Apparently, The Grey Lady got the same email blast from the Barry Camp like I did

Senator Barack Obama this afternoon urged Treasury and Federal Reserve officials to include four conditions that he and other Democrats are seeking in the proposed $700 billion federal bailout for financial firms – though he stopped short of saying he would vote against the bailout if his terms were not met.

Adding some specificity to proposals he has already made, Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, called for a payback plan for taxpayers if the bailout succeeds; a bipartisan board to oversee the bailout; limits on any federal money going to compensate Wall Street executives; and aid to homeowners who are struggling to pay their mortgages.

Hmm, why does all that sound suspiciously like what Democrats have been talking about since Friday? But, now it is Barry’s plan? As far as it goes

1. Paying back the taxpayers? That will never happen. You know it, I know it, Barry knows it. But, it sounds good. Put it in writing, in clear, easy to understand language, Barry, and I’ll back it
2. Bipartisan board? You mean like the 9/11 Commission?
3. The money should not go to Wall Street execs, I’ll agree, but, a limit can’t be put on exec pay. Talent should be rewarded. Meanwhile, why don’t you tell your advisor Franklin Raines to give his golden parachute back?
4. Why not have Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, and Tim Howard, all your advisors, Barry, give the money they got from companies they ran into the ground to homeowners, especially considering they were part of the creation of the housing problem.

If those four objectives are not met, Mr. Obama told reporters at a news conference here, he would recommend that federal and Congressional negotiators “go back to the drawing board” to restructure the bailout plan.

Well, thanks Barry. Glad your seniority and excellent attendance record in Congress is being put to good use.

But, what does a financial writer for the Times think?

Imagine, then, what it’s like to be in Congress this week. Most members of Congress have no expertise in the byzantine details of mortgage finance — or even have aides on their staff with such expertise.

“The problem here is none of us has that kind of advice,” Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, who knows more about Wall Street than most of his colleagues, told me.

The blind leading the stupid. And here comes the shot at Barry’s “plan”

Their best shot at success depends on keeping the debate tightly focused on the questions that matter most. There are really only two: What steps are most likely to solve the immediate crisis? And how can the long-term cost to taxpayers be minimized?

Everything else — reducing executive pay on Wall Street, changing the bankruptcy laws, somehow slowing the descent of home prices — is either a detail or a distraction.

In other words, all the hot air flowing from Barry is not necessary at this time.

Anyhow, the article does do a good job of explaining how it should work, and why people should not get caught up in the price tag, but in the cost of the assets. What percentage of value will they be purchased at, so that they can turn around and sell them.

Since the Barry camp is under fire for ignoring outside advice, since Barry is losing to Palin on experience, since panic is setting in for Democrats, since battlegrounds are breaking for McCain, since Barry supporters are reduced to calling Palin a child predator, since the biggest kook fringers want Barry’s message to be purely person, and false, smears against Palin, since Excitable Andy has become even more excitable lately (no point in a link, 99% of his site is frantic. The other 1% is nice photos,) and Congress is now up for grabs.

Since the hysterical “the GOP is going to steal the 2008 election!!!!” yap has really been ramping up lately, since the NY Times has been regularly losing it’s Collective Hive mind over the Palin pick, since a Governor who supports Barry went off message and said that Palin has more experience for the office of president then Barry, since Palin is driving supposed feminist wildly bonkers, since the Credentialed Media is attempting to do everything they can to portray McCain as the one in trouble, and since Kiddie-camp B.O. is reduced to smearing disable veterans and the elderly (while smearing Barry’s own VP choice, who has been in Congress 14 years longer then McCain, in trying to make McCain look like a long time Washington insider) and calling the McCain campaign the sleaziest in history (waaaah-mbulance time), I have a gift for all the Barry supporters, from the Nutroots to the should-have-their-credentials-pulled MSM to Barry himself below the fold

The wheels are coming off the vast liberal media. It doesn’t get much worse for them, particularly NBC and pMSNBC when the Grey Lady has a story about their implosion: MSNBC Takes Incendiary Hosts From Anchor Seat

MSNBC tried a bold experiment this year by putting two politically incendiary hosts, Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews, in the anchor chair to lead the cable news channel’s coverage of the election.

That experiment appears to be over.

After months of accusations of political bias and simmering animosity between MSNBC and its parent network NBC, the channel decided over the weekend that the NBC News correspondent and MSNBC host David Gregorywould anchor news coverage of the coming debates and election night. Mr. Olbermann and Mr. Matthews will remain as analysts during the coverage.

The change — which comes in the home stretch of the long election cycle — is a direct result of tensions associated with the channel’s perceived shift to the political left.

The phrase of the day is bat-sh*t crazy (It got stuck in my head by Ace), and that’s where MSNBC’s bold experiment went: bat-sh*t crazy. When you have some of the most rancorous and openly partisan people on the news channels covering the conventions and pretending they are having their typical Manhattan liberal only cocktail parties, like they do on their pundit shows, there are going to be problems. Like, massively partisan bat-sh*t crazy pundits like Keith Olbermann losing any hint of bias like a news anchor should and losing it on camera. NBC/MSNBC wanted anchors like Dan Rather, and got Cindy Sheehan instead.

But, let’s step back a sec: here is the leader of the American news media exposing the bat-sh*t craziness going on at the Peacock Network. I first caught the story on the front page of the pda version. It is on the front page of the Interwebz version. And a tiny blurb at the bottom of the Time’s paper version front page. But, still front page. That has got to pluck a few feathers in the offices of NBC.

The success of the Fox News Channel in the past decade along with the growth of political blogs have convinced many media companies that provocative commentary attracts viewers and lures Web browsers more than straight news delivered dispassionately.

What is missing is that the provocative commentary tends to not be one side. More often then not, when a Conservative is on Fox, a liberal is on at the same time, and vice versa. Which drives liberals bat-sh*t crazy, because Conservatives are not supposed to have a voice in their world.

Anyhow, I’m not sure if the Times is exposing the idiocy and massively partisan opinions at MSNBC, or just taking them to task for showing the open secret that the media is heavily left and doesn’t even want people to remember 9/11.

PS: If you dare, enter the world of the DUmmies, who are going, yup, you guessed it! Bat-sh*t crazy over the story, though, really, that is their normal mode.

This is what’s called bring a Barrett .50 to a pillow fight. Apparently, we aren’t allowed to question Obama’s character, despite that being 80% of his campaign thru the primary, and even in to the general election. I guess discussing a presidential candidate cavorting with unrepentant terrorists is an “effort to distract us from the issues that affect our lives.”

Via Michelle and Jay, who say to spread this far and wide. Michelle writes

Mr. Hope and Change is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics to intimidate those who want to alert the nation to Obama’s troubling ties to, and longtime relationship with, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist.

Except, I would change that to Chicago-style Machine tactics. This is exactly the type of stuff one would expect from someone who is really part of Chicago machine politics. Consider that his first foray into politics, he got most of his opponents thrown off the ballot through petty rules.

Right now, you might be saying “Teach, are you drunk? Have you drunk the liberal kool aid? Or, are you just a bit fetched in the head?” Maybe a bit of 1 and 3, but, let’s think about what the pick of Biden brings.

There is not much point in going over what so many pundits and columnists wrote Saturday. The basics that most, both left and right came to, was “he really ads nothing to the ticket. He won’t bring in many votes, he won’t help with the South, he makes Obama look like the foreign policy neophyte he really is, heck, he makes Barry look like a neophyte in most things. Joe is much more qualified to be president then Barry. He has those massive ties to lobbyists that Barry whines about. He is a massive Washington insider. This has really pissed of Hillary’s supporters. Etc, and so on.”

And, sure, there were many on the left and right who wrote that this was a massively bad pick. Some on the Left tried to spin it positively, but, you know they were popping out a post quickly so they could get back to cleaning the bathroom.

And women have not been entirely enthused with the pick.

But, this was a great pick. No, still not drunk.

The reason is simple: Biden carries a massive amount of baggage, as so many have pointed out. The gaffes, the racism, the runaway mouth, the lobbyist ties, the Washington insider mentality. And, how much and how often will the right side of the Internet, along with the miniscule Conservative leaning media, folks like Rush, Hannity, Levin, et all, bring Joe’s negatives up? And when he does or says something dumb? Even the liberal media might come out from their doggie houses and notice.

From my point of view, the pick of Joe 7-11 is one designed to deflect away from Barry and his character issues, his lack of advertised substance and policy (we know what he really stands for, but, that will not make it into the mainstream media), gaffes Barry makes, and his inexperience. Joe can get out there and attack, attack, attack, while Barry sits back and plays Mr. Lovable Hope and Change without getting his hands dirty.

Even the AP climbed out of their liberal tree house made of Arugula to notice that Biden fills the attack role. This way, Barry can remain articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy.

Anything that keeps the eyes focused off Barry’s negatives is a positive for Barry. That anything is Joe Biden.

So, the best thing to do is mostly ignore Biden. When he goes on the attack, do not address the responses to Joe, but back to Barry. Consider McCain’s latest attack, which attempts to get to Hillary supporters over the pick of Biden. Go after Barry, not Joe. Joe is Barry’s shield. Treat Joe as a sideshow, much like John Edwards was treated during the 2004 cycle.

Poor Joe Klein at Time. He is watching his candidate implode. Reminds me of Don Imus beating his head against a wall after a John Kerry interview while saying “this is my guy, and I don’t know what he is talking about”

A few days before Barack Obama was to announce his choice for Vice President, he was asked at a North Carolina town meeting what qualities he wanted in a running mate. He wandered through a derisive, if desultory, critique of Dick Cheney, then switched gears. “I want somebody … who shares with me a passion to make the lives of the American people better than they are right now,” he said. “I want somebody who is mad right now that people are losing their jobs.” And I immediately thought, Uh-oh.

Memories of John Kerry in 2004 came flooding back, of how he tended to describe his feelings rather than experience them, of how he suddenly —and unconvincingly — started to say he was “angry” about this or that when his consultants told him that Howard Dean’s anger about the war in Iraq was hitting home with voters. And then, in the general election, Kerry kept repeating the word strength rather than demonstrating it. Clearly, Obama’s consultants have given him similar advice, that he was on the short end of a passion gap — that it was time for emo. A day earlier, he had said wage disparities between genders made his “blood boil.”

Or, Joe, it could just be that Obama is a neophyte when it comes to tough elections, since he has never had to fight hard in them. For his first Illinois election, he had most of his competitors disqualified. For his 2004 Senate run, the GOP opponents were first Jack Ryan, who left because of the sex charges in his divorce papers, then Alan Keyes. It was a walk over. Now, he has a tough one on his hands against a seasoned veteran, one who has specific policies. Obama has very few policies that he would want to share. Abortion on demand, hell, terminating babies who are still alive after an abortion, are not issues that will excite the average American. Perhaps the far end progressives, but not average Americans.

Joe thinks Barry should concentrate on the economy. Great! Can’t wait to hear that debate and the substance, considering Barry has really done nothing in during his short pants time in office, versus McCain, who has been there, done that.

But, Joe, see, it is not the passion, the feelings, the empathy. It is the lack of substance, and his poor character. And, as Peggy Noonan points out, people are starting to really pay attention to the race. The people who are the swing voters. And they want to know who the hell they are voting for, and what his policies will be. Not the patronizing ones. The real ones. And what the character of the Democrat nominee is, after 7+ years of Democrats complaining about Bush.

Say, whatever happened to Barry’s healthcare plans? We don’t hear much about that anymore.

He said he was against lobbyists, and against PACs. Remember his ad, where he said “I’m Barack Obama, and I don’t take money from oil companies or lobbyists, and I won’t let them block change any more”? And this

In a statement today, Obama spokesman Bill Burton, reiterated that Obama doesn’t take PAC money or money from federal registered lobbyists, and “that includes oil companies and oil lobbyists.”

Interesting, eh? Pretty much everyone refuted those statements. But, did you know that Barry has his own PAC, Hopefund? It is not exactly a secret, but it is not something I have seen covered much, and the links about it I find are stories that are typically buried.

Question: is it proper for a Congressman to spread around money to other sitting Congresspeople? What kind of propriety does that show? Is that part of Hope and Change and Change and Hope, or simply the politics as normal that Obama learned from the Chicago Machine?

Is it proper for a sitting US Senator, and presidential wannabe, to spread money around to reelection campaigns for other congresspeople and state reelection groups, in effect using his PAC to skirt the donation rules? Is this the politics of Hope and Change?

And, is this year old report from The Hill part of the “new politics” of Barry?

Two weeks after Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) won the first endorsement of a lawmaker from Iowa or New Hampshire, a new fundraising report shows that he has spent the past two months using money from his leadership political action committee (PAC) to court them.

Obama showered lawmakers from Iowa and New Hampshire with contributions while other presidential hopefuls turned their focus to raising money for their presidential campaign accounts, records show.

Just more Hope and Change, Chicago Machine style. Especially the $202,807 he has taken from MoveOn. He won’t take money (so he says) from oil companies, which provide a product to help us get to work and keep our economy going, but, Barry will take money from unhinged extreme leftists.

It’s good to see the McCain campaign fighting against the biased media and against the most radical elements of the Left (which is, of course, the Democrat base nowadays), something we on the Right begged Dubya to do. Michael Goldfarb at John McCain 2008: Smears The Left Can Fight For

In the least credible and most viciouscorner of the internet, liberal bloggers at the Daily Kos are accusing John McCain of plagiarizing from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn. The story Solzhenitsyn told was of a prisoner who drew a cross in the dirt in a Soviet Gulag. McCain’s story is of a guard who drew a cross in the dirt in a Vietnamese prisoner of war camp.

The only similarity between the two stories is a cross in the dirt, but it is hardly an unlikely coincidence that there were practicing Christians in both Russia and Vietnam, or that in the prisons of those two Communist countries the only crosses to be found were etched in the dirt, as easily disappeared as the Christians who drew them.

But those desperate to discredit Senator McCain’s record will have to impugn his fellow prisoners as well. Orson Swindle, who was held as a prisoner of war along with McCain, tells the McCain Report that he heard this particular story from McCain “when we first moved in together.” That was in the summer of 1971, Swindle said, though “time blurred” and he couldn’t be sure. He said it was some time around then that the Vietnamese moved all “36 troublemakers” into the same quarters, where they “talked about everything under the sun.”

It may be typical of the pro-Obama Dungeons & Dragons crowd to disparage a fellow countryman’s memory of war from the comfort of mom’s basement, but most Americans have the humility and gratitude to respect and learn from the memories of men who suffered on behalf of others. John McCain has often said he witnessed a thousand acts of bravery while he was imprisoned, and though not every one has been submitted into the public record, they are remembered by the men who were there (one such only recently reported by Karl Rove though it escaped mention in any of Senator McCain’s books). But as Swindle said, this is a “desperate group of people trying to make something out of nothing.”

What it comes down to is that the Left on the Internet tend to follow in lockstep with a few sites, Daily Kos being one of them. If you want to get noticed as a blogger on the Left, you mostly have to go the kook fringe moonbat conspiracy BDS “Republicans are turning America in a Nazi state” route. They even suck in supposed “Conservatives (insert wink here)” like Excitable Andy. You remember Andy, right? He’s the guy who offered Ron Paul supporters to come and chat, but forgot that comments have to be open to do that.

Confederate Yankeedestroys Excitable Andy, Kos, and others, in his post.

Anyhow, it’s funny how the left tells us that it is verboten to attack Obama over his character, his inability to show any patriotism, his wife’s America loathing (till Barry almost had the nomination in the bag), Jeremiah Wright, etc and so on, but it is OK to go after McCain on this. Go figure.

In other words, not so much. Fact Check: Obama’s Overstatement

Obama released a TV spot saying McCain’s campaign got $2 million from “Big Oil” while McCain proposed “another $4 billion in tax breaks” for the industry.

The truth is that McCain’s campaign has received $1.33 million from individuals employed in the oil and gas industry, not $2 million. Obama himself has received nearly $400,000, according to the most authoritative figures available. We find the $2 million figure is based on a mistaken calculation.

Furthermore, McCain is not proposing new tax breaks specifically targeted to the oil industry. He’s proposing a general reduction in the corporate income tax rate, which Democrats figure would benefit the five largest oil and gas companies by $3.8 billion.

Someone explain to me why this is not considered an attack ad. Where it the McCain campaign discussing how much money Barry getsfrom left wing fringe groups (like the $347K from MoveOn), or, say $20 million from lawyers, or even the $627K he got from Goldman Sachs, a registered lobbying group, the media would be screaming about it being a dishonest, disingenuous, sleazy, slimy attack ad. But, as the old Bill Cosby joke, Barry is like a newborn: his poop don’t stink.

The video, which is available at Fact Check, starts out

Every time you fill your tank, the oil companies fill their pockets. Now Big Oil’s filling John McCain’s campaign with 2 million dollars in contributions.

Goodness! A company making a profit? In Real Life I would probably give a sarcastic “holy sh*t!” Here, on the Interwebz, I will just say “I’m flabbergasted!”

But, let’s consider: in the second quarter of 2008, Exxon, the Left’s 2nd favorite whipping company (which also provide the way for the Left to drive their SUVs to work), Wal Mart being the 1st, Exxon earned $11.68 billion in profits, and PAID $32.36 billion in taxes. That’s quite a bit of moola, eh? (hat tip Moonbattery)

But, in a nutshell, that is the way Liberalism in the USA works. Rather then extolling the benefits of America and American companies, attack America and American companies. Maybe we on the Right should start a meme that Islamic terrorists shop at WalMart and have stock in Exxon. Then the Left might actually be concerned about the threat of Islamists.

See much more at Memeorandum

More: as Open Secrets points out, Barry didn’t bother mentioning the $394,465 that he has received from oil and gas interest.

Change you find blowing in the breeze (cBS News)

In a sudden and major shift, Democrat Barack Obama said he would be willing to support limited additional offshore oil drilling if that would help promote alternative energy sources, a proposal he has repeatedly blasted rival John McCain for supporting.

If this was about McCain, the AP would be calling this a major flip flop. But, I guess we can give them a few props for even bringing this up.

Anyhow, what is “limited?” Will Barry tell us?

The first term Illinois senator, in comments echoed by other critics of the proposal, had argued that any new oil found would take years to come onto the market and that conservation and fuel-efficient vehicles were a quicker solution to soaring costs.

But Obama told a Florida newspaper in an interview that he could support a compromise with Republicans and oil companies to prevent gridlock over energy.

“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama said in an interview with The Palm Beach Post.

“If, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don’t want to be so rigid that we can’t get something done.”

No, he won’t.

Sounds to me like he is hedging his bets, as there is no place that the extremist environmentals will allow drilling to be done. Sounds to me like Barry is simply trying to take the popular position, without meaning it. Sounds to me like, not a flip flop, but, a disingenuous position. Yes, a lie.

Good thing Barry has crafted his strategy to include taking stealing money from American oil companies and the American stockholders, and giving a $1,000 check one time to Americans (how many will he give a check that have no cars?), as well as sending the Tire Pressure Police to check up on you. That’ll do it! That $1k check should be able to buy you 8 fillups with that plan.

You can see and listen to some of the interview at the Palm Beach Post, which also mentions Obama being heckled.

More: Listening to some of Barry’s PC at Cape Canaveral while doing some posts, and he was asked why he changed his position (slightly) on drilling. He answered that he has always held this position. Change BS you can believe in.