Sandy Rios, a pro-family talk radio personality from Chicago, expresses the typical kinds of concerns ordinary American will have about the latest democrat party idol’s candidacy.

What are you so afraid of?” a caller to my Chicago radio show asked. “…

If Barack Obama is elected President of the United States, I fear our enemies will smell the blood of weakness and rise in retaliation here and abroad. While Obama makes sweeping promises to end the war in Iraq, he never projects the consequences. Radical Islam is waging a holy war against us—and they have no intent on ending their war against the West. Withdrawal will be perceived as surrender and the election of a president sympathetic to their cause will embolden them like nothing else. Iraq will recede into bloody, sectarian retaliatory violence. Iran will take advantage and wield new power in the region. Our military families will have the sacrifice of their loved ones rendered meaninglessness. And our enemies will come here.

Israel will find itself alone. Europe and the British Isles, already too overrun with Islamists, will provide little defense. A future President Obama, championed by members of Hamas in Gaza, endorsed by one of their leaders—a dear friend to PLO sympathizer and Yasser Arafat apologist—Rashid Kalidi, will, I fear, not lift a finger to defend them. It is, after all, this same future president who has sat for 20 years (until recently without objection), listening to Dr. Jeremiah Wright praise Hamas and the famous Israel despiser, Louis Farrakhan.

I fear Iran will continue to develop nuclear weapons and breathlessly rush to the annihilation of Israel which will bring war to the Middle East. Iran will gladly make these weapons available to terrorist groups who will use them in the same way they currently show their contempt for life in smaller ways with suicide bombs. President Barack Obama will be powerless to stop this. He is a man full of words, but lacking in resolve. …

I fear universal healthcare, a system that will run like Cook County Hospital in Chicago where patients wait for hours, get lousy care and—if and when they are seen—they have little recourse for the way they are treated. Government healthcare puts you at the mercy of government: no alternative if medicines or procedures are denied and no recourse if doctors botch a surgery. I fear “equality” in a system like that—we will all get equally marginal care. Managed care and HMOs will look like heaven compared to this.

I fear the loss of free speech. I am concerned talk radio and independent news sources will be regulated to the point that they are effectively silenced. I fear more cases like that of Crystal Dixon, Associate Vice President for Human Resources at Toledo University, who was recently fired for writing a column as a private citizen, making the case as an African American that homosexuality cannot be equated to race in a civil rights debate. Barack Obama has been heralded by award-winning gay journalist, Andrew Sullivan, because he embraces expanded homosexual rights through ENDA and the punishment of those who would be “intolerant” to this lifestyle through hate crimes legislation. I fear those who oppose the homosexual moral and political agenda will be further punished. I fear his embrace of homosexual marriage and the consequences to children and society.

I fear the influence of radicals like William Ayres, formerly of the Weather Underground. I fear that, in addition to his desire to violently overthrow the United States Government, his endorsement of “Queering Elementary Education” will become more prevalent in public schools. I fear children will become further prey to the sex education agenda that exposes our kids too early and too often to materials at odds with the convictions of a great majority of Americans.

I fear racial vengeance. I don’t believe Barack Obama has sat at the feet of the hate-filled black racial bigot Jeremiah Wright without having sympathy for his poisonous diatribes. He may agree that white America deserves some sort of payback.

I fear economic collapse from a talented orator but inexperienced politician who does not love the free market, but socialism, who seeks justice and “fairness” that, translated, means taking from some and giving it to those he perceives deserve it more. I am concerned that the poor will be poorer and that “equality” will mean all will be poorer—regardless of effort or merit.

“Not ready to be president.”

1:17 video

3:43 video

Hilarious.

H/t to Karen L. Myers.

I think those poor confused little moonbats need some help, so I’m linking a serious article on Obame from an ultra-left source. Adolph Reed Jr. doesn’t like him, and he knows he cannot win.

(Obama’s) campaign depends on selling an image rather than substance.

There is also something disturbingly ritualistic and superficial in the Obama camp’s young minions’ enthusiasm. Paul Krugman noted months ago that the Obamistas display a cultish quality in the sense that they treat others’ criticism or failure to support their icon as a character flaw or sin. The campaign even has a stock conversion narrative, which has been recycled in print by such normally clear-headed columnists as Barbara Ehrenreich and Katha Pollitt: the middle-aged white woman’s report of not having paid much attention to Obama early on, but having been won over by the enthusiasm and energy of their adolescent or twenty-something daughters. (A colleague recently reported having heard this narrative from a friend, citing the latter’s conversion at the hands of her eighteen year old. I observed that three short years ago the daughter was likely acting the same way about Britney Spears.) …

As many Progressive readers may know, I’m hardly a Clinton fan. I’m on record in last November’s issue as saying that I’d rather sit out the election entirely than vote for either her or Obama. At this point, though, I’ve decided that she’s the lesser evil in the Democratic race, for the following reasons: 1) Obama’s empty claims to being a candidate of progressive change and to embodying a “movement” that exists only as a brand will dissolve into disillusionment in either a failed campaign against McCain or an Obama Presidency that continues the politics he’s practiced his entire career; 2) his horribly opportunistic approach to the issues bearing on inequality—in which he tosses behaviorist rhetoric to the right and little more than calls to celebrate his success to blacks—stands to pollute debate about racial injustice whether he wins or loses the Presidency; 3) he can’t beat McCain in November.

Frankly, I suspect that Clinton can’t beat him either, but there’s no way that Obama will carry most of the states in November that he’s won in the primaries and caucuses. And, while it makes some liberals feel good to think that a majority of the American electorate could vote for a black Presidential candidate, we should keep in mind that the Republicans haven’t let one dog out of the kennel against him yet. The Jeremiah Wright contretemps is only the first bark.

Obama’s style of being all things to all people threatens to melt under the inescapable spotlight of a national campaign against a Republican. It’s like what brings on the downfall of really successful con artists: They get themselves onto a stage that’s so big that they can’t hide their contradictions anymore, and everyone finds out about the different stories they’ve told different people. And Obama’s belonging to Wright’s church in the first place was quite likely part of establishing a South Side bourgeois nationalist street cred because his political base was with Hyde Park/University of Chicago liberals and the foundation world. …

Because he’s tried carefully to say enough of whatever the audiences he’s been speaking to at the time want to hear while leaving himself enough space later on to deny his intentions to leave that impression, his record represents precisely the “character” weakness the Republicans have exploited in every Democratic candidate since Dukakis: Another Dem trying to put things over on the American people.

Obama’s campaign has been very clever in carving out a strategy to amass Democratic delegate votes, but its momentum is in some ways a Potemkin construction—built largely on victories in states that no Democrat will win in November—that will fall apart under Republican pressure.

And then where will we be?

Read the whole thing.

Hillary is refusing to lie down, and has –as was predicted– finally played the Florida and Michigan card. After all, as we remember from 2000, counting every vote is vitally important to democrats.

Hoist by their own petard, the democrat party left is responding this morning in characteristic fashion to Hillary’s efforts to thwart their desires… by having a cow.

Andrew Sullivan does a particularly nice job of frothing.

The Clintons know no respect for rules or propriety or restraint in the pursuit of power. But Clinton’s latest speech in Florida should cause even veteran Clinton-hating jaws to drop some more….

How do you respond to a sociopath like this? She agreed that Michigan and Florida should be punished for moving up their primaries. Obama took his name off the ballot in deference to their agreement and the rules of the party. That he should now be punished for playing by the rules and she should be rewarded for skirting them is unconscionable.

I think she has now made it very important that Obama not ask her to be the veep. The way she is losing is so ugly, so feckless, so riddled with narcissism and pathology that this kind of person should never be a heartbeat away from the presidency.

Hillary is sitting pretty, armed with the argument possessing the greatest emotive force, and as ABC NEWS reports, she is not afraid to use it.

Sen. Hillary Clinton continued to push her popular vote argument. As an example, Clinton mentioned what happened in the elections in Zimbabwe to illustrate what can happen when the popular vote is not observed.

Speaking in Sunrise, Fla., Clinton said: “You heard Diana talk about coming from a country where votes don’t count. People go through the motions of an election only to have it discarded and disregarded. We’re seeing that right now in Zimbabwe — tragically an election was held, the president lost, they refused to abide by the will of the people. So we can never take for granted our precious right to vote.”

Clinton gave an abreviated version of her earlier speech, but made her argument for the popular vote to be the most important factor in this election again.

“Many of us believe that the candidate who got fewer votes was inaugurated president (in 2000),” Clinton said. “And we know that of all states, this state should have extra attention to make sure your votes are counted.”

How dare she! bleats Newsweek’s Jonathan Chait:

Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric today about counting the results in Florida and Michigan is simply incredible. Her speech compares discounting the Florida and Michigan primaries to vote suppression and slavery. …

They supported this “disenfranchisement.” Here’s a New York Times story from last fall, headlined, “Clinton, Obama and Edwards Join Pledge to Avoid Defiant States.”

Moreover, it’s obviously true that Obama not campaigning, organizing, or advertizing in those states hurt him, and helped the more familiar candidate in Clinton. She decided to campaign to change the rules only after it became her interest to do so.

This gambit by Clinton is simply an attempt to steal the nomination. It’s obviously not going to work, because Democratic superdelegates don’t want to commit suicide. But this episode is very revealing about Clinton’s character. I try not to make moralistic characterological judgments about politicians, because all politicians compromise their ideals in the pursuit of power. There are no angels in this business. Clinton’s gambit, however, truly is breathtaking.

If she’s consciously lying, it’s a shockingly cynical move. I don’t think she’s lying. I think she’s so convinced of her own morality and historical importance that she can whip herself into a moralistic fervor to support nearly any position that might benefit her, however crass and sleazy. It’s not just that she’s convinced herself it’s okay to try to steal the nomination, she has also appropriated the most sacred legacies of liberalism for her effort to do so. She is proving herself temperamentally unfit for the presidency.

It’s a pretty darn depressing election, what with no actual Republican running. At least we are getting some entertainment out of it, as the Clintons and their party’s leftwing base do the Vote Count two-step, hopping back and forth on “counting every vote” depending on exactly who is benefiting.

The nutroots left is adding another variation to its performance: the Clinton two-step. What fun it is to see the MoveOn.Org crowd which so passionately defended the Clintons through scandal after scandal, and then through Monica-gate and Impeachment, suddenly awake and discover the Clinton’s dark side.

We may have tragedy in November, but we’ve got comedy today.

Former UN Ambassador (and college classmate) John Bolton defends Bush’s “appeasement” remarks on Hannity & Colmes.

1:30 video

Via Gateway Pundit.

Pouting Spook Larry Johnson is a Hillary supporter, and he reveals today the existence of a videotape of Michelle Obama in action likely to make something of an impact on the Obama campaign.

Today, on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” Barack Obama lost his cool, calling names and making unspecified threats. Why? Ostensibly, it’s because the Tennessee Republican Party issued an Internet video featuring Michelle Obama saying she’s proud of being an American only because her husband is running for president. Well, yes, we all heard that awhile ago.

But the real reason for Obama’s extraordinary freakout is that he fears the release of the videotape, reported here, of Michelle Obama in the pulpit of Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s church railing against “whitey.” And we don’t mean Whitey Ford. Four Republican sources have told me that the tape exists. I’ve also been informed that Karl Rove and his allies have a copy of it and are using it to raise funds for independent expenditure groups. The tape, I’m told, will be disclosed as the GOP October Surprise. It’s a ticking time bomb.

And I’ve learned that a right-wing Republican billionaire has put a $1 million bounty on the video. He doesn’t want John McCain to win, like a number of conservatives, and thinks Obama is a pathetically weak candidate. The billionaire wants that video released now.

——————————————–

All postings on this story.

Barack Obama conducted a religious service in honor of himself in an Oregon park at which an estimated 75,000 left coast moonbats worshipped.

The Prophet of Progress spake unto the faithful, saying:

We can’t drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times … and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.

He failed to explain exactly whom we need to ask what we may eat or drive, or what thermostat temperature is permissible at this time, but doubtless, if he is elected, His Obamaness will arrange for federal agencies to consult directly with residents of Sub-Saharan African countries in order to prescribe precisely what Americans may drive, how much they may eat, and the temperatures of their homes.

AFP

The always entertaining Mr. O’Rourke talked about politicians, politics, and the 2008 election at a recent Cato Institute Benefactors’ shindig.

The problem is not really politicians. The problem is politics. Politicians are chefs— some good, some bad—but politics is road kill. The problem isn’t the cook. The problem is the cookbook. The key ingredient of politics is the idea that all of society’s ills can be cured politically. It’s like a cookbook where the recipe for everything is to fry it. The fruit cocktail is fried. The soup is fried. The salad is fried. So is the ice cream and cake. And your pinot noir is rolled in breadcrumbs and dunked in the deep fat fryer. It is just no way to cook up public policy. Politics is greasy. Politics is slippery. Politics can’t tell the truth. …

There is only one number that matters in politics. And you may think that that’s the number of votes, but that’s not the number. The number that matters in politics is the lowest common denominator. It is the avowed purpose of politics to bring the policies of our nation down to a level where they are good for everyone. No matter how foolish, irresponsible, selfish, grasping, or vile everyone may be, politics seeks fairness for them all. I do not. I am here to speak in favor of unfairness.

I have a 10 year old at home, and she is always saying, “That’s not fair.” When she says that, I say, “Honey, you’re cute; that’s not fair. Your family is pretty well off; that’s not fair. You were born in America; that’s not fair. Honey, you had better pray to God that things don’t start getting fair for you.”

D.R. Tucker writes an obituary.

It was fun while it lasted.

The guaranteed election of a non-conservative President on November 4th represents the end of the conservative movement in America. Neither Barack Obama nor John McCain stands for Reagan principles in any way, shape, manner or form—and after twenty years of non-conservative Presidents, it’s obvious that the Reagan era will never, ever return.

The conservative movement has been in the hospital for nearly two decades. Once George H. W. Bush—a good, moral man, but not a true conservative—entered the White House, conservative principles slowly but surely began to leave. Yes, he gave us a victory in the Gulf War and Clarence Thomas, but he also gave us a broken no-new-taxes promise and David Souter. Bush was more Rockefeller than Goldwater, during a time when America and the world needed more of the latter and less of the former. …

On November 4, we will elect a Republican who straight-out hates Reagan conservatives or a Democrat who regards the Reagan vision as venomous. No matter who wins, the conservative revolution will have been quelled.

Read the whole thing.

Karl Rove looks at recent GOP special election losses, and talks about the Party’s future prospects.

The GOP can’t take “safe” seats for granted when Democrats run conservatives who distance themselves from their national party leaders. The string of defeats should cure Republicans of the habit of simply shouting “liberal! liberal! liberal!” in hopes of winning an election. They need to press a reform agenda full of sharp contrasts with the Democrats.

Why is it tough sledding for Republicans? Public revulsion at GOP scandals was a large factor in the party’s 2006 congressional defeat. Some brand damage remains, as does the downward pull of the president’s approval ratings. But the principal elements are the Iraq war and a struggling economy. …

What is clear is that John McCain and Republicans will prevail only if they convince voters that there are profound consequences at stake in Iraq, and that more and better jobs will follow from the GOP’s approach of lowering taxes, opening trade, and ending earmarks and other pro-growth policies.

Republicans also face challenges with the young (whose opposition to the war and attraction to Mr. Obama have made them Democrats) and Hispanics (the fastest-growing part of the electorate). A recent survey offers some encouraging news. Mr. McCain is polling as high as 41% with Hispanics – close to President Bush’s 44% in 2004.

Democrats shouldn’t be complacent after Tuesday. Their problems start with Mr. Obama’s 41-point loss to Hillary Clinton in West Virginia. Mr. Obama lost the primary because the rejection of him by blue-collar voters is hardening. The last Democrat to win the presidency without carrying the Mountain State was Woodrow Wilson in 1916.

Barely half of Mrs. Clinton’s supporters in Indiana, North Carolina and West Virginia say they’re ready to support Mr. Obama against Mr. McCain today. Without solid support from these voters, Mr. Obama will be in trouble in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, West Virginia, Wisconsin and other battlegrounds.

So far, Mr. Obama owes his success to elites captivated by his personality. But in the general election, most folks will care more about a candidate’s philosophy and stand on the issues. And what’s considered mainstream values in a general election is different than in a primary.

Rove’s conclusion is that GOP can win, but it will require persuading voters that difference in philosophy between our candidates and theirs matters. John McCain is not exactly the ideal Republican spokesman for principled Conservatism.

Al Jazeera 2:38 video

Jim Geraghty transcribed a portion of the report:

REPORTER: It may be hard to believe, but working in this tiny Internet cafe in Gaza City may just be one of Barack Obama’s biggest fans.

Before every U.S. primary, 23-year-old Ibrahim Abu Jayyab gathers 17 of his friends to try and rally support for Obama’s campaign in the U.S.

So why does a young Palestinian living in Gaza spend so much of his time and money on an election thousands of miles away?

ABU JAYYAB: [translated] It all started at the time of the U.S. primaries. After studying Obama’s electoral campaign manifesto, I thought, ‘this is a man that is capable of change inside America.’ As for potential change in the Middle East, he can also do that. I think he can bring peace to the area, or at least this is what we hope.

REPORTER: And the game plan? Ibrahim and his friends call random numbers in the U.S. before every primary to deliver one simple message:

ABU JAYYAB: [in English] Elect Senator Obama. I will change. I will achieve… the justice in the Middle East.