-aid induced dreams.

    Hagee did not just support McCain (none / 0) (#101)
    by of1000Kings on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    McCain ACTIVELY worked towards gaining Hagee's endorsement...

    that is bad judgment I believe, aligning yourself with a symbol of hate such as Hagee...


    TWENTY YEARS. (none / 0) (#107)
    by robert72 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 07:38:47 PM EST
    Think back twenty years in your life. For the last 20 (TWENTY) years you have been hanging out in a racist, ugly nothing-Christian-about-it church. Meaningless, of course. Just the same as getting endorsement of a church over a month or two.

    nothing Christian about it? (none / 0) (#110)
    by Iris on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:21:09 PM EST
    an unfair attack on the people of Trinity.  They are just as Christian as anyone else.

    Not to mention (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Maggie on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:52:06 PM EST
    Dumping his crippled wife so he could trade up.

    Somehow that's what bugs me the most.


    Because he was clearly lying before (none / 0) (#34)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:13:47 PM EST
    Obama should preempt the attack (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:30:33 PM EST
    He should ridicule the Ayers connection in his opening statement.  

    McCain is probably going to try and make it about personalities.  A losing argument for him but I'm sure he thinks the mud will change the game.

    He already comes across as dour and petty.  He gets really nasty next week and he will simply enforce that image.

    Obama learns from his mistakes (5.00 / 0) (#52)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:58:45 PM EST
    He has been very diligent about ending the relationships he had with people who turned out to be other than the ones he thought he knew when he was their friend.

    Can McCain say the same?


    This is a double edged sword... (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by kredwyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:17:39 PM EST
    When you cut ties with folks you've been closely connected to for so long, you can wind up looking like you are "politically opportunistic" and disloyal.

    again, like McCain and Hagee... (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by of1000Kings on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:23:48 PM EST
    couldn't care less about (none / 0) (#108)
    by kredwyn on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 08:21:16 PM EST
    weak equivalency arguments.

    And BTW...McCain stepped away from Hagee...someone who wasn't a friend and close associate.


    It has been over for 2 weeks (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by Jlvngstn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:52:16 PM EST
    and McCain knows it.  His legacy as a senator will forever be tarnished by his gut wrenching vile behavior in the campaign.  

    Anger against the system is generally acceptable to most americans, when it manifests into ugly vitriol people stop paying attention and want to be far away from the person.  

    I think he and Sarah Palin have that in common it is no wonder he feels as she is his soulmate.

    It is like slowing down to look at a car wreck and then seeing someone on fire or seriously hurt, you wish you had not looked.

    heh (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:52:52 PM EST
    Its so easy to use these "truthy" attacks to return the serve to McCain. Keating Five anyone?

    Palin's husband belonged to the AIP, whose founder hated the US and who was killed in 1992 trying to buy plastic explosives!  

    Obama might be better served letting them fire the first volley and then running ads about how they dont understand the gravity of the economy. Make them look like clowns.

    well (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by connecticut yankee on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:20:42 PM EST
    A good attack for the townhall is to point out that McCain was savaged himself in 2000 by this kind of stuff and the only lesson he learned? Hire the same people to do it to others.  Shame him at the townhall debate. Say you feel sorry for him.

    Just call him out, point blank.  Suggest he doesnt care enough about the economy and that ugliness is all his has to offer the american people.

    Rezko, Wright, and Ayres (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by s5 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:01:40 PM EST
    The problem with reprising this cast of characters is that it's old news. The public already heard it all and formed an opinion several months ago. So the response will be a collective "so what?". People who won't vote for Obama because of Wright still aren't going to vote for him, and people who either don't care or do care but found other reasons to like him will keep voting for him.

    And what this shows is that McCain is completely misreading the mood of the electorate. Voters are in the mood to hear plans and solutions. If things were quiet, then they might have more of a taste for character based attacks. McCain is saying two things with this move: (1) I don't have any solutions that I can articulate, and (2) I'm going to insult your intelligence by making character attacks on the candidate who does. (1) positions McCain as weak on policy, and (2) positions him as weak on character. All in all, a bad place for him to be one month before election day.

    Palin needs to STFU until she pays her taxes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by scribe on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 08:51:38 PM EST
    on the per diem she got for working at home.

    Nice vetting job, St. John.

    Looks like it's legal in Alaska (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:39:43 PM EST
    to save more money by not using the mansion, not hiring the cook, etc.  Do you practice law there and know otherwise than the reports that this was legal there?

    If she owes the taxes, you're right (none / 0) (#53)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:07:26 PM EST
    For all my years processing expense reports for executives, though, you are making me nervous that there are tax problems for everyone who submits an expense report in this country.

    I think her per diem is because she doesn't live in the governor's mansion and travels to and from work instead. But, I could be wrong. Does the POTUS pay taxes on his use of AirForce One when he just uses it to get back to his ranch, or goes on fundraising and campaign trips?

    You think Obama isn't submitting expense reports for every dime he spends and gets reimbursed by his campaign funds?

    There are pretty clear laws on what is considered income for federal taxes, and not many accountants don't know them. I'd be willing to bet their tax accountant knew how to process those payments.

    Sarah Palin is simply not qualified to be VP. That's all. Don't diminish the value of that message by muddying the waters with such baseless distractions.


    Sarah Palin's taxes (none / 0) (#61)
    by sharonb on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:31:36 PM EST
    I did some research and it appears that her return is fine.  Whether we think it fair or not, the State of Alaska has specifically determined that the per diem paid to Sarah is NOT taxable.  This state determination, while it differs from other per diems paid by private employers to folks like you and I, IS legal.  Frankly, I'm more concerned about Senator McCain's tax return.  I hear repeatedly that he loves to gamble at casinos and is seen doing so with great glee, yet in 2006 and 2007 he has reported no gambling winnings.  Either he has never won a single dollar or the stories of his gambling are funny, funny jokes to make us think he's a wild and crazy guy.  Please understand that all winnings must be reported (losses can be deducted elsewhere on the tax return, but you must report the winnings on line 21 of your 1040).

    the state of alaska (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:46:04 PM EST
    cannot make rules as to what is taxable federally. Federal tax laws control that.

    Technically, you're right (none / 0) (#77)
    by sharonb on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:54:35 AM EST
    I was trying to keep a complicated issue short and sweet (as though taxes are ever sweet).  A state can, and often does, consult with the IRS and together they make a determination on how something will be treated in an unusual situation.  Sarah's return contains a number of items that would not be allowed on your return, or mine.  However, Sarah is the governor of a State, one of only 50 people in the nation and has specific issues in her rather unusual occupation.  Tax treatments at that level are not black and white.  Her deduction for the per diem was not an attempt at tax fraud, she believes (or at least her tax advisor does) that she has a reasonable case.  It may be audited and it may be overturned, but since Alaska consulted with the IRS before the deduction was claimed I think it's unlikely that there will be an overturn.  I'm more concerned about the 60,000+ she claimed for transporting her family with her on business trips at her employer's expense. I think she's on shakier ground there.  
    As to your specific statement regarding States making rules in contradiction to Federal tax law, you might be interested in this one:  Normally, we pay state tax on our income in whatever state we live in, right?  Even if the income comes from another state.  For decades, California insisted on charging California Tax on State of California retirement pensions even on people who no longer lived in California.  Any first year tax preparer would take one look at it and say "well, no, that's not right." but it took a dozen years to finally reach a high level court and be overturned. And all the victims of the higher California tax rate had no recourse, none. Many tax pros will tell you that everything is deductible - right up until the auditor laughs in your face.
    I'm STILL trying to figure out where John McCain's gambling winnings are reported, though - 'cuz there ain't no wiggle room there - there are no reports of gambling winnings on his returns for 06 and 07.  So he either didn't gamble, didn't win, or he's a tax fraud, none of which would surprise me but I'd like to know.

    Tax (none / 0) (#86)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 03:09:25 AM EST
    I think the key tax question would be for the other members of the family who went on trips with her. I would think any meals or hotels covering them would be tax deductible. Plus any airline flights.

    I wonder if she declared all of them???


    Both are correct (none / 0) (#81)
    by Newt on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 01:13:23 AM EST
    State of Alaska can make their per diem non-taxable under IRS rules simply by classifying it as non-taxable.  Different reimbursement categories.

    Todd Palin Pals Around With "Terrorists" (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 10:43:48 PM EST
    From Talking Points Memo

    "If Palin is going to say this, it is now perfectly legitimate to point out that she repeatedly courted a secessionist group founded by someone who openly professed hatred of the American government, cursed our flag, and wanted to secede from the Union. Sarah's husband, Todd Palin, was a member of this group, which continues to venerate that founder to this day, for years.

    As you already know, the group is the Alaska Independence Party, which sees as its ultimate goal seceding from the union. Todd was a member, with a brief exception, from 1995 until 2002, according to the Division of Elections in Alaska.

    And though Sarah Palin herself was apparently not a member of this group, there's no doubt that she repeatedly courted this secessionist organization over the years. In 1994, Palin attended the group's annual convention, according to witnesses who spoke to ABC News' Jake Tapper. The McCain campaign has confirmed she visited the group's 2000 convention, and she addressed its convention this year, as an incumbent governor whose oath of office includes upholding the Constitution of the United States.

    The founder of the AIP was a man named Joe Vogler. Here's what he had to say in a 1991 interview, only a few years before Palin attended its convention: "The fires of hell are frozen glaciers compared to my hatred for the American government."

    He also said this: "And I won't be buried under their damn flag. I'll be buried in Dawson. And when Alaska is an independent nation they can bring my bones home."

    Vogler has also said: "I'm an Alaskan, not an American. I've got no use for America or her damned institutions."

    McCain apologists will argue that Sarah Palin was not a member of this group. But Obama wasn't a member of any Ayers anti-American group, either. And again, Palin repeatedly courted the AIP, and her husband was a member for years.

    The main takeaway from today's Times story is that Obama's ties to Ayers are, if anything, less substantial than commonly alleged. So if the Ayers association means Obama "palled around" with "terrorists," as Palin put it today, surely Palin can be said to have "palled around" with a secessionist party whose founder openly professed hatred of America.

    If Palin is going to directly question Obama's patriotism over his association Ayers, surely all these facts are now fair game and freshly relevant."

    and (none / 0) (#106)
    by connecticut yankee on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 07:02:08 PM EST
    Also, Joe Vogler died in 1992 trying to buy plastic explosives.

    Palin's latest accusations aboutObama (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by kate on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 06:28:41 AM EST
     The only thing Palin does well is take pock-shots. If a thinking person wanted the facts about Obama knowing Ayers,all they have to do is go to the mainstream press.I find Palin to be an annoying twit. She tries many ways to divert from her incompetence-none of which works!

    Is this about Ayers? (3.66 / 3) (#12)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:08:08 PM EST
    he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country.

    I think she is setting the table for the debate on Tuesday.  Obama better have a better answer about Ayers than that he is an English professor he sees around the neighborhood.

    Nobody cares at this point. It's the economy (3.00 / 2) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:14:46 PM EST
    and the economy alone. Ayers could be Obama's campaign manager and the voters wouldn't care.

    OK,if you say so (3.00 / 2) (#15)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:16:57 PM EST
    Good Come back to this negative stuff? (none / 0) (#9)
    by samtaylor2 on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:58:21 PM EST
    To me saying they are going negative and not adding anything to the discussion is a good come back, but I am a supporter.  What is the best come back to these kind of comments, that can help you in a news cycle that feeds off these kinds of negative comments?

    The best tack is (5.00 / 0) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:19:08 PM EST
    to be sure that every utterance of McCain and Palin are stenographically reported.  Each in his/her own way is a ticking time-bomb of scary positions, misspeaks and flat out errors.  Although, bringing the respective shortcomings of either McCain or, particularly Palin,  would be considered negative and unfair. Examination of substantive programs and plans should be  pretty fertile ground if any can be found, other than "leave it to the states, the marketplace etc.".  The new Obama campaign treatment of McCain's so called health care plan with its taxation of health care benefits received from employers is a good start in this department.

    Go positive, then, and talk about (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:37:09 PM EST
    Obama's record.  Say, his work in the civil rights movement.  His bills passed by the Senate.  Or before his political career, his improvements to housing projects in Chicago.

    Ha (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Pianobuff on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:43:57 PM EST
    I wasn't expecting a laugh on this thread.

    Whats funny... (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by Thanin on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 07:39:05 PM EST
    about this?  Have you ever been to the southside of Chicago?  I have and theres nothing funny about the level of poverty there.

    Uhhh . . . exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:36:51 PM EST
    Hmm... (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Thanin on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:51:25 PM EST
    I cant find much of anything about what happened during his community organizing efforts... or none that aren't biased either way.  

    I suppose its best to be cynical about it, that hes been lying all this time about what exactly he did, whatever it was.  Personally I don't know either way, but having been there, I know that working there, if he did, regardless of in what capacity, says something I think.  

    But maybe Im just being a starry eyed sucker, like I am when I believe Hillary had a major, practical role in the Clinton administration and helped lead the nation, behind the scenes, in one of the nations most successful eras in modern American history.


    Okay, then (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:55:41 PM EST
    as the comment said, look to the rest of his experience for rebuttals.  For example, with Obama's famous speech on race, how about his civil rights movement involvement.  

    You have a point... (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Thanin on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:03:08 AM EST
    which, as Ive been for months now, mainly voting against mccain.  

    The only reason why I posted anything aboutt his is because I have seen how bad it is in far south Chicago and, if he was there and tried to help then I do respect that.


    By the way... (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Thanin on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:08:38 AM EST
    being a dark skinned minority, that race speech of his did have a positive impact on me.  It was all about understanding and putting hatred aside, which is something a lot of people need to do.

    Now, yes it was just a speech and what actions has he followed it up with, or what has he done about race relations before it.  I understand that criticism.  But what he said did mean a lot to me.


    I don't understand (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 01:05:01 AM EST
    this: "which, as Ive been for months now, mainly voting against mccain."  So I can't reply; sorry.

    I was just saying... (none / 0) (#80)
    by Thanin on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 01:11:35 AM EST
    I think you make a valid point and was illustrating that Im not the one to try and counter it since Im mainly voting against mccain than I am voting for Obama.

    Ah, got it. Thanks. (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:45:19 AM EST
    His what? (2.00 / 1) (#94)
    by rennies on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:59:21 AM EST
    Housing improvements? You mean the public housing Obama helped Rezco and Davis finance for "rehabilitation" which they subsequently abandoned when sewage started to come into the bathtubs and rats ate the food on kitchen tables and there was no heat in winter?

    If Obama couldn't help change conditions in southside Chicago, how is he going to change the country?


    McNasty (none / 0) (#13)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:12:32 PM EST
    McCain is well on his way to losing with dishonor. What happened to his promise to change the tone? However, based on how "angry" he was perceived to be in the last debate, McPalin should take care. It didn't go down well the last time, and I don't think it will go down any better this go round.

    They can argue about (none / 0) (#18)
    by joanneleon on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:29:17 PM EST
    whose "yes" vote on the bailout bill was more egregious.

    The gloves are coming off? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Lil on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:35:39 PM EST
    Promises, promises.

    if these "attacks" are the best (none / 0) (#21)
    by cpinva on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM EST
    that mccain/palin can come up with, they should fire their staff, and hire competent people. those are pretty pathetic, nearly laughable.

    SNL is turning out to be a REAL news program!

    Palin = confederated backwoods redneck (none / 0) (#27)
    by Exeter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:43:37 PM EST
    That is the spin that will hurt McCain the most. Seriously. And as and added-- it is the truth.

    The last time some Rethug said (none / 0) (#41)
    by scribe on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:53:40 PM EST
    "The gloves come off", it was Deadeye Dick Cheney or Ashcroft (I forget which, now) and that was their excuse to torture people.

    Not that they needed one, since it made them feel like an NRO columnist watching Winky Palin, but I digress.

    So, then when things on the torture front started going sideways they got McSame to whore himself out to co-sponsor and shepherd the First Torture Act (a/k/a the Detainee Treatment Act) and then, when that didn't work well enough, the Second Torture Act (a/k/a the Military Commissions Act) and then they got McSame to dance and sing about how great these bills were.

    Even though they purported to legalize treatment worse than War Hero McSame got in the Hanoi Hilton.

    Treatment, as a result of which McSame made tapes to further the propaganda aims of the enemy holding him.  As in "giving aid and comfort to" that enemy.

    Some hero, our Torture Boy is.

    And he promises to take the gloves off?

    "the gloves are coming OFF?" (none / 0) (#76)
    by sharonb on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:19:50 AM EST
    I'm in Indiana and I've seen no evidence that the McCain campaign has ever had any gloves ON.  The semantic content in the anti-Obama ads here is simple and direct:  "Obama is a bad, bad bad man.  Bad. Very bad.  I approved this ad, love, John McCain."  I heard a trucker telling a buddy last week (and this guy had, I kid you not, a SWASTIKA tatooed on his arm) "I don't care - I'm votin' for the (black guy)." "WHY?" his buddy, clearly in shock, wanted to know. "'Cuz he may be a (black person) but at least he ain't a liar."  And, no, he didn't actually say 'black guy.'  This is Indiana, after all.  

    Its the economy, Sarah (none / 0) (#55)
    by john horse on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 09:26:16 PM EST
    When there is a financial meltdown like we've just experienced, people don't care about the mud you sling.  Talking about anything but the economy makes you look like someone who is clueless.

    I'm not surprised that Palin is slinging mud given that she is currently under investigation by the Alaska legislature for abuse of power.  Nor am I surprised that both Palin and McCain have attempted to stonewall the investigation.  After all, they do not see America as you and I see America.  

    I'm still nervous. Anything could happen, (none / 0) (#60)
    by WillBFair on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:13:10 PM EST
    and the public could turn on a dime over the least infraction. They're totally selfish and ignorant. They're incomprehesible to me, and I have no clue what motivates them.

    Bill Ayers, terrible guy? (none / 0) (#74)
    by sharonb on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:08:54 AM EST
    I urge you to read the wikipedia on Bill Ayers.  I don't think Barack is buddies with him, but frankly, he could hang out with worse people. Ayers' first arrest was for (gasp!) a sit in at the local draft board.  His most horrid crime was this: (a little history here) In the 1880's a labor movement protested.  Tens of thousands of people demonstrated in relative peace.  A fight broke out in which dozens of people were shot by the police. 7 people who were not involved in the violence were arrested, tried, and sentenced to death because they were at the rally.  Flash forward: in the 60's, a statue was erected to the policemen who were killed in that old fight (most of them by friendly fire).  Bill Ayers blew up the statue.  Oh, and why were those horrible people back in the 1880's demonstrating? Were they revolutionaries trying to destroy America? Murderers? Pedophiles? No.  They wanted an 8 hour work day.  Sounds like a 'round 'em up and kill 'em offense to me.  Then let's put up a statue to the ones firing into the crowd. I'm trying to think of something that might put this into perspective...It's sort of like if PETA put up a statue to Hitler because he liked dogs. Or a plaque of thanks to the National Guardsmen who killed the students on their way to class at Kent State.  I know Bill Ayers is going to be demonized and I'm sure he knows it too, but please read up on his life, he's not a mad murderous bomber with devil horns...  

    Jesus, Joseph, and Mary! (none / 0) (#95)
    by rennies on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:05:40 AM EST
    Did you ever hear about the Weathermen? Try looking them up in Wikipedia (if Ayres et all haven 't already cooked the data). Didn't you know that as late as 2001 Ayers told the NYTimes that they hadn't set off enough BOMBS?

    Obama 'pals around' with terrorists (none / 0) (#105)
    by sharonb on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 04:17:29 PM EST
    I'm not suggesting I want to marry Ayers, I'm suggesting that Barack Obama is going to be accused of hanging with 'terrorists' and that people are going to confuse Ayers and the Weathermen with Osama bin Laden etal. The word Terrorist has shifted in meaning and strikes fear and hate into our hearts today, for very good reason. 40 years ago, this was a very different country, in a state of internal conflict I hope we never live to see again.  But many groups began to believe that non-violent protest wasn't working against Vietnam, Racism, and violation of human rights. The group purposefully and successfully avoided injuring anyone. Their stated reasons for severe property damage to government buildings were: the US invasion of Laos, the US bombing raid on Hanoi, the escalation of the Vietnam war. Whatever Ayers was 40 years ago, he is today a Distinguished Professor at the University of Chicago working hard to improve the condition of the poverty stricken people of Chicago.  Having tea with him in furtherance of charity work isn't the equivalent of having a man-crush on Osama bin Laden - but we are going to be told by Sarah Palin that it is. I'm suggesting only that supporters read up on a little bit of history and be prepared to understand that the accusation is meant to frighten you and that it should not do so.  What should frighten you is Sarah Palin's tactics.  ("We're behind in the polls?  I know, let's call him a terrorist sympathizer..that oughtta do it, you betcha!")

    McCain's cancer (none / 0) (#75)
    by Blowback on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 12:09:56 AM EST
    If McCain goes completely negative.. (none / 0) (#85)
    by lynnebrad on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 03:05:23 AM EST
    If I were Obama, the second he goes that way, I would have an ad up asking the question, "He says he is a maverick, but do true mavericks campaign on ads made up of character assination?"  This is about as far from a maverick as you can get...just another typical politician whose campaign is failing for a lack of ideas and is resorting to the oldest tactic in the book. If you can't beat him, destroy his reputation.

    And don't forget the last time McCain tried to go over the top with his lies. It bacame the number 1 story in the media and he lost votes.

    Meanwhile, I would back door a question to him..."John, if you continue to tear me down, we will have no choice but to ask questions about the Keating 5...and how you dumped your first wife...John, what great character traits!!!

    Do as I say, not as I plan to do... (none / 0) (#96)
    by Vigorish on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 10:28:28 AM EST
    Say it ain't so, Sarah... there you go again pointing backwards again. ... Now doggone it, let's look ahead and tell Americans what we have to plan to do for them in the future.

    "Enough is enough with your ticket," on constantly looking backwards, and pointing fingers.

    (All quotes guaranteed)

    Palin is right and about time (none / 0) (#109)
    by card10 on Sun Oct 05, 2008 at 09:42:56 PM EST
    Obama tore Hillary to pieces with his lies and the media stuck up for Obama ..Obama lies 3/4 of the time and has never been vetted and it is about time we start getting his character traits out in the open and the best way to determine a man's character and integridy is to see who he hangs with and Obama has a real long list of Radical and criminal type friends plus the real dirty groups he has been a part of..Acorn is the one where he realy helped start this financial disaster and he has the balls to say McCain is desperate ... mcCain is a man who does not load up on Pork for his state , but on the other hand Obama is up to almost 1 million dollars a day for his yet unfinished first term as a US senator
    Obama leans so far left it is a socalist leaning and I do believe he is not fit to be President nor does he have the experience...

    Palin Attacks Obama's Character (none / 0) (#115)
    by DeeWillyFree on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 09:14:27 PM EST
    I'm well pleased Palin is going on the offensive in a harder fashion. At least that cheap-suit Chicago gangster will finally have to defend what he should have been defending a long time ago.

    Obama is essentially a gutless coward. Barack Obama has been raised a Socialist/Marxist, schooled as a Socialist/Marxist, trained as a Socialist/Marxist/Maoist, has trained ACORNIANS as societal agitators in the fashion of Saul Alinsky. These are truths. They are the way he is. Yet, Obama does not stand up and say, "I am Barack Obama. I am a Marxist/Maoist/Socialist and I want to transform America along those lines." No, Obama does not do that. That coward has lied to Americans. He has obfuscated the origins of his political ideology and will not spell out his honest intentions. If he did ... his name would be mud, so he lies.

    Obama & Obama Sr.    Marxist

    Obama & Lolo Soetoro   Marxist

    Obama & Frank Marshall Davis    rapist/pedophile

    Obama & Jeremiah Wright   Marxist/Black Supremist

    Obama & Bill Ayers    Marxist/Maoist/Bomber

    Obama & Bernadette Dohrn   Marxist/Maoist/Murderess

    Obama & Tom Ayers      Traitor/Chicago Gangster

    Obama & Rezko/Nadhmi Auchi      Gangster/Criminal Financier

    Obama & Mike Klonsky     Maoist/Societal agitator

    Obama & ACORN     Obama's 'RED SHIRT' Army Korps

    And on and on and on and on ... every one of them haters of America.

    Those days are over. Sarah Palin has the ability to go straight through the corrupted MSM, so they are essentially irrelevant. She is what the country has been waiting for. Obama now has to watch as the tide turns and Americans get ugly. As if America would stand by and watch this hell-bent marauder 'swim among the people like fish in the ocean' forever without waking up. Who the hell does he think America is?

    He,he ... time to go fishing.