US Jews Go Right

Despite the assumption that American Jews traditionally vote for Democrats and not Republicans, there is a shift in the Jewish vote already taking place at the state level.

Politico points out that nationally, Jews make up only about 2 percent of the American population but are heavily represented in big cities and have disproportionately high voter turnout rates. While Democrats do get the lion’s share of the Jewish vote, some Jewish groups such as the Orthodox Jews have shifted to the Republicans, as seen in the 2004 elections, when 70 percent of Orthodox Jews supported George W. Bush.

At the state level, the Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie attracted 38 percent of the Jewish vote in 2009. As a result, Republicans who can be competitive in the Jewish community, gain an edge against Democratic opponents, who have been taking the Jewish vote for granted.

With only a week before historical mid-term elections, it is worth paying close attention to the Jewish vote in close Senate races in states with significant Jewish populations.
For example, Politico points to "the complicated Pennsylvania race,” where Republican-turned-Democrat Jewish senator, Arlen Specter was defeated in the primaries. In Philadelphia, Democratic nominee Joe Sestak signed the “Gaza 54 letter,” which called for Washington to pressure Israel to end the Gaza blockade. This fact alone might cause the Jewish voters to vote Republican.

Other examples where Jews might vote for the Republican candidates include Florida, where former Republican-turned-independent Charlie Crist, who is being endorsed by Jewish former Democratic Rep. Robert Wexler, might split the traditionally Democratic Jewish vote with Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek, causing a boost for Republican Marco Rubio.

Closer to my heart, New Jersey’s 12th district is another important area. Scott Sipprelle is challenging Rush Holt, another "Gaza 54" letter signer. While neither candidate is Jewish, a “Rabbis for Sipprelle” group is seeking to raise awareness of Holt’s actions, another move which could help bring the district back to the Republicans.

The 9th Congressional District in Illinois is also an area to watch, as Republican Joel Pollak - who has won the endorsement of Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz - is challenging Democrat Jan Schakowsky, another Jewish candidate. Israel has become a central issue in the campaign, with Pollak claiming that Schakowsky does not do enough for Israel.

One reason for the apparent fluidity of the Jewish vote could be Obama’s perceived tough stance on Israel. The Jewish vote in America is evolving. Instead of it being monolithically Democratic there are signs that at the local and state level Jews can shift their vote enough towards Republican candidates that Democrats are forced to play defense. Jewish voters care about issues such as the economy, the deficit, and health care. “Jewish voters in state elections across the country could significantly change our political landscape in November,” according to Politico.

The Associated Press reported that both Israelis and Palestinians are closely watching the upcoming midterm race in the United States, sensing that its results could affect both the peace talks as well as Obama's ability to coax concessions from Israel.

The report said that the Arabs are hoping that Obama’s mild reaction to Israel’s refusal to continue the construction freeze in Judea and Samaria has been due to political consideration, and that he would be freer to apply pressure on Israel after the vote November 2.
An adviser for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told AP that if Congress tilts Republican, it could have what he termed a "positive impact" on Israeli concerns, meaning there would be no pressure on Israel to make concessions.

“Settlements are not an obstacle to peace in the Middle East,” says Rev. Michael Faulkner, ex- New York Jets lineman, an evangelical minister and candidate for Congress. When asked about President Obama's plans to compel the Netanyahu government to extend the freeze on settlement construction in Judea, Samaria and parts of East Jerusalem, Faulkner replied, “I am tired of hearing the words 'occupation' and 'return to 1967 borders' when it comes to defining Israel because that simply is not the case. Israel is not an occupying power and thus anyone who says that Jewish settlement construction is an obstacle to peace in the Middle East is just using that as a smokescreen. The real obstacle to peace in that region are terrorists such as Hamas, Hizbullah and other Iranian proxies."

Expressing anger at the view of the Obama administration as it pertains to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Faulkner stated, "Obama has participated in the delegitimization of Israel through his maltreatment of our best friend and stalwart ally in the region. By doing so he helps to fuel feelings of anti-Semitism."

Rev. Faulkner is fighting to unseat Charles Rangel, a Democrat and a political icon in Manhattan's 15th congressional district, which includes the upper West Side, Harlem and Washington Heights. Rev. Faulkner's candidacy has received endorsements from Fox TV commentator Sean Hannity, National Right to Life parties, Newt Gingrich. the New Era Democrats, the Black Republicans PAC, the Frederick Douglass Foundation and more than a dozen Christian churches, ministries, clerics and community groups.

A Jew Asks Why Are Jews So Liberals?

Tough question. Norman Podhoretz tries to answer this question in an article recently published in the "Wall Street Journal".

Like many other Jewish intellectuals (Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved), Podhoretz moved from left to right more than four decades ago. Like many other Jews (your humbled blogger, included), he's been hoping for many years that our fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for a Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% (far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group). In 2008, 78% of the Jewish vote when to Obama. Except for blacks, who gave him 95% of their vote, Obama scored better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. What makes this even more unbelievable is that despite McCain's long history of sympathy towards Israel and Obama's atrocious associations with outright haters and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi, Obama beat McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points!

Today, the Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. While other ethno-religious groups have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party, Jews still remain heavily committed to the liberal agenda. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, increased government spending, expanded benefits to the lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

In the conflict between Judaism and "Jewish values", on one side and liberalism on the other, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.

Many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

In Podhoretz's view, when they look at America, liberals see injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

As such, the Jewish experience in this country bears testimony to the precious virtues of the traditional American system. Surely, then, Jews ought to be joining with conservatives against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions of the traditional American system.

Obama ran on the premise that the American system is seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, we hoped that our fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism of the past. It didn't happen.

The encouraging signs that more and more Jews are showing signs of "buyer's remorse", is perhaps one of the reasons Podhoretz hopes that the exposure of Obama as a "false messiah" will open the eyes of fellow Jews to the falsity of the political creed to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Who Stands With Israel?

The Democratic Party base has changed demographically and with it, the way it views the U.S. relationship with Israel. Democratic voters now have very contrasting views on these matters with those of Republicans, and this gives Obama a potential mandate to change course in U.S. policy.

The latest Zogby Interactive survey conducted from April 1 to April 4, 2009 underlines the increasing difference between the Republican and Democrat views towards Israel. Here are a few of the questions in the survey that found significant differences between self-identified voters for Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain:

U.S. interests and Israel's interests are identical: McCain voters, 78% say YES; Obama voters, 72% say NO.
--Do you believe U.S. support for Israel strengthens or weakens U.S. security? McCain voters: 72% strengthens, Obama voters: 50% weakens.
--If Israel continues to build settlements in the West Bank, the U.S. should get tough on Israel McCain voters, 26% YES; Obama voters, 71% YES.
--The US Administration should lean toward Israel: McCain voters, 60%; Obama voters, 9%.

Support for Israel is extremely high among evangelical Christians, who are the bedrock of the Republican base. That, coupled with broad acceptance of neo-conservative foreign policy among Republicans, accounts for the survey results. Support for Israel among Republicans now ranks as one of the party's defining issues, along with anti-abortion and gun rights.
By comparison, more American Jews believe in "talks" and appeasement as strategies that would benefit Israel and most back Obama's liberal policies on the economy, pro-abortion and gay rights.

So who really stands with Israel? Apart from conservative Jews, the evangelical Christians are Israel's most ardent supporters, not the majority of the American Jews. Those are sadly more concerned with their hypocritical Liberal self-image than with the security and well being of Israel (or the US, for that matter).

How will this emerging political reality affect the Obama administration's policies regarding Israel? Obama will emphasize dialogue and appeasement to the detriment of the basic security interests of the State of Israel.

Pursuing that course, Obama will face opposition from Republicans and U.S. supporters of Netanyahu's hard-line policies toward the Palestinians. However, these are not the voters who elected him. Those that did, want a new, less friendlier U.S. policy towards Israel, and they will demand Obama to implement it.

Just How Stupid is Biden?

Joe Biden has been keeping a low profile these days. But that's not his style. Last week he popped into the headlines after claiming to have rebuked Bush in private meetings. Recalling a conversation during an interview with CNN, Biden said he told Bush in the Oval Office: "'Mr. President, turn and around look behind you. No one is following.'"

Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser in the White House, called the conversational "fictional."

From historical blunders and Internet gaffes to offensive jokes, Vice President Joe Biden constanly proves that there is no lower level than he can stoop to.

Here's a list of 15 "Bidenisms":

-- On March 13, 2009, Biden addressed a former Senate colleague by saying, "An hour late, oh give me a f**king break," after he arrived on Amtrak at Union Station in Washington, D.C. The vice president's expletive was caught on a live microphone.

-- During a Feb. 25, 2009, interview on CBS' "Early Show," Biden encouraged viewers to visit a government-run Web site that tracks stimulus spending. When asked for the site's web address, Biden could not remember the site's "number."

"You know, I'm embarrassed. Do you know the Web site number?" he asked an aide standing out of view.

-- At a Jan. 30, 2009, swearing-in ceremony of senior White House staff, Biden mocked Chief Justice John Roberts for his presidential oath blunder on Inauguration Day:
"Am I doing this again?" Biden said, after Obama asked him to administer the oath. When Biden was told the swearing-in was for senior staff -- and not cabinet members -- the vice president quipped, "My memory is not as good as Justice Roberts," prompting a stern nudge from Obama.

-- On Inauguration Day, Jan. 20 2009, Biden misspoke when he told a cheering crowd of supporters, "Jill and I had the great honor of standing on that stage, looking across at one of the great justices, Justice Stewart." Justice John Paul Stevens -- not Stewart -- swore Biden in as vice president.

-- When criticizing John McCain in Athens, Ohio, on Oct. 15, 2008, Biden said, "Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."

-- In a Sept. 22, 2008, CBS interview, Biden misspoke when he said Franklin D. Roosevelt was president when the stock market crashed in 1929.

"When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened," he said. Herbert Hoover -- not Roosevelt -- was president in 1929, and television had not yet been invented in 1929.

-- During a Sept. 12, 2008, speech in Columbia, Mo., Biden called for Missouri State Sen. Chuck Graham, who is wheelchair-bound, to "stand up."

-- At a Sept. 10, 2008, town hall meeting in Nashua, N.H., Biden said, "Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be vice president of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me."

-- Biden mistakenly referred to Alaska governor Sarah Palin as the "lieutenant governor" of her state during a town hall meeting on Sept. 4, 2008 at George Mason University in Manassas, Va.

-- Biden said he was running for president -- not vice president -- during a Sept. 1, 2008, roundtable discussion in Scranton, Pa.

"Today is the moment for me as a United States senator running for president to put aside the national politics and focus on what's happening down there," Biden said.

-- Biden referred to John McCain as "George" during his vice presidential acceptance speech on Aug. 27, 2008, at the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Co.

-- Biden confused army brigades with battalions when speaking about Obama's plan for sending troops to Afghanistan.
"Or should we trust Barack Obama, who more than a year ago called for sending two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan?"

-- During his first campaign rally with Obama as his vice presidential running mate on Aug. 23, 2008, Biden introduced Obama by saying, "A man I'm proud to call my friend. A man who will be the next President of the United States -- Barack America!"

-- On Jan. 31, 2007 -- the day Biden announced his presidential bid -- the Delaware Senator was roundly criticized for calling Obama "the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man."

-- On June 1982, at the height of the Lebanon War ("Peace for Galilee" operation), Menachem Begin, the then Israeli PM, had a tough confrontation with Joe Biden. Biden had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel. When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin replied to him: ‘This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.’”

Palin's a Tough, Smart Conservative Woman: Deal With It!

Liberals excel in blinding themselves to their own biases and hypocrisy and blaming conservatives for their own sins, all of which they are showcasing in their frantic reaction to the Sarah Palin nomination.

Not only are they trying to destroy Palin. They are straight-facedly denying it and accusing Republicans of manufacturing this charge to exhibit phony sympathy for women.

Conservatives, after all, couldn't possibly be supportive of female Palin based on merit; it's just a political ploy to purloin Hillary voters. Liberal captives of identity politics just can't comprehend that neither gender nor race matters to conservatives. It's all about the candidate's political philosophy, approach to governance and qualifications to serve -- not those artificial constructs that liberals have exploited through the years.

Don't get me wrong. Palin's beauty and tough-as-nails femininity are refreshing icing on a delicious cake for conservatives, but if she were not demonstrably conservative, they'd be depressed -- not energized.

But you'll never convince the liberal press, which sees everything through the lens of gender and race consciousness and indiscriminately projects that propensity onto conservatives.

Thus, Newsweek's Anna Quindlen is reduced to grousing about the "hypocrisy" of conservatives in honoring the Palins for bringing a baby with Down syndrome to term rather than scolding them with "pursed-lip accusations of promiscuity."

Conservatives, said Quindlen, have "inveighed against affirmative action" yet celebrate the affirmative action that "undoubtedly played a part in" the Palin selection. And how can conservatives credibly complain about personal attacks against Palin, when "the wingnuts of their own party elevated such attacks to a fine art by accusing Hillary Clinton of fictitious misdeeds from treason to murder"?

Like many liberals, poor Anna can't seem to distinguish between hating the sin and hating the sinner. Nor does she grasp the difference between government-mandated race- or gender-based preferences and the private selection of individuals for public service who happen to be in "minority" categories. She is also confused on the distinction between dozens of legitimate charges against the Clintons and the trumped-up slanders against Sarah Palin. When you've caught Bill Clinton red-handed in multiple felonies and Hillary in gross improprieties on which she got a complete media pass -- such as the cattle futures and missing law firm billing records -- who needs the more sensational allegations of treason and murder?

But despite her best efforts, Quindlen's obtuseness doesn't hold a candle to that of MSNBC's Chris Matthews. On "Hardball," Matthews derisively mocked Pat Buchanan for defending Palin against media attacks, accusing him of "a 1950s version of chivalry," false "sensitivity," "political cross-dressing" and assuming the role of Dr. Phil.

Revealing the narrowly calibrated liberal mind, Matthews wrongly assumes that conservatives are cynically playing the gender card in defending Palin and, in the process, demeaning women and hurting their cause. "This courtesy that you expect people to show her is debasing her potential as a leader of this country."

Nice try, Chris. But conservatives are defending Palin not out of chivalry, but against false charges. Our invocation of gender is solely to point out liberal hypocrisy for engaging in the sexism they pretend to decry. For example, consider their condemnation of Palin as an unfit mother for working a demanding job while having young children at home.

Matthews, saying Palin is ducking press scrutiny, started a bogus altercation with Buchanan over the public's "right" to have candidates submit to "tough questions" from an "objective" journalist.

Matthews needs shock treatments if he thinks the liberal media are objective. (...) Even his own bosses dumped him as convention anchor because of his overt bias. Indeed, a Rasmussen poll indicates that 51 percent believe the press is trying to hurt Palin.

(...) Liberals are accusing Palin of avoiding the media to create the impression she has a reason to hide from them. She was just nominated, for crying out loud. Take a breath. She has already agreed to an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, and there will be plenty more.

But while we're on this subject, have the media talked about Obama's incompetence without a teleprompter or his flip-flop on agreeing to unscripted town hall meetings with McCain? Have "objective" journalists asked Joe Biden about his plagiarism or his autocratic plan to divide Iraq into three separate nations whether Iraqis like it or not? (...)

The more liberals mistreat Palin and act like transparent 2-year-olds in projecting onto conservatives their own patronizing proclivities the more their true colors will be apparent. So please keep it up.

---

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His book "Bankrupt: The Intellectual and Moral Bankruptcy of Today's Democratic Party" was released recently in paperback. To find out more about David Limbaugh, please visit his Web site at www.davidlimbaugh.com.

COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC.

Sex, Lies and Videotapes - The Far Left is afraid

Since she emerged on the national stage as John McCain’s vice presidential pick one week ago, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin has been subjected to an intense amount of media and public scrutiny. But while public scrutiny is legitimate, most of the shameless attacks and smears thrown at her, are not. The moment America got a glimpse at the "hockey mom" from Alaska, the far left smear machine started to work. Many of the attacks have come in the form of unconfirmed reports on the Internet. Among them:

1) Palin “Joined a Secessionist Political Party”

The Charge: Unsubstantiated Internet reports insisted Palin was once a member of the Alaska Independence Party, which critics call a secessionist political movement and supporters say is dedicated to seeking greater state control over federal lands across Alaska.

The Facts: Palin has been a registered Republican since 1982. There is no record of her ever being a member of the AIP, or any party but the GOP. Palin’s huband has been a member of the AIP in the past, but since 2002 has been a registered independent.

2) Palin Supported a “Nazi Sympathizer”

The Charge: “Palin was a supporter of Pat Buchanan, a right-winger or, as some Jews call him: a Nazi sympathizer,” Obama Florida spokesman Mark Bubriski was quoted as saying in a Miami Herald article.

The Facts: While mayor of Wasilla, Palin wore a Buchanan button during the sometimes presidential candidate’s 1999 visit. But Palin actually supported Steve Forbes in 2000, and served as a co-chair on his Alaska campaign.
In the weeks after the 1999 report of her wearing the Buchanan button, Palin said: “When presidential candidates visit our community, I am always happy to meet them. I’ll even put on their button when handed one as a polite gesture of respect. … The article may have left
your readers with the perception that I am endorsing this candidate, as opposed to welcoming his visit to Wasilla.”In fact, the Alaska Jewish leadership had only praise for her commitment to the US-Israel relationship and her dealings with the community.

3) Palin “Wants Creationism Taught in School”

The Charge: Palin opposes the teaching of evolution, and would mandate the teaching of creationism in the state’s public schools.

The Facts: Palin said during her 2006 gubernatorial campaign that she would not push the state Board of Education to add creation-based alternatives to the state’s required curriculum, or look for creationism advocates when she appointed board members. She has kept this pledge, according to the Associated Press. Palin has spoken in favor of classroom discussions of creationism, in some cases. “I don’t think there should be a prohibition against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn’t have to be part of the curriculum,” Palin told the Anchorage Daily News in a 2006 interview.

4) Palin “Was Nearly Recalled” While Mayor

The Charge:: Palin was so controversial as mayor of Wasilla that she was almost recalled by a popular voter movement.

The Facts: The Wasilla City Council considered but never took up a recall motion after she fired a longtime police chief, who subsequently brought a lawsuit. A citizen’s group dropped their recall bid, and a judge ruled Palin had the authority to fire the chief.

5) Palin “Opposes Sex Education”

The Charge: Palin opponents say Palin supported the end of all sex education in public schools. In light of her daughter’s presumably unplanned teen pregnancy, this has been a particularly well discussed internet topic.

The Facts: “The explicit sex-ed programs will not find my support,” Palin wrote in a 2006 questionnaire distributed among gubernatorial candidates. Palin favors abstinence-based sex education programs.

6) “This Picture Proves Palin is …”

The Charge: A slew of fake, Photoshopped or misdated photographs on the internet purport to show Palin in any number of embarrassing or compromising poses. One photo claimed to show Palin standing poolside, wearing an American flag-themed bikini, toting a rifle with telescopic sight.

The Facts: The various photos are being discredited and shown to be fake on a number of websites. The original of the so-called bikini shot, probably the best-known of the pictures, was shown to have been taken of another woman, with Palin’s head Photoshopped above the body.

7) Palin is the grandmother, and not the mother, of Trig Palin

The Charge: The most salacious rumor of all, this theory holds that Palin did not give birth to her son Trig in April, and was actually covering up for her daughter, Bristol.

The Facts: There are a number of photographs showing an apparently pregnant Sarah Palin, as well as a number of published eyewitness accounts of her pregnancy. These include First Lady Laura Bush, who says she spoke with a pregnant Palin at a governor’s conference in February. An assignment manager for KTVA news in Anchorage, Cherie Shirey, has also been quoted saying: “We worked with Governor Palin many times in 2008. Our reporters worked her on location and in the studio and I worked with her myself. She was definitely pregnant. You could see it in her belly and her face. The whole idea that Sarah Palin wasn’t pregnant with Trig is completely, absolutely absurd.”
The McCain campaign, in an apparent effort to counteract the rumors, announced last weekend that Bristol Palin is five months pregnant, which indicated she would have become pregnant
before Trig was born.

Why, you may ask, do we need to spend time and energy on fighting this garbage instead of concentrating on real and important issues like - Iran and the global Islamo-Nazi Jihad against the West, drilling for energy, cutting and keeping taxes low, shrinking the size of the Government, etc.?
The answer is simple - lies must be dealt with immediately, otherwise Goebels would have been proven right ("If you tell a lie enough times, eventually, people will end up believing it").
But what these smears prove is that the Democrats and their far left minions are shaking in their boots. Sarah Palin is a classy lady. She is articulate, pleasant, strong willed and determined to fight for her believes. That spells trouble for the liberals, whose icon, in this election, is a guy with a thin resume and questionable background and associations and an angry woman who publicly admited that she has not been proud of her country (until now, that is) and she thinks that America is "a downright mean country in 2008".

The DNC - Democratic National Circus

As the DNC Convention is approaching its apogee tonight, with Obama's acceptance speech delivered in front of a full stadium, many see a missed opportunity in a convention which offered no coherent message to America and a whole lot of circus-like show.
After all the show that they put up, Democrats are still having a hard time to figure how it was that John McCain had inched further up in the polls during this, of all things, the week
of the Democratic National Convention in Denver. But the only real mystery is why they were so mystified.
Out of touch with middle America, the Democrats opened their Convention with a salute to the party's ultra liberal wing. First came Ted Kennedy, the Democratic icon from Massachussetts, who simbolizes to so many voters the very definition of a "limousine liberal".
Next came Michelle Obama. For all the hype surrounding her appearance, all she needed to do was to look smart and project the impression that she and her husband are not the elitist, angry black radicals that they were perceived by so many Americans.
She largely succeeded, yet her appearance came across as overly staged, and kept alive
lingering doubts among some voters as to her true feelings towards those who don't follow the liberal orthodoxy as her.
After Michelle Obama, Dennis Kucinich put up a show rivaling circus clowns and Brian Schweitzer's appearance wasn't far off.
The tension built up as Hillary Clinton took the stage. She delivered a speech which many characterized as a good way to position herself for a possible run in 2012 (if McCain wins this year) and mentioned Obama's name 3 or 4 times. After Bill Clinton's appearance, it became clear that Joe Biden notwithstanding, he has a third running mate, whether he likes it or not.
Joe Biden closed the show on Wednesday, after launching in a tirade of hypocrisy questioning his "good friend's" judgement on a number of issues, conveniently leaving aside the successful surge in Iraq.
Watching the pathetic show put on by the Democrats, one cannot but recognize the hypocrisy and double talk going on. Hillary Clinton, still bruised by a nasty and lenghty battle in the primaries, made it clear on more than one occasion how she feels about Obama's inexperience and lack of judgement versus McCain, yet on the podium, she was all praises. Bill Clinton, who complained publicly that the Obama campaign "has played the race card against" him and that "they have played it from the bottom of the deck", wanted us to believe him that Obama is fit to be President. How utterly Clintonesque of him....And Joe Biden, whose comments regarding Obama's lack of experience and his praises of John McCain are now part of campaign ads, tried to make up something off of a thin resume which he would like to sell to the American people as "Commander in Chief".
Instead of this despicable show of lies, the Democrats should have been reassuring moderate
voters that they will be safe this November if they abandon their recent past habit of voting for the Republicans and passing on liberal solutions.