As the Left continues to assail John McCain as too old, perhaps it is Barack NMN Obama that is loosing his marbles. First we had the 57 States gaffe, now (h/t Cassy Fiano posting at Right Wing News)

(LA Times) Both South Dakotans lavished all sorts of praise on Obama, according to reporters present, including The Times Nicholas Riccardi. As the large, enthusiastic crowd of some 7,000 supporters roared and waved “We can do it” signs and Bruce Springsteen’s “The Rising” blared, Obama bounded onto stage, grabbed the microphone and said, “Thank you, Sioux City!”

Trouble is, Obama was in Sioux Falls.

Woops! The first is in Iowa. The latter is in South Dakota. They are 85 miles apart.

Michelle M. points out that the bigger gaffe was appearing with landslide loser George McGovern.

While I was at TPM earlier reading the Greg Sargent piece on the McCain blogger call, I noticed the Left is pushing yet another blatant lie - that McCain wanted to have a dialogue with Hamas. Haha. As if.

Thankfully, I don’t have to tear that lie apart, because Ed Morrissey has already done it.

The Left has had a field day with an expertly-clipped YouTube excerpt from a John McCain interview in January 2006, shortly after Hamas won the Palestinian Authority election. Former Clinton official James Rubin uses it for a dishonest attack on McCain, calling him a hypocrite for tying Barack Obama to Hamas while McCain supposedly supported diplomatic contact with the terrorist group. In doing so, Rubin and McCain’s opponents misrepresent both the Hamas issue and the larger context of McCain’s remarks.
[…]
The context here is crystal clear. McCain envisioned a possible change in Hamas from a terrorist group to a legitimate political party, one that recognized Israel and renounced violence. Under those conditions, McCain said that we could engage them in talks designed to establish peace, and only under those conditions.

More of the same distortions of the truth (aka lies) from the Lefty Liars, as usual. Nice try, chumps.

I wonder, will they go with this lie during the next blogger call?

Here’s the part they conveniently “forgot.” Notably, so did Obama (biggest liar ever to seek the Presidency, perhaps?)

(Cross-posted from MVRWC)

(I usually would not cross post something like this, but, I think it is important to understand the people who are running against Senator McCain, as well as want to control the USA)

They are fighting mad!

President Bush has said repeatedly that he would not insert himself into the presidential race, but that stance changed dramatically today during his trip to Israel. After likening Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Osama bin Laden, Bush compared Barack Obama to Nazi appeasers:

“We have heard this foolish delusion before,” Bush said in remarks to the Israeli Knesset. “As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American Senator declared: ‘Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.’ We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”

“Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” said Bush, in what White House aides privately acknowledged was a reference to calls by Obama and other Democrats for the U.S. president to sit down for talks with leaders like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Now, I wrote this starting around 10:50am, before heading to work. The “story” was posted at 9am today. There are already well over 350 mostly seething comments at the HuffPo. Let’s look at some of the fun ones

ABC News

The centrist Democratic group instrumental to former President Clinton’s rise to the White House in 1992 has some advice for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.: get to the center, starting with taxes.

“In the fall, our nominee will have to do what John Kerry had to do in the 2004 debates, which is turn to the camera and say, ‘No, I will not raise taxes on people making less than $200,000,’” said Bruce Reed, the president of the Democratic Leadership Council, in an interview with ABC News.

In other words, lie to the American people. In Liberal World, someone is rich if they get a paycheck, and those are the people who will have their taxes raised under an Obama presidency, which will be redistributed for all his Big Red programs.

And, face it, what happens when the taxes are jacked up on “the rich” is that “the rich” get all these tax breaks, and end up paying less proportionally then the middle class.

You knew it had to come sooner or later, as the Obama is given the official endorsement from the people who hold the golden chalice of Liberalism’s #1 issue

I am pleased to announce that today, NARAL Pro-Choice America’s political action committee endorsed Sen. Barack Obama for president.

I know that most of you are probably thinking, “Why did you decide to endorse Obama, and why are you doing it now?”

Not really. I sure as hell didn’t think she would endorse a Republican.

Sen. Obama has been a strong advocate for a woman’s right to choose throughout his career in public service. Since joining the Senate in 2005, he has worked to unite Americans on both sides of this debate behind commonsense, common-ground ways to prevent unintended pregnancy. He supports legislation to provide our teens with comprehensive sex education, prevent pharmacies from denying women access to their legal birth-control prescriptions, and increase access for family-planning services.

Sen. Obama has said, “A woman’s ability to decide how many children to have and when, without interference from the government, is one of the most fundamental rights we possess. It is not just an issue of choice, but equality and opportunity for all women.”

Can you figure out which word is missing from the whole article by Nancy Keenan, current president of the National Abortion Rights Action League and former president of the mega extreme left group People For The America Way (yea, right. Ever notice that they name these far left groups who want to recreate the Soviet Union “America” something or other?).

Now, let’s take a look at the opposition. Sen. McCain has been getting a free ride for far too long. As even Dan Balz says, until there is a head-to-head, McCain will continue on as the media-maverick darling. We must show voters how extreme McCain really is and contrast his record with that of Sen. Obama, the candidate for the pro-choice majority.

Gotta love it. Extreme to theme means someone who isn’t a baby killer.

Sen. Obama is the leader who can unify Americans on both sides of our issue. He has reached new generations and energized young voters, independent voters, and Republican voters. He’s the candidate of the future, and today we are proud to put the power of NARAL Pro-Choice America’s one million strong members, activists and supporters behind Sen. Barack Obama.

Exactly how is Obama going to unify with Americans who believe that killing babies is wrong? Reality based community my ass! These people really are deluded.

Funny? Scary? You decide. (Full-size here.)

More Obama worship! This one IS scary.

*click to enlarge*

Hot Air

(Cross-posted at MVRWC)

If Billy Jeff was the first Black president, will Obama be the first Islamist?

(National Review Online) Phil Klein calls our attention to an al-Jazeera news report that sounds like a parody, but is genuine: A report on Palestinians in Gaza who are phonebanking in support of Barack Obama’s campaign.

Let’s watch

As Van Helsing points out, The same folks who passed out candy in celebration on 9/11 are running phone banks in support of their hero Obama.

Sardonic. Ironic.

(The Politico) To that end, he responded to McCain’s speech on the environment just now, hitting McCain on that long Senate record we’re going to learn a lot about this year:

Obama is the last person in the presidential race that should be talking about anyone else’s record, since his is barely existent. He must have been speaking away from his teleprompter.

What did Obama say?

It is truly breathtaking for John McCain to talk about combating climate change while voting against virtually every recent effort to actually invest in clean energy. You don’t have to look further than the wind turbine plant where Senator McCain is speaking today to assess his commitment to this cause. While Senator McCain talks about the need to invest in alternative energy, he rejected the single biggest investment in renewable energy in history, including incentives that contributed to a nearly 50% increase in wind power generation last year, and he has repeatedly opposed renewable fuel mandates and higher fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks.

In stark contrast, I’ve called for a national standard to ensure that we’re using more renewable energy, an expansion of our green energy sector that would create millions of green jobs, and a bipartisan plan to double our fuel efficiency standards. That is why the American people will have a clear choice in November when I am the nominee – between a candidate who opposes real solutions to our energy crisis, and leadership that will solve it once and for all.

Say, Barack NMN Obama, have you, you know, submitted legislation? He tells us quite a bit about what he will do, but, so far, nothing more then a case of motor mouth. Perhaps Obama should recognize that it is Teddy Kennedy that is blocking the biggest wind farm, known as the Cape Wind Project, in the USA. Didn’t Teddy endorse Obama?

Kinda hard to solve problems when one never steps up to the plate.

I wonder why he wants to do this?

Barack Obama is easily winning the African American vote, but to woo Latinos, where he is running 3-to-1 behind rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, he is taking a giant risk: spotlighting his support for the red-hot issue of granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.

It’s a huge issue for Latinos, who want them. It’s also a huge issue for the general electorate, which most vehemently does not. Obama’s stand could come back to haunt him not only in a general election, but with other voters in states such as California, where driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants helped undo former Gov. Gray Davis.

Actually, legal Latino immigrants do not want them. They know they did it the right way, whether they are applying for permanent citizenship, or are simply temporary workers. It tends to be Democrats who want DL’s for illegals, since they believe that will create a larger voter base, law be damned.

Obama’s intention is to draw distinctions between himself and Clinton on what are otherwise indistinguishable positions on immigration. Both have adopted the standard Democratic approach of favoring tougher enforcement along with earned legalization.

Obama made the promise to Latino leaders to take up immigration reform in his first year after Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., chairman of the Democratic caucus, said his party might not raise the divisive issue again until the next president’s second term, assuming a Democrat wins.

Latino leaders felt betrayed. For them, an immigration overhaul is a top priority in light of state and local crackdowns on illegal immigrants and federal raids in workplaces across the country.

No, illegal immigrant Latino leaders feel betrayed, and do not particularly like the US government enforcing, you know, the law.

Democratic pollsters Stan Greenberg and James Carville issued a direct warning on the driver’s license issue in an analysis last month designed to guide Democrats through the treacherous immigration quagmire.

“The findings about driver’s licenses are particularly notable,” they said. Two-thirds of surveyed voters oppose them, the pollsters found, and the safety argument fails to dent the widespread conviction that granting a driver’s license rewards illegal behavior.

Because it does, but, that is immaterial with Democrats, who want, as mentioned to increase their voter base at the expense of our laws.

Financial Times

Like most people in Mingo County, West Virginia, Leonard Simpson is a lifelong Democrat. But given a choice between Barack Obama and John McCain in November, the 67-year-old retired coalminer would vote Republican.

“I heard that Obama is a Muslim and his wife’s an atheist,” said Mr Simpson, drawing on a cigarette outside the fire station in Williamson, a coalmining town of 3,400 people surrounded by lush wooded hillsides.

OK, Obama is not a Muslim and his wife is not an atheist. But, he sure seems to like the extremist Muslim way of life, and his wife sure doesn’t seem to like the country her husband is running to lead.

No Democrat has been elected to the White House without carrying West Virginia since 1916, yet Mr Obama appears to have little chance of winning there in November. Recent opinion polls indicate that Mrs Clinton would narrowly beat Mr McCain in the state but Mr Obama would lose by nearly 20 percentage points.

The rest of the story seems to be about how racist and stupid the people of West Virginia are, nothing unusual from the Credentialed Media, but, inadvertently, the Financial Times highlights that Obama is not a uniter.

Send a trackback to this post, but don’t forget to link it.