All I can say, Bob, is

Hoooow sweeeet it isssss!!!!!!

Bob and Johnny, OW just made Drudge!!!!!!

I am so glad that we made grand menage before this happened. :)

Congrats to Bob, J$, and ESchatz! Your tireless work to shine the light on the lies, hatred, and biases of Olby are much appreciated.

Congrats to Bob, J$, and ESchatz! Your tireless work to shine the light on the lies, hatred, and biases of Olby are much appreciated.

Big grats on recapturing the #1 spot! Keep it up.

Congrats, guys! We are pleased that you are here to help deflect the Olbyspin.

Why do thoughts of The Mad Hatter's Tea Party keep popping up in my mind.

Perhaps things like this are triggering it:

"HILLARY 'TOWN HALL' TO BE HOSTED BY EX-CLINTON STAFFER STEPHANOPOULOS
Thu May 01 2008 17:25:20 ET

Just hours before the Indiana and North Carolina presidential primaries, ABCNEWS has offered to air a 'town hall' meeting with Hillary Clinton -- to be hosted by former Clinton staffer George Stephanopoulos!

Embracing and racing through a brave new era of journalism, it is not clear if ABCNEWS will inform viewers of Stephanopoulos's past employment.

Stephanopoulos helped run Mr. Clinton's first presidential election campaign and acted as his press secretary and advisor on policy and strategy before joining ABC NEWS.

AN EXECUTIVE AT A RIVAL NETWORK MOCKED "WE LOOK FORWARD TO ABC HOLDING THE NEXT TOWN HALL MEETING WITH PRESIDENT BUSH, HOSTED BY KARL ROVE!" {H/T to Mike for CAPS ALL MINE}

BTW, tomorrow is my happy unbirthday day! :)

BEST BLOG ON THE INTERNET!

(JD's Place a hair's breath away!)

An "unbirthday" sounds like something a Scientologist might have, Grammie. Have a happy one!

http://patternchange.blogspot.com/2008/05/when-is-it-news-when-is-it-views.html

Slippery Shuster is now subbing for Ed Shultz??? I guess the canard of Shuster being a reporter is now over. MSDNC is now simul cast on ErrorAmerica? Olbermann's is not on a news network, he is on a 24 hour campaign add for Obamanation. Imagine if one of the Fox News reporters subbed for Limbaugh. The Nutroots would have been up in arms.

I hope there's going to be a Special Comment tonight. It would be appropriate, with Hillary talking to O'Reilly, lefties condemning Rev. Wright, and the like.

Krazy Keith, it's time for some comedy! Please indulge yourself.

Wow! Here I am..........

Google Keith and get Olbywatch
Like a kick to Olbermahn's crotch
It's the number one site
Because Keith's never right
Stay tuned for Olby's next botch

Wonderful news!!

I look forward to watching this blog grow into something really special.

Wonderful news!!

I look forward to watching this blog grow into something really special.

Wonderful news!!

I look forward to watching this blog grow into something really special.

For WPITW 5/2....

Did I hear the sour grapes Olbermann correctly?....."The wretched Lieberman?"....Wow, what a journalist....

Why is Lieberman wretched?...Specifics, please, from any of the few Olbermann apologists brave enough to register here at OW.....

Oh, and when Senator McCain's better GI Bill makes the needed improvements on Senator Webb's and a good compromise is obtained by the statesmen like McCain, Lieberman, Inhofe and yes...Senator Webb....I am betting the farm Olbermann will not cover it!....

Once again, the radical left must make something a partisan issue....including helping our veterans responsibly and fairly.

Prepare for that quiescent canine Mr. Cox, J$, ESchatz or whomever will be suffering that day with the TiVo.....

Sorry...that was WPITW 5/1....

And another point....Billo was discussing the reality of the democratic candidates and officials defying the radicals in their party with their appearances on FOX NEWS.....It is really irritating the nutroots and is a sign that the candidates realize they have to appeal to the center if either of them have any chance of winning in November, let alone the nomination to even face the right of center McCain.

POLITICO has a nice article...

"Markos Moulitsas, founder of the leading liberal site Daily Kos, told Politico’s Michael Calderone: 'Democrats are being idiotic by going on that network.'

"Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are 'not happy about it.'

"'I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,' Melber said.

"The Democratic leaders’ new openness to Fox reflects the liberal left’s diminishing power, at least at this point in the political cycle. Once feared by the Democratic candidates, these activists are now viewed at least in part as an impediment to winning the broad swatch of support needed to clinch the nomination."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0508/10032.html

###
How typical of Olbermann to ignore the real issue O'Reilly was discussing and concentrate on advert semantics that his own news organization abuses (EXCLUSIVE....etc.) In light of Olbermann's poor ratings, when he interviewed HRC, compared to O'Reilly's near network ratings, makes him look like he is green with envy.....once again.

Poor Olbermann...can't get those ratings any higher...what is he going to do next?.....More SPECIAL COMMENTS?

POLITICO has a nice article...

"Markos Moulitsas, founder of the leading liberal site Daily Kos, told Politico’s Michael Calderone: 'Democrats are being idiotic by going on that network.'

"Ari Melber, the Net movement correspondent for The Nation, told Politico by phone that progressive activists and the Netroots are 'not happy about it.'

"'I don’t think that it is tenable to completely neglect or ignore what your base wants,' Melber said.

It is delicious seeing Democrats enrage the left wing wackosphere.

"Why is Lieberman wretched?"

Because he showed absolute disdain for the democratic process by re-registering as an "independant" after being soundly defeated in the Democratic primary to run against the same guy all over again.

In doing so, he took advantage of his perennial democratic supporters he had built up over the years added to the flood of crossover Republican voters who cynically chose not to vote for their own candidate. It took BOTH groups together to push him over the top in the GE.

It's another example of today's 'winning at any cost as long as you win' attitude that is literally undermining our country from within.

You thought I was going to say 'because he was for the war', didn't you?

Listening to Dan Abrams complain about the Democratic candidates "legitimizing" FoxNews is a hoot. Pot-Kettle-Black. Hey Dan, the candidates are appearing on FoxNews because they have 3x the viewers of (MS)NBC.

The problem with your analysis is that all occurred because of the war, Mike.

Lamont, backed by the very radical leftists in the Connecticut Democrat Party, pulled off the upset solely based on the rabid anti-war demogoguery. Fine. Lieberman CORRECTLY evaluated the moderate and right of center GE support and ran as an idependent. It was his right and I was very happy moderation won out in 2006.

Lieberman was one of a few democrats I have ever voted for...I voted for him for Senate when I lived briefly in CT in the 2000 Senate race. Lamont was a poor choice because he was so new and untested as a leader and the people of Connecticut correctly chose the better, more experienced candidate.

Obama is Lamont to McCain as Lieberman....The radical wing of the democrat party has chosen the most leftist of the group while the right of center moderate is the alternative. I am glad the republicans have settled on McCain and he is the best chance for victory in November simply because the dems have gone SO far left.

For Olbermann to call Lieberman "wretched" is silly and shows sour grapes....Kos is just as bitter about the people of Connecticut choosing Lieberman over Lamont and has never gotten over it as well....Nothing new, but both are displaying severe pettiness.

You thought I was going to say 'because he was for the war', didn't you?

By MikeH on May 2, 2008 10:19 AM

No, I was absolutely certain you were going to say something just as ridiculous as you did.

Lieberman's being "for the war" would be an honest criteria of a subjective evaluation of wretchedness. ( Not that proffering that sort of opinion is the job of anchormen or even the territory of a thoughtful and measured pundit, when it concerns Lieberman.)

Saying that he showed "absolute disdain for the democratic process" by following all the rules of a democrat process whereby he won an election, is not honest criteria and is part and parcel of the relentless way you contradict yourself from one post to the next.

If it's "wretched" for Liebermann to decide to register as independent after a defeat and then put himself up as a candidate to face "the democratic process" and be elected as precisely what they knew he had become-- an independent, what then was Sen. Jeffords who switched parties AFTER he had been chosen to run and HAD won as a Repubican?

It's interesting too that you can insist that you most certainly would vote for and have voted for worthwhile candidates, no matter their party, but when Republicans did just that with Lieberman, it's "cynical".

I'm just going to have to beat you to the punch and say, as you have endless told everyone who has engaged you the last several days, that you must feel the way you do because Lieberman doesn't hold your views and therefore no matter how he played it you'd diss him.

Not that I'm putting words into your mouth....or saying that you're a strict party guy... or anything else that might matter only when it insults YOU.

Heaven forbid... and who wants to start you whining again anyway...

And this Lieberman stuff goes back to my argument that the actual reason the radical left was against US military action to inforce UN resolutions on Iraq was IDEOLOGICAL and not because they had better information or judgement. The abusive and irrational reaction to Lieberman comes from the ideological differences he has compared to those to his left in regard to foreign policy.

SNOBamessiah (wow I actually used his real name in the last post....darn it), had no better judgement or better intelligence information in 2002 than did Lieberman, Dodd, HRC, Kerry, Edwards or any other democrat who supported the forced removal of Saddam Hussein for violating UN resolutions. He was against it because of ideological reasons that had nothing to do with foreign policy considerations in the short or long term....The US is a hegemonic demon in the world and Bush is using 9/11 as an excuse to assert that power and even exact revenge for his father....that was the driving force for the radical left, including SNOBamessiah in 2002/2003.

Connecticut, 2006 was that visceral reaction the most left of the country used to assert their political power and it has the entire democratic party scared to death.....Choosing the poorer candidate for POTUS because of both fringe political and religious beliefs is now the result....

And the man did not win California, Florida, NY, NJ, Michigan, Ohio, PA, or even Mass! This is why the republican McCain can pull 40-48% in polls against either candidate while his party is polling, generically, in the MID 30's!

SNOBamessiah has to run to the center and the result will be angry but accepting leftists because they have no one else to turn now....Thanks to the strange apportionments of delegates and the super-delegate systems in the dem party primary process.

"Lieberman's being against the war would be an honest criteria of a subjective eveluation of wretchedness."

Oh really.....after all the times I've been attacked on this blog for 'moralizing' against war?

"Saying that he showed "absolute disdain for the democratic process" by following all the rules of a democratic process whereby he won an election, is nt honest critera"

And I knew I could count on you to say something THAT ridiculous, but it all fits with today's conservative philosophy as I see it.

You seem to think that anything is just fine and dandy as long as it is technically "legal". It's as if you believe that Cunningham was not a criminal if he had been not been caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I think it's fair to say that the rulemakers would never have envisioned someone doing what Lieberman did and therefore did not specifically bar doing it hen the rules were set up...and that they certainly would have if something that bizarre could have been reasonalbly forseen.

"and is part and parcel of the relentless ay you contradict yourself from one post to the next."

I don't contradict myself. It isn't my fault if you are unable or unwilling to read and understand the nuances involved. It is also not my fault that you continue to rely on your 'you just contradicted yourself' crutch in place of coherent debate.

"Heaven forbid....and who wants to start you whining again anyway..."

Nor is it my fault when you invariably resort to childish personal attacks whenever you lose an argument.

"And the Liebermann stuff gioes back to my argument that the actual reason the radical left was against US Military action to enforce UN sanctions on Iraq was IDEOLOGICAL and not because they had better information or judgement."

And fortunately for truth, that was simply your ARGUEMENT, but like most of your arguments, it has nothing to do with the truth.

But then, if by "IDEOLOGICAL", you mean NEVER, NEVER, NEVER start a war until when and if it is the ABSOLUTE last resort, you know it is absolutely necessary, and ALL other options have been exhausted.....you just might have something there after all.

And I knew I could count on you to say something THAT ridiculous, but it all fits with today's conservative philosophy as I see it.

posted by mikeh

Nor is it my fault when you invariably resort to childish personal attacks whenever you lose an argument.

posted by mikeh

Contradiction?

Would that be three NEVER'S or four NEVER'S, Mike, because Saddam Hussein was about up to 5 or 6 in 2002 and the vast majority of the world's intelligence authorities had bought his actions as someone still wanting and pursuing WMD....but that little fact did not matter to the rabid anti-American left....

Remember what SNOBamessiah is saying....he had the judgement not to support the war....Is that really true? Joe Wilson, a fav of Olbermann until recently, sees it differently and for once I agree with him....logic agrees with his argument...but if you are one more prone to emotionalism and demogoguery than the "weep, faint, weep again" candidate's argument that he was so wise and read between the lines and new Saddam's real motives....well.....

I'll post a link to Amb. Wilson's remarks again for your reading pleasure....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-shallow-credentia_b_92586.html

Cee: "Joe Wilson, a fav of Olbermann until recently, sees it differently, and for once I agree with him."

Of COURSE you do Cee. You would agree with Jeremiah wright, Louis Farakhan, or even the devil himself if they had something negative to say about Barrack Obama right now!

You think it's "nuanced" when you tell others that it wouldn't matter how Obama acted, they weren't voting on him in the first place, therefore they woud find the worst in how he handled Wright anyway? That doesn't essentially say that everything that person expresses on the subject is merely partisan and therefore moot? You think THAT is not "putting words" in someone's mouth? THAT is not calling someone an utter party partisan (something you seem to take offense at being called)? You think THAT is not an attempt to declare that person's criticism essentially irrelevant?

Oh, yeah...You do think that...

Just like you think it makes sense to make a comparison of someone excusing a CRIME over a technical hitch (a process "technicality") with the instance of comparing what IS in fact essentially a process with the legislated policy for THAT process.

Voters were fully aware that they were voting on Lieberman as an independent. There was full disclosure to all Dems and Repubs who voted for him (unlike Jeffords who switched AFTER he had been elected). Republicans voted for him as being someone they thought worthwhile to be in office, just as you say you have voted for non-Democrats for the same reason.

You're going to have to go tell someone else that it's okay to attack Lieberman on this idiocy because at least you're not attacking him about the war and people are always after you about your "moralizing" about the war....(As though an anti-war position alone is tantamount to moralizing.)

Nope. FYI--when people attack you for "moralizing" they mean you're acting as though holding any other position is tantamount to not caring an iota if people die.

Anyone who can't see THAT distinction shouldn't be lecturing anyone about "nuance".

Reading Cee's continuing defense of the irrational rational for invading Iraq reminds me of a careless and reckless driver caught after wiping out a young family by speeding 100 mph while driving aggressively:........Gee, but I HAD to do it.....didn't you see that guy shoot me the bird?

Cecelia, the fact remains that here the "wretched" part comes in is the way Liebermann cynically used his own loyal Democrats (most of whom who probably did NOT approve of the war) voting for him for other reasons, along with crossover republicans who voted for him because of his support for the war.

As a result, a decided minority of war supporters succeeded in re-electing a war hawk against the ill of the majority. Ethically, NO one should be allowed to run twice in the same election.

Mike,

How does overtly running as a war supporter and getting a consenus among war supporters of both parties, equate to being "underhanded"? When running against another candidte, how does getting a majority of voters (as compared to your competition) equate to merely getting a "coterie"?

Mike,

How does overtly running as a war supporter and getting a consensus among war supporters of both parties, equate to being "underhanded"? When running against another candidate, how does getting a majority of voters (as compared to your competition) equate to merely getting a "coterie"?

What such a view essentially suggests is that there is no legitimate opinion outside of an anti-war one. It doesn't matter how many AMERICANS across the board vote for Lieberman, even if he garners more Americans voting for him than his competition, the fact that he has Americans who are Republican supporters discredits him.

That's quite a position for someone who insists he's independent of such party mores.

Cecelia, come now....not ONE democrat supports the Iraq War....or should I say no "real" or "authentic" democrats supports the Iraq War....

The fallacy of the radical is to make it seem there is a monolith of opinion....Well a recent gallup poll shows more NUANCE (oh my....am I acting like the effete SNOBamessiah to ask for people to see NUANCE?)....

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106309/Iraq-War-Attitudes-Politically-Polarized.aspx

###
Look at the independent and "all Americans" numbers in regard to opinion...it is pretty much averaged out between the poles....NUANCE!

It bolsters my argument....this is IDEOLOGICAL for the left/right poles and Lieberman defies that being a Democrat who supports the war....and THAT makes him "wretched" to the leftist ideologue....

Just like Chuck Hagel enrages the conservative Republican who supports The Iraq War....I'll admit it...but Mike just sees no wrong with the radical left....or their messiah.....they are pure of heart, wise in thought and have NO crass political motives....So judging Lieberman as wretched is correct.

So Mike, for the 39% of all Americans who believe it was NOT a mistake for The US to send troops into Iraq, are they all as you described me a few posts ago?

MikeH, you seem to be really convinced that Senator Liebermann is, at the very least, ethically deficient:

"Because he showed absolute disdain for the democratic process by re-registering as an "independant" after being soundly defeated in the Democratic primary to run against the same guy all over again.

In doing so, he took advantage of his perennial democratic supporters he had built up over the years added to the flood of crossover Republican voters who cynically chose not to vote for their own candidate. It took BOTH groups together to push him over the top in the GE. "

I am curious to know what scorn you directed towards Senator Jeffords who took your complaint re Liebermann to an extreme.

Liebermann changed parties to run as an Independent yet still caucases with the Dems and supports the Dems on everything except Iraq and the War on Terror issues. Liebermann's action has no consequence beyond his individual votes that have to do with Iraq or the War on Terror b/c his affiliation has no effect on the majority/minority status, a very powerful difference, between the Dems and the Repubs.

Jeffords ran as a Repub, as was his custom, and was elected as a Repub. That year the body of the Senate was split 50-50 but gave majority control to the Repubs only b/c the VP, Cheney, has a roll in the Senate.

After the Senate convened our dear Jeffords, having been reelected a Repub under the banner and support of Repubs, did a double cross to Independent and declared he would caucas with the Dems. One Senator using his status as a Repub to get elected only to announce a change that in effect thwarts the collective will of 300 million Americans by single handedly giving the Dems unearned illegitimate Majority control of the Senate.

So, Senator Leibermann changing to Independent, running as an Independent and being ELECTED as an Independent had no more effect on the Senate than his individual vote. First, anyone who didn't know about his change to Independent must have been living in a 1950's bomb shelter. Second, the very important national balance of power was not perched on a ledge in 2006.

Contrast that to Jefford's little "switch and bait". Because he showed absolute disdain for the democratic process by re-registering as an "independant" after being soundly defeated in the Democratic primary to run against the same guy all over again."

If Leibermann et al showed "absolute disdain for the democratic process" how would you describe and characterize Jefford's and the Dems who colluded with him?

Oooh MikeH, I hadn't seen this from you when I responded to you:

"I think it's fair to say that the rulemakers would never have envisioned someone doing what Lieberman did and therefore did not specifically bar doing it hen the rules were set up...and that they certainly would have if something that bizarre could have been reasonalbly forseen."

So, the rulemakers did not address Leibermann running in the general election as an Independent after losing in the primary as a Dem b/c no one could never have envisioned such dastardly conduct by Leibermann? That is what you said, isn't it? I really don't want to be the 999,999th person to misquote you or put words in your mouth.

I am shocked and horrified that the rulemakers having the outrageous bizarre conduct of Jefford and the Dems as an example did not promulgate rules to prevent the piker Leibermann in time for you.

While you didn't put words in my mouth, You did miss the point as usual Janet:

And the point is quite simple; Unethical behaviour need not be illegal, but someone with a sufficiently high ethical code will generally recognize when they have crossed that line.

I personally believe Lieberman very much DID cross that line while quite 'legally' running twice in the same election.

"I personally believe Lieberman very much DID cross that line while quite 'legally' running twice in the same election. "

And you seem to have missed my question. I pointed out the similarities and differences between Jefford and Liebermann and asked what you thought of that when it meant that JUST Jeffords' voters overrode the will of the American electorate and single handedly changed the balance of power in the Senate?

In my second comment I quoted you re:

"I think it's fair to say that the rulemakers would never have envisioned someone doing what Lieberman did and therefore did not specifically bar doing it hen the rules were set up...and that they certainly would have if something that bizarre could have been reasonalbly forseen."

You ignored my point that it just won't fly that the rulemakers, with the dastardly example of Jeffords a few years earlier, were totally incapable of even imagining or reasonably foreseen Lieberman's heinous chicanery.

You're not happy with Liebermann. We all know that and understand why. That does not justify your climbing up on your moral high horse and wax poetic condemning Liebermann as if he were the reincarnation of Quisling!

I got the impression that what outraged you the most was that many Repubs/Conservs voted for Liebermann and that was just not fair to Lamont.

What rules are you suggesting for the "rule makers" to enact to guarantee that Repubs can't vote for a just changed Dem to Independ? What rules are you suggesting for the "rule makers" to enact to guarantee that no one can ever change parties between the primaries and regular elections.

Your stance strikes me as one that wants to limit choices for voters rather than open wide the debate and let citizens to pick what they want irregardless of my and yours approval.

Yes, Grammie, I also believe Jeffords action as dispicable, but if you'll remember, the context of the original question you responded to was an explanation as to why Liebermann is so reviled by many democrats, not whether similar things have ever been done before.

By "Stance" is simple; Joe Liebermann asked for the support of democrats by running in the primary and then selfishly grabbed his ball and essentially bolted to another party when he was honestly rejected for his one very controversial and VERY important view about the war.

I have already stated how I believe that his stature of being a long term democrat, along with the support of the majority of voters from the OTHER party, allowed him to literally circumvent the will of the majority regarding the war in Iraq.....and yes, what he did was cynical!

Mike shows severe contempt for his fellow Americans...If they choose to vote for Senator Lieberman because they think he is a good Senator, has been an honorable, an ethical and a good representative for the people of Connecticut...perhaps they like him because of his stand on Israel, democracy and freedom....Perhaps he got their vote because of longterm loyalty that the poor candidate, kos Lamont, could not elicit?...

None of that matters to Mike (or top radicals on either side of the political spectrum), who knows better for his fellow American. Iraq is the issue and damn everything else!

Ideologue...period. That is what you are, dear Mike. Congrats on joining people like Olbermann and SNOBamessiah who are ready to look down their noses at their fellow Americans because they "cling" to other ideas and issues not so important to you......

Joseph Lieberman fought against a radical element in the democrat party that is deciding there must be a litmus tests all must take and pass...the extremists have decided that all must pass their inspection or they are not worthy of anyone's support....even if they are able to form such independent and DIVERSE support.

The diversity of Lieberman's support politically, in religious belief and in socioeconomic class totally destroy's Mike's argument. Unlike the support of Lamont which was primarily white elitist liberals.

Freedom on thought and belief is what our armed forces are fighting for in Iraq...but it looks like the radical left is threatening it right here....

Go Easley!!

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/channel-08/2008/05/easley_for_clinton_in_new_nc_a.html

To Hilleritas and McCainites, please let us rally around Barak now, no more hate. He must do that which every politician must do. But with our support, he will be elected President. Perhaps then a serious discussion on reparations for our past sins of slavery and Jim Crow laws can begin. Once America has paid for it past mistakes by voting for Obama, and the Reparations checks are sent out, then the healing and acceptance of the majority can be considered by the minority. This is the "Change we can believe in!" We paid the Japanese who were interred in concentration camps during WW2, $20,000 each, for 400 plus years of slavery and racism, much more will be required.

Posted by: Obamamania | May 1, 2008 3:17 PM

>>>>

An obamaloon!

"Mike shows severe contempt for his fellow Americans."

No, just contempt for a "fellow American" who refused to accept the verdict of his own party's voters - and - for "fellow Americans" from the opposition party who contemptuously crossed over party lines to vote for the pro-war maverick for no other reason than knowing that he would also retain enough residual loyal democratic support so that they could put him over the top together......with the result of helping to keep this stupid war going.....even though he knows full well that he represents a state in which the majority wants the war ended.

"Go Easely"

As an NC resident, here is 'inside' recent local news about the good Governor that outsiders might have missed.

1) - He set an policy within the Governors office of destroying all email records....in direct violation of the state's open records law. Frotunately, he has just been forced to reverse that policy by an expose by Raleigh's News and Observer.

2) - He recently claimed (falsly) to have opposed a privatization program for the State's mental health system that has gone terribly wrong....when. in fact, he clearly help push the program upon it's inception.

I'm glad Easley isn't for Obama. It might make me hesitate if he was.

Well Mike, your elitist attitudes about how democracy works and how your fellow voters choose their leaders and representatives is going to continue to be an issue in this Presidential race....recent pictures are now circulating on the internet with WILLIAM AYERS who says....

"Guilty as sin, free as a bird, it's a great country"

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/05/05/ayers-and-the-old-glory-boogie/

Yep, the radical, know-it-all radical anti-America left is salivating at power this cycle and SNOBamessiah is their perfect candidate....Along with Wright, Ayers completes the definition of SNOBamessiah who is only now starting to sound the "red, white and blue" patriotism he was showing contempt for only one month ago....

Next, he'll be wearing a flag pin....

Symbols and empty platitudes won't change his past...Black Liberation Theology and now the associations with the elitist lefitst academia who idolizes the radical terrorist....standing on the American Flag....And SNOBamessiah was garnering this idiot's support in 2001!

Pictures speak with 1000 words.

"And SNOBamessiah was garnering this idiot's support in 2001!"

cee

Apologise for this one, mikeh. You've made the issue of "seeking endorsements" many times and how it differs in the obama/wright scandal. obama seeked ayers support. More of obamas horrible judgement, front and center.

Cee, you and I also know damned well that Obama didn't have anything other than the most casual of 'relationships' and happened to serve on the same board, and Obama did not seek his endorsement.

You and I also know that while Ayers may have expressed some outlandish views, he has never been convicted of anything (just as GW Bush hasn't, as I keep getting reminded).

While you continue to call yourself a Christian while making relentless gutter attacks on a politician who's ideas you happen to dislike, it ill become more and more apparent to all those moderates with even a modicum of common sense that all you are doing is smearing someone with the words of others....because you just can't find anything legitimate to smear him with.

It's not legitimate to discuss the radical ties a Presidential candidate has?....People who are unrepentant for bombing public places and stand proudfully on the flag as a symbol of their radical leftist anti-Americanism?

Sorry, Mike....this issue will continue for SNOBamessiah...it fits well with his effete elitism (a la bitter cling-ons) and radical religious views. Ayers was more than a casual realtionship...Axelrod called him SNOBamessiah's "friend."

Plus, it was SNOBamessiah's response that Ayers was only being radical when he was 8 years old....um...no....the man is the same pathetic radical leftist that SNOBamessiah is that anti-American rhetoric of hegemony and imperialism is what shows that. Read the article that comes with the lovely pictures of Ayers standing on the flag....what a supporter! Oh, and they were not "on the same board," SNOBamessiah was a Board of Directors chairman for the organization that Ayers was a main creative and grant finding force....see....

http://justoneminute.typepad.com/main/2008/04/just-fact-check.html

They are more than casual aquaintences as SNOBamessiah has characterised them as....they have a substantial working realtionship and common ideology....Too bad patriotism is an aspect of running for President.