Remember When They Said It Would Be Impossible To Make Fun Of Obama?

Over the last year or so, I seemed to remember that there was a time, near the beginning of Obama's term as president, when people were saying that there was something about Obama that was going to make it difficult for comedians to make fun of him.

I finally decided to do a check if I was recalling correctly, and for the most part it seems I was.

The Obama Presidency: Will The "Racist" Accusation Still Be Used?

Peter Kirsanow writes:

Obama will get the most lavish and extended honeymoon in history. Every time he walks to the podium without falling down will be trumpeted as the greatest accomplishment since MacArthur returned to the Philippines. It will be the natural tendency of Republicans to join in the praise, and worse, to try to be "bipartisan" when it comes to legislation that is manifestly bad for the country and abhorrent to conservative principles. This tendency will be magnified by the Republicans' fear that any opposition to Obama's policies will be portrayed as motivated by racism rather than principle.

Will the threat of civil war and blood in the streets be brought up when a contentious bill comes before Congress or when--hey, it could happen--the Congress threatens to override a veto?

At what point does Obama become a human being?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Obama Wins--And The Middle East Gets The Message

Apparently Hamas sees the election as a green light to pursue business as usual. Meanwhile, Israel may see Obama's upcoming term as motivation not to sit back and talk blithly about giving the 'truce' a chance.

From The Jerusalem Post:

A barrage of rockets hit Gaza-belt communities Wednesday morning after IDF forces engaged Hamas gunmen inside the Strip. It was the worst outbreak of violence since a shaky cease-fire took effect in June.

At least 30 rockets were fired into Israel, three of which landed in the western Negev, damaging several greenhouses. Two rockets fell in Ashkelon, one of which hit a residential neighborhood, sending three people into shock.

Israel ordered the Gaza crossings closed following the attacks, but while tensions ran high, Israeli officials said they remained committed to the cease-fire with Hamas, stressing that the operation was an isolated one.

Seven Israeli soldiers were wounded and six gunmen were reported killed in the fresh clashes, which began when IDF special forces entered Gaza in order to blow up a tunnel dug by Hamas terrorists for the purpose of kidnapping IDF soldiers.

If Israel has any thought at all of taking action against Iran, everyone now knows it will have to happen before Obama takes office. For that matter, considering the pressures that Obama will apply on Israel, it may already be too late.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Obama Wins--The Good News and The Bad News

The Good News: Anyone can become President
The Bad News: Anyone can become President (if you're a liberal and the Media will cover for you)

Technorati Tag: Obama.

"The End of Jewish Domination in the United States." (Updated)

From David Frum:

The World Rejoices!

The Greek (center-right) newspaper Avriani features today a big photograph of Obama and the headline: "The End of Jewish Domination in the United States." I only have a PDF of the page (h/t Andrew Apostolou) and cannot figure out how to post it here, but here's a link to a daily news roundup from the Athens News Agency that cites the headline.

No doubt the first step towards ending the Jewish domination of Palestine...

(Boy, that Jesse Jackson sure gets around)

UPDATE: Of course, Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff may bring Jackson and Avriani back to earth.

[Hat tip: Hot Air Headlines]

Technorati Tag: Election 2008.

I Guess We Can Stop The Voting Now...

Mark Steyn observes:

And so it begins... 
Re Dixville Notch, several readers point out that the town has 19 registered voters.

Yet 15 voted for Obama and 6 for McCain. Which adds up to...

You gotta admit that Acorn operation's pretty thorough.

It's going to be that kind of day.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Obama And Netanyahu? Sounds Like A Match To Me...

But not to Jeff Barak at The Jerusalem Post:

If the opinion polls are right, Israel and the United States are on a collision course. The predicted election victories of Barack Obama for the US presidency and Binyamin Netanyahu in next February's elections here promise a return of the frosty relations when Bill Clinton was in the White House and Netanyahu had his disastrous first term in the Prime Minister's Office.

For our American readers, let me stress that this is not a reason not to vote Obama. The problem is not with the young Democratic senator; the issue is the likelihood that an unreconstructed Netanyahu will form the next government despite having nothing to offer the country except for empty rhetoric and diplomatic stagnation.

OK, so Obama is offering to talk unconditionally with any dictator who can breathe--but one out of two ain't bad.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama and Netanyahu.

Addressing: "Israel Is Less Secure Now Than When President Bush Took Office."

An op-ed in The Jerusalem Post on Why McCain Wins In Israel, addresses the claim that President Bush is somehow singlehandedly responsible for the current level of tension in the Middle East

For Americans who have chosen to live in Israel, the candidates' Israel positions are not matters of party loyalty or cheap rhetoric. They are matters of life and death. That may explain why, in spite of the onslaught of Editorials From Famous Jewish Obama Apologists, exit polls (themselves the subject of some controversy) showed that Americans in Israel (less than a quarter of whom were registered Republicans) voted for McCain over Obama by an overwhelming 76% to 24% margin.

Yet, these repetitive Obama-talking-point editorials deserve some refutation. Ignoring their sillier claims (e.g., Obama has a more "Jewish"/tikkun-olam outlook because he was raised by a single mother, or that he is qualified to single-handedly improve black-Jewish relations), even their more substantive statements don't stand up. For example, they make numerous claims under the umbrella theme that "Israel is Less Secure Now Than When President Bush took office."

Are they kidding? It's hard to believe this cockeyed claim gets repeated, especially with the implication that Israel's security issues are somehow the fault of President Bush. Let's set the record straight.

Intifada: When President Bush took office, Israel was in the midst of the "Second Intifada" uprising. We now know that this Intifada was premeditated by Yasser Arafat (who was extensively supported diplomatically and financially by the Clinton Administration) while engaged in Oslo "peace" negotiations. Suicide bombers terrorized all of Israel, murdering some 2000 Israeli civilians. We and our children were forced to risk our lives just boarding buses, attending weddings, synagogues, holiday festivals, or sitting in cafes.

By contrast, today this country has returned to a level of safety and normalcy. Israel's reining in that wave of terror (including building the security fence, opposed by Obama) would have been significantly more difficult without the diplomatic and moral support of the Bush Administration for the Sharon government's no-nonsense means of shutting down Arab terror.

Deep in their hearts, which candidate do these Obama supporters honestly think would be more supportive of the next round of Sharon-esque anti-terror measures that an Israeli government will again require?

Strategic Partnership: Israel remains the strongest military power and America's closest ally in the region due in part to technology and intelligence-sharing on an unprecedented level. This resulted from the special US-Israel strategic alliance created by the Bush Administration, cooperating more with Israel than any US administration in history. Just what does Obama/Biden want to "change" here?

Syria Marginalized: The Bush Administration successfully isolated and marginalized Syria during its term in office and supported Israeli military pre-emption against Syria's nuclear weapons facility staffed covertly by North Korean scientists. The Israeli attack on the Syrian reactor was opposed by Obama's nuclear non-proliferation expert, Joseph Cirincione. Does that reflect the kind of "change" Berman et al have in mind for us?

Hizbullah: Editorial claims that "Iranian support for Hizbullah has reached new heights" under Bush misrepresent one key fact - Hizbullah was created by Iran as its surrogate in Lebanon with Syrian support.

The Bush Doctrine: The Bush Administration carried out the most dramatic change in US Middle East policy in nearly a century by enacting the "Bush Doctrine," taking a pro-active role against Islamic terror and for democracy, greatly enhancing Israeli security in the process. Obama/Biden want to change this? To what?

The United Nations: Israel's security was further bolstered during the Bush years by US diplomatic support at the UN, particularly under the stewardship of a true friend of Israel, Ambassador John Bolton - whose nomination was vigorously opposed and ultimately torpedoed by both Obama and Biden. Just what "change" should we expect on this front, especially as Obama is committed to increasing US coordination of foreign policy with the EU and UN?

Iraq/Iran: Eliminating Saddam and his missile threat to Israel, as well as his generous cash sponsorship of conventional terror "martyrs" was itself a direct boon to Israel's safety. Israelis are no longer sealing their rooms and procuring gas masks.

Read the whole thing.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: how can Obama be in favor of a strong Israel if he opposes the idea of a strong America?

Technorati Tag: Obama and President Bush.

An Obama Flip-Flop Sampler

From Mary Katharine Ham: Obama's Attack Ad On Himself--

In putting this together, it's been surprising, even to someone who's followed the entire presidential race in great detail, the extent to which Obama has gotten away with blatant position switches, political opportunism, and outright lying while floating above us all as the post-partisan redeemer of America.

I hope even the seasoned among you will be surprised anew when you watch it. I hope you'll pass it along to anyone you know who needs help making a decision at this point. Audacity is certainly something Obama does not lack.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

"Stealing An Election"

That is the title of Glenn Reynolds' opinion piece for The New York Post. He concludes:

The tragedy is that Obama would probably have done just as well - and perhaps better - if his campaign had lived up to his early claims of nice-guy nonpartisanship, instead of looking more like a dirty Chicago Machine effort. Now, if Obama wins, he'll have to deal with a lot more resentment and suspicion. And the rest of us will have to try to push for reforms to make such abuses more difficult.

Weaknesses in the financial system that weren't addressed because they benefited insiders led to the current economic crisis. It's now clear that our political system suffers from similar weaknesses. Just as no-doc loans and dubious financial controls led to the subprime crisis - but weren't addressed because they were making participants rich - so, too, may no-doc voting and dubious financial controls lead to a political crisis that, quite possibly, will make the financial crisis look mild. But will the political players have the backbone to address the problems before a crisis appears? So far, it looks doubtful.

Read the whole thing.

Considering that the Democratic Congress has shown more interest in impeaching Bush than in investigating the causes of the current financial crisis, that sounds about right.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Apparently With Distance Comes Objectivity...And Common Sense

Janet Daley of the Daily Telegraph observes:

. . . in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed "tribute", responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.

Funny how no one else seemed to notice that...

[Hat tip: Andrew Stuffaford]

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Running For President? Anyone Can Play!

Jennifer Rubin quotes Jack Kelly

Less is known about Barack Obama than about any major party candidate for president in modern history. His public resume is thin — eight years in the Illinois Senate, four in the U.S. Senate, with two of them spent running for president.

And no candidate for president has had more problematic associations. Barack Obama’s first major financial backer was Antoin “Tony” Rezko, currently awaiting sentencing on corruption charges. For nearly 20 years Mr. Obama attended services where the Rev. Jeremiah Wright preached hatred of the United States, and of white people. The radical group ACORN has been committing voter registration fraud on a massive scale. Mr. Obama taught classes for ACORN organizers, and represented the group in a lawsuit against the state of Illinois. The most significant managerial responsibility Barack Obama has ever had was as chairman of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a project conceived of by unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers.

These associations have been less explored by the mainstream news media than has Joe the Plumber’s divorce and a tax lien against him.

On Kelly's point on the media's refusal to investigate Obama, Rubin notes:

But whatever the reason, one wonders if we have set a new low bar for qualifications and disclosure for presidential candidates. In the future, when the candidate is less “transformative,” will we get more data? Will voters expect more evidence that he possesses the skill, ability, and knowledge to do the job?

Will Obama's first legacy be dumbing down the electoral process?

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Obama: 27 Promises In Just One Speech

At this rate, the candidate who said there are 57 states may think he'll have 3 terms to finish the job.

Here is the list, from ABC's Political Punch with Jake Tapper:

Just today in Sarasota, Fla., the Democratic presidential nominee said that he'd:

• "give a tax break to 95 percent of Americans who work every day and get taxes taken out of their paycheck every week";
• "eliminate income taxes on Social Security for seniors making under $50,000";
• "give homeowners and working parents additional tax breaks";
• not increase taxes on anyone if they "make under $250,000; you will not see your taxes increase by a single dime –- not your income taxes, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains tax";
• "end those breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas";
• "give tax breaks to companies that invest right here in the United States";
• "eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses and start-up companies that are the engine of job creation in this country";
• "create two million new jobs by rebuilding our crumbling roads, and bridges, and schools -- by laying broadband lines to reach every corner of the country";
• "invest $15 billion a year in renewable sources of energy to create five million new energy jobs over the next decade";
• "reopen old factories, old plants, to build solar panels, and wind turbines";
• build "a new electricity grid";
• "build the fuel efficient cars of tomorrow";
• "eliminate the oil we import from the Middle East in 10 years";
• "lower premiums" for those who already have health insurance;
• "if you don't have health insurance, you'll be able to get the same kind of health insurance that members of Congress give themselves";
• "end discrimination by insurance companies to the sick and those who need care the most";
• "invest in early childhood education";
• "recruit an army of new teachers";
• "pay our teachers higher salaries, give them more support. But ... also demand higher standards and more accountability";
• "make a deal with every young person who's here and every young person in America: If you are willing to commit yourself to national service, whether it's serving in our military or in the Peace Corps, working in a veterans home or a homeless shelter, then we will guarantee that you can afford to go to college no ifs ands or buts";
• "stop spending $10 billion a month in Iraq whole the Iraqis have a huge surplus";
• "end this war in Iraq";
• "finish the fight and snuff out al Qaeda and bin Laden";
• "increase our ground troops and our investments in the finest fighting force in the world";
• "invest in 21st century technologies so that our men and women have the best training and equipment when they deploy into combat and the care and benefits they have earned when they come home";
• "No more homeless veterans"; and
• "no more fighting for disability payments."

Yes, politicians do make all kinds of promises that they cannot keep. Tapper makes note of things that McCain has also unrealistically promised. But to go ahead and makes promises like this...

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Who says Jews are Smart?

Or is Obama smarter?

Who says Jews are Smart?
by Jonathan Rosenblum
Mishpacha
October 29, 2008

YES, POGO, THE JEWS ARE THE STUPIDEST PEOPLE

Arab-Americans overwhelmingly support Senator Barack Obama for president. So do Jewish-Americans. One of these two groups either does not care much about the Arab-Israeli conflict and/or is stupid. My money is on the Jews.

American Jews care less and less about Israel. Over 50% of non-Orthodox Jews under 35 say they would not view the destruction of the State of Israel as a personal tragedy. Israel is not a popular cause on college campuses. Many Jewish students struggle against being identified with Israel, lest it complicate their social lives. In the under 35 cohort, only 54% profess to be comfortable with the idea of a Jewish state.

Other Jews who still find it uncomfortable to disavow concern with Israel have convinced nevertheless themselves that it is in Israel's best interests to be forced back to the 1949 armistice lines. A talkback to a recent Jerusalem Post piece of mine nicely captures the mindset.

Nathan Berkowicz writes: "What do you expect us Jews to do, hold the Palestinians hostage forever? Get your head out of the sand and wake up to the fact that we are going to have to hammer out a peace deal, a real peace deal, if for no other reason but to show ourselves that we are willing to humanely and fairly deal with a problem we created for ourselves."

Berkowicz places the exclusive onus on Israel for the creation of the Palestinian problem – either by virtue of its creation or for having the effrontery to win in 1967. In addition, he blames Israel for the failure to achieve a "real peace deal." The infamous "three No's" of the Arab League in response to the Israeli offer to withdraw from the West Bank after the Six Day War played no role; ditto Arafat's decision to return to open warfare and reject Prime Minister Ehud Barak's offer of well over 90% of the West Bank at Camp David. Finally, Berkowicz wants the Jews of Israel to demonstrate their humanity. He never mentions ensuring their own survival as a desideratum. So goes the "pro-Israel" case for Obama.

THOSE WHO SEE ISRAEL'S SALVATION in its being pushed back to its 1967 borders have good reason to eagerly anticipate an Obama presidency. Obama has described the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as a "sore, . . . infect[ing] all our foreign policy," and placed return to the "peacemaking" of the Clinton years is at the top of his foreign policy agenda.

The express goal of that "peacemaking" will be an Israeli withdrawal to its 1967 "Auschwitz borders." In a June interview with Jerusalem Post editor David Horowitz, Obama said he can understand Israel's desire for "'67 plus" in terms of security buffers, but Israel should consider whether it would be worth the cost in Palestinian antagonism.

The overwhelming majority of Israel's Jews dread a return to the Oslo process, which claimed 1,471 Israeli lives in terrorist attacks, without bringing peace any closer. Oslo made a fetish of process over actual peace, as a pattern of concrete Israeli concessions in return for recycled Palestinian promises took shape. Obama offers more of the same: "Israel's government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart," he says.

On security grounds alone, the vast majority of Israelis oppose further territorial withdrawal from the West Bank at present. Earlier withdrawals from southern Lebanon and Gaza resulted in the creation of heavily armed Iranian proxies on Israel's southern and northern borders. Israeli intelligence predicts that Hamas would quickly take over the West Bank as well in the event of an Israeli withdrawal. The near elimination of successful terror attacks from the West Bank since 2002 demonstrates that only Israeli troops and on the ground intelligence gathering capabilities can deter terrorism.

Oslo taught that peace cannot be imposed from the outside and has nothing to do with signed agreements. Only a bottom-up transformation of Palestian society would make peace possible, argues Natan Sharansky, and that transformation has never seemed so far away after the Hamas takeover of Gaza.

Even the "moderate" Mahmoud Abbas recently declared a festive celebration in honor of the leader of the Coastal Road Massacre in which 37 Israelis were murdered. Demonization of Israel and Jews continues unabated in the official Palestinian media. No wonder three-quarters of Palestinians say that reconciliation with Israel is impossible in this generation, even after the signing of a peace agreement and creation of a Palestinian state.

The greatest threat to Israel's existence is a nuclear Iran. By calling for direct American-Iranian negotiations, without offering anything new to the Europeans' approach over the last five years of unconditional negotiations, Obama only grants Ahmadinejad more time and increased internal legitimacy. And by linking any sanctions to Chinese and Russian cooperation, he dooms those efforts from the start. Bottom line: an Obama presidency guarantees a nuclear Iran.

And all this leaves aside dozens of troubling Obama associations. For twenty years, he sat complacently in the church of a pastor – "my spiritual mentor" – who spewed contempt for whites, America, and Israel.

Virtually his whole public career has been closely intertwined with the unrepentant former Weatherman William Ayers.

Another member of Ayers' Hyde Park circle was former PLO official and the current Edward Said Professor at Columbia University, Rashid Khalidi, whom Obama credits with opening his eyes to the plight of Palestinians. He has been heavily funded by the virulently anti-Israel George Soros.

Obama has numerous ties to the Nation of Islam, in particular through Tony Rezko, the convicted, Syrian-born racketeer, who partly paid for Obama's home.

Obama's foreign policy advisors have included: Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor and thirty-year critic of Israel; Samantha Powers, who has called for an end to aid to Israel and the introduction of American forces to protect the Palestinians; and Robert Malley, who has made a career of advancing, together with a former Arafat advisor, a revisionist account in which Israel was responsible for the breakdown of Camp David.

Even the Republicans touted for an Obama cabinet – Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar – have been among the handful of senators, sometimes the only ones, to consistently oppose sanctions against Iran, Syria, and Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Hagel laments the intimidation on Capitol Hill by the "Jewish lobby."

No doubt the "pro-Israel" Obama supporters have good explanations of why none of these relationships are of concern. After all, why did G-d make Jews so smart if not to prove the emperor is fully-clothed.

For more articles by Jonathan Rosenblum check out Jewish Media Resources.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Obama.

Will The Government Have To Bail Out Obama? (Updated)

At The Corner, Mark Steyn quotes an email from a reader:

Subprime Campaign Contributions

Re the Obama campaign fraud now spreading faster than Joe the Plumber's wealth, a reader writes:

If the majority of these donations are in fact fraudulent but the Obama campaign has already spent the money do you think Hank Paulson will ask the taxpayers to purchase the bad debt?

Sounds reasonable to me. If Obama isn't "too big to fail", what is?

Actually, there is a point of comparison between how the Obama campaign allows fraudulent donations and the current economic crisis. Ed Morrissey writes:

Barack Obama claims to champion the consumers of America. This demonstrates worse than just callous disregard of financial security; it looks like a deliberate attempt to allow people to empty unsuspecting consumers of their savings and credit. The checks involving security codes and address verification were put in place years ago by the credit-card companies to protect their customers from having their accounts hijacked by thieves. [emphasis added]

Keep in mind that turning off the website security to facilitate this was deliberate:

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is allowing donors to use largely untraceable prepaid credit cards that could potentially be used to evade limits on how much an individual is legally allowed to give or to mask a contributor's identity, campaign officials confirmed.

Faced with a huge influx of donations over the Internet, the campaign has also chosen not to use basic security measures to prevent potentially illegal or anonymous contributions from flowing into its accounts, aides acknowledged. Instead, the campaign is scrutinizing its books for improper donations after the money has been deposited.

To this claim of Obama's campaign, Morrissey responds: Hogwash!

There is only one reason to deliberately choose to bypass those security processes, and that’s to facilitate fraud. Team Obama claims that they vet the donations after the fact, but that’s hogwash. It costs far more to do that than to screen for security codes and address verification up front, and everyone knows it. Obama counts on the fact that most of the fraud will fly under the radar of its victims, and the only cost they’ll incur is when they have to process refunds after getting a specific complaint.

Back in April, Peter Beinart noted approvingly:

Luckily, Obama doesn't have to rely on his legislative résumé to prove he's capable of running the government. He can point to something more germane: the way he's run his campaign.

Indeed.

UPDATED: In another post, Morrissey quotes someone who works for the credit card industry who points out the recklessness of disabling security on the Obama website since:

disabling the security allows would be credit card thieves to “ping” numbers till they get a hit. The number of “pings” should have raised flags at Visa and MasterCard, don’t you think?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Joe Biden Serves A Useful Purpose--As Obama's Olmert

Remember when Ehud Olmert was Deputy Prime Minister, what people thought about his pronouncements about the Disengagement?

Olmert's statements are often coordinated with Sharon to "test the waters" of potential future Israeli government initiatives. Olmert was the first to go public with Sharon's plan to unilaterally withdraw from the Gaza Strip and parts of the West Bank.

Some Israeli politicians and American Jewish leaders are worried Sharon plans to later evacuate other settlements, and possibly parts of Jerusalem, and that he is using Olmert's statements to gauge the domestic and international response to such possibilities.

Could it be that some of Joe Biden's gaffes on the campaign trail are serving a similar purpose? The New York Post seems to think so:

Is Joe Biden the foot-in-mouth candidate - or is he the Obama campaign's designated teller of inconvenient truths?

First, the Democratic veep hopeful declared that America's enemies will generate "an international crisis, to test the mettle of" a President Obama.

Scary - but likely true.

And yesterday Biden let slip that he and Obama apparently have a sliding scale to determine who's "super-rich."

Obama, after all, has been promising a tax cut for the "middle class" - those making $200,000 a year or less.

Biden yesterday lowered that bar.

"What we're saying," he told a Pennsylvania TV interviewer, "is that [our] tax break doesn't need to go to people making . . . $1.4 million. It should go to [people] making under $150,000 a year."

Oops. That's a 25 percent downward redefinition of "middle class."

An Obama mouthpiece quickly dismissed the discrepancy as just another one of Joe the Senator's gaffes.

But consider: The campaign has a new TV commercial out declaring that families - not individuals - earning $200,000 or less would qualify for a tax cut. Two incomes - not one.

And, as most middle-class wage-earners know, that's a huge difference.

Of course, Israelis had more reason then to take Olmert seriously than Americans now have to pay close attention to Biden--but the comparison is there. Still, I doubt that SNL had that similarity in mind in their sketch last week where they had Biden floating the idea of a Disengagement of his own:

"Mark my words. If you take away nothing else from what I say here today, or indeed, in this entire campaign, remember this. If Barack Obama is elected, we will have a crisis. And when this crisis hits, and it will, in the second week of February, we may do some weird things. We may cede Florida back to Spain, or Alaska to the Russians.

All in jest, after all.

After all, Obama would take 'redistribution' only so far...right?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Obama and Biden.

Would An Obama Victory Ensure A Livni Win?

That is what Powerline is suggesting:

Livni could receive a significant boost if Barack Obama wins our election next week. In that event, and assuming Obama plays his hand well, Obama will be in a good position to influence Israel's election for two reasons. First, if he plays his hand well, I expect that initially Obama would be popular in Israel. Second, Israelis nonetheless wouldl harbor uncertainty about Obama's intentions, and thus would likely bend over backwards not to alienate him.

Obama, in all likelihood, would rather deal with the inexperienced and seemingly pliable Livni than with a strident old war horse like Netanyahu. Thus, I would expect a President Obama, in one way or another, to use the strange combination of his popularity and and the dread he inspires to tilt the playing field in favor of Livni.

Interestingly, the media has made comparisons between Livni and Obama--

Globe and Mail: Tzipi Livni: Israeli version of an Obama-style 'uniter'?
Haaretz: Tzipi Livni is Israel's Barack Obama
Contentions: Livni As Israel’s Obama
Jerusalem Newswire: PA wants Livni and Obama

Of course, at this stage of the game there are going to be all kinds of attempts to draw comparisons with Obama.

In a different post, Powerline suggests that even sodas have gotten into the act:

Obama Logo	New Pepsi Logo

Just how far can Obama's coattails stretch?

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Does ACORN Have A Branch In Gaza?

From Palestinian Media Watch:

PA daily reports that Gaza residents are randomly calling American homes trying to convince Americans to support Barack Obama for president
by Itamar Marcus and Barbara Crook, Oct. 27, 2008

The following is the story in the PA daily:

"23 year old [Palestinian] Ibrahim Abu Jayyab sits by the computer in the Nusairat refugee camp [in the Gaza Strip] trying to call American citizens, in order to convince them to vote for the Democratic candidate for president, Barack Obama...
Most of the Palestinians feel hatred towards USA, whose administrations have always stood by Israel...

Abu Jayyab's idea is to make telephone calls to American citizens through Internet sites that allow making free calls... in order to use them [to make phone calls] for the campaign supporting Obama. Abu Jayyab says: We dial random numbers and try to call people without knowing their identity or their affiliation...

He said that a large number of Palestinians dislike their activity... [those] who do not see any difference between the American politicians, because of the hostility that they feel towards America. But his hope is that their activity will have some impact [in support of Obama]."
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 26, 2008]

Knowing there is an issue that Jewish voters and Palestinians in Gaza can agree on makes me feel warm all over...

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Palestinians and Obama.

Will Obama Finally Get A Steady Job?

Canadian columnist David Warren describes Obama as:

A man who, should he win the election and serve one term, will have been President of the United States longer than he has held any steady job.

Read the whole thing.

[Hat tip: Mark Steyn]

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Covering Up Obama's Close Friendship With Arafat's Buddy

One more question about Obama that we will never get an answer to, as the MSM covers for Obama.

The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)

Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):

Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.

The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.

SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!

END AID TO ISRAEL!

Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.

But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

Technorati Tag: Obama.