Thursday, August 21, 2008

McCain's Housing Crisis. Who's the Elitist Now?

After many years of having Sean Hannity pollute the airwaves, I finally agree with something the right-wing spinhead said on his program Thursday: "People who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones, don't ya think?" The irony is that he was referring to Sen. Barack Obama and the many Democrats who've publicly admonished Sen. John McCain this week for owning a reputed 7-10 high-priced luxury residences all over the country. They've been attacking McCain, and rightfully so, because of the Republican's own accusations earlier in the campaign that the Democratic presumptive nominee is "an elitist." Funny how a black guy from a poor broken family who made his way through school on scholarships and owns one home is attacked as an elitist by a silver-spoon fed Navy brat with 7+ mansions and condos who portrays himself as everyman. And to listen to Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of the sorry right-wing attack dogs, you'd think everyone's been piling on poor old Johnny out of the blue. Hannity's indeed right: people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But it's McCain whose fragile house is shattering now. And now he and his mob are whining like little beeyaches about it. What a joke.

Hannity and Limbaugh relentlessly railed on about how Democrats like Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Al Gore, Howard Dean and Chris Dodd also have multiple homes, but you don't hear Democrats criticizing them. "Since when did democrats care about how many houses people own," Hannity asked with fake sincerity. Well Sean, let me makes this easy for ya pal: that's because unlike your desperate, crotchety, name-calling candidate, Obama isn't running around condemning anyone for being an elitist...until now that is. McCain started the elitist wars, not the Democrats. Remember, people in glass houses.....

Obama unveiled his new attack ad Thursday--a real beaut if I may say--where he's incredulous at McCain's lame response this week to a question about how many homes he in fact owns: "I think -- I'll have my staff get to you,...It's condominiums where -- I'll have them get to you." Huh? Wha? Would seems like a pretty easy question to answer. Are you that stinking rich that you don't even know how many homes you own? Either that or you're too old to remember, and therefore too old to be president. Either way, Johnnyboy, you've just became the gift that keeps on giving. You're clearly out of touch with Americans' economic anxiety. In fact, you're just out of touch period.

Even lamer than McCain's response to how many houses he owns was Hannity's utterly lame-ass defense of the land baron and his $100-million wife Cindy's collection of ritzy properties: "Does anybody talk about how he opened up his house to an orphan who needed a home?...Has Obama opened his house to anyone?" Are you kidding with this shit?! He then added that Obama's new ad "shows how desperate he is and how desperate the campaign is." No Sean, McCain's answer, and your pathetic justifications, show just how desperate you guys are. You can wet your collective pants all you want over the recent polls showing a statistical dead heat, but as NY Times columnist Frank Rich astutely pointed out Sunday, when it comes to historical polling, Obama's right where just about every other Democrat was at this point in the campaign with the exception of Michael Dukakis, who lead George Bush Sr. by 17 points. And remember what happened to him? But what's really ominous for McCain and the GOP, and they know it, is the significant state-by-state electoral college lead held by Obama. They're wetting their pants allright, but not in a good way.

McCain's entire campaign is built on Iraq, the surge and military blah blah blah. But only 15% of voters rank the war as their #1 issue. To most Americans, as in '92, it's still the economy, stupid. And that's where the Repubs know they're behind the eight ball big time.

HELP ELECT BARACK OBAMA PRESIDENT: Are we gonna let the Right Wing bullies frame this election and define Barack Obama? John McCain and the GOP are going to spend tends of millions on vicious attack ads and aggressive ground teams. Obama will need millions more to effectively combat the Republicans' desperate, race-baiting onslaught. I urge you to support Obama by sending the campaign whatever you can afford. There are many swing states this year--Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri among them. With a sizable war chest, Sen. Obama can win these states. We are committed to raising as much money as possible to help elect Barack Obama president. Click here to make a contribution. It's time to change America.


Anonymous said...

The Obama camp needs to absolutely tear McCain to pieces over this. Define McCain as the filthy rich guy who has more houses than he can count.

Anonymous said...

i hope the obama camp keeps hitting hard....because mccain can't even run on his record...that's why they have to make this about obama....NOW THE OBAMA CAMP WILL RETURN THE FAVOR AND LET EVERYBODY SEE THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN...AFTER 26 YEARS IN D.C. PEOPLE STILL DON'T KNOW THE REAL JOHN MCCAIN...IT' TIME THEY FOUND OUT !

Anonymous said...


The Senator was asked how many homes he owns. He could not answer the question and says staff will have to get back with the reporters. The staff replies that the McCains (which would include John) own 4 when they actually own at least 7.

Now the campaign is claiming that it's unfair because CINDY owns all the homes. Well, why in God's name couldn't John have said so to the reporters and why is his campaign staff so flippin' incompetent to have first stated 4 (when it's at least 7) and now 0?

Folks, unbelievably WAR HERO(tm) John McCain is hiding behind his multi-millionaire sugar mamma's skirt. He no longer has ANY public balls.

He cheats on his first wife and now has thrown his second wife under the bus (it's her fault we're the owners of over $13 million in palatial homes from coast to coast).

Anonymous said...

McCain, as did Kerry, signed a pre-nup agreement when he married his very wealthy wife. Should either of them face divorce, those multi houses would not be part of the settlement. The houses in question do not belong to McCain. He probbly doesn't even know how wealthy his wife is. And, it's doubtful if her houses were obtained through a shady deal with a criminal.

Obama was not an underpriviledged child, His step-father was a milliionaire and his grandparents well-off. Stop that lie about his poor childhood.

"Elite" does not apply only to wealth; look at the rich "bums" in our country. It's an attitude, taste, interest and values. I see nothing wrong with being "elite".

Anonymous said...


John Kerry did not call George Bush an elitist and then claim not to know how many houses he, or Teresa, owned.

If you see nothing wrong with being elite, why do you think the McCain campaign hit Obama over the head with the charge?

See the following link:

The first sentence is: "Not every United States senator would consider volunteering his private house—its interior and all its grounds—to casual sightseers, but just before Christmas 2003, Senator John McCain did just that, with the encouragement of his wife, Cindy."

HIS house. Not her house. HIS house. Later in the article is referenced at least one other home described as "our" home.

For political purposes, the Senator is putting it on his wife for having so many homes he can't count them all. What a dickless thing to do and Cindy has every right to be mad as hell.

If you want to talk about shady, the Hensley family fortune has ties to organized crime.

Anonymous said...


Andy Ostroy like so many liberals actually do not know the difference between "elitist" and "wealthy".

This is by far the most stupid and stretching post I have ever read here. The desperation of the left is beginning to show.

Obama's jumping on this stupid question like it is relevant was a very foolish move. The question of the number of houses each candidate owns may be a snicker on the McCain side, but damning on the Obama side.

Obama owns 1 house. That 1 house was purchased from his close political ally - Tony Rezko well under market value. Rezko is now a convicted felon. The damage meter for Obama on this one will be off the scales.

Anonymous said...


See, this is why the GOP has a well-earned reputation as being populated by the a giant sub-set of Americans - low information voters.

1. Obama did not purchase the house from Tony Rezko.
2. The seller of the home told Bloomberg News that the Obama's offer was the best one they received and that they did not cut the asking price.
3. Rezko's conviction is on charges totally unrelated to Senator Obama.

I won't even delve into the numerous associations John McCain has with convicted felons. There's too much information that would take too much time to recount here.

Lastly, if you do not think that in a time where hundreds of thousands of families are being severely affected by the mortgage and credit issues and McCain's responses are:

1. To blame homeowners first.
2. To state his staff will have to get back to reporters regarding how many homes he owns.
3. To first state he owns 4 (when the McCains own at least 7).
4. To later claim all the homes are Cindy's so as to try and dodge the issue by using his wife as a shield.

If you think this is going to have no effect on the millions of Americans who are worried about the economy, their shrinking home values and their financial future - you are politically tone deaf.

Anonymous said...

Cindy files her taxes separately from McCain. The houses belong to her.

Rezko got the discount for Obama and contributed thousands to his campaign.

And when did "rich" ever stop anyone from becoming President or a nominee? Roosevelt, Kennedy; Bush I and II; Reagan. and the number of rich candidates is endless. Now rich seems to be a requirement to becoming President.

Franklin Roosevelt was an elitist. How many of us use a cigarette holder? (joke)

Bush II is certainly not an elitist despite his wealth.

That his tastes are elite is not what makes Obama a poor choice for President.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of Cindy's tax records, where are they? The GOP hounded Teresa Kerry mercilessly for hers.

Tony Rezko did not get the Obama's a discount on the house. How do I know? The sellers sayeth so.

Charles Keating contributed many times that of Rezko's contributions to McCain's campaigns and received 22 and a half years of prison sentences for fraud, racketeering and conspiracy. His shenanigans cost the American taxpayer billions.

Tony Rezko is a two-bit player compared to Charles Keating, who defrauded thousands of people out of their life savings.

Anonymous said...

McCain was cleared of all charges in the Keating mess. OBama has no such clearance in his association.

I like your joke about getting info about the sale from the sellers. If you can't trust someone involved whom can you trust?

"A two-bit player" "compared to Keating." So ethics is a relative issue. You can be a "little bit" crooked and it doesn't count. No, it's like you can't be "a litle bit pregnant."

Anonymous said...

Why does Obama need clearance? There are no charges against him, unlike McCain.

I do not understand your reticence to believe the people who sold the house to the Obamas. There's no reason for them to lie as they are under no legal jeopardy.

Yes, ethics can be relative. Telling your child a little white lie in order to protect them from issues they cannot understand is quite a bit different rationalizing paying lawsuits is cheaper than fixing a known defect on an automobile that might kill people.

Both are unethical behaviors, right? Can we agree that one is a bit more acceptable than the other?

If McCain's supporters want to bring up an association with Rezko by Obama, it's quite easy and correct for Obama supporters to point out McCain's much closer relationship with the dirtier Charles Keating.

Now, has John McCain figured out how many homes his wife owns?

Anonymous said...

McCain (McWorse) panicked at the question on the # of houses he & his filthy rich wife owned. He did NOT anticipate that kind of question was coming at him.

McWorse responds well ONLY if he knows the questions in advance. His close buddy Joe Lieberman has lots of connections with the AIPAC controlled news media bosses at CNN, Faux Spews, ...etc...he most likely has a way to get those big events questions available for McWorse...just like the last church hall meeting of questions and answers event.

McWorse will be the worse in any conflict. He will reach for that RED Button before anything else.


I can assure that Joe Lieberman continue what Cheyney, George W, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Feith...and the rest of the Zionist gang have started. All at the expense of our United States. Our young men & men are dying for pure lies and our nations wealth is spent at more that 19 billion dollars per month while the American people are struggling to make ends meet.

Wake up America...and do what is right!

Anonymous said...

...this thread is all about more wealth envy from left.

Its too bad more liberals don't look at the decisions they have made to get to where they are today. It can't be their fault that they aren't as successful as the other guy. Liberals are too smart for that. Someone else must have cheated.

Anonymous said...

12:40 First, you say it's so. No proof about the sellers.

2. Sellers could be best friends or recipients of "a deal" for complicity.

3. McCain was cleared of charges. McCain was cleared of charges. McCain was cleared of charges.

4. Obama is yet to be charged or maybe "pay offs" are legally a crime. I am not a lawyer.

Anonymous said...

Who cares about McCain's houses?

What you all need to be concerned about is the lawsuit filed yesterday in PA to seek a restraining order against Obama from running for POTUS.

It's not frivolous and it's not a joke. The one filed in IL regarding Barry lying on his State Bar application isn't a joke either.

Nor is the fact that Obama was named in opening statements in the Rezko trial by Patrick Fitzgerald's team as part of the corruption that is still being investigated in Chicago. Blagojevich was the other name and he already knows he's going down.

Instead of whining about how many houses McCain has, try investigating the above legal troubles of Obama and then decide which will be more damaging and explosive.

Time to grow up or grow a pair, which ever is needed more desparately.

And no this isn't from a Republican, this is from a 30 year member of the democratic party.

Anonymous said...

I am so glad people are putting this subject on the front burner.

Last night, a program about psychopathic behaviour was broadcast on a Canadian station, explaining in great detail the persons who highly lack remorse and shame can be easily found around those who make the most money. In order to justify and reinforce this type of behaviour, they surround themselves with others of the same character.

This kind of psychopathic-mental-disorder (as it was described) is now coming from people in high positions of government, pro-neoconservative America churches and the MSM. And it's upper crust members can be easily characterized as pyschopath's in the plain view that they show themselves to be rampant hypocrites without any thought of America's own impulsive destructive defects. Putting them in the same transport by the descriptions made from that psycho-analyst.

She also mentioned how mass murderers develope a particular state or "wall" of extreme-self denial to continue and unconsciously carry on in this mindset, absent of any pity.

Blank stares are not always on the menu.

Many wealthy mafia crime lords and mass killers are highly intellectual, yet are guided by blind lust rather than feelings, and can play any role so long as it leads to the rewards.
Some of history's most famous mafia killers were psychopaths with huge ego's who also had weak snake-like spines. So in order to sustain themselves, they need lots and lots of muscle around them.

Some can be the most brutal of all killers and yet would shrink from any forced confrontation or cry like a child with a face to face physical threat. The psycho-analyst in the broadcast described these kinds of people as the worst cowards on the planet, yet they thrive on control and submission of others.

Which is why I could easily picture people like Bush, Cheney and the many other psychopaths in most government/elite circles as being absolutely terrified of the thought of death.

But, then watching a recent show of Stewart and Colbert make light of the torture and mass death going on in Iraq, to drive a point across oon how horribly psychopathic the hypocrites running the media truly are. But if America can still laugh about this choking issue. Then no matter how it is presented, the mass of psycho-nerds that are about to run the wagon off the cliff will have alot of Americans hitching a ride.

Anonymous said...

12:52 McCain answered the questions asked the other night quickly and decisively as if he had considered some of the issues before that night. However, Obama had to lower his eyes and really concentrate before giving an answer about "evil", "beginning of life"; and most of the other questions, which most adults have considered and formed opinions by the time they're thirty.

MCCain was caught off guard about the houses because they're not his and he probably didn't know. He had to grapple with admitting that those houses belonged to his wife.

3:45 It's been documented that serial killers as a group all tortured and hurt animals when they were children. The Bush book by the psychiatrist said Bush put fire crackers under the shells of turtles and then lighted them. But, many people who are not clinically psychotic believe in the real presence of evil residing in other human beings and they are taught by their relition to kill the evil doers. Our laws provide for the execution of evil doers. Those people are not all "crazy". In your comments were you telling us to watch out for Obama because he never shows any emotion? Whom are we to be wary of in our government? All?

Anonymous said...

3:22 I haven't heard that PA news and the restraining order for Obama. Where can I check ig out?

A. Magnus Publius said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
A. Magnus Publius said...

I hate to break it to you folks, but Obama and McCain both serve the same Wall Street masters, and both are members of the global socialist front called the Council on Foreign Relations. That's why both want to go to war with Iran, piss off Russia and get the rest of us all killed while they hide out in their pre-stocked bunkers under the Rockies.

Neither one will reduce the regulatory burden on the American people, reduce their tax burden or stand up to the corporations that readily buy influence and write the legislation that congress passes. The democrat vs. republican soap opera is just that - a soap opera. It's meant to distract you while the real aristocracy (Read: the CFR) robs us all blind.

Anonymous said...

Liberals are the INTELLECTUAL elites.

Anonymous said...


1. I didn't claim anything that is not available in the public record and even cited my source, Bloomberg News for the information about the sellers of Obama's house. Look it up instead of living in denial.

2. Do you realize how incredibly stupid it is to argue "could be" scenarios? Stick to facts. You are far more likely to find the truth there than in ludicrous hypotheticals.

3. Obama was never charged and isn't going to be charged. McCain's connection to Keating goes far deeper than that of Rezko to Obama.

4. It's painfully obvious you are not a lawyer.

It's going to be fun watching Joe Biden slap McCain silly.

Anonymous said...

Cindy McCain owns those houses, not John McCain. John doesn't really care about them, he spends most of his living time in his VA townhouse.

Basically, vote on the real issues and a candidate's true character and political leanings.

People are hypnotized with Obamamania and his Obammunism. Good fodder for Obama posters here. Posters about him reflect this puppy dogs, doves and rainbows feeling. The Obama Utopia.

If Obama doesn't get POTUS in 2008 and if he can stay pretty clean, do some good things as Senator, and then become Governor of IL, he could be unstoppable in 2012 or 2016. Scary stuff.

I would dearly love to see a Jewish, African-American woman as POTUS. It's not race or gender that makes it for me though. It's political beliefs that matter, and socialism is bad for everybody, (accept those high in government or high-level academia) especially poor people, of all races. Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, no thanks.

His 'Change', 'Hope' and 'Progress' mantras are actually somewhat self-mocking. Making your own Obama posters is totally addicting.
I laughed so hard I almost had a breakdown. LOL!

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
pretend to be moderate

move towards the center fast
enrage your Left wing early

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
befriend a bomber

pushing for change at all costs
sacrifices must be made

absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
only feel and hope

please force people to change
change can only be good

All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. Without freedom of speech, there can be no real freedom.
Make Some Obama Posters NOW!
Che Makes Money for Capitalists
Help Halt Terrorism Now!


Anonymous said...

Biden seemed to be the best choice. Now, after hearing his first speech and seeing how the campaging is going, he is a disastrous choice. He so out-shined Obama in strength, courage, knowledge and force of personality, it made Obama's past perfrmance as the nominee look pathetically weak and unfocused. We have another "Chency/Bush" "Vp as President" situation.

If we'd wanted Biden as President we would have voted for him.

Anonymous said...

It was unbelievably poor judgment by Obama to choose a man as v.p. who has declared and the declaration has been recorded that he, Obama, is not ready nor fit to be President. And it will weaken Biden and the ticket if claims he didn't mean it; it was just political rhetoric. Biden didn't say that about any of his other opponents during the race.

Anonymous said...

Reagan picked George "Voodoo Economics" Bush. Kennedy picked Lyndon "Stop Kennedy" Johnson. Both clearly showed poor judgment (*rolls eyes*).

Some Americans have no grasp of history.

Anonymous said...

Reagan and Kennedy were not so low in the polls as Obama. Obama has enough baggage without a v.p. that has no confidence in him. Or, maybe we're all to expect, hope, believe Biden will be another Cheney and rule the house Biden is sure "butch" enough.

You're right about those no-grasp Americans. Bush (Cheney) should never have been elected for a second term.

Anonymous said...

Actually, when Reagan picked Bush and when Kennedy picked Johnson they were BEHIND in the polls.

Bush should not have been elected Governor of Texas, much less President of the United States.

Anonymous said...

I hear on TV Kennedy and Reagan were behind in the polls when they chose their v.p. but find no "google" reference to support. No matter. I just hope Biden brings in Delaware for Obama the was Johnson brought Texas for Kennedy. It will then be worth the "dissing" Obama got from his v.p.

Anonymous said...

How fuked-up is it when the person who got the most votes in the primary wasn't even vetted for the 2nd spot on the ticket or even given a heads up that she wasn't even in the running. The proofs in the pudding(AS they say).This is the same party that made William Jefferson Clinton in to a RACIST to make Obama the great Savoir. The only way clinton supporters should even think about supporting the Obama ticket is if Obama himself stands up at the convention and apoligize's to the clinton's in person and to the rest of country for his and his people's use of the race card in the primaries. And even then you have think is this someone you want to run this country,someone who will do anything to get elected,EVEN USE RACE

Anonymous said...

6:39 is 100% right. And, it wasn't just Obama and his ugly campaign that did Hillary in -- it was: Dean, Kennedy, Richardson, Polosi, Edwards, Dowd, and the Democratic Pary as a whole who dumped her big time for the "guy" and the one least likely to win. And the "thinking" behind that has not been revealed. I can't imagine such stupidity.

But, after the primary, that Obama overlooked Hillary as v.p. shows the depth of his poor judgment.He has shown he would do anything to win but make the one move that might have gotten him the presidency.

All_I_Can_Stands said...

To 7:28PM:

It's going to be fun watching Joe Biden slap McCain silly.

Even if Biden is able to, you seem quite comfortable with a candidate that needs to hide behind somebody else.

"Content to be Weak" seems to be common among the Left. Now you are content to have a weak POTUS candidate that can't stand on his own two feet and needs somebody else to fight for him.

You guys are cracking me up.

Anonymous said...

For Biden to protect Obama and attack McCain he will have to, as they all say, "throw McCain under the bus" because he has said publicly that McCain is a fine man and his good friend. But "throwing people under the bus" seems like "business as usual" for the Obama campaign.

Anonymous said...

Again we have on display the ignorance of people who have no appreciation of history or how political campaigns work. 9:46 simply joins the ranks of those who publicly display how uninformed they are.

Do yourself a favor and look up the history of the VP nominee in the role of political attack dog.


John McCain has thrown himself and his manufactured "maverick" image under the bus. The attack angles that will be used by the Dems were all created by McCain himself.

I personally like and respect most of my Republican neighbors and have told them so. I also work with them on community projects. That I disagree with them on matters of public policy and will do so publicly does not mean I have thrown our friendship or my respect for them away.

Anonymous said...

11:47 I know your Republican neighbors are thrilled and honored that you have deigned to still consider some of them your
friends despite their political views and probably their "uninformed" positions and possibly their total lack of appreciation of history.

History notwithstanding Obama has shown no spine/strength/inclination so far in defending himself or attacking his opponents. The most he has done is to have replied with a sarcastic comment or observation. And, McCain has wisely copied Obaba's M.O, and is playing clips of Obama "throwing himself under the bus." The lastest one I saw was Obama defending his position for the death of babies who survive abortion.

We'll see if Biden follows your lead and sticks to issues when he criticizes his good friend McCain.

Anonymous said...


My neighbors are mature enough to understand that people can be friends and have respect for each other while disagreeing about issues - and that is not throwing anyone under a bus.

Get it?

For someone with no apparent spine to defend himself, Obama managed in the face of whithering attacks to take down the biggest political machine in the Democratic Party and not only leads in the national polls but more importantly in the electoral college race against McCain.

Anonymous said...

To those who complain about Hillary not being vetted: is it not possible that Hillary told Barack she did not want to be Vice President?

Also, if Hillary is to be accorded respect for 18 million votes why is it that some Hillary supporters will not give Obama his due? No one knows exactly the vote totals but the fact is that Obama won more pledged delegates than Clinton and that, combined with superdelegates, is how a nominee is selected.

As an Obama supporter from the beginning, I wholeheartedly appreciate what Hillary was able to achieve and would have supported her should she have been the nominee as I am a Democrat and someone who supports the policies of the party. What I simply cannot understand is someone who supported Clinton for her experience and goals voting for John McCain, who is the antithesis of what Hillary has worked for her whole adult life.

Of course those are not my words, those are Hillary's.

Anonymous said...

12:13 If one is thrown under the bus he is dumped, deserted, cut off from further contact, dissed. Of course mature people don't throw each other under the bus. That is obvious. That's the point. Obama has "thrown people under the bus." The first I heard was when he "dissed" his white grandmother.

Get this:

Obama did not take down Hillary. The Democratic Party took down Hillary; the media took down Hillary; Dean, in particular took down Hillary. Sexists took down Hillary. Obama was the beneficiary of sexism being stronger than racism. He will not take down McCain.

2:04 If Hillary had been vetted or offered the vice presidency, she would have been in the beneficial position of being able to say that she was offered but preferred to continue to work hard for (fill in the blanks) in the Senate. The Govenor of LA did just that and has saved face.

Hillary supporters are furious that the Democratic Party had so little regard for her. Dean and the FL MI fiasco were costly to Hillary. Not only that, everybody who was for Hillary did not see OBama as an acceptable alternative. Geraldine Ferraro is one who has gone public with that point of view.

Again, as Ferraro said, her country comes before her party. She and others who were for Hillary simply do not think Obama is ready to be prsident. Hillry said it, Biden said it and women who were for Hillary are saying it: Obama is not ready to be President. If he were he would not have chosen Biden.

Anonymous said...

Why is Michelle Obama giving a major speech at the Democratic Convention>? I don't remembef Jackie, Nancy, Barbara or Laura appearing at the Convention and being given "air' time. Are we officially getting "two for the price of one?" What's her salary?

Anonymous said...


The charge was that Biden would throw McCain under the bus. Stick to the point. Oh, and I don't think Obama has cut his grandmother off from further contact since he visited with her in Hawaii while on his recent vacation.

You are completely delusional if you think Hillary lost the campaign due to sexism or anything other than Obama running a more effective campaign. And get off the FL and MI revisionist history. Hillary's campaign agreed to and supported the rules until it became necessary for her to lobby for a change in them to suit her needs. That's not leadership. That's gamesmanship.

Oh, and do not pretend to speak for all Hillary voters. At least 70% of Hillary supporters are on board with Obama and more will come over after the convention because healing is taking place between the camps (thank goodness!!).


Just because you do not remember does not mean it did not happen.

Laura Bush spoke in 2000 and 2004 and will speak at the 2008 GOP convention. Barbara Bush spoke in 1988 and 1992.

BTW, Cindy McCain will speak at the GOP convention.

Anonymous said...

I'd rather have a guy in the White House who doesn't know how many houses he has than one who doesn't know when life begins.

Get a clue. No one cares about McCain's houses. What's gonna energize the right is values and the war. And on these, McCain is right.

Anonymous said...

Yet the guy who claims to know when life begins was willing to let his teenage daughter make the decision if she would have an abortion.

Grab a real clue. Most people in this country support a woman's right to choose and most people in this country do not support the war in Iraq.

Anonymous said...

That is the charge as it was spoken on TV : Biden will throw McCain his good friend "under the bus." That was said after the station ran the clip of Biden praising McCain.

Of course Obama is seeing his grandmother now. she appeared in one of his ads. By "throwing granny under the bus." it didn't mean he would never see her again. It meant he humiliated her and called her a racist for all the world to hear. But, even had he meant never to speak to her again, he would soon amend that notion if it would hurt his winning the presidency. He will do anything to win.

Even to this day many in the media are admitting Obama was helped by their coverage. When the Obama campaign complaned that McCain heard Warren's questions first, they conveniently forgot that Hillary got every debate question first so Obama had the advantage of amending and refining his response.

When Obama could include Fl and MI because the voters, not Hillary, were furious, he chose not to agree to suit his needs not the needs of the voters. I guess you consider that running a wise, campaign. We'll see if it pays off in the general.

If you don't recognize sexism as it was displayed in the primary, you are undoubtedly a sexist.

I am not speaking for ALL the Hillary voters, I am speaking for the 30 percent of the Hillary supporters who are now represented by a commercial for McCain stating that we, the thirty percent, will vote for McxCain and not Obama. We (the thirty pencent - you idiot -- "we" doesn't mean the entire world) are not voting for Obama. Some of "us" will not vote at all.

If the other wives spoke it was not memorable because they do not "wear the pants" in the family. Don't charge that as a sexist remark. They were just not "liberated" yet.

Michelle's may not be remembered either because today on TV her handler said she wouldn't be talkihg about issues, just what a super person her husband is. The girls will be on hand too to praise daddy a la Norman Rockwell probably - much like their Christams card TV ad. Theres will be no giggles and "yada, yada, yda, Daddy talks too much." tonight.

Anonymous said...

No matter where one stands on abortion, it would be hoped that the decision was made on whether or not abortion was taking away the right to life of a little blob of meaningless cells, or depriving a human being of having a chance the mother had of living his/her life.

That Obama at forty five, after all the legislation on abortion he has influenced has not reached a firm decision on whether the fetus is a human based on whatever he holds as an authority, is really unbelievable and frightening.

He apparently has given more thought to -- I was going to make a point -- but I can't think of anything he's indicated that he's given considerable thought to. Maybe that's why he flip flops so often.

There is no debate, however, that a baby who is not killed during an abortion and lives independent of his mother is a human being entitled to the right to live.

Anonymous said...

6:40 During the 2000 campaign MCCain was asked by a reporter what he would do if his teen aged daughter wanted an abortion. McCain said she'd decide. Then before the interview was over he said that it would be a family decision He was criticized for that.

Dumb to criticize an unknown. We have no idea what influence, argument, conditions, threats, or any other persuasive means the family which always includes the mother would use to save the baby. You are clutching at straws.

At least he wouldn't throw her out or the house as so many religious fathers do, nor would he rush her off for an abortion as so many mothers do to protect their daughters from furious fathers. If they are Muslim fathers they might kill their pregnant daughter. McCain would talk it over and influence her decision.

However, the truth is, MCCain had probbly never considered the possibility of his teen ager becoming pregnant because of the good training she received at home. Many are forgetting the responsibility involved in educating our children.

Anonymous said...


With all due respect, you are a loon.

That's as nice as I can put it for someone who makes a claim based on flawed memory and when presented with fact to refresh memory turns and replies with a lame throwaway line instead of admitting a mistake; who defines a term ("under the bus") and when that very definition is used to refute your claim your response is as though you knew your own definition was crap.

Look up cognitive dissonance.

The candidate you chose to support in the primaries/caucuses I assume you supported for a reason. Either you liked her personally or you liked her policies. In either case voting for McCain flies in the face of your original vote as well as the stated wishes of the candidate you supported.

If you abhor the process of the nomination or the media, work to change the process or the media. Crapping on Hillary's life's work by voting for McCain is absurd.

Anonymous said...


John McCain is sure life begins at conception.

John McCain would allow his 15-year old daughter to make the final decision if she would have an abortion. This means he entertained the notion that she would decide to have an abortion.

Can you not see the contradiction? If he is 100% pro-life, he would not entertain the notion of his minor daughter having an abortion.

Anonymous said...

7:49 Your comments are worthless as a rsponse to 7:24 because all your points were rebutted in that commentary.

Subtlety is not your forte, obviously.

I'll recap:
1. McCain said daughter will decide.
2. McCain quickly changed and said family will decide.
3. "Family" is code-word for parents.

You obviously do not have children.

When "family" decides the parents always get their way. They do what they have to do to convince. bribe, threaten, reason or whatever it take to have it their way. The end is the same but "family" talks are much better than forcing the child to have a baby without the "family talk" charade. If forced, the child can refuse to eat, cry all the time, and she can try to abort, etc. etc. etc. When the "family" decides (again, that means parents) they get their way with a degree of cooperation. I have know parents who pass the grandchild off as their own child.

As you mature you'll better understance nuance. Perhaps when you have your own family you'll understand the complexity of parent/child realtionships and especially with a teen ager.

In the meantime play with the idea that everything cannot be taken literally and everything is not black and white. Oh, please understand -- black and white does not always mean race.

Anonymous said...

There will be nothing subtle about my reply to you:


I have two children, BTW.

If the context of McCain's commentary were clear, why did his campaign office have to issue clarification of his remarks which was a revision of his original statement?

I repeat: McCain now unequivocally states he knows when life begins but hedged on whether his 15-year old daughter would have an abortion.

Anonymous said...

I had mixed feelings about Ted Kennedy's speech. On the good side, he didn't even sound drunk during his speech. Unfortunately, I was really hoping he'd come with the truth about Mary Jo Kopechne, but was disappointed he didn't mention it.

Anonymous said...

You know, 11:57, you got me thinking...

I wonder if John McCain is going to mention the wife and three kids he ditched so he could nail a beer heiress who would be his political sugar mama, or the information he gave to or propaganda he made for the North Vietnamese enemy, the POWs he abandoned, the prostitutes he utilized or the America he claimed he did not fully love or the fire on the USS Forrestal that claimed the lives of more than 130 and injured more than 60?

Anonymous said...

Michelle Obama wasn't even proud of her country as an adult until this year.

Maybe you would have done better as a POW than McCain. How do you think YOU would have done in 3+ years of captivity?

Anonymous said...

All you moralists who are writing in and listings the sins of MCCain and Kennedy and anyboy else who suits your purpose, forget, if you ever knew, about the long list of sinners in the Bible who "saw the light" and were redeemed and served the purpose of good.

The challenge in all elections is for the voters to determine the authencity of the proclimations of the candidates. Have they truly repented and are now upright or is it P.R. crap?

Anonymous said...

Shades of Kerry;

Michelle was against America before she was for it.

Anonymous said...

Was Obama haveing a premature senior moment when he didn't know what town he was in? I've heard of early onset of Alzheimer's.

Anonymous said...

Michelle said the American way is to keep your word.

Obama has not kept his word on drilling, spying, and separation of chruch and state.

Anonymous said...

The list of moral failings and misdeeds by McCain were simply in response to the asinine Mary Jo Kopechne comment (as well as the predictable, and stupid, back and forth about candidate flip-flops) and meant to convey that any politician/human being can be called to the mat for his or her behavior. So what is the ultimate point? Not a darn thing. All it does is reinforce an already formed opinion and is the rhetorical equivalent of "nyah, nyah, nyah!!!!"

The question should be which candidate for President is proposing the proper solutions for our domestic problems as well as a means of repairing our standing internationally? In my opinion, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton are heads and shoulders above John McCain in this regard.

Anonymous said...

I was giving Kennedy a compliment - that he wasn't drunk for once. Can't a guy reach across the isle and give a liberal a compliment these days ?

I'm not sorry for bringing up Mary Jo Kopechne. Every time I see Ted Kennedy I think of the poor innocent girl that Ted Kennedy left to die in 4 feet of water to save his political career. This wasn't Vietnam, this was in America.

Anonymous said...

Anyone with normal intelligence and interest can propose solutions for our domestic problems and any other problems our country faces. In fact, we choose our candidatae based on his agreement with our solutions. The issue is who can implement the proposals; and even more basic; who will keep his word about the proposals he has promised to implement.

It's the old AA slogan that has now become generally accepted as applying to all situations:

"It's easy to talk the talk but you have to walk the walk."

I don't think Obama can walk the walk and I'm not even sure he will stay on the same talk during a term as President.

Anonymous said...

10:42 Your attempt at a joke defeats your accusation that Kennedy cruelly left a woman to die to save his political career. He was drunk. Do you get it? He probably wasn't aware he had a political career. You know -- like he wasn't drunk last night and could thus perform. When drunk or on drugs people do not know what they are doing; they do not make good judgments and they don't remember what happpened. Ask Bush, or Cheney or anybody on the long list of politicains who are either alcohol or drug addicted.

Behavior under "the influence" is not acceptable because it is irresponsible to become a addict; and if one does, it is irresponsible not to get treatment.

Anonymous said...

Michelle Obama loves America now because she and Obama have achieved the "American Dream." "For the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country." she said during a campaign speech.

The fact is Michelle Obama was born into the American dream and there are many in this country now who long for her advantages.

She was born into a family having both a father and mother, both of whom loved their children and neither was on drugs or alcohol.

Her father had a secure job with the city that provided a salary large enough that his wife could be a stay-at-home-mom and take care of her children. She did not have to get a job to make ends meet. The children had the advantage, it apears of music lessons. The children didn't have to work to contribute to the family funds. Nor did the children have a period after school of no supervision because both parents worked. And, an added advantage, Michelle and her brother had access to affirmative action. It also appears that they had health insurance or the father would not have been able to function so long with his illness. I'm sure he had a good pension because most city employees over the country did at that time.

Not every one wants to run for President. Some dream of those sound, secure arrangements she and her brother had.

There may be many now who for the first time have reason not to be proud of their country. You know -- the bitter ones, who, God love them, still continue to love America and send their children to fight in Iraq.

Anonymous said...


Fair enough. Candidates propose and we choose based on our agreements with those proposals.

Now let's address the additional issues you introduced of ability to implement policy and "word keeping": given the current political status in Washington where Democrats have majorities in both houses and will increase those advantages during the upcoming elections, which of the two candidates is more likely to be able to implement his policies? Clearly the answer to that question is Barack Obama. As to the second issue, both Obama and McCain have flipped positions and I've yet to see a credible argument as to why one or the other is less apt to change his position in the future.

Anonymous said...


If you are going to quote someone you should probably use the actual words said by the person:

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Here's another quote you might be interested in reading:

"I did not really love America until I was deprived of her company."

People make injudicious comments. Leave it at that as there's nothing more to read into it.

I find it incredibly hypocritical of anyone who preaches reliance on self, belief in hard work, education and individual achievement who is now branding the Obamas as "un-American" when they embody everything most seem to hold as the highest ideals of the American promise.

The Obamas are a shining example to all who have higher aspirations and are willing to work to achieve them. Yet there are knuckleheads who want to make a specious claim that they are elitists who come from privilege or had great advantages.

It's an absurd caricature, especially when compared to the McCains.

Anonymous said...

So, Obama and Michelle want to be Mr. and Mrs. President So what. There are many motivations for such ambition. service to others is only one of them.

No one is knocking those two for their lofty goals. It's that they achieved the place they have now reached by the advantages they had that are available only in America. As the other person said, Michelle was born into the American Dream with its advantages. They are perhaps considered un_American because they attended a church that preaches anti-American sentiments and Obama's friend bombed NY. Oh yeah, there's also Michelle's saying America was mean and she hadn't been proud until now.

No one said Michelle's advantage was elitist. Here advantages were what most Americans had at one time. Most Americans long for that now.

Anonymous said...

I love how Michelle claims that the Obama's "Just paid off their college loans" yet she obviously had enough money to buy her $1.9 Million house.

They are not exactly "just like us" yet they are trying to make themselves "just like us".

Anonymous said...


Congratulations. You are a shining example of the double standard that only applies to those who come from modest means to a position of prominence...

Do as we tell you and you can achieve but when you achieve don't expect to be praised for your effort and accomplishment, you are simply a product of what we have given you.

John McCain has been a product of the oldest from of affirmative action - affirmatively being born of elite parents and given every possible advantage solely based on his being born then marrying a fabulously wealthy woman (or as when applied to John Kerry - pimping himself out to a sugar mamma).

It's noted that none have reacted to McCain's slight at America, but then the GOP's cognitive dissonance is well-established.

Anonymous said...

1:48 You miss the point as usual. That has made you recognizable even as Anonymous.

Michelle Obama said she'd never been proud of her country until now that Obama is running. She said they had acheived the American Dream.

She and you miss the point It is possible for everybody, still, and she's an outstanding example of that. She was born into favorable circumnstances for her success.


THAT used to be the American Dream. The goal has been to have a good life comprised of a family, one income sufficient so the mother could "raise" the children; a secure job with benefits that assured a healthful, secure lifestyle and a comfortable retirement. Usually the dream included a car, a house, and a nice and safe neighborhood. Black people thought they couldn't acheive that, although her family had, so the affirmative action program was started for them.

That pretty much is the American Dream still. Few want to be super rich; few want to be President although they want a country where it is possible for anybody to be President if motivated and qualified; and, the America Dream includes safety, peace and goodwill.

The average income for fulfilling that dream has usually been somewhere within the Middle Income bracket. Wealth is not required. Wealth is not always considered the apex of achievement, either. Most Americans are content with the "Dream" as described above. They consider then that they HAVE achieved. And they are correct. If being President were the criterion all would fail but one every eight years. As an aside, Bill Clinton is the last President who was not rich; at one time his mother was on welfare. Actually, so was Reagan's family, but he was rich from his acting career.

John McCain did certainly benefit from his family's long line of success. Obama's children will benefit from his. That's part of the "Dream". One's children will do better.

You seemed to infer that affirmative action was being criticized. Not at all. Affirmative action was requireed to help a people who had been brutalized for years get on their feet. Affirmative Action was mentioned in regard to Michelle in that she didn't seem to appreciate that as being something to be proud of from her country and as something she benefited from. True, her country had slaves, but equally true, her country tries to help alleviate the damage done to black people.

Your remarks about Kerry and McCain are sexist. Don't ask me to explain that.

You're probably the one who didn't understand the joke behind McCain's saying he was no longer beating his wife. There's an old sentiment perhaps only among old people which is that you don't really appreciate something until you'velost it. It's often used to explain how very dear you hold something in the present. He's not to be blamed for speaking from the culture of his country which he loves.

Anonymous said...

My goodness.

I spend some time reading these threads for entertainment value and an occasional bit of new information. This last reply by 6:55 is one of the most entertaining, and not in a way the author intended, I've encountered.

Thanks for the giggle. It's put me in a great mood for watching Senator Clinton tonight.

Go Hillary! Stick it to McCain!!

Anonymous said...

7:41 This is not the first time you've shared your amusement at the comments on this blog. I'm surprised such snarling arrogance isn't expressed by your use of the royal "we" and your writing: "We are amused."

Or have your meds or your keepers convinced you finally that you are not Napoleon?

Anonymous said...

Is your supposed clairvoyance the product of sensory deprivation or plain old delusion?

Go Hillary! Stick it to McCain!!

Anonymous said...

Can I break in and say that someone who tells another that "as usual" they don't understand an issue, then adds a very convoluted and windy reply filled with assumption and presumtuous claims and lastly makes ad hominem attacks is in no position to call anyone else "arrogant".

Anonymous said...

No way. No how. No McCain!!!!

Marvelous job, Senator Clinton.

Anonymous said...

Golly, gee, you folks are touchy.

All a kid wanted to do was to keep giving you folks "giggles"
so you'd keep coming back. You have so much to offer.

Anonymous said...

Hillary was fantastic. What a mistake the Democratic Party made when they dumped her.

Anonymous said...

My wife was torn between Hillary and Barack in the primaries. She voted for Barack, I believe, because I was so passionate about his candidacy.

Last night, she wept. I asked her about the tears and she told me she is so proud of her decision to become a Democrat and more firm in her resolve to forward the principles of the party that were not only so eloquently presented by Hillary but also by folks like Lilly Ledbetter and the lady who was a former mill worker from North Carolina.

Like her, I cannot imagine an America that continues to condone unequal pay for women who do equal work as their male counterparts. Like her, I cannot imagine an America that continues to condone tax breaks for companies to ship jobs overseas. Like her, I cannot imagine an America that wants to continue down the same path as we've experienced the last 8 years; and I'm so proud that we have a leaders in the Democratic Party like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama to challenge us to work together and raise all boats despite our petty differences instead of exploiting our differences in order to maintain power and benefit the few at the expense of the many.

Brava, Hillary Clinton!

Yes, we can!!!

Anonymous said...

What Democrat could remain unmoved by Hillary's inspirational speech and what Democrat could reject our fabulous platform and what we stand for. There are no "petty" differences. There are major concerns that Obama cannot implement the program, or even worse, will join the Republicans to reach agreement.

Bill said it all when he asked us would we rather have a President with whom we agree somewhat and who will succeed in passing some programs or a Presdient with whom we agree totally but who may not get anything done.

Brava Hillary. Our day will come.

Anonymous said...

My wife and I were not thinking of differences within the party, we were thinking of differences between Americans as a whole.

Winning WWII, going to the moon, stopping Communism, defeating Al-Qaeda and achieving energy independence - these are not red or blue, liberal or conservative goals. They were/are American goals.

Bill himself said that he was not referring to the current candidates with his comment. Given a Democratic Senate and House, which there will be, a Democratic President will be able to implement legislation as well as protect the advances made and policy goals of the Democratic Party.

Anonymous said...

Do we all remember the helplessness we suffered and the horror the country suffered when there was a Republican President and a majority of Republican's in Congress? I, a Democrat, think it would not be a bad idea to have a Republican President and a Democratic Congress to perhaps rein in what seems to be obsessive party loyalty on both sides. Then, seeing no other way, maybe the two parties will compromise on the goals which all Americans share.

I don't trust Obama with "yes-men" at his beck and call. There are too many self-interest causes and too much "if you scratch my back I'll scratch yours" in party relationships and deals.

Anonymous said...


Would you vote for Hillary Clinton for President in 2008?

Anonymous said...

I heard Bill's speech tonight. I cannot believe we passed over Hillary and Bill for the "great unknown." Obama may be all we could hope for, but I have really seen no concrete evidence of that.

There has been a dumbing of the Democratic Party for some years now. We should have gone with the candidate we knew.

Anonymous said...

I don't need Obama for Hope. I don't want undefined 'change'.

Anonymous said...

The country doesn't need a President who didn't know what town he was in when he appeared on worldwide TV at his convention. He must never call McCain senile again.

Anonymous said...

Obama doesn't cut it and President Clinton pointed that out in a very reverse psychology ladened speech. Obama will never come up to or be any of the things Clinton said.

He put the mantle completely on Obama to win by his own merit.

We all know he cannot win. And Thank God! What a joke on the dems. The Republicans will have to save the dems from themselves and in turn save the country - AGAIN.

I will be voting for McCain, I wanted to vote for Hillary but the evil incarnates in the DNC prevented that from happening.

It will be the first time to vote GOP, but my gut tells me that a disaster called Obama must be avoided.

Anonymous said...


The Republicans will have to save the dems from themselves and in turn save the country - AGAIN?

After that little bit of unintended but revealing tripe we're to believe you are a Democrat? It is to laugh. You are nothing but another paid McCain troll spinning their nonsense and not doing a very good job of it.

If you are a Democrat, please tell us all why.

Anonymous said...

I am not 1:06, but I'm a registered Democrat and I won't even consider voting for Obama. He can't be trusted and will destroy the economy in ways America has never seen.

If people want fair taxation then let's talk about taxing consumption, not income. The entire "income tax" concept is all about protecting the existing political elites from successful newcomers encroaching on their 'birth right' to lead this country.

And not every person who comes from the middle class is capable of leading this country. Take Obama for example. I'm glad he made the jump from middle to upper class, but he's definitely a socialist in sheep's clothing with terrorist friends like Ayers.

Anonymous said...

Neither am I 1:06. I am a liberal registered Democrat and I will not vote for Obama. He lost me when he "went" Republican on spying, separtion of church and state; and on drilling. Why vote for even a pseudo Repblican if you are a liberal Democrat. He cannot be trusted.

As a child I stood up in my living room when the National Anthem was played on TV. I am intensely patriotic and intensely love America. I will never get over Rev. Wrigth screaming God Damn America nor the fact that Obama was inthat church for twenty years.

I simply do not agree with the consumption tax as proposed by the other contributor who is a Democrat not voting for Obama. That is a system much too open to fraud and corruption. Improve the system we have. Just as too many peope now work "off the books" and too many self-employed put their money in safety deposit boxes, the ease with which tax evasion could be done and the "deals" easily made with a consumption tax would bankrupt the country. Not only that, the trouble I have with merchants these days just getting things right, I know that many are not capable of taking care of our tax system.

Anonymous said...

I'm looking forward to Hillary 2012.

Anonymous said...

Neither of you have answered the person's question: why are you a Democrat?

Each of you has simply railed about Obama and spouted typical GOP talking points but none answered the question: why are you a Democrat?

Anonymous said...

3:30 PM,
Why were you not an abortion ?

Anonymous said...

3:30 You might want to ring your therapist's hotline and ask him/her to hold while you read the following:

No one on this blog has any obligation at all to answer your questions or even read your comments. It's your narcissism and gradiosity that has deluded you into even expecting an answer. I hope the absurdity of your expectation's being pointed out is cathartic. If it's not immediatly clear review the facts: you have no influence, clout, power, or even an identity to warranet a response from strangers on this blog. God speed on your recovery.

When you recover your health you might be interested to know it should read "Neither of you has ... "

Anonymous said...

If there were a consumption tax all the rich would go to Paris to shop. It would be the same way they avoid taxes now by moving their companies out of the US

Anonymous said...

Here I am, 10 minutes into Obama's speech and he hasn't said a damn thing. When are we going to hear something other than 'change', 'hope', and divisive rhetoric?

I thought he was a different kind of politician ?

Is his plan the same as John Kerry's secret plan that he kept hinting he had ?

Anonymous said...

I listened to the entire speech and am still convinced the Democratic Platform is the wisest, most effective and certainly the most humanitarian and compasstionate group of ideas representative of any group in the world.

And I love it that Obama used quotes from the Bible that certainly the Republicans cannot disagree with: "I am my brother's keeper". I don't have the exact quote of Jesus but in effect he said if you do it unto the least of them you do it unto me. Obama referred to that Christian teaching. Who can argue against the ideals of the Democratic Party?

Yet, I'm not sure Obama convined voters he can do it.

Anonymous said...

"...if you do it unto the least of them you do it unto me."

So how about protecting a fetus ? Or how about a baby that survives an abortion? Obama doesn't want to provide 14th Amendment rights to a baby that survives an abortion attempt.

Anonymous said...


My God. No matter how angry you may be at someone else, that was totally uncalled for.


Come on down from your high horse for a moment. I was not the one who asked the question but was interested in the responses and how they did not answer. Instead a bunch of spittle flew all around in avoidance.

You are absolutely right to state can choose not to answer. You, I and everyone else on this blog are under no obligation to anyone else. But when seemingly contradictory statements are made it calls into question the veracity of the claim.

Thanks for the grammar lesson. Next time, however, you may want to do a spell check when you don your schoolmarm role.