On MSNBC this afternoon, Andrea Mitchell was interviewing someone (I missed her name) from the McCain campaign.

Essentially, the question was, "Why bring up Ayers when people are more concerned about the economy?" The answer?  "We didn't bring up Ayers, Hillary did.

There's more...

If this doesn't convince folks Sarah Palin is psycho, I don't know what will. Here's a recently released portion of unedited footage of the Gibson/Palin interview.

There's more...

There's more...

Sen Obama should drop out of the race. Having just seen the new attack ad that the GOP is showing in NC -- condemning the state's Democratic leadership for backing Obama, replete with Rev Wright cursing America -- it is clear that Senator Obama is detrimental to the Democratic brand nationwide. As Jerome Armstrong wrote nearly one month ago, "That's fall-out from Wright, not against just Obama, but also Clinton, and most likely against the Democratic Party in general. It's branding of Democrats Obama, and Clinton, as anti-American."

Obama earned his lead early on, prior to being vetted. After he lost Texas and Ohio, the Wright videos appeared, shocking the nation. Slowly, information about his relationship to Rezko, and his affiliation with William Ayers have also entered the mainstream.

CLICK HERE TO CONTINUE READING 

There's more...

Tucker Carlson response:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=9N9mpdST7VM&a mp;feature=related

   This morning I saw This Week with George Stephenoupolus and Sam Donaldson said something that highlighted a great point. He said that Obama supporters weren't angry over the questions, they were angry because the moderators asked hard questions, questions, about issues Obama thought weren't going to bite him. He also said that it's funny how the Obama camp didn't complain about keeping on topic of the issues or that the media was dragging the story too long when it was Hillary's Bosnia gaff. And I'd like to add something to Donaldson's point. The Obama camp didn't have a problem bringing up Geraldine Ferraro's comments either.

       So I've asked many Obama supporters this and I want to ask again. If you're mad at the fact that they asked him hard questions during the debate and he couldn't answer them in a legit manner then why don't you come out and say it. Why are you pretending that it's the questions you had a problem with? It's obvious you guys reacted the way you did because Barack was off his game, therefore he got exposed in the debate. And, it wasn't just those questions about flag pins or his pastor that upended him mind you. He also slipped on the issue of a gun control survey, his stance on gun rights, and his answer when asked about whether or not he would raise the capitol gains tax in which he conceded he would raise it. By the way raising the capitol gains tax effects everyone, not just the upper class. Just a side note.

So I have a few questions for the Obama supporters:

1.Do words only matter when Obama's not making misstatements?

2.If no one in America knows Barack Obama all that well, is it not appropriate to find out exactly who he is and who he dealt with in the past if we did that to many candidates prior?

3. When Hillary or John McCain have shady people backing them and  when they commit a slip of the tongue it's ok to pile on them?

4.Yet when Barack Obama slips up or has some shady characters in his life and people bring it up all the sudden it's "politics as usual"?

         What I'm trying to get at is, if Obama is suppose to be a new politician then why is he using the same old tactics he condemns and blames Senator Clinton for using? Doesn't that pretty much eat away at his central message? Of new politics and change? Can you only represent change externally and be the same old, same old on the inside? It seems that way. If Barack Obama wants to end divisive politics in Washington and in America then why has he parsed and exploited almost every misstep John McCain and Hillry Clinton committed in this campaign? For example John McCain's economic plan and his 100 years comment. Why are his supporters threatening to dismantle the party if he's not the nominee if this is a new campaign? Is bending the rules the new era of politics? Hiding behind a strong message all the while cutting from the same old deck of cards? If so then maybe Barack Obama is the best politician we've seen in American history. He managed to get us to believe what he said while playing with a trick hand. Honestly, that's quite brilliant. Getting people to buy change without actually giving them change.

So explain to me. What was so criminal about the debate?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ow79-raKxSg&a mp;feature=related


http://youtube.com/watch?v=2tVDu62Ox0U&a mp;feature=related

There's more...