WARNING PALIN DIASTER WARING PALIN DIASTER

Post Reply New Topic

I suggest you take that advice because calling someone a terrorist, traitor and raciest without proof of that will get your tongue cut out one of these days.

The only folks playing the race card these days is the Democrats.

That is not true. While Obama would rather talk about real issues, we find his opposition blaming the meltdown of the world's financial system on the inner city blacks, as if they were the cause of the entire subprime mess. Perhaps you've read Ann Coulter's piece "They gave your mortgage to a less qualified minority"? It's an attempt to scapegoat a small group and revive racial resentment that was fading away, and it is playing very well among the Republican base - in spite of the fact that economists don't think it amounted to a drop in the bucket.

Perhaps you've read Ann Coulter's piece "They gave your mortgage to a less qualified minority"? It's an attempt to scapegoat a small group and revive racial resentment

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Now then my dear sweet UncleBeer what I said was basically if you don't restrain your tongue karma will come and get you and beat the hell out of you, who knows someone not be so understanding as I and actually cut your tongue out.

Affirmative action programs are nothing less than politically correct government sanctioned racism: judging folks not by their integrity, accomplishments, or character, but by the color of their skin.

That is simply not true.

FOR years, ACORN had combined manipulation of the CRA (Community Reinvestment Act) with intimidation-protest tactics to force banks to lower credit standards. Its crusade, with help from Democrats in Congress, to push these high-risk "subprime" loans on banks is at the root of today's economic meltdown. ...

As ACORN ran its campaigns against local banks, it quickly hit a roadblock. Banks would tell ACORN they could afford to reduce their credit standards by only a little - since Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the federal mortgage giants, refused to buy up those risky loans for sale on the "secondary market."

That is, the CRA wasn't enough. Unless Fannie and Freddie were willing to relax their credit standards as well, local banks would never make home loans to customers with bad credit histories or with too little money for a downpayment.

So ACORN's Democratic friends in Congress moved to force Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to dispense with normal credit standards. Throughout the early '90s, they imposed ever-increasing subprime-lending quotas on Fannie and Freddie.

But then the Republicans won control of Congress - and Rep. Roukema scheduled her hearing. ACORN went into action to protect its golden goose. ...

ACORN's intimidation tactics, and its alliance with Democrats in Congress, triumphed. Despite their 1994 takeover of Congress, Republicans' attempts to pare back the CRA were stymied.

Instead, Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) and Reps. Kennedy and Waters allied with the Clinton administration to broaden the acceptability of risky subprime loans throughout the financial system, thus precipitating our current crisis. ...

WHEN the ACORN-Democrat alliance finally succeeded in blocking Republicans from restoring fiscal sanity in 1995, the way was open to virtually unlimited lending quotas - and to a whole new way of thinking about credit standards.

Urged on by ACORN, congressional Democrats and the Clinton administration helped push tolerance for high-risk loans through every sector of the banking system - far beyond the sort of banks originally subject to the CRA.

So it was the efforts of ACORN and its Democratic allies that first spread the subprime virus from the CRA to Fannie and Freddie and thence to the entire financial system.

Soon, Democratic politicians and regulators actually began to take pride in lowered credit standards as a sign of "fairness" - and the contagion spread.

And when financial institutions across the board saw that they could make money by trading what would once have been considered junk loans, the profit motive kicked in. But the bad seed that started it all was ACORN.

HOW does Barack Obama fit into all of this? Obama has been a key ally of Chicago ACORN going back to his days as a community organizer.

In a TV ad, McCain says Obama "lied" about his association with William Ayers, a former bomb-setting, anti-war radical from the 1960s and '70s. We find McCain's claim to be groundless. New details have recently come to light, but nothing Obama said previously has been shown to be false.

In a Web ad and in repeated attacks from the stump, McCain describes the two as associates, and Palin claims they "pal around" together. But so far as is known, their relationship was never very close. An Obama spokesman says they last saw each other in a chance encounter on the street more than a year ago.

McCain says in an Internet ad that the two "ran a radical 'education' foundation" in Chicago. But the supposedly "radical" group was supported by a Republican governor and included on its board prominent local civic leaders, including one former Nixon administration official who has given $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. Education Week says the group's work "reflected mainstream thinking" among school reformers. The group was the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, started by a $49 million grant from the Annenberg Foundation, which was established by the publisher Walter Annenberg, a prominent Republican whose widow, Leonore, is a contributor to the McCain campaign.

(FactCheck.org, which is nonpartisan, also receives funding from the Annenberg Foundation. But we are in no way connected to the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, which finished its work long before we came into being in late 2003.)

For full details, please read on to our Analysis section.
Analysis
Sen. John McCain has dialed up his attacks on Sen. Barack Obama's past association with former Weather Underground activist Bill Ayers. He released a 30-second TV spot Oct. 10 claiming Obama "lied" about Ayers. A day earlier he announced a 90-second Internet ad claiming that Obama and Ayers "ran a radical education foundation together" and suggesting Obama was being untruthful.

Groundless, False, Dubious

We find McCain's accusation that Obama "lied" to be groundless. It is true that recently released records show half a dozen or so more meetings between the two men than were previously known, but Obama never denied working with Ayers.

Other claims are seriously misleading. The education project described in the Web ad, far from being "radical," had the support of the Republican governor and was run by a board that included prominent local leaders, including one Republican who has donated $1,500 to McCain's campaign this year. The project is described by Education Week as reflecting "mainstream thinking" about school reform.

Despite the newly released records, there's still no evidence of a deep or strong "friendship" with Ayers, a former radical anti-war protester whose actions in the 1960s and '70s Obama has called "detestable" and "despicable."

Even the description of Ayers as a "terrorist" is a matter of interpretation. Setting off bombs can fairly be described as terrorism even when they are intended to cause only property damage, which is what Ayers has admitted doing in his youth. But for nearly three decades since, Ayers has lived the relatively quiet life of an educator. It would be correct to call him a "former terrorist," and an "unapologetic" one at that. But if McCain means the word "terrorist" to invoke images of 9/11, he's being misleading; Ayers is no Osama bin Laden now, and never was.


McCain is not accurate when he says – as he does in the Web ad – "When their relationship became an issue, Obama just responded, 'This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood.' " McCain is using the same line in personal appearances, too. He said on Oct. 9 at a campaign rally in Waukesha, Wis.:
McCain: Look, we don't care about an old washed-up terrorist and his wife, who still, at least on Sept. 11, 2001, said he still wanted to bomb more. ... The point is, Senator Obama said he was just a guy in the neighborhood. We need to know that's not true.
Obama never said Ayers was "just" a guy in the neighborhood. The quote is from a Democratic primary debate on April 16 in Philadelphia, and Obama actually was more forthcoming than McCain lets on. Obama specifically acknowledged working together with Ayers on a charitable board, and didn't deny getting some early political support from him. Here's the exchange:
ABC News' George Stephanopoulos, April 16: An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

Obama: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.
Sen. Hillary Clinton then said, "I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation," and predicted that "this is an issue that certainly Republicans will be raising."

Obama responded, "President Clinton pardoned or commuted the sentences of two members of the Weather Underground, which I think is a slightly more significant act than me ... serving on a board with somebody for actions that he did 40 years ago."

We wrote back then that Clinton had gone too far by suggesting that "people died" as a result of Ayers' actions. And nothing Obama said then has since been shown to be false. It is true that he did not bring up his work with Ayers on a second project, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, where Obama was board chairman and Ayers was an early organizer, and where the two were together for half a dozen or so meetings. But neither Clinton nor Stephanopoulos asked him about that project. McCain could fairly accuse Obama of not volunteering the information, but it is false to claim he "lied."

"Pal Around"

The first to begin using the new line of attack against Obama was McCain's running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, after a lengthy article appeared Oct. 3 in the New York Times about Obama and Ayers:
Palin, Oct. 5: Our opponents see America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who would bomb their own country.
She's repeated the charge again and again at different campaign stops since then, citing the Times. What the Times article actually says, however, is this: "[T]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of Mr. Ayers." The Times says its review of documents and interviews with key players "suggest" that Obama "has played down his contacts with Ayers," but describes their paths as having crossed "sporadically" since their first meeting in 1995.
And far from palling around with Ayers, the two haven't spoken by phone or exchanged e-mail messages since Obama came to the Senate in January 2005, according to an Obama spokesman. He said the two last saw each other more than a year ago, when they accidentally met on the street in their Hyde Park neighborhood.
Obama addressed Palin's claim on Oct. 8, when questioned by ABC News' Charlie Gibson:
Obama, Oct. 8: This is a guy who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. ... And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that ... I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.
Stormy Weather, Underground

Bill Ayers' notoriety dates from the radical, anti-Vietnam War group he helped to start in 1969, splintering off from the activist Students for a Democratic Society. The members of the new group, the Weather Underground, favored shows of violence to further their cause. On March 6, 1970, though, three of them blew themselves up in a Greenwich Village townhouse during a bomb-making session gone badly awry. Ayers and his fellow Weathermen, as they were called, soon dropped out of sight.

Barack Obama, who was born Aug. 4, 1961, was 8 years old at the time.

The Weather Underground continued setting off bombs, including one in a men's lavatory in the Capitol building in 1971 and another in a women's restroom in the Pentagon in 1972. Nobody was killed, due to evacuation warnings the Weathermen sent out in advance.

After the Vietnam War ended, the group's activities petered out. In 1980 Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another member, surfaced and turned themselves in to police. Because of illegal federal wiretaps, pending charges against Ayers for allegedly inciting a riot and conspiring to bomb government sites had been dropped. Dohrn pleaded guilty to separate charges of aggravated battery and jumping bail; she was fined $1,500 and given three years' probation. Ayers and Dohrn, who had had two children together while in hiding, married in 1982.

Several other Weather Underground alums, including Kathy Boudin, along with some members of a group calling itself the Black Liberation Army, were involved in a bungled 1981 robbery of a Brinks truck in Nanuet, N.Y., in which a security guard and two policemen were killed. Ayers and Dohrn have never been publicly tied to the incident, which took place after they had turned themselves in. Dohrn was jailed for seven months for refusing to provide a handwriting sample to the grand jury investigating it.

Dohrn is now a clinical associate professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law in Chicago. Ayers is a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. Locally, Ayers' radical past hasn't been much of an issue. Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet wrote last spring that it "was no big deal, or any deal, to any local political reporters or to the editorial boards of the Sun-Times or [Chicago] Tribune." Ayers was named a Chicago citizen of the year in 1997 for his efforts in the field of education.

In Chicago, Ayers is seen less as a "terrorist" and more as a prodigal son of the local establishment. His father was a prominent corporate executive and civic leader. Thomas G. Ayers was president and chief executive of Commonwealth Edison, the electric utility that lights Chicago and northern Illinois. There is a residence hall named for him at Northwestern University, where he was a trustee for 30 years. Bill's brother John Ayers, according to Education Week, headed a school-reform group called the Leadership for Quality Education, which represented business leaders’ interest in schools. John is now a senior associate of the Chicago-based National Association of Charter School Authorizers.

Despite the fairly mainstream life he lives now, though, Bill Ayers' image took a hit with an article that appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Ayers was quoted in the lead paragraph as saying, ''I don't regret setting bombs'' and "I feel we didn't do enough." The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with the publication of Ayers' memoir of his years as a fugitive. But when the quotes appeared on the same day thousands died at the World Trade Center and elsewhere, they enraged his critics.
Ayers called the story a deliberate distortion of his views. In a response on his blog, Ayers wrote:
Ayers: My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. ...
I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.
That's hardly an apology, referring as it does to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War as "terrorism." Ayers has maintained a public silence since then, refusing all requests for interviews.

Even so, Chicago Mayor Richard Daley had kind words for him recently:
Daley (New York Times, Oct. 3, 2008): He’s done a lot of good in this city and nationally. ... This is 2008. People make mistakes. You judge a person by his whole life.


We Have Contact!

According to an Obama spokesman, the two men first met in 1995, when Obama was tapped to chair the board of the newly formed Chicago Annenberg Challenge. Ayers had been instrumental in creating the organization, which was to dispense grants for projects that would improve Chicago's schools.

The Challenge was one of 18 projects supported by a $500 million grant announced at a White House ceremony Dec. 18, 1993, by the Annenberg Foundation, founded four years earlier by Philadelphia publisher Walter Annenberg. It was the largest single gift ever made to public education in America. The Chicago project received a $49.2 million grant in 1995, and officials administering the grant funds at Brown University announced at the time that the Chicago proposal was developed through discussions among “a broad-based coalition of local school council members, teachers, principals, school reform groups, union representatives and central office staff” convened by three educators – one of whom was Ayers. Mayor Richard M. Daley, a Democrat, and Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, took part in a ceremony announcing the grant.

There are other connections between Obama and Ayers: The same year the two men met through the Annenberg Challenge, Ayers hosted a meet-and-greet coffee for Obama, who was running for state Senate and who lived three blocks away from him. Obama and Ayers also were on the board of an antipoverty charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, where their service overlapped from 2000 to 2002. And Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001.

In addition, Obama told the Chicago Tribune in 1997 that a book Ayers wrote about the juvenile court system was "a searing and timely account." This is sometimes billed by Obama's critics as a "book review." Actually, a reporter simply asked three Chicagoans for a sentence about whatever they were reading at the time.

The Annenberg Challenge connection has drawn the most attention recently, though, mainly because of articles written by Stanley Kurtz, a conservative contributor to the National Review, the publication founded by the late William F. Buckley. Kurtz first suggested on Aug. 18 that there was a "cover-up in the making" when he was unable to gain access to 132 boxes of project records housed at the University of Illinois. Records were released nine days later, along with all records held by the Annenberg Foundation itself.

The Chicago Tribune, after examining the records, said they showed Ayers and Obama "attended board meetings, retreats and at least one news conference together as the education program got under way." It also said Obama and Ayers "continued to attend meetings together during the 1995-2001 operation of the program." The story played on page 2. According to the New York Times, the documents show the two attended just six board meetings together, Obama as chairman and Ayers to inform the board on grantees and other issues. (In a press release, the McCain campaign puts the number of meetings at seven, five of them in 1995, one in 1996 and one in 1997.) Ayers was an "ex officio" member of the board for the first year of the project.

United Press International summed up the reaction to the contents of the group's archives with a story headlined "No 'smoking gun' in Obama relationship":
UPI, Aug. 27: Reporters reviewing records in Chicago have so far found nothing startling in documents linking Sen. Barack Obama to 1960s radical William Ayers.
Where news reporters found little of note, though, Kurtz – the conservative writer who initially suggested a "cover-up" – cast it differently. After combing through the Annenberg records, he published an article in the opinion pages of The Wall Street Journal saying he found that Obama and Ayers acted as "partners" and together "poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists." He said money went to groups that "focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education."

A "Radical" Foundation? Hardly.

What Kurtz – and McCain in his Web ad – considers "radical," other observers see differently, however. Veteran education reporter Dakarai I. Aarons, writing in Education Week, says the Chicago Annenberg Challenge actually "reflected mainstream thinking among education reformers" and had bipartisan support:
Education Week (Oct. : The context for the Chicago proposal to the Annenberg Foundation was the 1988 decentralization of the city’s public schools by the Republican-controlled Illinois legislature, a response to frustration over years of teachers’ strikes, low achievement, and bureaucratic failure. ... The proposal was backed by letters of support to the Annenberg Foundation from Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, a Republican, local education school deans, the superintendent of the Chicago public schools, and the heads of local foundations.
Among the mainstream Chicago luminaries on Obama's board was Arnold R. Weber, a former president of Northwestern University, who in 1971 was appointed by Republican President Richard Nixon as executive director of the Cost of Living Council and who later was tapped by Republican President Ronald Reagan to serve on an emergency labor board. More recently, Weber has given $1,500 to John McCain's presidential campaign this year.

Others on Obama's supposedly "radical" board included Stanley Ikenberry, a former president of the University of Illinois system; Ray Romero, a vice president of Ameritech; Susan Crown, a philanthropist; Handy Lindsey, the president of the Field Foundation of Illinois; and Wanda White, the executive director of the Community Workshop for Economic Development.

Kurtz originally claimed that Ayers somehow was responsible for installing Obama as head of the board, speculating in his "cover-up" article that Obama "almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers." But after days of poring over the records, he failed to produce any evidence of that in his Wall Street Journal article. To the contrary, Ayers was not involved in the choice, according to Deborah Leff, then president of the Joyce Foundation. She told the Times, and confirmed to FactCheck.org, that she recommended Obama for the position to Patricia Graham of the Spencer Foundation. Graham told us that she asked Obama if he'd become chairman; he accepted, provided Graham would be vice-chair.

The bipartisan board of directors, which did not include Ayers, elected Obama chairman, and he served in that capacity from 1995 to 1999, awarding grants for projects and raising matching funds. Ayers headed up a separate arm of the group, working with grant recipients. According to another board member, Ayers "was not significantly involved with the challenge after Obama was appointed." One possible reason had little to do with Obama himself, but instead was related to cautions about conflicts of interest; the group was funding some of Ayers' own alternative school projects.
In any case, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge failed to bring about improvement in students' test scores, classroom behavior or social competence. An independent consortium of educators concluded in 2003 that “Annenberg schools did not achieve an overall effect on student outcomes” compared with schools that received no support from the project. Education Week quoted some project supporters as saying it succeeded in raising interest in helping failing schools.
Conclusion
Voters may differ in how they see Ayers, or how they see Obama’s interactions with him. We’re making no judgment calls on those matters. What we object to are the McCain-Palin campaign’s attempts to sway voters – in ads and on the stump – with false and misleading statements about the relationship, which was never very close. Obama never “lied” about this, just as he never bragged about it. The foundation they both worked with was hardly “radical.” And Ayers is more than a former "terrorist," he’s also a well-known figure in the field of education.
– by Viveca Novak and Brooks Jackson

Sources
Fleishman, Joel L. The Foundation: A Great American Secret. Public Affairs Books, New York, 2007.
Shane, Scott. "Obama and ’60s Bomber: A Look Into Crossed Paths," The New York Times, 3 Oct. 2008.
Kurtz, Stanley. "Chicago Annenberg Challenge Shutdown? A cover-up in the making?" National Review Online, 18 Aug. 2008.
Kurtz, Stanley. "Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism on Schools." The Wall Street Journal, 23 Sept. 2008.
Smith, Dinitia. "No Regrets for a Love of Explosives." The New York Times, 11 Sept. 2001.
Chira, Susan. "At Home With: Bernadine Dohrn; Same Passion, New Tactics." The New York Times, 18 Nov. 1993.
"Mark My Word." Chicago Tribune, 21 Dec. 1997.
Sweet, Lynn. "Obama's Ayers connection never bugged anyone." Chicago Sun-Times, 18 April 2008.
Smylie, Mark A. and Stacy A. Wenzel. "The Chicago Annenberg Challenge: Successes, Failures and Lessons for the Future." Consortium on Chicago School Research, Aug. 2003.
United Press International. "No 'smoking gun' in Obama relationship," 27 Aug 2008.
Cohen, Jodi S. and Gibson, Ray. "Rush on to get files linking Obama to 1960s radical; UIC library releases Annenberg records." Chicago Tribune, 27 Aug 2008.
Cockburn, Alexander. "Playing the Race Card." Las Vegas Review Journal, 2 March 2008.
Escherich, Katie and Lauren Sher. "Obama: McCain Scoring 'Cheap Political Points.'" abcnews.go.com, 8 Oct. 2008.
Aarons, Dakarai I. "Chicago Annenberg Challenge in Spotlight." Education Week, 9 Oct. 2008.

Ok ya'll take a nice look and see.


http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008 ... ayers.html

The "fact check" is opinion journalism or criticism, masquerading as straight news. The object is not merely to report facts but to pass a judgment. The Washington Post's Fact Checker blog ends each assessment with between one and four "Pinocchios," just like movie reviewers giving out stars.

Like movie reviewing, the "fact check" is a highly subjective process. If a politician makes a statement that is flatly false, it does not need to be "fact checked." The facts themselves are sufficient. "Fact checks" end up dealing in murkier areas of context and emphasis, making it very easy for the journalist to make up standards as he goes along, applying them more rigorously to the candidate he disfavors (which usually means the Republican).

Well lets see, muslim has been used, raciest christian has been used, traitor has been used, terrorist has been used, anti-christ has been used, I really don't know what's left.

Then there's the house that Mr. Obama bought in 2005 in cooperation with Tony Rezko, his friend and campaign fund-raiser -- a move the candidate concedes was "boneheaded." Rezko was convicted in June of 16 counts of corruption. (Mr. Obama was not implicated in Rezko's crimes.)

Rezko's trial raised a host of questions. Was Mr. Obama able to save $300,000 on the asking price of his house because Rezko's wife paid full price for the adjoining lot? How did Mrs. Rezko make a $125,000 down payment and obtain a $500,000 mortgage when financial records shown at the Rezko trial indicate she had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of $35,000? Records show her husband also had few assets at the time.

Last April, the London Times revealed that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire living in London, had loaned Mr. Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before the day the sale of the house and lot closed in June 2005. Mr. Auchi's office notes he was a business partner of Rezko but says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property sale. But in April 2004 he did attend a dinner party in his honor at Rezko's Chicago home. Mr. Obama also attended, and according to one guest, toasted Mr. Auchi. Later that year, Mr. Auchi came under criminal investigation as part of a U.S. probe of the corrupt issuance of cell-phone licenses in Iraq.

In May 2004, the Pentagon's inspector general's office cited "significant and credible evidence" of involvement by Mr. Auchi's companies in the Oil for Food scandal, and in illicit smuggling of weapons to Saddam Hussein's regime. Because of the criminal probe, Mr. Auchi's travel visa to the U.S. was revoked in August 2004, even as Mr. Auchi denied all the allegations. According to prosecutors, in November 2005 Rezko was able to get two government officials from Illinois to appeal to the State Department to get the visa restored. Asked if anyone in his office was involved in such an appeal, Mr. Obama told the Chicago Sun-Times last March, "not that I know of." FOIA requests to the State Department for any documents haven't been responded to for months.

After long delays, Mr. Obama sat with the editorial boards of the Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune in March to answer their questions about his connection to Rezko. He had no recollection of ever meeting Mr. Auchi. He also said he didn't understand a lot about house buying, and gave vague answers to other questions. Since then, he has avoided any further discussion of the Rezko matter.

Some inquiries could be cleared up if the Obama campaign were forthcoming with key documents. Mr. Obama claims that in buying his house in 2005 he got a low mortgage rate from Northern Trust bank because another bank made a competitive bid for his business, but his campaign won't reveal from which bank. While he has released 94 pages of documents relating to the Rezko sale, they don't include the single most important one -- the settlement statement that shows the complete flow of funds that were part of the house sale. When asked why that last key document isn't being released, the Obama campaign issued a boilerplate statement saying, "we have released documents that reflect every one of the final terms of the senator's purchase of the home." But key data are still being withheld.

The Obama campaign didn't hesitate to criticize Hillary Clinton for not revealing the names of donors to the Clinton Library, or John McCain for releasing only two years of tax returns as opposed to Mr. Obama's 10 years. Those were proper questions. But so too are requests for information from Mr. Obama, a man whose sudden rise and incompletely reported past makes him among the least-vetted of presidential nominees.

Sen. Barack Obama used present votes 129 times over eight years as an Illinois state senator to duck tough votes. “On issue after issue that really were hard to explain or understand, you voted present . . . And anytime anyone raises that, there’s always some kind of explanation,” Clinton said in her most pronounced attack, during a Jan. 21, 2008, Democratic debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.

State Sen. Christine Radogno, a Republican who represents a suburban Chicago district, recalls Obama voting present on a bill she sponsored that would have charged youths as young as 15 as adults if they committed a crime with a gun on or near school grounds.

Radogno said the bill posed a problem for Obama because he wanted to project a reputation for being a law-and-order legislator yet acknowledged opposition to the bill within the African-American community. He wound up being one of five senators voting "present," saying in a floor speech that there was no evidence that stricter penalties actually reduced crime; the bill overwhelmingly passed the chamber, 52-yes, 1-no, 5-present.

“It was trying to make everybody happy. If you vote yes or no, it’s pretty clear you’ve made a decision, then you move on,” Radogno said. “It’s truthful to say part of the time he was using present votes to duck tough votes.”

Although many of Obama’s "present" votes were part of a large bloc of presents, which would support his contention that he was part of a broader strategy, the records show that sometimes Obama was one of a small minority of senators, or the only one, to register present votes on several other criminal justice and children and families issues.

He was the only senator to vote present on a bill that passed both chambers with no opposition in the 91st session that allowed some victims of sex crimes to petition judges to seal the records in their cases. Obama’s campaign said he believed at the time that the bill violated the First Amendment, though it’s not clear why he didn’t just vote "no."

And Obama also was the lone senator to vote "present" on a bill that passed in the 91st session with no opposition that would have toughened child adoption standards by expanding the definition of parental unfitness. Former state Sen. Doris Karpiel, a Republican who sponsored the bill, said she never sought an explanation. Obama’s campaign has not provided one.

Obama also was one of two senators who voted "present" on a bill that passed 52-2-2 to allow facts not presented to a jury during a trial to be used later to increase the defendant’s sentence beyond the ordinary maximum. Obama’s campaign said he felt the bill was rushed for a vote and required more discussion.

Christopher Mooney, a political scientist at the University of Illinois at Springfield, said Obama, in theory, could have voted "no" on many of the bills he disagreed with because he held a comparatively safe seat on Chicago’s south side. While Mooney says it’s difficult to assess the motives behind each vote, the willingness to vote "present" was evidence of a certain type of survival instinct and herd mentality that pervades the state house in Springfield.

...raciest christian...

You left out "mobster buddy":

And you left out "recently-outed member of socialist "New Party":



Also: you forgot "consistently 'present', yet politically ambivalent State Senator":



I guess this is the bold leadership and "change" he promises, eh?


Surely this is the "raciest" Christian: