The media is trumpeting Obama’s need for a Clinton in his cabinet as evidence of a mature, intelligent, magnanimous unifier who wisely wants to reach out to former rivals.

This is utter hogwash.

Obama isn’t “reaching out” to Hillary out of the goodness of his heart and for the good of the country. This is a cold, calculated dagger aimed at the heart of Hillary and Bill Clinton — and more importantly — into their still unbossed, unbought, and quietly plotting constituency.

Obama and Axelrod know, unlike the media, that his victory was not due to a sweeping mandate. As has been reported, less voters than ever identify as liberals — his base. Moreover, the turnout increase this year was neglible, and Obama owes his victory to them multiple millions of Republican voters who inexplicably sat this one out. Had the GOP turned out this year like they did in 2004, Obama would have lost big, because he lost about 20% of Democrats.

Those Democrats are Hillarycrats – and they are still sharpening the knives for Obama.

By having her as his Secretary of State, she would be effectively neutralized. More importantly, he will shield himself from the criticism of Democrats who still distrust him and are itching to give him and Pelosi’s Congress trouble. These Democrats are poised to point out every broken campaign promise; they can’t wait to declare Obama Presidency a failure and start plotting Hillary’s 2012 or 2016 comeback.

By making Hillary Secretary of State, Obama will destroy the still undead Clinton wing of the party by essentially taking it over from the top.

For those who think this position is a perfect place for Hillary to flex her political and intellectual muscle, you’re wrong. The Secretary of State is a figurehead with no real decision-making power. The National Security Advisor has more power and the Chief of Staff has more influence.

This Hillary-at-State brouhaha is a naked attempt by Obama to annihilate the ambitions of his chief rival: she’ll be traipsing around the world following his marching orders, while he and Pelosi are running the nation into the ground. As an added bonus, he’ll be able to blame her for his foreign policy disasters. And the icing on cake will be that as the nation turns away from him in 2010, she won’t be able to challenge him, having chosen instead to go down with his ship.

It’s obvious what the Affirmative Action Bush is trying to do. It’s not worth the risk, Hillary. Hillary, don’t do it!

As his hometown paper puts it [emphasis added]:

On paper, Barack Obama’s tenure as Illinois’ junior senator doesn’t look like much.

It lasted just three years, 10 months and 12 days. Obama missed one out of every four Senate votes. A chief accomplishment was “Google for government,” a Web site to let citizens dig through government grants and contracts.

But his Senate service was enough to provide substance to go with Obama’s political celebrity. He could point to his cooperation with Republicans, his work on complex issues like nuclear nonproliferation, his efforts to make government more honest and efficient.

The Senate served as the launching pad for a rocket that, against the odds, has carried Obama to the White House.

Wow, just three years, ten months, and twelve days? TWO of which he spent running for President. You can’t even get a college degree until you’ve had at least four years learning and earning. A doctor has to have about ten years of training. You need four years to get a HIGH SCHOOL degree.

But voters have decided that a man with no executive experience, and less than three years in the Senate, is to be President. Oy vey.

What did he do for the people he represented during his time in the Senate? Is it appropriate to use your constituents as a ‘launching pad’ to higher office which no significant accomplishments to your name?

No wonder he wants Hillary as his Secretary of State. She is too powerful and has too independent a constituency to be Obama’s subordinate; she would thus be running a Clinton Shadow Government over at the State Department. This is all good for the Affirmative Action Bush, since he obviously plans to resign and challenge God for His seat on Heaven’s Throne in two and half years.

Clinton = Obama Secretary of State = Shadow President

Clinton = Obama Secretary of State = Shadow President

Posted by: Old Major | November 14, 2008

Obama = Clinton Lite: Billary Loyalists to Dominate Obama Staff

Is Obama administration just a Clinton shadow government until Hillary takes over in 2012 or 2016?

Is the 'Obama' administration just a Clinton shadow government until Hillary takes over in 2012 or 2016?

Now we know what the “change” Obama talked about looks like, and it looks exactly like what Hillary said it should: another Clinton White House.

Politico reports that for all of Obama’s huff and puff about how awful the Clintons are — how the Clinton legacy tarnished Washington, how Hillary supposedly represented the past, how Bill was not a transformative President — Obama is now surrounding himself with that same tarnish non-transformative past:

Here’s how you can tell the campaign is over and the transition has begun: Barack Obama’s aides now wear suits and ties, their desks are in the Federal Building on 6th Street in Washington — and Clintonites are everywhere.

Obama’s victory in the general election produced what his primary campaign couldn’t: A swift merger of the Clinton Wing of the Democratic Party with the Illinois Senator’s self-styled insurgency…

Thirty-one of the 47 people so far named to transition or staff posts have ties to the Clinton administration, including all but one of the members of his 12-person Transition Advisory Board and both of his White House staff choices.

Well, well, well. Turns out “change you can believe in” is really “Clintons you can believe in.”

Wonder if general election voters would have preferred a real Clinton (Hillary Rodham) to Clinton lite (Barack Hussein)?

The front page of CBSNews.com telling us what we already knew:

Read More…

As Politico and Hot Air are reporting, although Obama’s ruthless political machine has raised enough money to fund several federal bailouts — killing campaign finance reform in the process — there are no plans at the FEC to audit this operation so that the public may have full disclosure where this money came from. This, despite outstanding questions about illegal donations from foreigners and from credit card fraud.

Of course, this belies the President-elect’s pledges for more open and transparent government:

For those of us suspicious of Obama’s policies, this is no surprise. He escaped vetting and criticism for much of the Presidential campaign. It makes perfect sense — though it is equally wrong — that he would now escape having to account for indiscretions in illegal fund raising activity.

The unacceptable implication is that the White House is now and forever up for sale to the highest bidder:

But for a GOP currently doing a fair but overstated amount of soul-searching, this is the perfect chance for them to reclaim the mantle of responsible government. The entire conservative apparatus — talk radio, the Palin-bashing gliteratti, pundits, House leaders, Senate leaders, and the rank-and-file — must not allow the scandalous aspects of Obama’s fund raising machine to escape scrutiny.

PUMAs, GOPers, freepers, if you’re reading this, the fight to keep America from failing under Carter redux starts now! When the election is over, the real fight begins. American sovereignty, solvency, exceptionalism, and prosperity must be preserved. Black people, we cannot become dependent on Obama’s socialist giveaways of other people’s wealth, cedeing our independence, pride and unique culture to a massive, secular welfare state and culture of victimhood.

We all must stay on this story like white on rice until the Obama campaign agrees to an audit. Obama must keep his promises of change. That starts with his own transparency!

It is because of Hillary and Bill Clinton that universal health care has any political currency at all. They were light years ahead of everybody else on this issue. Having learned from the failure to pass a universal health care bill back in 1993, they have the kind of experience that only comes from making mistakes.

Hillary knows health care. It is her passion, her baby. She has learned from her mistakes. No one know more about health care than she, no one has the political currency to lead on this issue as she. She is the most popular and iconic Senator on Capitol Hill, and she is ready to lead on health care. However, the boys are at it again, denying her a role in crafting health care policy:

Ailing Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) apparently has rebuffed a bold bid by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) to take over health care policy in the Senate when the new Congress convenes in January.

As if that weren’t bad enough, ‘anonymous’ aides — the same kinds of cowards currently engaged in the character assassination of Sarah Palin — are telling Hillary to sit down, shut up, and stay in her place:

Democratic sources close to the health committee saw Clinton’s entreaty to chair her own subcommittee as an attempt to hijack health care policy, an issue dear to Kennedy’s heart and one he has championed for decades…

She won’t get a subcommittee chairmanship as a consolation prize for losing the Democratic presidential race, they say.

“No one here gets preference because they ran for President,” one senior Democratic aide tells the Sleuth, adding, “Sixteen current senators - six on the HELP Committee alone! - have run for President.”

…If Clinton really hoped to carve out her own subcommittee, it sounds like she can - as some of her New York City constituents might say I - fuhgeddaboutit.

“A decision was made years ago to keep healthcare policy at the committee level. And I can’t imagine that will change anytime soon,” says one veteran Democratic Senate aide.

Well, Hillary, if you couldn’t see it now, now you see what your supporters, what the PUMAs knew all along. All your campaigning for Affirmative Action Bush, all your work on his behalf, was an utter waste of time. The sack of crap you sold to Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida will garner you nothing but derision and scorn. Do you see it now, Hillary? Do you? How much abuse are you going to take before you walk away?

We are waiting for you to stand up for yourself, Mrs. Clinton. The Democrap Party does not deserve you!

Posted by: Old Major | November 7, 2008

Obama Disses Nancy Reagan, Fails First Press Conference

At today’s press conference on the economy, Obama appeared to dis ailing widow and former First Lady, Nancy Reagan:

Obama says he’s spoken to all the former presidents — Carter, Bush, Clinton, as well as the current Bush — and, looser than he’s been in months, dares a joke at the expense of the most recently deceased.

“I have spoken to all of them who are living,” he says. “I didn’t want to get into a Nancy Reagan thing about doing any seances,” he says.

Besides being un-Presidential, snarky, and childish, this is odd coming from a man who has been on record criticizing anyone coming after his own wife. But not so odd coming from the man who condescends to females and female reporters by calling them ‘Sweetie.’

More importantly, Obama proved he is certainly not a Clinton Democrat — rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. We know this because rather than propose fiscal restraint and responsibility in response to continued economic trouble, he today proposed more and more and more spending and government giveaways, including another stimulus package and another bailout. Nevermind that the first stimulus accomplished squat, as did the unpopular bailout.

The cheesy podium sign isn’t going over well either. What on earth is ‘The Office of the President Elect’? Sounds like another bad Tom Wolfe novel, just like Obama today sounded like another bad Carter presidency.

The first sign that President-elect Obama is not serious about fixing the housing crisis and restoring America’s economy: he has appointed a former board member of failed housing giant Freddie Mac — the housing giant whose actions have been cited by economists as the beginning of the country’s housing crisis –  as his Chief of Staff:

President-elect Barack Obama’s newly appointed chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, served on the board of directors of the federal mortgage firm Freddie Mac at a time when scandal was brewing at the troubled agency and the board failed to spot “red flags,” according to government reports reviewed by ABCNews.com.

Rahm_Emanuel

According to a complaint later filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission, Freddie Mac, known formally as the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, misreported profits by billions of dollars in order to deceive investors between the years 2000 and 2002…

The actions by Freddie Mac are cited by some economists as the beginning of the country’s economic meltdown.

The federal government this year was forced to take over Freddie Mac and a sister federal mortgage agency, Fannie Mae, pledging at least $200 billion in public funds.

Freddie Mac records have been subpoenaed by the Justice Department as part of its investigation of the suspect accounting procedures.

I guess this wasn’t the Rahm Emanuel Obama knew?

Despite record high Democratic registration, McCain outperformed paltry Republican numbers by significant margins several in key states:

FLORIDA

Dem voter advantage: 498,124; Obama margin of victory: 194,102

PENNSYLVANIA

Dem voter advantage: 1,136,387; Obama margin of victory: 600,688

NORTH CAROLINA

Dem voter advantage: 762,643; Obama margin of victory: 13,093

NEW MEXICO

Dem voter advantage: 202,590; Obama margin of victory: 119,059

***

So in these states alone, McCain outperformed GOP deficits — in Florida by about 300,000 votes, in Pennsylvania by about 500,000 votes, in North Carolina by about 750,000 votes, and in New Mexico by about 80,000.

There are no registration numbers for other battlegrounds — like Virginia, Ohio, and Indiana — where Democrats were assumed to have gained ground, but where McCain lost by only a few percentage points. But if the trend holds true, it is likely McCain outperformed GOP deficits everywhere.

What does this mean?

It means the PUMA movement was successful in driving up McCain’s numbers, albeit not in defeating Obama. Democrats around the country voted for McCain and rejected Obama, putting country before party. Pennsylvania exit polls showed at least 20% of the 1,273,764 Pennsylvanians who supported Hillary in the primary, voted for McCain. PUMAS probably provided McCain’s 6,000 vote victory in Missouri.

By contrast, the GOP sabotaged itself, putting self over party and country, and handing the election to Obama — polls indicate that Republican turnout decreased sharply. How could this be with so much at stake? Could the GOP really not muster up 15,000 more votes in North Carolina? Or 200,000 more votes in Florida’s rural areas.

Given a choice between steak and rat poison, Republicans chose the poison, presumably because the steak was medium-rare instead of well done.

The election of Obama — who has pledged to redistribute wealth, radicalize the Constitution, and invite international crisis — means 3,000 federal appointments, validation of the media’s bias, and left-wing control of government for the foreseeable future.

McCain’s disinvitation from the CPAC (Conservative Political Action Conference) this year — where he was booed last year — proves the far right still doesn’t give it. Having twice squandered their chance to reclaim the center by fighting for McCain, they instead continue to slap him in the face because they disagree on a few wedge issues.

They did invite Palin, whom they love. But they are not as smart as she, for she knows an American hero when she sees one. Does Palin agree with McCain on immigration, on campaign finance reform, on the bailout? Probably not. But did Palin and the PUMAS recognize that McCain’s deep love of country and proven record of leadership was superior to the radicalism Obama offered? She did. She was right. But they are in denial, have lost the center, and are headed towards extinction — unless they never again do what they did yesterday by not standing up to fight.

The PUMAS did their part. The GOP betrayed them.

The PUMAS were anti-Bush before it was cool and will prove to have been anti-Obama before it becomes cool. They are now undeservedly exiled. The GOP, who folded tent and gave in, has a lot of soul searching to do and deserves its current marginalization. They can start redefining themselves by embracing John McCain’s revulsion for spending — and inviting him to speak at CPAC on that topic.

As a black male Democrat, I just made a decision that hurts my heart.

I’m voting for McCain and urge you all do the same. I disagree with John on many issues, and true he has the same character flaws all human beings do: sometimes we lie, sometimes we cheat, sometimes we flip-flop. But John McCain’s long military and political record shows his love and loyalty to America. And all Americans can agree with his intolerance for out-of-control spending and earmarks and his insistence on energy independence.

As for my boy Obama…sigh…where to begin? Yes, he has the same character flaws all human beings do — lie, cheat, flip-flop, we all do it. Unfortunately, but a few unique sticking points are impossible to explain away.

His constant race baiting sucks. I was shocked by his implication that Bill Clinton — of all people — is racist and remain shocked Democrats actually fell for it. Bill Clinton a (reformed) liar? Yes. Bill Clinton a racist? Never.

Similarly, Obama’s claim that his racist, anti-American church was representative of black people and black churches was dishonest, damaging, and hurtful.

Obama’s inexperience caused his own veep nominee to announce that President Obama would face an “international crisis” in his first year. Based on Obama’s naive and dangerous pledge to sit down with enemy states with “no preconditions” in his first year — the worst and most stunning foreign policy idea of the campaign — I agree.

And though we all have kooks and questionable relationships in our closet, Obama’s chosen associates are unacceptable for a President: his mentor Rev. Wright, an anti-American racist; his patron Bill Ayers, an anti-American terrorist; and his buddy Rashid Khalidi, an anti-Semite.

Lastly, on the economy, Obama’s tax plan is nakedly socialist. His “spread the wealth” comments to Joe the Plumber worry me. His complaints about the Constitution being too “constrained” and not being “radical” in “redistribution of wealth” scare me. The Constitution was indeed constrained — and wisely so — by those who anticipated the day when individual property rights would be threatened by people like Obama! The thought of one-party rule, with Pelosi, Obama, Dean, and Reid conspiring to radicalize the Constitution is the stuff of nightmares.

In short, you cannot be serious about the American Dream and vote to redistribute wealth and radicalize the Constitution, nor can you be serious about national security and vote to invite international crisis.

I do understand that some on the left DO genuinely prefer the European model; if that’s you, then by all means vote Obama.

I remain a liberal-leaning centrist, but I am as dismayed that my party is swinging so far left with Obama as I suspect may conservative-leaning centrists were dismayed when the GOP swung so far right with Dubya. There is a difference between being a social Democrat — taxing the super super super super duper mega uber rich to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, and support the general welfare with policies and programs that benefit everyone — and being a socialist: taking money from workers and giving it away to those who don’t work as Obama would do. As a black man and Democrat, it is hard for me to not support Obama, to stand in the way of the history he is trying to make. It really hurts me to oppose him. But I just cannot stomach socialism.

I would like also to point out that the vast right-wing conspiracy brought Obama upon itself. They would painted centrist Democrats like Al Gore, or like Bill and Hillary Clinton as ‘liberal socialists’ –
nevermind that these ’socialists’ pushed through free trade, gutted welfare, balanced budgets, and cut spending to create budget surpluses — something Reagan never, ever did. These are the policies
of pragmatic centrists, not of socialists, but the GOP didn’t want to hear it. Then, they pushed through Bush twice when he was an obviously inferior candidate both times, not to mention a big spending extremist.

Now in Obama, a left-wing Bush in blackface, we have a real, bonafide, tried-and-true socialist with a capital ‘S’ who could very well dismantle the American way of life. Too bad for everyone that Republicans cheapened the word so much that nobody seems to notice or care. Reap what you sow much?

Well, unlike the notorious “whitey tape,” there is one explosive Obama videotape we now KNOW exists. Probably is that just like the “whitey tape,” you may never see it.

For days, the LA Times refused to either confirm or deny that it was in possession of a video in which Obama is alleged to have commiserated with Palestinian activist and anti-Semite, Rashid Khalidi, and allegedly also with washed-up domestic terrorist Bill Ayers at reception that allegedly took on a decidedly anti-Israel tone.

Finally, the Times has admitted the tape exists — and that they have it. But the newspaper, which is currently suffering from poor profits and thus getting rid of staff, responded to accusations from the McCain campaign that it is suppressing the tape to help Obama get elected by refusing to release it, on the grounds that it would compromise their sources:

“The Los Angeles Times did not publish the videotape because it was provided to us by a confidential source who did so on the condition that we not release it,” said the newspaper’s editor, Russ Stanton. “The Times keeps its promises to sources.”

Of course, reporters as a general rule should protect their sources, but the Times’s reasoning does not hold water. One, it is amazing that it took them days to come up with such a simple excuse. Why, if they really are protecting a source, didn’t they just say so earlier?

Two, the Times has already written an article revealing much — but not all — of the content of said tape. If it’s permissible to reveal its content in detail, why can voters not just see it and judge for themselves? What is the source hiding?

Moreover, all Americans, including American reporters, have a duty to protect their country. If the Times is in possession of explosive, illuminating information about a man who could be elected President in less than a week, the Times has a duty to the public, the nation, and the world to release the videotape immediately.

At the very least, if the Times still refuses to publish the tape, they might at least answer some questions about it, namely, was Bill Ayers there as alleged? Did Obama sit and/or talk with Ayers? What is the full text of Obama’s toast to Khalidi? Did Obama mention Ayers in his toast? How did Obama react to anti-Semitic jokes? And so on.

This would not be the first time that a journalist had to renege on a promise to a source for the greater good.

The purpose of protecting sources, after all, is to preserve truth. The Times’s withholding of this tape compromises truth.

Let’s keep putting pressure on the Times to release this tape — the future of this country and of our families depends on it!

The economy and the polls are reacting to Obama’s socialist economic policies of “spreading the wealth around” — as he famously told joe the Plumber — and of radicalizing the Constitution to “redistribute wealth” — as he told a radio station in 2001:

If there was any doubt that Americans are heeding Biden’s warning that electing the immature, inexperienced Obama would spur an “international crisis,” the double-digit lead Obama held in Gallup two weeks ago has vanished. McCain is now inside the margin of error, fighting his way back to within two points nationally according to the Gallup’s traditional likely voter model. Note, we can rely on the traditional likely voter model, now that it has been discovered that all those new voters the Obama camp is relying on and that ACORN registered don’t really exist.

Moreover, if there was any doubt that investors think Obama’s economic policies would be a disaster for the country, the markets reacted to news of McCain’s surge in Gallup and other polls by rising about 900 points.

Coincidence? Not according to the Investors Business Daily, up with an article explaining why investers are “fleeing” Obama, an assessment echoed by other economic observers who guess that the economy and its markets are fleeing the scary possibility of an Obama Presidency.

Let’s hope voters have the good sense to flee Obama also — thereby affirming the American Dream and the importance of national security — while rejecting socialism, constant race-baiting, “spreading the wealth around,” rampant media bias, radicalizing” the Constitution, “redistributing wealth,” and another “international crisis.”

What else do you need to vote against Obama?

You have Obama telling Joe the Plumber the reason for his tax increase is to “spread the weath around,” which is nakedly socialist. You have Obama’s veep nominee, Joe Biden, guaranteeing that electing Obama would generate an “international crisis” as rogue nations try to “test” him, a frightening admission. And then, just this weekend, you have the emergence of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama complains that the Supreme Court had not been “radical” enough in redistributing wealth.

The sum of these statements: On the economy, Obama is a radical socialist, and on foreign policy, Obama’s inexperience and immaturity will put the nation in grave danger.

The salient questions of this election, then, are 1) Can you be serious about the American Dream and vote to radicalize the Constitution, “spread the wealth around,” and turn America into a socialist nation? 2) Can you be serious about national security and vote to invite an devastating international crisis at a time when America is already facing two wars and economic trouble?

I can’t believe that Americans, knowing the truth about Obama, would vote him into office anyway.

In its editorial repudiation of Obama’s Constitution radicalism, The New Hampshire Union Leader bravely and rightly noted that the “Constitution exists for one reason. To protect us from men like Barack Obama, who is perilously close to being handed the power to begin undoing that protection.”

And despite attempts to parse Obama’s comments about radicalizing the Constitution to redistribute wealth, nothing is more incriminating that Obama’s own words:

“The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

There is no way to spin this. Obama wishes the Constitution and the Courts had been more radical, so that wealth could be taken, redistributed, and presumably “spread around.”

God help us.

This is very serious.

The LA Times has the goods to shed some truth on the real Obama — on his real views about Israel and possibly even on the extent of his relationship with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers — but the Times is refusing to come clean.

By the Times’s own admission they are in possession of a videotape in which Obama commiserates with anti-Semitic radical Rashid Khalidi at a reception in Khalidi’s honor.

The article in which this stunning admission appears, Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama, was published in April but is sparking interest on the heels of the emergence of several “caught-on-tape” controversies surrounding Obama’s candidacy; 1) his now infamous pledge to Joe the Plumber that he would raise taxes and “spread the wealth around”

2) Biden’s declaration that the nation under Obama would face an “international crisis” designed to “test” him…

…and 3) emerging audio of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama’s complains that the Supreme Court was not “radical” enough in embracing “redistribution of wealth” and “redistributive change”:

The writer of the LA Times article, Peter Wallsten, refuses to explain or clarify his article, or to show the tape.

If this tape exists, Obama is in trouble. If the tape does not exist, the LA Times is in trouble.

More importantly, if the LA Times refuses to release the tape or admit it does not exist, its editors are committing an egregious ethical lapse. Voters need to the know the truth about Barack Obama — whatever that truth is. This is especially true in light of reports that Bill Ayers might have been at the Khalidi reception also, according to news reports about attendees at the time.

Contact the LA Times and tell them that the public deserves to know the facts about the man who could be the next President of the United States. If the tape exists, the public should have enough time to weigh it and then weigh Obama accordingly.

If the tape does not exist, the Times needs to apologize to the Obama campaign for this smear and apologize to the public for their misleading, sensationalistic journalism.

Here is the contact information for the Times:

readers.rep@latimes.com

letters@latimes.com

Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Phone: (213) 237-5000
Fax: (213) 237-7679

There is no rationale for keeping this crucial information from the public. The LA Times must do its ethical duty and come clean about this videotape!

Through no fault of his own, voters will elect John McCainsweeping the rug out from under the media and repudiating their nasty pro-Obama edge, embarrassing the pollsters, and crushing Obama’s army of uninformed minions.

McCain will have been helped by two Joes. The first is Joe the Plumber, the besieged single dad and citizen whose simple questioning prompted Obama to declared that he would “spread the wealth around.”  JTP revealed to the nation that far from being a bipartisan breath of fresh air, or even a standard tax-and-spend liberal, Obama is a neosocialist insistent on raising taxes to redistribute wealth. There can no longer be any denying it, now that bombshell 2001 audio of Obama complaining that the courts should do more to redistribute wealth and radicalize the Constitution has been revealed:

Where’s old man McCarthy when you need him?

The second Joe raining on Obama’s parade is his own running mate, Joe the Gaffemaster, who when not asserting that the word “jobs” has three letters is busy reminding voters that electing Obama would generate an “international crisis” because our enemies would be emboldened by Obama’s “youth,” inexperience and weakness.

Will voters willingly elect a guaranteed International Crisis? Doubtful.

Still plotting how to best turn Biden’s latest mega-gaffe into a television ad, McCain is at least already up with an effective ad explaining how Obama’s “spread the wealth” neosocialism attacks the American Dream — or as McCain abbreviates it — “taxes” the American Dream:

But what if McCain is overestimating voters? What if he loses, and the Obama-Pelosi-Reid neosocialist revolution takes hold?

First order of business is, who will be Obama’s Secretary of Spreading the Wealth Around in the new Department of Wealth Redistribution?

Will it be David Brooks, the “conservative” columnist who prefers Obama’s socialism to McCain’s moderation because Sarah Palin doesn’t quote Doystoevsky…and who knew Brooks’s mentor Reagan was such an effete intellect?

Or, perhaps it will be Christopher Buckley, the “conservative” heir who — presumably because he’s confused Obama’s inertia with calm — stabbed his still-warm dead father in the back because he prefers the untested “international crisis” to the tested old soldier?

Will the “conservative” general Colin Powell, once head of the US Department of State, serve as Obama’s head of the Department of Wealth Redistribution? Yes, he is more a foreign policy maven than a domestic issues guy, but at least he has already has a track record of undermining his country, then by cobbling together bad intelligence to lie the United States into war.

Or will “conservative” pundit Peggy Noonan step into this coveted role as the purveyor and enforcer of Obama’s neosocialist marching orders? Having spent the entire election season jealously tearing down the two prominent females in the race, a stint in Obama’s cabinet would allow Noonan to outflank both and run for the President of the United States herself in 2012 or 2016. This is, of course, presuming the United States survives the “international crisis” an Obama presidency apparently guarantees!

Being a left-leaning centrist and not a conservative or a “conservative” — I would prefer a Democrat in the role. I suspect Obama will, too. I therefore endorse John Murtha for Obama’s Secretary of Spreading the Wealth Around. After all, having called the people of Pennsylvania racist, and then apologized by upgrading them to rednecks, Murtha is poised to be out of job in January should the bitter, god- and gun-clingers of Pennsylvanians display any self-preservation and pride in the voting booth…as both I and Pennsylvania’s pro-Obama governor suspect sure they will.

Actually, scratch John Murtha. When Murtha goes down, he will take Obama with him by delivering Pennsylvania’s twenty-one electoral votes to McCain.

Which brings us back to the first sentence of this post.

As my grandmother would say: the press has really “showed their underpants” during this election.

Kirsten Powers — who for the record leans proudly to the left — was right yesterday in calling it what is: prejudice. The prejudice of pundits and reporters against 1) those who lean right and/or 2) those who are not part of the out-of-touch, latte-sipping Georgetown jet set elite bubble (yes, that means you Brooks and Noonan).

Fortunately, the public is sick of the media’s nasty, divisive, meanspirited filter. Everyone knows the media is firmly in the tank for Obama and against McCain-Palin — even Dan Rather, whose career was brought to an abrupt end by his own anti-Bush bias, put himself on record as troubled by the double-standards.

In the latest and most egregious example of media excess and sleaze, we have Obama’s running mate announcing unequivocally on Sunday that Obama’s election would spark an “international crisis,” presumably because Obama’s inexperience and weakness would prompt America’s enemies to attack him:

To say that this is troubling is an understatement. If Obama’s chosen running mate is so sure that Obama’s elevation to the Presidency would put the nation at immediate risk, Obama must have serious flaws as a candidate at should give every voter pause.

Why on earth would we elect a guranteed “international crisis” for our countery at a time of wars and economic troubles? It doesn’t help that Obama himself promises such a crisis would be “severe”?

I’m sorry — what???

Is this reassuring? Is another severe test what Americans want? A voter would be insane to support a candidate who threatens the nation’s security according to his own running mate.

Have these stunning admissions by Biden and Obama been front page news, as it should be?

No.

Instead, media outlets are busy wondering about the intracacies and costs of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe

Wow. So at a time of war, at a time of economic crisis, the point that Obama’s lack of experience might immediately cause another crisis according to his veep nominee is to be ignored.

To be examined: what shoes Sarah Palin is wearing today.

It is clear that the media has abdicated whatever sense of responsibility to the public trust it once had. They have lost all credibility. According to investors and numerous reports, the New York Times isn’t worth the paper its printed on, its shares having now fallen below ten dollars and its worth rapidly dying. Network news ratings are in a smiliar free-fall.

Falling, falling, falling. New York Times stock price follows media's objectivity and credibility right down the crapper.

Falling, falling, falling. New York Times stock price follows media's objectivity and credibility right down the crapper. The price of blatant bias and elitism?

The decline in stature of the press says the public is tired of Obama’s overexposure. But we can do more than stop paying attention. We can reject Obama — reject his socialism, inexperience, and danger to national security — and thus really hit the media where they hurt.

We can’t allow them to force on us Obama, who would take your money and “spread the wealth around” and who would cause a severe “international crisis.”

By voting against Obama and the media, US citizens be able to keep their wealth and have a President who doesn’t invite crisis, the media will learn that their meansprited, negativite, vile attacks against those who aren’t like them don’t worth.

It’s time for us to put the press back in their place.

Sometimes the liberal media bias is so blatant that even we liberals can’t take it — at least those of us who are reasonable and don’t want Obama to raise taxes and “spread the wealth around” as he told Joe the Plumber.

Today, Kirsten Powers, who is to the left what Ann Coulter is to the right, wrote a scathing article wondering why when Sarah Palin is being caricatured by her left-wing, psuedo-socialist critics as some kind of ditz, no one in the press will report on Biden’s increasing number of gaffes and mistakes.

Most shocking among these — perhaps the most amazing and terrifying campaign gaffe ever — was Biden’s assertion just this past weekend that Obama’s election would prompt an “international crisis” because he is unknown and inexperienced, and America’s enemies would want to test him.

Under normal circumstances, such a boldly stated prediction of doom and gloom from the frontrunning candidate’s running mate himself would be front-page news for a week.

But for some reason the media has barely touched on this, preferring to wonder about the costs of Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

Hmmm…which is more newsworthy? How much it costs to dress Sarah Palin, or the possibility that America could elect a President so green that he invites attack — and even his running mate thinks so.

Powers writes in part:

Barack Obama’s choice of Joe Biden as his running mate prompted a small wave of warnings about Biden’s propensity for gaffes. But no one imagined even in a worse-case scenario such a spectacular bomb as telling donors…Obama will be tested by an international crisis…

Scary? You betcha! But somehow, not front-page news.

Again the media showed their incredible bias by giving scattered coverage of Biden’s statements…

…when Biden asserted incorrectly in the vice-presidential debate that the United States “drove Hezbollah out of Lebanon,” nobody in the US media shrieked. (It was, however, covered with derision in the Middle East.) Or when he confused his history by claiming FDR calmed the nation during the Depression by going on TV, the press didn’t take it as evidence that he’s clueless…

The outakes of his Sunday remarks don’t begin to capture the magnitude of what he said…Obama’s election would provoke an international incident because of his inexperience and even Obama’s biggest supporters won’t be reassured by his response…

Biden is teling us that, at a time when Americans need to feel confidence in their government, they will be going “Oh my God.” Not a great message.

Needless to say, if Sarah Palin said this about a McCain administration, the media world would be exploding…the double standard in the media does even more damage to their lagging brand.

Part of the problem is their “Obama love,” but we’re also seeing the media elite’s belief - prejudice - that anyone with an R behind their name is dumb. So, if they say something dumb, they must be dumb. A Democrat, like Biden, can make wildly inaccurate or outrageous comments and they are ignored…

On the stump recently, Sen. Biden declared he had “three words” for what the nation needs: “J-O-B-S.”

Lucky for him, his name isn’t Dan Quayle, or that would have followed him for the rest of his career.

She is dead on.

Biden’s pronouncement that Obama will invite a crisis that he will then botch is frightening. Why should voters elect an international crisis?

Well, Biden and Obama sure know how to reassure voters (sarcasm).

On Sunday, Biden warned that electing Obama would mean that America would face an “international crisis” because other nations would want to “test” such an inexperienced President.

This basically reinforces what all those many undecideds already know: that Obama’s inexperience and lack of Hillary-style strength puts the nation’s security at immediate risk and emboldens our enemies.

ABC reports that Biden is now playing the pay-no-attention-to-that-looming-international-crisis-behind-the-curtain act — pretending as though he never said them. No wonder, since the left-wing, prObama media is plainly covering for his multitude of gaffes. Meanwhile, Obama’s spin doctors have been flat-out lying about them, as the Real Clear Poltiics blog notes, claiming that Biden was referring to both McCain and Obama and indicating that any elected President would face an international challenge.

One, this is an obvious untruth, as Biden explicitly referred to Obama.

Two, John McCain has reassured voters that he can be counted on to protect and defend America and that rouge states would most certainly not dare to “test” McCain in the way that Biden promises they will “test” Obama.

Obama, for his part, has made the demonstrably dumb decision to back-up Biden’s comments. Incredibly, Obama himself agreed that he would face a national security crisis soon after taking office: “The next President is going to be tested no matter who it is,” Obama said today, after earlier noting that he expects the next President to be “severely tested.”

Severely tested?

This is utterly, utterly frightening. This sounds, to me, like Obama is inviting another war when that’s the last thing America needs. Obama’s remarks are a demonstration of precisely the kind of weakness and inexperience that Biden refers to.

Call me crazy, but if Biden and Obama are now basically guaranteeing an “international crisis” while McCain is promising nothing of the sort, who should we vote for? Why on earth should we vote for a guaranteed severe international crisis?

With two wars and economic troubles, Americans would be insane to vote in a President who invites severe tests and crisis. I think the President will have enough to deal with already.

A few weeks back, an Obama Presidency seemed inevitable. His lead in the RCP average was approaching double-digits.

Then came Joe the Plumber and Obama’s pledge to raise taxes and “spread the wealth around,” to remind voters that Barack’s economic plans bear close resemblance to socialism. Then came ads featuring Bill “the Terrorist” Ayers, reminding voters of Obama’s long relationships with anti-American radicals. Then came McCain’s fiesty debate performance, in which McCain hit Obama for spending more on negative ads than any candidate in history. Then came nationwide investigation of ACORN, the voter fraud group closely connected to the Obama campaign.

Suddenly, the Obama-loving media went into a panic, as Obama’s polling numbers have leveled off and McCain has, in less than a week, cut Obama’s polling lead in half. In a year when any other Democrat would be leading by 15-20 points, Obama is sitting on a 5 point lead with two weeks left. Embarrassing.

Obama’s troubles, however, just got worse.

Yesterday at a fundraiser in Seattle, Biden all but declared that Obama’s lack of experience and foreign policy weakness disqualifies him from the Presidency. Biden being Biden:

Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

“I can give you at least four or five scenarios from where it might originate.”

Ruh roh.

Double ruh roh!

Does Biden need a reminder of what side he’s supposed to be on? In one fell swoop, Biden has brought the importance of strength and experience back to the forefront, giving both a gift and a glowing endorsement to McCain. Instead of reassuring voters about Obama, Biden has raised valid doubts about Obama, and offered a fool-proof reminder of why he should not be elected commander-in-chief. Classic.

Obama’s inexperience and weaknessness make him a foreign policy liability. His promise to sit down with America’s worst enemies without preconditions makes him a foreign policy threat.

You’ve already got people like Marc Ambinder trying to spin this as a non-story that won’t harm Obama because voters already believe he can handle a crisis…well, I guess that’s true if you believe polls that weight 10% more Democrats than Republicans and still only have Obama up 5 points.

We agree with Joe the Plumber and Joe Biden. On the economy, Obama is a socialist who is going to raise your taxes and then redistribute YOUR money in order to “spread the wealth around.” On foreign policy, Obama is untested, inexperienced, and dangerous, and his election will surely prompt an international crisis. And these are both according to the Democratic nominees themselves!

Thanks, Joe, for your honesty! You were right!

P.S. If McCain can’t use these two together to make political hay, it’s just probably not a Republican year. Obama’s admission that he wants to “spread the wealth around” and Biden’s admission that Obama’s inexperience puts national security at grave risk should seal the deal against Obama for undecided voters.