Democrats

I wondered how long it would be before we got another dose of how the likes of Jesse Jackson (and other black "leaders") feel about Obama.  Last year we had Jackson saying things like Obama was "acting white", guys like Sharpton indicating that he didn't have "real" black roots, etc..  Well now, thanks to an open mic at Fox News, we've got this from Jackson:

In a shocking blast at Barack Obama that was caught on tape, the Rev. Jesse Jackson said, “I wanna cut his nuts out.”

He made the astonishingly vulgar remark as he accused the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee of giving moral lectures to African-Americans.
“See, Barack [has] been talking down to black people . . . I wanna cut his nuts out,” Jackson said.

His whispered comments - accompanied by his hand-miming a cutting motion - were picked up by a live mike before an interview on health care in Fox News Channel’s Chicago studio Sunday.

In an effort to blunt the controversy, Jackson apologized publicly at a news conference before the tape aired last night on Bill O’Reilly’s “The Factor” show on Fox News Channel.

Also, Jackson had not plans to even admit that it was true (despite being on tape) until he learned Fox planned to air the comments.

Some are saying that this helps Obama...because he's being dissed by Jackson for saying things that should be said to the black community.  But I disagree.  This just reveals what we've already known was there.  Dissention.  Yes, the Jacksons and Sharptons will salute when needed, if just to maintain their credibility, but how hard will they work this fall?  How hard wiill Jesse work the Rainbow-PUSH coalition when it comes to voter turnout for a guy that, should he win, obviates the need for guys like himself and Sharpton?  I don't see it.

In the meantime, Obama's not making his peace treaty with Hillary any easier to maintain...

NEW YORK - It was all part of a careful arrangement: Democrat Barack Obama would get fundraising help from his erstwhile rival, Hillary Rodham Clinton, in exchange for his help retiring about $10 million of her campaign debt.

But Obama momentarily forgot his part of the deal at a major New York fundraiser Wednesday night, forcing him to retake the stage after he had concluded the event and said goodnight to the audience. ...

The Democratic nominee-in-waiting then wrapped up his speech and thanked the audience, moving to shake hands along a rope line.

After a minute or so, the music was cut short and Obama returned to the stage.

"This is not the speech part, but it is important," he said sheepishly, urging the group to reassemble.

"Senator Clinton still has some debt, and I could have had some debt if I hadn't won. So I know the drill," Obama said, encouraging donors to use the forms under their seats to make a contribution to help her.

"It's very important to us, and obviously Senator Clinton will be grateful as well," Obama said.

Don't think that slight went un-noticed by the Clinton folks.  And don't forget, she's not the only one he has to make happy here, by helping her retire a multi-million dollar debt.  And not just the hold-out Clinton supporters who "just don't like him"...  But he's got to figure out what to do with the Clinton elite.  The folks who've been running the Democrat party's power structure for the past twelve years.  So far, they haven't been trhown a bone and don't have a spot in the Obamasphere.

***

More: Michelle Malkin - Ace 

There's no excuse for this...unless you really just don't like making it easy for anyone and everyone to have a better idea of what you're up to.

The Majority on the Committee on House Administration is later today proposing new rules which would severely restrict constituent access to their Member of Congress and limit the ability of those Members to adopt new technologies. ...

this Rule shows a clear misunderstanding of the access which the Internet provides to constituents and Members of Congress to have a very real, open, level and honest relationship at a minimal/if any cost to the American taxpayer.

Absolutely.  But, apparently, the House Democrats think there's too much sunlight out there.

*** 

More at Next Right

Given that we're about to celebrate our Country's birthday, it's fitting to note that a great number of Democrats, in fact half of Obama's supporters, don't support the Constitution "as-is". 

So often conservatives get laughed at when we suggest that Democrats/liberals want to change the Constitution.  Well, now Rasmussen has polling evidence to back up that belief.

Democrats favor minor revisions to the Constitution far more than Republican voters—51% of Barack Obama’s party say that either minor (41%) or major (10%) changes are needed. Just 23% of Republicans see the need for even minor changes. Overall, 76% of Republicans say the document is fine as is. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats agree.

So when we talk about liberal activist judges, re-writing the Constitution from the bench - and the Democrats who support them - now you know where we're coming from.  In other words, liberal judicial activism is more likely to result in changes to how the Constitution is applied by virtue of the fact that most liberals/Democrats support such changes to begin with.

This is just too good to be true.  From Dave Brody:

Barack Obama may be talking up his Christian faith like he's doing today in Ohio and trying his best to appeal to Evangelicals with a “new kind of politics”, but he’s got a problem. Many of his positions are the same liberal positions that have turned off Evangelicals for years.

Obama delivered another speech about faith Tuesday. He’s done a few of these concerning his faith and how it shapes his public policy. But Sunday his campaign and the Democratic Party were handing out pro-gay rights flyers at the Pride Festival in St. Louis. How is that going to play in the heartland?

I'll tell you how, "not good".  Check these out:

Note how they managed to work the rainbow flag into the Obama logo in place of the American flag.

But more important, check out the details.  He's for overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, overruling the military on allowing open homosexuals by repealing "don't ask, don't tell", wants federal funding for drug needle exchanges, oposes constitutional amendments that define marriage as "one man and one woman", (which have passed in 30 states with an average 70% of the vote), and wants anti-discrimination laws that not only cover "sexual preference" but "gender identity".

Not enough for you?  Take a look at the "Pride" section of Obama's website.  "Change we can believe in" allright.

And keep in mind that overturning the Defense of Marriage Act means each state could then be forced to recognize a gay marriage performed in another state, in effect allowing one state to redefine marriage for the entire country. 

And now his wife's out there saying basically the same thing:

Speaking to the Democratic National Committee's Gay and Lesbian Leadership Committee last Thursday in New York City, Michelle Obama said her husband supports "a world where federal laws don't discriminate against same-sex relationships, including equal treatment for any relationship recognized under state law."

"That is why he supports robust civil unions," she said. "That is why he has said the federal government should not stand in the way of states that want to decide for themselves how best to pursue equality for gay and lesbian couples -- whether that means a domestic partnership, a civil union or a civil marriage."

Of course he's NOT in favor of them deciding whether or not they want to define marriage as it's been defined since before the birth of the country...  And pay no mind that doing what she suggests puts people of faith, to say nothing of religious institutions at risk of lawsuits for continuing to run their lives and businesses in accordance with their faith.

This kind of stuff doesn't play in the heartland.  He can make all the moves he wants towards evangelical voters but, in the end, they vote on the basis of issues which are rooted in their faith.  And the list outlined above - plus his pro-abortion stance - will trump anything else he can say or do.

Obama just can't seem to shake the Rev. Wright.  This from the Washington Times:

Most Americans say Sen. Barack Obama has failed to distance himself from his former pastor"s incendiary remarks, the new Fox 5/The Washington Times/Rasmussen Reports poll finds.

In the poll, 66 percent said the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. hurt Mr. Obama and an overwhelming majority said Mr. Obama's repudiation of his former pastor did not rescue his presidential campaign.

Only 24 percent said Mr. Obama's denunciation made them "more likely" to support the senator's presidential campaign, compared with 27 percent who said they were "less likely" and 43 percent who said his explanation had "no impact" on their decision.

Today's the day we'll see how much it still impacts him at the ballot box with white, middle-class voters...especially in North Carolina.

Well, despite all the efforts on the part of the media to get Hillary out of this thing, I'd say that by winning Pennsylvania, she pretty well just guaranteed that she'll be able to be in this thing for the duration.

April 23 (Bloomberg) -- Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania primary victory gave her campaign the boost it needed to keep going without diminishing Barack Obama's chances of ultimately capturing the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton got 55 percent of the vote to Obama's 45 percent in yesterday's Pennsylvania primary, with 99 percent of precincts reporting. With the race now shifting to Indiana and North Carolina, Clinton still needs a major event to loosen Obama's grip on the nomination because of his lead in the nationwide popular vote and in delegates to the national convention.

``She's in a difficult place,'' said Jenny Backus, a Democratic strategist who isn't affiliated with either candidate. Clinton needs a ``miracle'' or ``some magical negative story dropping on Obama from out of the sky.''

Obama came into yesterday with a delegate lead of 139, according to an unofficial tally by the Associated Press, and Clinton cut that margin by 14 delegates. She narrowed his popular-vote advantage in contested elections and caucuses by some 200,000 votes to about 600,000.

On the popular vote front, I'll have to say I think it's a little unfair that the press keeps reporting (and has all those wonderful graphics to demonstrate and drive the point home) that she's behind in the popular vote...when real people in Michigan and Florida DID vote for her...and when they are included, as they should be, she leads in the popular vote.  I mean, yes, they don't count in terms of convention delegates due to a rules violation, but that doesn't mean those people didn't vote.  What happened to "let every vote count!"?

And it's a sure thing that this win will bring a big wad of cash her way from supporters.  As of this morning, the campaign claims they've brought in about three million since last night, and gained about 80,000 new donors in the process.  I just checked out her site and noticed that the initial landing page for the site (www.hillaryclinton.com) isn't the home page...it's the contribution page...asking people to kick in at least five bucks.  Smart move on their part.

And, as for the Obamans in the media, it's just funny to see them keep moving goal line for her every time she does what they say she "absolutely has to do" to stay in this thing.  Yesterday they were saying it "had" to be by double digits, knowing that polls suggested it would be less than that.  Then, lo and behold, she wins by double digits.  Now they say she "absolutely" HAS to win Indiana, or else she should drop out.  Hillarious.

In the meantime, the process is doing a wonderful job of diminishing both Hillary and Obama as effective general election candidates.  It doesn't get any better than this.

At least in the state of Pennsylvania, a new poll suggests that the divisive primary season for the Dems may bode well for the fortunes of Republican hopeful John McCain.

And as many negatives are raised and as much dirt is brought to the surface in this race, are those on the political fence going to be able to vote for either of these potential nominees when that time comes, if they see McCain as an attractive, viable alternative?

Time tells all.

Some more conservative reaction to Obama's big race speech the other day for you to check out...

Wes Pruden:

His depiction of a white grandmother as a mean-spirited racist, his tolerance of harsh denunciations of whites (like his mother) from the pulpit that he has supported for 20 years with his presence and his tithes, strikes the white voters he must persuade as mean, harsh and inexplicable. This is not the message Barack Obama set out with a year ago when he caught magic in a bottle. Now the magic, and maybe his shot at the White House, resembles only a dashed wish written on the wind.

Pat Buchanan:

How would Barack explain to his press groupies why he sat silent in a pew for 20 years as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright delivered racist rants against white America for our maligning of Fidel and Gadhafi, and inventing AIDS to infect and kill black people?

How would he justify not walking out as Wright spewed his venom about "the U.S. of K.K.K. America," and howled, "God d**n America!" ...

My hunch was right. Barack would turn the tables. ...

But we must understand the man in full and the black experience out of which the Rev. Wright came: 350 years of slavery and segregation.

Barack then listed black grievances and informed us what white America must do to close the racial divide and heal the country. ...

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

Charles Krauthammer:

The beauty of a speech is that you don’t just give the answers, you provide your own questions. “Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.” So said Barack Obama, in his Philadelphia speech about his pastor, friend, mentor, and spiritual adviser of 20 years, Jeremiah Wright.

An interesting, if belated, admission. But the more important question is: which “controversial” remarks? ...

The question is why didn’t he leave that church? Why didn’t he leave — why doesn’t he leave even today — a pastor who thundered not once but three times from the pulpit (on a DVD the church proudly sells) “God d**n America”? Obama’s 5,000-word speech, fawned over as a great meditation on race, is little more than an elegantly crafted, brilliantly sophistic justification of that scandalous dereliction.

His defense rests on two central propositions: (a) moral equivalence, and (b) white guilt.

Ann Coulter:

Obama gave a nice speech, except for everything he said about race. He apparently believes we're not talking enough about race. This is like hearing Britney Spears say we're not talking enough about pop-tarts with substance-abuse problems....

Discrimination has become so openly accepted that -- in a speech meant to tamp down his association with a black racist -- Obama felt perfectly comfortable throwing his white grandmother under the bus. He used her as the white racist counterpart to his black racist "old uncle," Rev. Wright.

Things are still a mess in the "Let every vote count" party.  The latest plan to have a "do-over" primary in Michigan collapsed yesterday, primarily because Obama wanted it to.

WASHINGTON (AP) - The drive for a second Michigan presidential primary collapsed Thursday, and a fresh dispute broke out between Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton over the fate of the state's 156 national convention delegates.

Obama's campaign said a fair resolution would be to split them evenly with Clinton. Aides to the former first lady instantly rejected the idea and said they would consider a mail-in primary - even though Obama has raised concerns about the security of a vote by mail organized so quickly. ...

Hmmm.  I wonder how "fair" Obama would think that idea would be if HE had won a majority of the votes in the primary, and thus a majority of the delegates.  In other words, he wants to avoid having the Michigan dems get any more upset with him, by allowing the state's delegation to be "seated" at the convention...so long as half of them are his people, resulting in a wash in terms of the delegate count between him and Hillary.  They can come, as long as they don't matter.

And what's this business with a Democrat worrying about ballot security??  Since when?  Oh, since you don't want them to count.  Hillary's supporters are none to happy...

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who has endorsed Clinton, said in a statement that she was deeply disappointed the June 3 do-over was no longer a possibility.

"We will turn our attention to other options," she said. "There is no road to the White House that does not go through Michigan" ...

We'll see.  Meanwhile, more "split the baby" rhetoric from Obama's folks...

Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut, an Obama supporter and former presidential candidate, promoted the idea of evenly splitting the delegates between Obama and Clinton. "The best outcome is to come to an arrangement where the delegates are apportioned fairly between Senators Obama and Clinton, so the Michigan delegation can participate fully in the Denver convention," he said in a statement. ...

Again, "participate"...as long as they don't matter.  Hillary's take?

"I do not see how two of our largest and most significant states can be disenfranchised and left out of the process of picking our nominee without raising serious questions about the legitimacy of that nominee," Clinton told reporters, referring to Michigan and Florida.

See, there are still some "let every vote count" Dems afterall.

So why not vote again?  Just One Minute nails it:

Is there any doubt why Obama is resisting the re-vote in Florida and Michigan?  Try to picture him losing those two states as well as those listed above and then trying to persuade the superdelegates of his inevitability.

That being after they've already begun to have second thoughts in the wake of the Pastor Wright business.  Get out the popcorn.  This will be entertaining.

Reaction to Obama's speech.

From conservatives:

Newsbusters points out we still don't know if he told the truth when he initially said he wasn't present in church when Wright made those type of comments.

Michelle Malkin:

Obama’s bottom line: Everyone’s a victim. You’re part of the problem if you keep talking about Jeremiah Wright. Everyone’s churches have crazy demagogues. Schools need more money. Leave illegal aliens alone. Never mind all the black grievance-mongers who have built careers sowing seeds of divisions. Look at all the talk show hosts and conservative commentators! Elect Obama. Fixer of souls.

Atlas:

Obama, the "uniter" is dividing. It is painfully clear to me that Obama believes that half of America agrees with G-d damn America Jeremiah Wright and he intends to exploit that hate and play on these terrible, imagine fears. I do not believe he is right. But he is going down the hate mongering ship. Separatism, not inclusion. What unites us is we are Americans, and frankly he just doesn't get it.

Captain Ed:

It’s essentially a non-distancing distancing, akin to the non-apology apology. He excuses Wright’s anti-American rhetoric with a mixture of rationalizations. Wright gets a pass because he served in the military, because he grew up in another generation that apparently hated America, and because he does good work in other areas.  

KLo:

Obama claims that he "strongly disagree[d] with many of [Wright's] political views" that he heard "while I sat in church"? This invites the question what, if anything, he did to express his strong disagreement. Did he cut back contributions? Or did he just have the audacity to hope Wright would hush up and burn the tapes before long?

And from the left, well, just big wet, sloppy kisses.

Hotline: "His is a battle cry for a new generation."

And mulitple wet ones at First Read