Soccer Mom Plays Softball

I have just one question for John McCain and his advisers. What was the basis for the choice of Sarah Palin as a running mate?

Did anyone actually sit down with her and ask some hard questions -- the kind she might be asked as a Vice Presidential candidate? Or did you check out photos of her in a swimsuit and think that she made a better impression that Hillary Clinton would in the same attire?

When she announced during the debate with Joe Biden that she might not answer questions as her opponent or the moderator expected, did you think that the voting public might wonder if she ever would or could answer hard questions? Did you feel at all disappointed that she gave irrelevant and ungrammatical replies from a scripted list most of the time?

In my opinion Sarah Palin does not disappoint in her public statements; not if you expect that she will fall far short of inspiring confidence that if McCain dies in office she will ably replace him.

President Palin? God forbid.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04herbert.html?em

OBAMA'S TARNISHED HALO

Barack Obama has been the recipient of benefits he does not deserve. In my opinion, he has been adulated and praised more for his charisma, charm, and oratory than for anything substantial. If you caught the moment at the beginning of the debate with Hillary Clinton when the camera zoomed in on him for the first time and he mechanically turned on his now familiar big smile, then you saw the real Obama -- a shallow character (although perhaps a deep thinker) far removed from the people.

Yet people still adore him, a man who would and does say anything, even fudging the truth when it's obvious, in order to be president

We don't need another manufactured candidate like Bush was. He is not tried, he is not true to the people who cheer him like a rock star. If he can't stand up to Clinton do you really think that he will stand up to McCain if nominated?

Choose Obama and the Democrats will choose defeat once again. I don't want another Republican president and I fear that will happen if BHO is nominated.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/opinion/18brooks.html?em&ex=1208750400&en
=34d002f8eb6da2e7&ei=5087%0A

BARACK'S LIES

Barack Obama handled the potential criticism when the consistently racist preaching of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright Jr. came to light, by changing the subject. Somehow his speech was received with admiration by many who breathed a sigh of relief that their hero was out of trouble. All he did, however, was to change the subject, not usually a cause for praise. Praise for a liar?

Barack told the American people that he hadn't been aware of his long-time pastor's racial remarks. Hasn't anyone asked themselves how that could possibly be true? It can't, you know, unless he slept through the sermons which is just as unlikely. And even if he hadn't heard them because he couldn't join his wife and family at church because he had urgent business to attend to, why wouldn't Mrs. B. tell her husband about the obnoxious toxic preaching she heard that day? Do we want a first lady who will willingly sit through such incitement to hate and then tell the public abut the first time she was proud to be an American? How could any American be proud of her behavior? She could have discussed with her husband whether they should leave that church if it did not stop. I don't think Americans would be proud to have a first lady like that.

Obama says he can't turn his back on his old preacher for such disastrous remarks. I can see not turning one's back on an elderly or alcoholic or deranged relative for making such remarks. But we are talking about a preacher who, over many years, fed racist remarks and outrageous lies to generations of congregants. Not the same thing at all as distressing a few relatives.

Obama should have spoken in private to his preacher and told him that it was time to publicly apologize and correct his ways or else Obama would cease to attend his church and be ready to leave if his pastor refused.

Barack Obama also defamed his white grandmother for making hurtful racist remarks, comparing that to Wright's racist speech. But in the past Obama had praised his grandmother. This means to me that he is just digging the hole deeper for himself; if he lies about his own grandmother to please some voters, what wouldn't he do to get elected?

Of course, he's just being consistent if he is still attending the same church, because Wright's successor, Otis Moss III, defends and praises his predecessor, referring to his preaching style as "interesting rhetoric" and an "art form."

One last word about the candidate's wife: when confronted by reporters about her "pride" remark, she seemed to be blaming the audience for not understanding what she really meant. She is an educated woman -- why didn't she say what she "really" meant in the first place? She looks more and more like a liability to her husband.


http://www.nysun.com/blog/latest-politics/michelle-obama-clarifies-remarks-pride-america
http://blog.cleveland.com/pdextra/2008/03/baracks_new_pastor_defends_his.html
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=59707

P L A Y G R O U N D P O L I T I C S

One way that anti-Hillary politicians and politicians have attacked Hillary is by using childlike bullying against her. Rather than attack her on the issues she debates, they use name-calling and lies -- "cold woman, always wears pants suits, has no charisma, people hate her." That last is a good one. There's no support for it although there are some who may use that word to express their opposition. Yet just yesterday in the NYPOST a columnist wrote that republicans were counting on the nomination of Hillary Clinton to help them win the election because ..... "people hate her." Maybe they would like another category of political opinion: For, Against, Hate.

Pernicious, deliberate attempts to sway and discourage democratic voters, maybe. But they are just another example of the refusal to emphasize issues in Campaign 2008. The supporters of Barack Obama refuse to be bothered by his lack of scrupulous attention to the issues. Maybe issues bore them. They prefer to be "uplifted, inspired, hopeful" etc etc etc.

Yes, I will vote for Hillary Clinton. I am inspired by a candidate who is not content to be a rock star, who is extremely intelligent, persevering and has a vision for America that is not made of sugar and spice. And if the candidate has a husband who is extremely intelligent too, so much the better.

OUR NEXT PRESIDENT AND ABORTION -- PRO- or ANTI-?

When making your choice for our next president, is his/her stand on abortion an important factor? If so, maybe reading this article will interest you.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId
=18632802&surl=http://radio.azpm.org/kuaz/&f=
module-nprnews

My own position on this is pro-choice. One doesn't have to like abortion, it is not a pretty thing, but it is the right of women, and only women, to make that choice. It is more important to create a society where men and women have the opportunity to provide themselves with medically approved and safe means of preventing pregnancy, than to deny women the right to abortion. When pregnancy is the result of violence what sane person would make it a crime?

Senator John McCain's voting record is clearly anti-abortion. He may be avoiding mentioning it these days but it is not something that can be covered up for long. Even recently I have come across opinions published in newspapers that Republicans are unsure of McCain's abortion stance. Is that just a ploy to influence the independent voters?

How many other presidential candidates are trying to cloud inconvenient truths?

OBAMA; CANDIDATE OR ROCK STAR

Friends, I am sorry if this comes as a shock to anyone, but Barack Hussein Obama is not the Second Coming of Christ. Your man has done nothing to convince me that he will do a damn thing which he promises the nation. Promises, promises, is anyone satisfied with that?

Apparently his followers are so enchanted by his great smile, feel-good phrases which keep ringing in our memory, hyperbole, and charisma, that all this is enough for them to promise him their votes, and in many cases a great deal of money. A Chicken in every pot, a change of government and the end of everything we dislike in government -- god almighty, bring it on!

I'd hate to see your hopes dashed but even more would I dislike seeing them come to fruition. I don't trust the judgment of people who act like they are raving over a rock star. I'd almost rather vote for Bono (if he were eligible to run) -- after all, doesn't he care about noble causes and confer with world leaders? And Bono is rich enough to finance his own campaign.

Where is the real substance in his speeches and promises? If you would stop cheering and feeling good long enough to think about what you want, say, doing something about the power of big corporations in influencing how this country is run (hey,
Edwards had plenty to say about that, but it's too late now), or how he is going to finance health care for everyone, then maybe one could understand why you're so excited about your candidate.

As Barack's followers you are not too impressive in your constant repetition of slurs and expressions of downright hatred of Clinton. Maybe Mrs Obama is your role model there -- apparently advisers have toned her down lately because she started the campaign by being vicious about her husband's rival.

I happen to believe that we shouldn't be feeling so happy when listening to campaign speeches by any candidate. The excitement, the sense of being uplifted by joy, the confidence that things will change -- better to save it for a U2 concert.

Yes, even the hope and optimism are overdone for a political campaign. Do you have to be reminded that we are living in desperate times in which tragedy has struck and will strike many Americans, and the economy is looking rather grim?

Do you really want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt on such flimsy evidence as he offers?