Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Town Hall Debate: Wake Me When It Starts

Oh, wait, is it over? The white noise of the dishwasher woke me from my debate slumber. I’m kidding of course. Two pots of coffee, four cigarettes and the doors wide open were all I needed to stay riveted as John McCain reached across the aisle to examine his record and Barack Obama soothingly reminded us that sharing ‘n’ sacrificing will make us all feel better.

No really, it was great. Who won? Overall, I’d say that it was a fairly even split, with Obama oozing good guyness and connecting with everyday Americans over the economy and McCain inspiring confidence that he’s the man when it comes to national security and foreign policy. No surprises there.

Obama also inspires confidence, but in a completely different way than McCain. He’s a cat. He’s doesn’t sweat... anything. He is the envy of cucumbers. When everything is collapsing around him -- the economy, the Dow, the job market -- Obama is perched on the stool like Frank Sinatra between sets. Got a light? That’s not insignificant, I think. At the same time, when he talks, he sounds perfectly reasonable -- not at all the pal of radicals who has the most liberal voting record in the Senate.

He was at his best projecting the grown-up at the kitchen-table as he answered the question: “How can we trust either of you with our money when both parties got -- got us into this global economic crisis?"

Said Obama: “I understand your frustration and your cynicism, because while you've been carrying out your responsibilities -- most of the people here, you've got a family budget. If less money is coming in, you end up making cuts. Maybe you don't go out to dinner as much. Maybe you put off buying a new car. That's not what happens in Washington."

Obama has a knack for connecting without condescending, which engenders trust. He seems to say, look, I get it. We’ll work it out together. He’s Bill Clinton without the lip biting.

McCain, though awfully tedious with his earmarks and his record, deserves some kind of award for his incessant optimism. He said it: “Our best days are ahead of us.” And you sense that he means it. How does he keep doing that, decade after decade?

As usual, McCain took every opportunity to remind voters that he’s the one with experience. Energy? Why, he’s been on ships that had nuclear power. They’re safe. War? When it comes to sending troops into combat, he’s been there. “I know those situations. I’ve been in them all my life.”

At this point, no one doubts it. But McCain tripped on his own lines by emphasizing the need for experience, saying this isn’t a time for on-the-job training. We couldn’t agree more, so tell us again why you picked Sarah Palin as your Heartbeat Away?

McCain was weird when he mentioned hair transplants and rude when he said “that one,” pointing to Obama, the U.S. senator from Illinois. (See You Tube.) He was smart and clever when responding to whether Russia is an evil empire.

"Maybe,” he said. “If I say yes, then that means that we're reigniting the old Cold War. If I say no, it ignores their behavior.”

Obama answered the same question as a psychologically aware parent, who says of his child: “You’re not bad, but you’re acting badly.” Russia is guilty of evil behavior and nationalist impulses that are bad, Obama said. The message to naughty children and nations is that though you misbehave, we still love you and want to help you be better.

Ultimately, Obama probably came out on top, if only because he’s in the winner’s seat and only had to not fall off, but I liked McCain best at the end when Brokaw posed the Zen question, his last: “What don't you know and how will you learn it?”

Obama did what most men do when they don’t know the answer.

He said his wife would let him know, and then recited his well-known autobiography.

McCain saw Brokaw’s Zen and raised him: “What I don’t know is what the unexpected will be.” What he does know, he said, is what it’s like to keep one’s hope going in difficult times.

That he does.

By Kathleen Parker  | October 8, 2008; 12:32 AM ET
Categories:  Parker  | Tags:  Kathleen Parker  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: The Town Hall Debate: Old John
Next: The Town Hall Debate: Obama's Foreign Policy Surprise


(an Aussie perspective)
The debate was wonderful drama.
One fiery personality, one professorial and companionable. Both articulate and well meaning.
And both living in la-la land.
It was a little like watching a pair of young boys sketch out detailed schematics on the sand.
The winds of change will overtake, have already overtaken, almost everything that was said.
A hundred billion here, a hundred billion there, pretty soon you're talkin' big money.
Prior mismanagement means that fiscally you have no room to move.

Most other countries that stick to stick IMF rules regarding money market regulation are in pretty good shape. In Australia it has been a bit topsy turvey but with no government debt and prudent management of inflationary pressures via a series of interest rate rises - there is room to move. In Australia the government can spend some of the surplus and cut interest rates substantially (as per 1% cut yesterday which has cushioned the drop).
What can the American Government do?
Interest rates can't conceivably go down further.
You have no surplus to spend.
And minting endless amounts of money is unlikely to be the answer.
Welcome to stagflation, recession, depression.
Thank you Bush, Clinton, Bush.
Neither campaign talks about the down side, let's stay on topic and stick to the talking points - why discuss the herd of elephants in the room.
No mention of the need to raise money, cut expenditure, and re regulate in a post crash environment.
No mention of a stock market crash.

Posted by: jamesmoylan | October 8, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

What happened to your column that was up here a few minutes ago, Kathleen? The one titled "Call Off the Pit Bull." Why was it taken down?

Posted by: turningfool | October 8, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

Please tell me that Kathleen Parker doesn't really smoke, that her reference to "four cigarettes" was just a figure of speech.

Yes, I read the rest of her column, but couldn't get past the smoking reference.

Despite the fact that Ms. Parker's politics are very different from mine, she has always impressed me, but that will no doubt fade, as I find it exceedingly difficult to respect anyone who smokes, for smoking is one of the great evils of our time.

Am I kidding about that? No. According to the American Heart Association 440,000 die annually in the USA from smoking. If the cause of those deaths is not evil, then what is?

So was it a figure of speech, or does Ms. Parker actually smoke?

George Mitrovich
San Diego

Posted by: gmitro35 | October 8, 2008 1:53 AM | Report abuse

What happened to the much better column posted a little earlier tonight, titled , "Call off the Pitbull"?
Please have the courage leave up a column that speaks the truth ( although I do know that those hate letters from the far right are frightening...I have had them, too).
Sarah Palin is beating a very , very ugly drum...I have never seen the like in Presidential politics.
If allowed to continue, she is going to completely destroy what is left of John McCains reputation.
And she is not doing much good for the reputation of our country, either.

Posted by: mexantique | October 8, 2008 2:22 AM | Report abuse

Here is the truth about Palin pallin...

Unbelievable!!! Pls share this with yr Repub friends.. if they are patriots they should condemn her for this

Posted by: chill45 | October 8, 2008 2:41 AM | Report abuse

After seeing McCain and Obama head to head two times now a picture is becoming clear.

Want to know why McCain has adopted Clint Eastwood’s ‘man of few words’, anti-diplomacy policy of “bomb first and ask questions later?” It’s partly because McCain doesn’t present himself well---not in a manner befitting an American President--and he knows it.

Imagine yourself a foreign leader who is called upon by Barack Obama or John McCain. In Obama’s case, you may not agree with what the man has to say, but at least he comes across as befits a dignitary of his stature. Calm, mature, self-assured, not easily rattled.

In the case of John McCain, you find yourself asking yourself, “Who IS this clown?”.

Recognition of this reality, consciously or not, is why Obama keeps winning these debates so decisively in the public’s eye despite not doing so in the view of many so-called “experts”.

Posted by: CuckooRaja | October 8, 2008 3:35 AM | Report abuse

I didn't think McCain's answer to the "Zen" question was all that much better, though he did have the benefit of two minutes to get it together while Obama answered. Obama had no time to think and he still didn't blow his cool. (Just imagine Sixpack Sarah fielding that stumper in his place!)

But I think Obama did miss an opportunity there. I'd have liked to hear from him that no one knows what the future will bring, but that when the unexpected crisis arrives, he will consult all the parties, weigh all the facts, and craft a pragmatic, inclusive solution rather than pushing some hard-line ideology regardless of circumstances.

That's what members of the "reality-based community" do, because they're empiricists. We've just had 8 disastrous years of Bush's incurious, gut-driven fundamentalism, so I think it's a message voters are primed for.

Posted by: youarestillidiots | October 8, 2008 4:15 AM | Report abuse

When there is little in the way of anything new substance-wise in the debate, one naturally turns attention to the optics. Obama seemed attentive, engaged, reassuring. McCain seemed manic, uncomfortable, and agitated.
While Obama sat and listened to McCain, McCain wandered around as if lost incapable of remaining still. Even his answers sometimes seemed confusing- one minute Ronald Reagan is his hero, the next it is Teddy Roosevelt.
Obama seemed in control, at ease perhaps because he is in the lead. McCain seemed desperate and often peevish. McCain acts sometimes as if the Presidency is his birthright for 'years of service' and his sacrifice. Perhaps this is why he seems to have so much contempt for Obama.
I think this election was largely to be decided on whether or not they trusted Obama to be up to the task of President and he has shown well in the campaign and in the debates. The lines are hardening and they seem in favor of Obama.

Posted by: ronstamant | October 8, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

"What he does know, he said, is what it’s like to keep one’s hope going in difficult times.

That he does."

Interesting that you choose to end with a reminder of McCain's POW years - a none-too-subtle plug for your fellow right-wing extremist. John McCain has not addressed the issues facing this country -- do you think huge tax cuts for the rich make sense Ms Parker, really? He's run a nasty, bitter, dishonest campaign and he would make a terrible President.

Posted by: davidscott1 | October 8, 2008 6:52 AM | Report abuse

I suggest that Parker's concluding lines refer not to McCain's time as a POW, but to his hope to win the presidency.

Posted by: spbphil | October 8, 2008 7:10 AM | Report abuse

Debate? Was that a debate? Smart questions? Followups? Very Very sleepy and not much to be learned. disappointing to say the lest.

Give me a real debate with Diane Rehm as the moderated. Then we'll learn...and maybe the candidates too.

Posted by: vtcxc | October 8, 2008 7:39 AM | Report abuse

Open your eyes you talk to much an believe to less O bama clear winner !!

Posted by: chuckspeed | October 8, 2008 7:40 AM | Report abuse

May I suggest that one reason the political encounter (a debate in "town hall" style?) seemed to drag was that the audience was undecided voters. They asked legitimate questions, but ones to which we who have closely followed this season's campaigning have already heard the answers. Both candidates essentially responded with their now-established positions.

Since Americans are again being asked to wear blinders by the Republican party (don't ask why the economic and international problems exist and are beginning to overwhelm all other issues; the answer will cause you to look at the Bush policies and those who supported and cheered for them) we get only a caricature from John McCain. Personally, I hope that what we have been seeing recently is not McCain's true self. But more and more I fear he either has no other or is disguising his true feelings so well that his candidacy is turning into a collection of misdirection, catty falsehoods, and outright lies. I think most people expected much better.

Parker, I don't know what your general position is in all this. I may be progressive typically, but when it becomes a question of our country's health and safety, I will compromise my views with reasonable alternatives presented. There can be no question that basic conservative views on market self-discipline and the exportability of jobs, production, and even democratic government (even as our own country became ever more non-democratic) have fallen far short of the mark. Democrats in America have accepted that government could not accomplish complete economic equality and that aspects of social justice might be reasonably debated. But the idea that more freedom of marketplaces will cure the ills that an excess has already created is simply absurd. That message is not lost on the majority of the country now, as it was not in 1932.

So a yawner for you is just what some undecided people may still have needed. Don't put down an earnest effort to get to the decisive information. Play nice.

Posted by: Jazzman7 | October 8, 2008 7:57 AM | Report abuse

....I was waiting at the end of the debate for McCaint to raise both his arms and give us two victory signs.....

...But all I saw was him giving us Americans' the middle finger salute....

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 8, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

On the Zen question, I am disappointed that Kathleen Parker failed to point out that Obama was the first one to actually mention the "unexpected" as being what you wouldn't know ahead of time.
It's obvious to anyone who watched this debate with minimal objectivity that Obama was the better candidate. The difference in stature, composure, poise, and purpose is now as glaring as it can be. Americans now have a clear choice and their failure to elect Obama the next President of the United States would simply be startling!

Posted by: dossevi | October 8, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

Yes, how does John McCain manage that optimism while planning to follow the same old path?

It's like a guy with his thumb in the way of his hammering, swinging away, saying "next time I'll miss my thumb."


Posted by: hitpoints | October 8, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

“What I don’t know is what the unexpected will be" is zen? It sounded like McCain's version of "misunderestimated" or "is our children learning" to me.

Posted by: goodwinc | October 8, 2008 9:33 AM | Report abuse

Yeah, I am SO impressed by a guy who keeps hope going during difficult economic times when his wife has $100 million and they buy $1 million condos for their 20 year old daughter.

I can see how all this --coming on 8 years when wages did not rise for the middle class --could be quite daunting.

Heck --they might have to sell one of their --how many was it? --houses!

What I found interesting is his willingness to pursue war endlessly without a mechanism to pay for it, and his prescription of tax cuts and defecits for an economy already ruined by such nostrums.

He is the perfect embodiment of modern Republican "conservatism": --utterly without principals, desperately searching for a way to hold onto power at all costs, desperate to scapegoat somebody else --anyone--for the consequences of his own mistakes, and perfectly willing to destroy the nation to achieve his narrow, selfish, aims.

Sarah Palin is his perfect acolyte, as is most of the "conservative" pundit class.

Posted by: tc125231 | October 8, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

The debate was exactly what I expected due to the fact that NBC Tom picked the questions - boring!!!!!
I was leaning toward Obama, but there are too many unanswered questions - Who funded his education, Who is really backing his political career and what are his ties to the middle-east and certain wealthy Arabs -why won't they answer these questions or release his transcripts from the University? Too many things are being protected from public view and that is scary to me. Obama is looking more and more like a "polished-rehersed politician" and why don't we see or hear from Michelle anymore - have they pulled her for fear of what she might say???? Things just don't add up.

Posted by: Sabrina4 | October 8, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Kathleen Parker, you are quickly becoming my favorite conservative (may I call you that?) writer. Clear, witty, and sincere. Thank you.

Posted by: jp1954 | October 8, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Sen. John McCain clearly won last night's debate.

Democrats for John McCain and Sarah Palin in 2008.

Posted by: hclark1 | October 8, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

My greatest concern, given how erratic McCain's campaign has been, is that, once elected in a period when the situation requires America's best minds being applied to world-wide economic problems, McCain, if elected, will suffer even worse numbers than Bush. Since his standard response to crisis is, and always has been, to attack, this might lead him to initiate a military confrontation somewhere, as a distraction to his failed economic policies. Remember, the President can start a fight without Congress, leaving them holding the bag on funding the thing after its too late.
In my opinion, the LAST thing America needs this term is a military man. Our "wars" are really occupations; ask someone who remembers WWII about what a war looks like. Hard times raise tensions, and hard times are nearly world-wide, so this is the last place to apply rabid nationalism.

Posted by: OldUncleTom | October 8, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

I wouldn't say either won the debate. It was a discussion of smoke and mirrors. Both candidates doing the same thing and saying the same thing. Both will "cut taxes for the average American" both will give you healthcare and other bigger government programs.

BOTH will grow government to the detriment of us all.

It's too bad that Bob Barr is not being allowed in the debates. As the only candidate who stands against the bailout and bigger government, it would have been interesting to hear his viewpoint and have an actual contrasting view on the big issues that really matter.

But, my fear is that we will elect McBama who will go on to grow government, take more of our money and balloon the national debt.

Posted by: AndyMN | October 8, 2008 11:10 AM | Report abuse

Karl Rove's minions can throw mud all they want, it won't matter. Why?

For the simple fact that most Americans would rather vote for an unknown black man with no experience than to allow the Republicans 4 more years in power!


Now to me, Obama is not unknown or inexperienced. But even if he were, most Americans would prefer him to the Republican candidate!

McCain and the neocons are having a heck of time wrapping their heads around that -- so they throw mud instead. It ain't workin, Sarah!!

Posted by: rb-freedom-for-all | October 8, 2008 11:41 AM | Report abuse

This debate, like the others, was a waste of time. It told me nothing that I didn't already know, and explained nothing that I wanted explained.

I agree with AndyMN that a debate that includes Barr (at least) would be more enlightening.

Also, we need a real town hall debate (as opposed to last night's which was the same old crap in a different wrapper) where real people could ask the questions they want (rather than those which meets the parties' approval--yes I know Brokaw picked them but obviously he didn't dare pick any the parties wouldn't like) and follow up if the candidates answer evasively.

Posted by: EnjoyEverySandwich | October 8, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

Personally I don't think McCain's age would matter much if he had the right ideas and was able to express them.

He's based his argument on being experienced which is a great starting point. The problem is he either can't explain or doesn't have a clue as to where he would take the country beyond his being "experienced" certainly not to the extend that Obama does. Right or wrong Obama is pretty clear about what direction he's walking.

If you can't be clear on your direction then the assumption is you have no direction or you're hiding something. I don't believe either of these things are true, I think McCain does know what he wants to do but either can't express it or believes that not enough people will buy what he's selling. His constant focus on "the Surge" is a good example of something that is important to him but not most Americans who feel we should have never been there in the first place.

Choosing Palin could have help. She's done a good job of bringing attention to McCain but without any concrete plans once the spotlight was on McCain he lost what momentum she generated.

Beyond that Palin may be a good governor for Alaska but I'm not sure how her view of the world translates around the rest of the country. That is why it's hard to see her has the President which is likely and the only reason that McCain's wisdom should be evaluated.

Posted by: redleaf2k | October 8, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

I have to wonder after watching the Presidential Candidate Debate, why Senator Obama avoids a direct answer to the questions asked? Is it because he genuinely doesn't have an answer or he doesn't have a teleprompter in front of him with the intelligent, yet dishonest (because they're not his true feelings)answers already written for him? He avoided direct yes and no answers leaving me to believe that he can't make a decision again as in his going to the polls in Illinois and voting "PRESENT" instead of making a choice (130 Times????).
VERY SCARY for a Presidential candidate!! You may not be a Republican, but at least you can believe that when McCain talks it is from his own decisions and heart.

Posted by: jackiefrustaci | October 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

McCain acted like he was high on crack or some kind of speed drug the way he couldn't sit still and wandered around like he was looking for the men's room or something.

Posted by: darby124 | October 8, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

Maybe he was having a personal 'surge.'

Posted by: darby124 | October 8, 2008 12:59 PM | Report abuse

for the poster who said Obama didn't answer questions, you must not have been listening that closely to McCain because he didn't either. I dont' know when the last time politicians just answered the question asked of them without any spin, but at least in this debate they stuck close to the same topic. (of the question asked) rather then the VP debate where Palin just chose to ignore questions she either didn't' like or didn't know how to answer. unfortunately for her, the vice presidency isn't like can't just ignore issues that you dont' like or know how to deal with.

Posted by: postgradeducated | October 8, 2008 1:40 PM | Report abuse

For those interested, "Call Off the Pitbull" has not been taken down and can be found at

Posted by: | October 8, 2008 1:43 PM | Report abuse

Is the term you are looking for "Aequanimitas", or usually translated as equanimity. It's the trait that the great Sir William Osler described as a necessary component of a good (?great) physician. For that is what we need these days.

Unfortunately, the problems are increasingly simulating a gordian knot. Health Care and Medical Care are intricately tied to business viabilitly and workforce productivity. Housing and mortgages, and credit availability is intricately tied to the workforce being able to survive bodily and the ability of a business to merely continue, let alone get off the ground (cash-flow, venture capital), which is all tied to availability of affordable energy, if the transfer of petrodollars supports causes inimicable to our democratic republic's ideals, and the entire globalization.

This part nationalization. It's an interesting thing. On the one hand, it brings the fear of socialization to many. On the other, it provides the stability to allow companies to again look to long term goals and developments as opposed to the ultra short quarterly expectations of Wall Street. It's the investment versus speculation source of capital and ..... Look at the effect that partial government ownership of companies in China has done. I dont know if it is cause or effect, but an area that I would love to hear economists debate.

Posted by: susanoftheworld | October 8, 2008 2:17 PM | Report abuse

A Quote from AlexP1:

"....I was waiting at the end of the debate for McCaint to raise both his arms and give us two victory signs.....

...But all I saw was him giving us Americans' the middle finger salute...."

Posted by: AlexP1 | October 8, 2008 8:12 AM

Uhhhhhhhhhh.......As for your second sentnce oh wise AlexP1, I certainly didn't see that or feel it was even remotely implied...if that were the case, I doubt "McCaint", as you say it, would dedicate his life in service to his country in the military and in the Senate for the majority of his life if he truly felt that way, and as for your first sentence....
He can't lift his arms over his head because his shoulder was repeatedly broken by an AK-47 butt wielded by a Viet-Cong prison guard when he was a POW in Hanoi. Alex, you have a lot in common with many of your Obama really don't know the candidates (including your own), what they stand for, and what's going on. Do your homework and stop trying to be witty.

Posted by: BandWagonBurner | October 8, 2008 2:47 PM | Report abuse

McPhee: Obama links more than 'troubling' Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis calls Barack Obama’s connection to William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist who was part of the Weather Underground — an anti-war group that planted bombs and killed cops — “troubling.” I say it is outrageous.

The Weather Underground did damage right here in Boston. On Sept. 23, 1970, BPD Officer Walter Schroeder was gunned down outside a Brighton bank that had just been robbed by five members of the Weather Underground. One of the terrorists opened fire on the cop. With bullets from a machine gun the group ripped off from a National Guard armory in Newburyport just weeks earlier, Schroeder was shot in the back and killed.

Schroeder left behind a wife and nine children, aged 17, 15, 13, 10, 9, 7, 6, 2 and 11 months. The gunman, William “Lefty” Gilday, was captured along with three accomplices. The armed getaway driver, Katherine Powers, fled and remained on the lam for 23 years. When she was finally caught, Powers was treated with the same despicable reverence that Obama’s friend Ayers has been given by the media. Like Ayers, Powers was profiled as a hapless revolutionary caught up in the tumult of the Vietnam War rather than what she truly is: a cop-killing lowlife.

That fact was not lost on Schroeder’s daughter, Clare, who delivered a powerful victim impact statement at Powers’ sentencing in 1993. “Powers’ crimes, her flight from justice and her decision to turn herself in have been romanticized utterly beyond belief,” Schroeder said. “My father’s life was cut short for no reason, shot in the back with a bullet of a coward while Ms. Powers waited to drive that coward to safety.” The Weather Underground was also involved in a Brinks robbery in Nyack, N.Y., that left two cops and a Brinks security guard dead. Those murders also left nine children fatherless.

So for Obama to think it is OK to launch his political career in the living room of two Weather Underground members, Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn — the couple, like Powers, went underground as fugitives after a bomb-making factory blew up on a residential Manhattan block, killing three people — and then explain the association away by saying, “I was 8,” is outrageous. People need to wake up and realize that Obama’s anti-American pals, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, are not just “troubling.” The associations are frightening.

Metro Life Panel

Read more

McPhee: Obama links more than 'troubling'
Metro Boston News ^ | 5/5/08 | Michele McPhee

Posted on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 13:04:37 by PajamaTruthMafia

The Weather Underground did damage right here in Boston. On Sept. 23, 1970, BPD Officer Walter Schroeder was gunned down outside a Brighton bank that had just been robbed by five members of the Weather Underground. One of the terrorists opened fire on the cop. With bullets from a machine gun the group ripped off from a National Guard armory in Newburyport just weeks earlier, Schroeder was shot in the back and killed.

Schroeder left behind a wife and nine children, aged 17, 15, 13, 10, 9, 7, 6, 2 and 11 months. The gunman, William “Lefty” Gilday, was captured along with three accomplices. The armed getaway driver, Katherine Powers, fled and remained on the lam for 23 years. When she was finally caught, Powers was treated with the same despicable reverence that Obama’s friend Ayers has been given by the media. Like Ayers, Powers was profiled as a hapless revolutionary caught up in the tumult of the Vietnam War rather than what she truly is: a cop-killing lowlife. ...

So for Obama to think it is OK to launch his political career in the living room of two Weather Underground members, Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn — the couple, like Powers, went underground as fugitives after a bomb-making factory blew up on a residential Manhattan block, killing three people — and then explain the association away by saying, “I was 8,” is outrageous. People need to wake up and realize that Obama’s anti-American pals, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers, are not just “troubling.” The associations are frightening

Posted by: DrRevere | October 8, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama was 8 when Ayers was enjoying his height of popularity.

While "guilt by association" is really cool in the republican party and Fox News the rest of the country doesn't care.

But hey thanks for taking the time to write.

Posted by: redleaf2k | October 8, 2008 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Parker, I continue to disagree with you about Palin. We do not need anymore highly polished politicians. She comes with a totally new perspective. She speaks simply and has a record of getting it done. Her moral compass and judgement are sound in my eyes.
She shines a light of contrast on Obama and how is so self serving, arrogant and a masterful dishonest politician.
I continue to believe Obama, although a very "smart conniving politician", that was chosen as the "token balck man" years ago. The Chicago radical machine, Ayers, Rezco, Wright, Farraghan, and Daly all saw an opportunity to exploit thier "token black man".
Now, we are left with a man that doesn't even know how to balance his own checkbook. When Obama was asked in and interview 2007, Who handles the finances at home.? "Oh, Michelle, definitely Michelle. I am not good with money. She gives me an allowance".
Yeah, that' who I want running a multi-trillion dollar budget!

Posted by: oscar1234 | October 8, 2008 4:30 PM | Report abuse


{attempt to spin self-deprecatory humor re: wife, checkbook as evidence of incompetence} = FAIL

but thanks for playing.

Posted by: youarestillidiots | October 8, 2008 5:15 PM | Report abuse


2 minute version:
"Barack Obama and Raila Odinga -- Did the Illinois senator violate the Logan Act in campaigning for his 'genocidist' cousin's bid for the Kenyan presidency?"

8 minute version:
"Barack Obama & Raila Odinga"

Posted by: DrRevere | October 9, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

Obama Held Membership in Socialist New Party
The New Media Journal
Evidence is continuing to surface that indicates Barack Obama was a member of the Socialist New Party, an organization headquartered in Chicago during the mid-1990s. The New Party was formed to serve as a in Chicago by the Democrat Socialists of America in 1992 to serve as a central coordinating body for various Socialist Party activities in the region. It survived until 2000, when it disintegrated into its various factions. The Organization experienced a bump in membership in the late 1990s but was all but defunct by 2000 in part because of a Supreme Court decision that ruled the organizations "fusion" reform platform as unconstitutional.

The document uncovered by a variety of internet publications including Politically Drunk on Power, the Jawa Report, No Quarter, NewsBusters and Libertarian Republican, shows documents, webpages, that had been scrubbed from the New Party’s website but that had been archived by the non-profit Internet Archive Organization, that prove beyond question Obama's membership in the Party. One document states: "Illinois: Three NP members won Democratic Primaries last Spring and face-off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (US House), Barack Obama (State Senate), Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary)."

The New Party performed activities in addition to political advocacy in campaign activities. Their activities included community organizing efforts and voter registration drives. The New Party members staged protests – along with the radical group ACORN – to demand financial institutions afford unqualified borrowers loans at sub-prime mortgage rates, an action that served as the catalyst for the current mortgage crisis and financial meltdown. They also attempted to manipulate corporations the group viewed as supporting "racist" policies.

The internet publication No Quarter exposed Obama's deep roots with the New Party in that: Obama was an active member in the 1990s, and a direct political beneficiary of the Chicago New Party and, alarmingly, the Chicago DSA, a group of socialists affiliated with the Democratic Socialists of America; Obama attended and participated in meetings of the Chicago New Party and the Chicago DSA, the local affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America; Obama sought the endorsement of the Chicago DSA which required rigorous scrutiny by the party’s Political Committee as well as Mr. Obama’s signature on a contract promising “a visible and active relationship with the NP”; Obama actively used the endorsement from the Chicago DSA; Obama won his DSA endorsed and backed campaign to secure his seat in the Illinois State Senate; and that Obama continued his involvement with the Chicago DSA — including directly asking the group to join “his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration” — and received their endorsements in subsequent campaigns.

After allegations surfaced of Obama’s membership in and endorsement by the New Party in the summer of 2008, the Obama campaign, along with the remaining fragments of the New Party and Democratic Socialists of America insisted that Obama was never a member of either organization. The DSA and New Party then aggressively attempted to cover up any ties between Obama and the Socialist Organizations. The evidenced unearthed by the new media in recent days refutes those denials and does it advancing undisputable truth. Barack Obama was indeed a certified and acknowledged member of the DSA's New Party.

Posted by: DrRevere | October 9, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse


Posted by: DrRevere | October 9, 2008 11:15 AM | Report abuse

Obama’s Hidden Records

1. Occidental College records -- Not released
2. Columbia College records -- Not released
3. Columbia Thesis paper -- ''''not available''''
4. Harvard College records -- Not released
5. Selective Service Registration -- Not released
6. Medical records -- Not released
7. Illinois State Senate schedule -- ''''not available''''
8. Law practice client list -- Not released
9. Certified Copy of original Birth certificate -- Not released
10. Embossed, signed paper Certification of Live Birth -- Not released
11. Harvard Law Review articles published -- None
12. University of Chicago scholarly articles -- None
13. Record of baptism-- Not released or ''''not available''''
14. Illinois State Senate records--''''not available''''

Add to that, how did he pay for college? How did he go from Occidental to Columbia, who got him in? How was he made Prez of the Harvard Law Review without witting any laws!!!! Or an article even.

Posted by: DrRevere | October 9, 2008 1:54 PM | Report abuse

Drrevere, thanks for the laugh with your post saying the press should check out these things. Have you been under a rock for the last 2 years? And you want the press to check all this out but they aren't allowed to check out Palin after her only being on the world stage for 5 weeks? The best laugh was " how was he the prez of the Harvard Law review without writing any laws?" HUH??? Could you possibly make less sense?

Posted by: katem1 | October 10, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

I am a liberal and a democrat. But, I want the president of my country to be selected based on merits, and not by an overwhelming bias, and propaganda. I don't understand why the media (almost all of them) and liberal-leaning papers like WP, NY Times, LA Times, Boston Globe, etc jump all over, when William Ayers or Tony Rezko's connections with Barack Obama is discussed. After all, if Obama does not have anything to worry, is it not welcome that this thing comes out in the open. Should Obama be protected from any criticism? Didn't the media push us into the Iraq War? They failed us once, and fail us again. In 2000 election, it was painful for me to see the media glowing over Bush as the savior of White House's "integrity" and "morality". We know what we got. Now, it is the media's turn to brainwash everyone into believing Obama has done nothing wrong, and will do none. Please don't push your agenda on us. If there is a story about Obama and Ayers, investigate it, explain it. Don't attack those who bring it in the open. In fact, before Palin talked about it or Clinton brought it, the media should have done that. We don't believe in Hannity. We want YOU to do it for us. Ask Obama why he associated with Ayers, Wright, and Rezko so long and in so much depth. Let the world know what he has to say. Don't push Obama into the White House. Let him earn it. We deserve that, and you (the news media) need to earn that respect, by asking tough questions to Obama too. Don't be a propaganda machine for any party or any candidate. The reason I am a Democrat is because of the dislike I have for right-wing loud mouths. We don't need left-wing cover-up machines. If you believe Obama is good, he'll come out clean. BUT DON'T COVER IT UP.

Posted by: ronniesmith123 | October 10, 2008 3:01 PM | Report abuse

Sarah Palin hates America. She thinks Alaska is much too good to be part of the Union. She just wants to grab those good federal dollars and write tax give-aways to her constituents. That's all that we're good for down here in the lower 48: subsidizing the moose-burger lifestyle.

Sarah Palin is the Lower Slobbovian Candidate. Sorta like the Manchurian Candidate, but straight from America's own version of Dogpatch-Under-the-Ice.

Posted by: fzdybel | October 11, 2008 5:21 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company