Obama thanks Sioux City... while in Sioux Falls!

But, you know, remembering different cities in fifty-seven states is a tough job. So we shouldn't judge him too harshly for forgetting what city he's in.

The Democratic frontrunner Sen. Barack Obama of another state, Illinois, had an enthusiastic double-barreled stump introduction from two local luminaries, former Sens. Tom Daschle and George McGovern, who was an equally enthusiastic supporter of Sen. Hillary Clinton until recently. But he changed his mind.

McGovern knows a little about presidential races, having once been the Democratic presidential candidate himself way back in 1972. He lost though.

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.

So was the crowd, which suddenly fell silent. Where are those Southwest Airlines get-away flights when you need them?

"I'm sorry," Obama quickly caught himself. "Sioux Falls. I've been in Iowa too long."

Sioux City is in Iowa. Sioux Falls is in South Dakota.

Here's video:



Whoopsie. Must be such a tiring, confusing job, campaigning. Imagine being PRESIDENT. Jeesh.

Hat Tip: Michelle Malkin

Huckabee kisses his veep dreams goodbye

And all with one little quote:

During a speech before the National Rifle Association convention Friday afternoon in Louisville, Kentucky, former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee — who has endorsed presumptive GOP nominee John McCain — joked that an unexpected offstage noise was Democrat Barack Obama looking to avoid a gunman.

“That was Barack Obama, he just tripped off a chair, he’s getting ready to speak,” said the former Arkansas governor, to audience laughter. “Somebody aimed a gun at him and he dove for the floor.”

Way to go, asshat. Real classy. Joke about someone trying to kill one of your political opponents. Douchebag.

Hat tip: Hot Air

Barack Obama, fairy tale king!

How do you know the left has gone too far with with their idolatry of the Obamamessiah?

When this picture accompanies an endorsement of him for President.


Rising from the sea like a mythical merman, with his loyal white steed behind him, the Left presents Barack Obama, fairy tale king!!

Christ Almighty. Do lefties really not see how ridiculous they have become with the Obama-mania? Seriously.

Hat tip: Ace of Spades

Democrats are just SO above race.

They are so noble, so much better than Republicans, that they don't need to stoop to dirty tricks like race-baiting or smears.

Right?

Um... I guess not. Michelle Malkin has an ad the DCCC ran smearing a Republican, Greg Davis, in the Mississippi congressional race, linking him to the founder of the KKK. Check out the ad:

Classy.

Only problem? The, uh, DCCC got their facts wrong.

[T]he DCCC says "Greg Davis wanted to honor the founder of the KKK with a statue in Southaven" and also said the statue was of "the first Grand Wizard." But in reality, the statue was of Jefferson Davis who was not the founder and never in the KKK. In fact, another place that has a statue of Jefferson Davis is the United States Capitol Building. Jefferson Davis is one of the two statues representing Mississippi, along with James Z. George. Furthermore, Senator Thad Cochran uses the desk of Jefferson Davis in the Capitol, one of two "heritage desks" (the other goes to Massachusetts Senior Senator and belonged to Daniel Webster).

ROM further notes that the "founder of the KKK statue" (Nathan Bedford Forrest) was wanted by the Mayor of Horn Lake.

So the DCCC has attacked the wrong mayor for the wrong statue.

Who cares though? There's a margin of error for this congressional seat to eliminate. Besides, liberals can stoop as low as they want.

I always love when Democrats pull out the KKK card, anyways... considering Robert Byrd's illustrious history with the Klan and all. How do they really have any room to talk? They don't seem to mind his direct involvement with the Klan, but they'd lie about Greg Davis, linking him to the KKK, just to win an election?

And they claim that they're the ones fighting for minorities. Go figure.

In presidential election news, Hillary is expected to win has won West Virginia. Moonbattery points out how democrats, of course, are throwing a hissy fit. Because if you don't vote for the Obamamessiah, you're a racist, and don't you forget it.

The whole piece whines about how white voters are racist for leaning towards Clinton, and how the Obamamessiah is the bigger man for not getting involved in such petty identity politics. Like, um, the kind that this writer is engaging in.

So, tonight the polls will close and Mrs. Clinton will have easily collected 99 percent of the white vote in West Virginia. She will crow about her electability in a smug but meaningless victory speech on a stage featuring dozens of "hard-working Americans, white Americans" standing behind her waving flags.

Bill and Chelsea will grimace through it all, knowing that the jig is up and that the dream of the next phase of the Clinton dynasty has come to an ignoble end.

While no Confederate battle flags will be visible, they will feel it in the air. Mrs. Clinton's greatest victory will be a triumph of the kind of identity politics that makes a nation smaller.

Still, she will resist the urge to dip Skoal and spit juice into a coffee can on live television.

There will be plenty of time for that kind of nonsense when she campaigns in Kentucky. There, everyone expects her to continue her total dominance of the rural white working-class vote while perfecting the accent she used to sport back in Little Rock.

Funny how this guy can whine about the Clintons' identity politics in an article like this, that is so completely focused on race and nothing else. And of course, the fact that the majority of black voters support Obama isn't racist, because voting for him means you're above race. Or something hypocritical like that.

And anyways, why does someone's race matter? It's the color of their skin. It doesn't affect their brain or how they think. It doesn't affect their policies or politics. And those are the things that concern me when it comes to who will be running this country.

So the whiny race-baiters out there can rest assured that most Americans who don't vote for Obama aren't voting for him because they're racist... they aren't voting for him because they can't stand his politics.

I guess the Dems just can't grasp the concept of white Americans who aren't racist.

Obama likes union corruption.

Is anyone surprised? From the Wall Street Journal:

Sen. Barack Obama won the endorsement of the Teamsters earlier this year after privately telling the union he supported ending the strict federal oversight imposed to root out corruption, according to officials from the union and the Obama campaign.

It's an unusual stance for a presidential candidate. Policy makers have largely treated monitoring of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters as a legal matter left to the Justice Department since an independent review board was set up in 1992 to eliminate mob influence in the union.

Well, he likes to associate with terrorists and racists, so why not corrupt teamsters and mobsters, too?

Besides, he's a politician. Who cares about what's good for the people when he could screw them over to get a few extra votes?

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

Obama knows the United States, all 60 of them.

Check out this video, where Barack Obama brilliantly showcases his knowledge of American geography:



Let's see... he has been to fifty-seven states, not including Hawaii and Alaska, and he still has one left to go.

So according to Obama, there are sixty states that comprise the United States of America.

Question: shouldn't the President of the United States know basic facts about the country he's running? OK, so maybe he was "tired". He "misspoke". Who gives a crap? Everyone knows how many states there are, and they know that at approximately five years old. For him to get something so simple, so basic, so elementary wrong is mind-boggling.

Instapundit reader Jeff Cauthen suggests:

Somebody should ask him to name all 114 US Senators.

Now let's just imagine the media reaction if McCain had said this.

Hat Tip: Gina Cobb

Asking the questions the media won't ask

Everyone knows that no one is supposed to ask Barack Obama any tough questions. We're supposed to be pacified by his empty rhetoric message of "hope" and "change", and not look any deeper. Because, you know, if we do, we find a whole lot of things to be uneasy about, and he is the Obamamessiah and all.

Unfortunately, the RNC didn't get that memo.



Just, you know, don't expect to get any answers. That'd be asking too much.

Hat Tip: Stop the ACLU

A Tale of Two Rallies

Obama held a rally to celebrate his victory at Reynolds Coliseum in North Carolina. According to the media, it was a packed house. Here's how it ran on television:


Mary Katharine Ham, though, attended the rally and paints a rather different picture.

Those tables in between my position and the rally you saw on TV are about a quarter full of milling, bored, tired reporters. The rally took up maybe a quarter of the floor space in the arena. Part of running a decent campaign is knowing how big a crowd you might have and planning accordingly so as not to embarrass yourselves with a woefully understuffed venue.

I realize it's standard practice to rope off an area of a venue for crowd-wrangling and appearances, but this is a little drastic. McCain's event at the Wait Chapel at Wake Forest today was nicely filled if not overflowing, but I imagine if he had held it at Groves Stadium and filled only the endzone seats, someone in the media might have said something about it. Obama doesn't have such worries, I guess.

Here's her picture of Obama's rally:


But why report the truth? Far better to distort the facts to make their precious Snobamamessiah look good.

Reporter to Obama: "Do your amazing good looks hinder your campaign?"

Or... something along those lines. Maybe the local reporter is getting a tingle up her leg, just like Chris Matthews, at the mere mention of Obama's name.

Oh, and stay to listen to him whine about the "underhandedness" of his atrocious bowling score being reported in the media. Apparently, he was really incensed about that -- he's not THAT bad, y'all.


Hat Tip: Hot Air

Photo of the Day

Creepiest. Photo. EVER.

Kim Kardashian, like, is endorsing, like Barack Obama.

Like, for realz. Because, like, he's totally into, like, change and stuff. That's like, totally something, like, we can all, like, believe in.

Kardashian quickly explained that their dinner was anything but one-on-one: “It wasn’t just him and I. I was at an event.”

"He just seemed very firm about the change, and that’s, like, his motto," Kardashian said, probably trying to allude to Obama’s "Change We Can Believe In" campaign slogan.

That's like, so, like, totally deep. Like.

I wonder, like, if Kim Kardashian could, like, point out one thing, like, that Barack Obama has, like, done in, like, the past ten years. Or if, like, she can explain, like, his association with, like, racist America-hating pastors, and, like, terrorists, and like, other, like, totally not hot people. But, like, how could we, like, ever expect, like, a deep thinker like Kim Kardashian, like, to think, like, about anything deeper than, like, "change". I mean, all she's, like, ever done is, like, have sex with a guy and, like, be Paris Hilton's, like, BFF.

But anyways, like, who cares? Obama is, like, so, like, totally hot right now. And that's like, totally, like, good enough for Hollywood.

Photo of the Day

Here's your snortworthy photo of the day:



Hat Tip: Moonbattery

Foreign Policy vs. Waffles? No contest!

Well, apparently Barack Obama can't be bothered to answer questions about foreign policy... not when he's eating his waffles, gosh darn it!


Maybe the Snobamamessiah doesn't realize that when you campaign, people will ask you questions. And if he really does have such superior foreign policy knowledge and experience, then why does it bother him if he happens to be eating a waffle? What, he can't swallow the bite he has in his mouth, answer the question, and resume eating? It should be a cakewalk for him, since he is so experienced in foreign policy. Right?

I really love how he gets so annoyed over pushy reporters. What's his reaction going to be if he's President and entire countries get "pushy"?

Thank heavens it was just a waffle and not some yummy arugula. What would his response have been then??

Hat Tips: Michelle Malkin and Right Wing News

Who do white men hate more, blacks or women?

That is the question posed by Nora Ephron -- the writer who gave us such sappy movies as "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "When Harry Met Sally". (Emphasis mine, of course.)

... But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Holy Christ Almighty. Where to even begin.

I think it's fair that Ephron is saying in this piece that white males are dumb, angry, racist, sexist, and unreliable, and only are in positions of power because they are white males. Can we all be in agreement on that?

Good. Because it's all crap.

Why is it that liberals think that, if white men decide not to vote for Obama, it means they HATE black people? Or that if they don't vote for Hillary, they HATE women? Did it ever occur to them that they, like all intelligent people in the United States, don't like their politics? Gee, what a thought.

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

It's called being in charge of your own life, and not letting anyone stand in the way of achieving your goals but yourself -- liberal victims should try it some time, rather than relying on government programs to give them the world.

And yes, this next election will be decided mainly by white men. They are the largest voting block. In a democratic society, that is the way it works. If the largest voting block was Hispanic women, then Hispanic women would decide. You can't force equality in the amount of people who vote -- although I'm sure liberals would love to. In the name of fairness, of course! To make sure minority voices are heard, they'd be more than happy to silence white male majority voices.

Right, Nora?

But, of course, we can't rely upon white men to do anything except, apparently, keep minorities and women down. And we women know this having dated them.

Nora, if you're reading this, I want you to repeat this after me five hundred times. Actually, just keep repeating it until it sinks into that hate-filled little brain of yours.

MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.

I don't know if you're single or not, but Nora honey, if you are, it isn't because men are unreliable scum. It's probably because you hate men and your insane ideas of what men should be send them running away from you screaming. If you are married to a white man, well... I'd be curious about how it is your husband lives with someone who apparently thinks so lowly of all white men.

And I hate to break it to you, but white men are not the only ones with awful tempers. In fact, I'd argue that women are worse than men are in the temper department. They may not be able to hit as hard or yell as loud, but women are malicious. They're vindictive. They don't forget anything. The quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is in existence for a reason. Piss off a woman, and she will want to make your life a living hell. Settling the dispute won't be good enough, oh no. This is because most women are, quite frankly, vindictive bitches -- ask any twelve-year-old girl which sex is more cruel. I dare you. And that's probably because most women are more emotional than men are. Men can be more logical; when they're in an argument, most of them are able to keep their emotions out of it. A lot of women can't.

I really don't understand the man-hating that goes on so prevalently. Why are white men looked at so much as the enemy? You can say they're "in power", but there are white male CEOs and white male blue collar workers. It isn't like every white man looks like the Monopoly guy, living in some ivory tower, pointing and laughing at the brutal sufferings of his female and minority slaves. What reality do these people live in?

Rachel wonders if it hurts to see the world that way, and kinda hopes so. I really hope so. How awesome would it be if this kind of hate, stupidity, and ignorance was painful?

I know I'd laugh.

Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas

Leave Barry Alone!

You know, maybe us mean 'ole KKKonservatives have just been too hard on poor wittle Barack Obama...



Thanks to Conservative Intelligencer for the hilarious video.

Picture of the Day

Well, isn't this perfectly fitting?

Obama's Rev. Wright: Israel created a dirty bomb to kill Arabs and Blacks

More from Obama's spiritual advisor and pastor of twenty years, the oh-so-noble Rev. Wright.

Here's the money quote:

I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs.

Now, I'm no physicist or chemist or anything like that. But I have to wonder... how is it that you can make an "ethnic bomb" that will only kill Blacks and Arabs, and leave the Jews and Whitey immune? I can see it now: we put a bunch of white racists, Jews, Blacks, and Arabs into a room and discharge this "ethnic" bomb. Only the Jews and Whitey will be left standing! Woohoo!

This was published in a church bulletin during "Family Month" (see Media Mythbusters for the image), in which Wright claims its a "great honor" to be labeled a terrorist state by the United States, a la Libya.

C'mon, didn't you know that Libya wasn't really a terrorist state, but was simply trying to overthrow oppression of Whitey in Africa?

No?

Oh well. Aren't you glad to know that this is someone who Barack Obama keeps very close to him? These are just the kind of opinions we need advisors whispering into our President's ear.

Hat Tip: Moonbattery

More patriotism from Michelle Obama

I have to say, I am really loving this Democratic race these past few months. I wonder if either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton understand what they're doing to themselves the longer they drag this out, the more they talk, the more skeletons that inevitably come out. But hey, by all means, keep it up! They're both doing a great job.

Here's some more, uh, patriotism from that America-loving couple, Barack and Michelle Obama. Michelle once again takes on the task of being the official idiotic mouthpiece for her husband, with glorious results:

Money quote:

Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?

Wouldn't it be just great to have a President and First Lady with such unabashed, seething hatred for their country?

This speech is, apparently, from January so it's a little bit old. But it's just yet another example of how the Obamas do not love America, not even a little bit. This is a horrible, terrible, hate-filled, racist, greedy country, and we need the Obamas to come and offer us their magical change, and they'll fix everything for us! All we have to do is hand over control of our entire lives to them and their big government. They know better than we do, us small-minded, racist Americans.

Rachel Lucas has a pretty good take on this:

... I don’t know what kind of time-space continuum Michelle Obama lives in, but in my world, there are only 24 hours in a day, which would preclude meeting every single student at your college. Maybe that’s the reason the kids she was talking to might not be pals with all the others?

No, we have to assume that every action taken by every person (especially Whitey) has something to do with wanting to avoid diversity, having stereotypical ideas of other races, and operating on misconceptions, all fulminating in proof that we’re ignorant because that’s how Amerikkka is.

So are you ready for the challenge of change? I know I am. I’ll start today by introducing myself to every single person in my immediate area, especially the non-white ones, because it’s time to get out of my comfort zone of prejudice and ignorance. Forget the job and everything else I have to do each day, what’s really important here is that I take advantage of living in a diverse community.

They’re doing it. They’re fixing my broken American soul, one step at a time. Hopechange!

I'd personally love to see some change from the Obamas. How about less people surrounding them who are race-baiting, hate-filled, America-condemning racists, instead of happily making them their pastor, friend, and spiritual and political advisor? How about we start with that change?

Speaking of Jeremiah Wright, he now has been criticizing Italians, calling them "garlic noses" and blaming Italians (huh?!) for Jesus' death.

Michelle, change your own stereotypes and misconceptions. Change your perceptions, get rid of your own racism. Until you do that, don't you dare preach to us measly little Americans about the changes we need to make.

Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit

Flashback Video of the Day

Here's a flashback video for today, of when Obama refused to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem.

There's no real reason to post this. I'm just doing it because I can. So THERE.



Here's a little reminder on just what exactly is required during the playing of the National Anthem, since there seems to be some debate on it:

The pledge of allegiance should be rendered by standing at attention, facing the flag, and saluting.

When the national anthem is played or sung, citizens should stand at attention and salute at the first note and hold the salute through the last note. The salute is directed to the flag, if displayed, otherwise to the music.

"Saluting" basically breaks down like this. If you are an active member of the military, in uniform, you stand at attention with a right-hand salute. If you are a retired member of the military, you stand at attention with your right hand over your heart (although many still salute the flag anyways). Civilians with no hat on their head stand with their hand over their heart. Civilians with a hat on their head stand, remove their hat, and place their hat over their heart. The end.

Of course, if I was Barack Obama, my defense would've been that I wasn't sure if it was the National Anthem being sung. It took me a few seconds to realize that The Star Spangled Banner was what was being sung! I mean, that was absolutely horrendous. Was she just making up how the song went as she sang? It sure didn't sound like any rendition of the National Anthem I've ever heard.

Hat Tip: Tammy Bruce

Obama: Iraq has made us less safe

If you could see me right now, you'd see me rolling my eyes and snorting in disbelief. This guy doesn't have a clue.

According to the Obamamessiah, Iraq has made us less safe:

"Ask yourself," Obama told the crowd, "Who do you trust to end a war: someone who opposed the war from the beginning, or someone who started opposing it when they started preparing a run for president?"

Obama used the five-year anniversary of the Iraq invasion to again cast himself as the only true anti-war candidate, one who openly opposed the invasion as a state lawmaker. He renewed criticism of Clinton for voting to authorize the use of force against Iraq.

Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer responded: "The reality is that Senator Obama took practically no action to end the war until he started his White House run while Senator Clinton has been a consistent critic of Iraq for many years."

Obama also teased likely Republican nominee John McCain for a foreign policy gaffe Tuesday in which McCain, touring the Middle East, said several times that Iran was training al-Qaida in Iraq. Iran is a predominantly Shiite Muslim country and has been at pains to close its borders to al-Qaida fighters of the rival Sunni sect. After another senator on the trip, Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., whispered into his ear, McCain finally corrected himself to say Iran was training Shiite militants.

"Maybe that is why he voted to go to war with a country that had no al-Qaida ties," Obama said to laughter and applause. "Maybe that is why he completely fails to understand that the war in Iraq has done more to embolden America's enemies than any strategic choice that we have made in decades."

No ties to Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein did not have direct ties to Al Qaeda, no, but he did have ties to terrorist groups who in turn had ties to Al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden himself has spoken about how important Iraq is to Al Qaeda. He's encouraged Iraqis to fight against us. For someone who doesn't care about Iraq, he sure is interested, huh?

And of course, Obama again dazzles us with his brilliant foreign policy. We're succeeding in Iraq, which in turn puts us -- gasp! -- in more danger, not makes us safer! This may be the first war in history in which achieving victory leaves the victorious country in more peril than before they won. And of course, there's the old Democrat stand-by: retreat no matter how well we're doing, and screw the consequences!

Yet Obama still doesn't give us anything concrete on how he'll keep us safe except that he'll pull out of Iraq. He says he'll make "better strategic choices", but what kind of choices? How will you keep us safer if you won't fight the damn enemy? Give us an actual plan!

And how about that vote of confidence in our military? Congrats, guys, all of your hard work and sacrifice means squat according to this guy because we're not any safer! Apparently, you've done nothing to protect your country, seeing as how we aren't any safer! Everything you've achieved is meaningless, and as soon as he's President he's just going to pull you out with no plan to keep us safe whatsoever, so everything you've achieved in Iraq, and everything you've sacrificed to achieve it, will be undone by this idiot's cut-and-run plan.

You know, maybe he should just stick to using pretty words about hope and change, and forget talking about big-boy politics.