Bill Ayers hasn't changed. He's still a radical and an extremist.
He hasn't abandoned his terrorist, anti-American, subversive past. His mindset is basically the same.
Last week, Ayers was on Larry Elder's radio program. Listen to Ayers, the man who gave Obama his entry into politics:TranscriptBILL AYERS: The Weather Underground, indeed, did take responsibility for a handful, maybe a dozen, you know, extreme acts of vandalism. That's true. That's true.
And so compared to what was going on everyday in Vietnam, including the illegal bombing of cities, which John McCain took part in, and he is, of course, a war criminal, as is everyone.
As several people admitted when they came back, including the Vietnam Vets Against the War, war crimes were not a matter of choice. They were a matter of policy - bombing vast stretches of countryside because you had extra ordnance. That's what John McCain did. So he actually killed people. I actually didn't kill people.
Who's the, who's the one who should account for themselves?
Obviously, Ayers doesn't respect the veterans of the Vietnam War. He considers those Americans to be guilty of war crimes.
His efforts to overthrow the U.S. government were just acts of vandalism. He minimizes his role in plotting against America and organizing violence.
From Prairie Fire: PRAIRIE FIRE is written to all sisters and brothers who are engaged in armed struggle against the enemy. It is written to prisoners, women's groups, collectives, study groups, workers' organizing committees, communes, GI organizers, consciousness-raising groups, veterans, community groups and revolutionaries of all kinds; to all who will read, criticize and bring its content to life in practice. It is written as an argument against those who oppose action and hold back the struggle.
PRAIRIE FIRE is based on a belief that the duty of a revolutionary is to make the revolution. This is not an abstraction. It means that revolutionaries must make a profound commitment to the future of humanity, apply our limited knowledge and experience to understand an ever-changing situation, organize the masses of people and build the fight.
Ayers calls for "armed struggle against the enemy" - America.
How can this "armed struggle" be deemed a legal war?
It's a disgrace that he paints John McCain and Vietnam vets as war criminals while considering himself to be just a vandal.
I wonder if Obama, in his heart, thinks like Ayers. I wonder if Obama agrees that John McCain and Vietnam veterans are war criminals.
We know Obama thinks Iraq is a "dumb war." Does he think Vietnam was a "dumb war," too?
We know that John Kerry, speaking on behalf of Vietnam Vets Against the War, told of war crimes committed in Vietnam.
It's so odd that Kerry wants to be considered a war hero, yet he sounded like Ayers when he testified before the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations in 1971.
According to Ayers, if you served in Vietnam, you're a war criminal. You committed atrocities in an illegal war.
He despises John McCain and Vietnam vets. He doesn't dance around the issue. He voices his anti-Americanism without hesitation.
From the New York Times:Senator Barack Obama is starring in a growing number of campaign commercials, but the latest batch is being underwritten by Republicans.
In a sign that the racial, class and values issues simmering in the presidential campaign could spread into the larger political arena, Republican groups are turning recent bumps in Mr. Obama’s road — notably his comment that small-town Americans “cling” to guns and religion out of bitterness and a fiery speech by his former minister in which he condemned the United States — into attacks against Democrats down the ticket.
“The public, week by week, is becoming more familiar with his big-government, far-left vision for America,” said Ed Patru, a spokesman for Freedom’s Watch, an advocacy organization that is portraying Mr. Obama as ultraliberal in an advertisement running in Louisiana before a special election for a House seat.
Republicans say the new focus on Mr. Obama reflects their view that he remains the more likely Democratic presidential nominee since he continues to lead Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in convention delegates. It also shows that Republicans, who have for months characterized Mrs. Clinton as the contender who would most energize Republican voters, now see vulnerabilities in Mr. Obama that could be liabilities for other Democrats on the ballot.
“There were times when Republicans reacted with just horror that he would lead the ticket,” said Stuart Rothenberg, a nonpartisan political analyst. “Now there is not the sense of him being invulnerable, the magic bullet. I think there has been a major change.”
The growing Republican emphasis on Mr. Obama could also help Mrs. Clinton plead her case that she is more electable, bolstering her argument to superdelegates that Republicans are poised to pounce on her relatively untested opponent.
...At the same time, some Democrats privately said the new Republican push could be a backdoor effort to buoy Mrs. Clinton, the candidate Republicans initially saw as the Democrat who would most rally Republicans and spur fund-raising. It has not been lost on Republican strategists that they can give pause to superdelegates leaning toward endorsing Mr. Obama.
...Democrats say Republicans are going to vilify either Democratic contender and distort his or her record in an effort to weaken the nominee and drag down fellow Democrats.
“We know they will use Karl Rove/Lee Atwater tactics no matter who the nominee is,” said Representative Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. “Republicans have lost their credibility on the issues they want to scare people on, like national security, so they will try a different strategy.”
Oooh, those evil, scheming Republicans.
Imagine. "Democrats say Republicans are going to vilify either Democratic contender and distort his or her record in an effort to weaken the nominee and drag down fellow Democrats."
What have the New York Times and the Washington Post and other media publications been doing to McCain? And what have NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and MSNBC been doing to McCain? They certainly have not been taking the high road.
When the Republican nomination was still up for grabs, the lib outlets vilified and distorted the records of the Republican candidates, particularly the more conservative Republicans.
After McCain clinched the nomination, the New York Times actively campaigned to drag him down.
In spite of giving McCain its endorsement, there's been a whole lotta vilifying going on by the Times. It's especially sleazy that the attacks weren't about matters that surfaced since the newspaper gave McCain its support.
The stories were tired, old ones that the Times tried to resuscitate.
Some examples:Vicki Iseman non-scandal
McCain's Panama Canal Zone birthplace
Elisabeth Bumiller's piece on McCain's testiness
McCain's flirtation with leaving the Republican Party and his conversations with Dems about being John Kerry's 2004 running mate
All are utterly lame.
All are planted to raise doubts about John McCain and his conservatism.
All regurgitate old news to make stories out of nothing.
I suspect the New York Times plans to run more goofy slop on McCain, desperately throwing anything against the wall in hopes that something will stick.
The Washington Post is also part of the "Attack McCain" apparatus.McCain's temperament questioned
It's so hypocritical to charge the Republicans with dirty campaigning, when the Dems and their mouthpieces in the media engage in it as well.
"Karl Rove/Lee Atwater tactics"--
What a joke! Obama continues to lie about McCain and his line about being in Iraq for 100 years. It's an intentional distortion. Obama is lying to the American people about his opponent.
The reality is Obama is very vulnerable.
In addition to matters involving Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers being problematic, there's his extreme liberalism and inexperience and his disdain for gun-toting, religion-clinging Americans. His fear of the American flag doesn't help him either. Oh, yes... and he can't bowl.
As we get to know him, we see his arrogance and smugness, and his disingenuous. His disastrous performance in the last debate had to give Dems pause about Obama as their savior. What earlier seemed like a fresh face ushering in a new era of politics, now is exposed as the same old, same old.
The stunts like the fainting episodes at his rallies make Obama seem insincere. The snippy side of him, taunting Hillary Clinton, isn't very attractive.
He's a radical Leftist.
He's not a victim of dirty politics.
Obama drags himself down. The Republican Party really doesn't have to manufacture anything to do it for him.
Bill Moyers is helping Jeremiah Wright attempt to transform the public's perception of him from the hate-filled, racist, anti-Semitic, anti-American pastor and spiritual mentor of Barack Obama into a soft-spoken man of God.
Just watching the brief clip of the Moyers interview makes me ill.
This must be what it's like to be a hostage and forced to view propaganda. Your captors are trying to brainwash you with lies.
From ABC News:In the PBS interview on the "Bill Moyers Journal," Wright complains that reporters picked sound bites from his sermons with the intent of defaming him and, by association, Obama.
"At a political event, he goes out as a politician and says what he has to say as a politician," Wright told Moyers. "I continue to be a pastor … He's a politician. I'm a pastor."
...In the Moyers interview, a soft-spoken Wright expresses his horror that the media has made him a bogeyman, endlessly replaying sound bites of fiery sermons which he claims were taken out of context.
"I felt it was unfair. I felt it was unjust. I felt it was untrue," the former pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ told Moyers, adding that some of the snippets were taken from many years ago.
For instance, after the 9/11 attack, Wright famously preached that the "chickens had come home to roost." Wright said it was clear to those present for the sermon that he was quoting President Reagan's former ambassador to Iraq.
"I think his manner, his demeanor, comes off being very appealing … but if you actually look at the snippets for what they are, where he's damning America, or the KKK in America, or the white government spreading AIDS in America, it's just so unappealing. At some point it's hard to explain away why the words were coming from his mouth. And then it invites to question Barack Obama's judgment, in sitting there all those years and being part of that kind of, what he calls by his own admission, 'divisive, hate speech,'" said [Juan] Williams.
..."The church members are very upset because they know it's a lie, the things being broadcast," Wright said, adding that there have even been death threats on him and bomb threats on his church.
Death threats and bomb threats are inexcusable. IWhile it's appropriate to be very disturbed by Wright's rhetoric, that's no reason to morph into Obama's friend Bill Ayers. (Of course, Ayers was behind more than threats. He wasn't just talk. He actually walked the terrorist walk and still brags about it.)
If the rest of the interview is anything like the tease video, Moyers really whores himself.
I agree with Juan Williams. There's just no way to explain away what Wright has said.
Wright says, "The church members are very upset because they know it's a lie, the things being broadcast."
A lie?
From what I know about Wright, it seems that what will be broadcast tonight on Bill Moyers Journal will be the whopper of all whoppers.
I expect to see "a freak show of political pornography: lies, distortions, and half-truths -- half-truths being perhaps the blackest of all lies."
_____________________
Obama: Rev. Wright's Response 'To Be Expected'ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports:
...As for the return of his controversial former pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright who gave a recent interview to Bill Moyers and said Obama played politics in his response to the controversy, Obama said Wright's response was "to be expected".
"He is obviously free to express his opinions on these issues. I've expressed mine very clearly. I think that what he said in several instances were objectionable and I understand why the American people took offense and, you know, and as I indicated before, I took offense."
The debate between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama didn't turn out too well for Obama.
He was so bad that he chose to address his dismal debate showing on the campaign trail. Naturally, Obama isn't saying he blew it. No, he blames moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
They weren't fair. They were too tough. They didn't ask the right questions.
Other assorted Lefties have leveled the same charges. Tom Shales went off the deep end and mercilessly attacked Gibson and Stephanopoulos for, among a long list of things, being slanted against Obama.
I think the libs are mistaking a poor performance by the debate moderators for Obama's miserable performance. The fact is Gibson and Stephanopoulos' questions revealed some of Obama's weaknesses. The libs want to blame the messenger.
All this criticism being directed at Gibson and Stephanopoulos is a clear indication that even his supporters believe Obama fell flat on his face.
From the Washington Post:The political fallout from the Philadelphia face-off between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton was all but eclipsed yesterday by a fierce debate about Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos.
The ABC moderators found themselves under fire for focusing on campaign gaffes and training most of their ammunition on Obama. Huffington Post blogger Jason Linkins called the debate "utterly asinine." Washington Post television critic Tom Shales called the duo's performance "despicable." Philadelphia Daily News columnist Will Bunch said the moderators "disgraced the American voters, and in fact even disgraced democracy itself."
Tough crowd out there.
"I think the questions were certainly pointed -- tough at times, as they should be in a presidential debate -- but not inappropriate or irrelevant at all," Stephanopoulos said yesterday. "The questions have been part of this campaign and in the news. We did our job. You're not going to satisfy everyone."
In the first 40 minutes of Wednesday's two-hour Democratic debate, the moderators asked Obama about his remarks that small-town residents bitterly cling to guns and religion; the inflammatory sermons of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Stephanopoulos follow-up: "Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?"); why Obama doesn't wear an American flag pin; and his relationship with William Ayers, a former Weather Underground radical who has acknowledged involvement in several bombings in the 1970s.
In the only comparably aggressive question directed at Clinton, Stephanopoulos cited a Washington Post-ABC News poll challenging her honesty and tied it to her false tale of having once come under sniper fire in Bosnia.
"Senator Obama is the front-runner," said Stephanopoulos, the network's chief Washington correspondent and a former Clinton White House aide. "Our thinking was, electability was the number one issue," and questions about "relationships and character go to the heart of it."
Besides, he added, "you can't do a tougher question for Senator Clinton than 'six out of 10 Americans don't think you're honest.' "
Obama, for his part, complained about "gotcha games," saying yesterday: "I think we set a new record, because it took us 45 minutes before we even started talking about a single issue that matters to the American people."
Clinton spokesman Jay Carson countered that "the press is supposed to ask every candidate tough questions. . . . If you can't handle tough questions from a TV anchor, how will you handle the Republicans or a hostile world leader?"
The pro-Obama libs are acting like whiny little kids.
Obama had a very bad night. Deal with it....The liberal advocacy arm of MoveOn.org, which has endorsed Obama, said it will run an ad against ABC if 100,000 people sign a petition accusing the moderators of abusing "the public trust" by asking "trivial questions . . . that only political insiders care about."
That's so ridiculous it's funny.
Maybe this Dem primary has gone on too long. The Left is really losing it. ...Some critics, including MSNBC's Keith Olbermann, pounced on the question about Ayers, saying that conservative radio hosts Sean Hannity and Steve Malzberg had suggested it when Stephanopoulos appeared on their programs this week.
But Stephanopoulos said he had been following the issue since the Politico reported it in February. "What finally tipped the balance on whether to ask it or not was that as far as we could tell, Obama had never answered the question," he said.
It's about time that Obama had to address the matter of his personal connection with William Ayers.
Obviously, Ayers is viewed as a problem for Obama or the libs wouldn't be going so crazy over Stephanopoulos' Ayers question.
As the AP notes, "Stephanopoulos' question about a former Weather Underground official had received barely little notice in the campaign."
That's exactly why it was a good question. Finally, more American people are learning about Obama's ties with this unrepentant enemy of America.
In an opinion piece from February 26, Jonah Goldberg provides some information on Ayers.'Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."
This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 -- a few hours before Al Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough."
... Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.
...The question of why Ayers isn't in jail is moot; he was never prosecuted for the dozen or so bombings the Weather Underground claimed responsibility for. But Ayers and Dohrn are unrepentant about their years spent waging a violent campaign against the government. "Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, kill your parents, that's where it's really at," Ayers was widely quoted as saying at the time (though he told the Times he couldn't remember if he said it).
Yes, Ayers has a blog, and a few weeks ago he wrote a post, "Episodic Notoriety–Fact and Fantasy," that attempts to dismiss his involvement in bombings against the government while justifying his actions.
He seems to think he's clarifying while he's actually contradicting himself.
Very odd.
Bottom line: Ayers says he has regrets but he has no regrets. He's a lot like Jane Fonda in that sense.
Obama is "friendly" with Ayers, this American terrorist.
That's the reality.
On this day of primaries that may decide the Democrat nominee for president, the Washington Post delves into the Obama "movement."Another rally, another rapturous crowd.
At around 1 p.m. Wednesday, less than a week before today's crucial primary vote, a few hundred supporters lined up outside Duncanville High School, about 15 miles south of Dallas. Buttons were sold, three for $12. Shirts too, $10 each. Three hours later, the packed gymnasium of more than 2,500 -- with at least 500 more stuck outside -- spontaneously erupted into chants. The right side yelled, " B ARACK!" The left side screamed, " OBAMA!"
The candidate had yet to take the stage.
And down on the floor stood Rhonda Friedberg, a roll of duct tape encircling her right arm like a loose bracelet. A slender, striking woman with more than a passing resemblance to Diane Keaton, Friedberg calls herself "the tape lady." She's taped signs in restrooms, posters on walls and electrical wires to the floor so people don't trip.
This has been a season of many "firsts" for the 46-year-old molecular biologist: the first time she's volunteered for a campaign, the first time she's served as a precinct captain in an election, the first time she's given money to a candidate.
Every time Friedberg drives her 1991 red Toyota pickup truck out of the driveway of her Dallas home to attend another meeting of Obama's precinct captains, she surprises even herself. Before, she was "a homebody," as her husband of seven years describes her. Now, she feels she's part of a movement.
"Whether or not he wins the nomination, whether or not he makes it all the way to the White House, this is a movement," Friedberg shouts above the roar of the crowd. "A movement is when you're emotionally involved, and that's where I am."
She pauses, then says "And, you know, it's not about Barack Obama. It's about us. He's expressing what we need expressed and what we've been needing expressed for years."
...Never mind the gladioluses and calla lilies that need planting in her small front yard. Forget the novel she picked up about two months ago.
Over the past month, Friedberg's priority has been to make sure Obama's supporters in her precinct know about the Texas two-step: First they have to vote in the primary, then show up at 7 p.m. for the caucus.
By Monday morning, she'd made more than 700 phone calls on Obama's behalf. Being inside the arena, enveloped in the roar of the crowd, listening to Obama and his promises of hope and change, she feels part of something.
I think Friedberg nails it when she says that "it's not about Barack Obama. It's about us."
It seems to me that there are a lot of people wanting a purpose, something to believe in. What's weird is that the purpose seems to be Obama, not a cause or a goal or a philosophy.
"He's expressing what we need expressed."
OK. That's just sad. What's he expressing?
Barack Obama is supposed to be about changing politics as usual. Is that what we need expressed?
Unfortunately, his words ring hollow.
The movement is fraudulent.
From FactCheck.org:Barack Obama's campaign is distributing a mailer in Ohio that plays upon anti-NAFTA feelings in the Buckeye State. But the flyer is misleading:
---Obama is quoted as saying that "one million jobs have been lost because of NAFTA, including nearly 50,000 jobs here in Ohio." But those figures are highly questionable and from an anti-NAFTA source. Other economic studies have concluded the trade deal resulted in much smaller job losses or even a small net gain.
---The mailer quotes Hillary Clinton as saying "NAFTA has been good for New York and America." That quote, however, is taken out of context. She also said in that same news conference that NAFTA was flawed and old trade deals needed to be revisited.
That's definitely politics as usual.
Obama is not the man he claims to be. And if Obama is not the man he claims to be, then the movement falls apart.
On Monday's Nightline, Obama was interviewed by Terry Moran.On the question of experience, Obama welcomes the contrast between him and Clinton, who has repeatedly described herself as someone who is "tested" and "ready."
"I think the question is, how do you know any president is ready?" Obama said. "[Until] you're president, you haven't made these decisions."
"What people can take a look at is how I exercised judgment on key foreign policy questions over the last several years," he said. "And I think they can have confidence. ... More often than not, I have shown judgment that was superior to some of these people who are claiming much lengthier experience."
As part of her proven experience, Clinton has highlighted her visits to more than 80 countries, her time spent in the White House and her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee.
"Look, I've lived overseas," said Obama. "I have family overseas. I have served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee."
I can't believe that Obama has the nerve to consider living overseas and having family overseas to be foreign policy experience. That's idiotic.
He claims that he has superior judgment compared to "people who are claiming much lengthier experience."
Yeah, he opposed the Iraq war from the beginning. How many times have we heard that? Obama's always yapping about Hillary voting for the war and he didn't.
He didn't have to cast a vote on the war because he wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time!
How long does he think he can use his statement on Iraq as an indication of his superiority?
If Obama has such superior judgment, then why does he make "boneheaded" mistakes and surround himself with a weird band of buddies and associates?
Obama's spiritual mentor, Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., shares the views held by terrorists.
On the Sunday after the terrorist attacks of 9/11, Mr. Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies.
Mr. Wright, who has long prided himself on criticizing the establishment, said he knew that he may not play well in Mr. Obama’s audition for the ultimate establishment job.
“If Barack gets past the primary, he might have to publicly distance himself from me,” Mr. Wright said with a shrug. “I said it to Barack personally, and he said yeah, that might have to happen.”
Obama's campaign has said, “Senator Obama is proud of his pastor and his church.”
Really? I question Obama's judgment on that.
Wright isn't the only questionable person close to Obama.
He's friendly with Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi.[Khalidi is] a harsh critic of Israel who reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization when it was labeled a terror group by the State Department.
Khalidi held a fundraiser in 2000 for Obama’s failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.
And then there's William Ayers.
Jonah Goldberg writes:
"Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."
This excerpt from William Ayers' memoir appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001 -- a few hours before Al Qaeda terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Ayers, once a leader in the Weather Underground -- the group that declared "war" on the U.S. government in 1970 -- told the Times, "I don't regret setting bombs" and "I feel we didn't do enough."
Ayers recently reappeared in the news because Politico.com reported Friday that Barack Obama has loose ties to him. Ayers, now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, is apparently a left-wing institution in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, and Obama visited Ayers' home as a rite of passage when launching his political career in the mid-1990s. The two also served on the board of the charitable Woods Fund of Chicago, which gave money to Northwestern University Law School's Children and Family Justice Center, where Ayers' wife (and former Weather Underground compatriot) Bernardine Dohrn is the director.
Hanging out with former members of the Weather Underground isn't using the best judgment in my opinion, particularly since Ayers has no regrets about declaring war on the America. That's not good.
Now, we get to Tony Rezko.
Obama and Rezko have strong ties.
In 1995, Obama began campaigning for a seat in the Illinois Senate. Among his earliest supporters: Rezko. Two Rezko companies donated a total of $2,000. Obama was elected in 1996 -- representing a district that included 11 of Rezko's 30 low-income housing projects.
In 2003, Obama announced he was running for the U.S. Senate, and Rezko -- a member of his campaign finance committee -- held a lavish fund-raiser June 27, 2003, at his Wilmette mansion.
A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.
I think Obama's relationship with Rezko speaks volumes about his judgment.
From Nightline:
Obama's critics point to Tony Rezko, a Chicago real estate developer, as a reason to question Obama's brand of politics.
Rezko, who has raised a lot of money for Obama over the years, goes on trial this week on corruption charges. Rezko has ties to many politicians, but it is a real estate deal Rezko participated in with Obama in 2005 that enabled the senator to purchase his current home, that has brought a lot of scrutiny to the candidate's campaign.
For Obama, who has called himself a reformer and touted his judgment, some voters might ask how could he enter into this transaction with a longtime contributor who, at that time, was known to be under investigation for corruption?
"I've already said that that was a mistake, even though it was completely above board," said Obama. "Because he had been a contributor, I shouldn't have entered into any real estate transaction with him."
What a lame response!
Obama doesn't personify honesty. He's not about change. He insists that he has superior judgment, but I don't see the evidence.
It's pathetic that so many people are spellbound by someone they really don't know. And at least some of what they think they know about Obama is not true.
