(Here's a letter-to-the-editor that will be printed in my local paper here in North Carolina. Permission hereby granted to use any part or all of it in letters to your hometown papers.)

There's more...

... dies by the sword.

As we all know, Senator Clinton and her surrogates have tried repeatedly to tie Senator Obama to Louis Farrakhan and his noxious anti-Semitism.

But guess what? Clinton's most prominent supporter in Pennsylvania, who has been at her side and stumping for her all over the media and the state in advance of tomorrow's primary?

Well, Rendell praised Farrakhan.

And not eons ago. Last year. On video. With Farrakhan present.

Citations after the jump.

There's more...

Cross posted at No Quarter

When the lights go down and the cameras are put away we begin to let loose our defenses. We say more of what we really mean rather than the politically correct day to day conversations the conventions of society force upon us. Senator Barack Obama had one of those moments Thursday when talking with WIP sports radio in Philadelphia. At first Obama felt that he needed to come to his grandmother's defense. He had, as recently as Tuesday told the world that his grandmother had made disparaging remarks about black people that made him "cringe." In fact I wrote a diary about it that you can find Here. So seeking to clarify what he meant to say (He does that a lot) Obama "revised and extended" his remarks to include:

The point I was making was not that grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't.

But that isn't what he said on Monday. No, Obama decided to throw grandma under the bus while comparing her transgressions with those of Reverend Wright. You might say the comparison was a slight exaggeration cause I am not so sure granny blamed the black man for every ill on the face of the earth. In case you missed it here is what Barack Obama said about his "white" grandmother:

....who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

So after defending his grandmother by taking back what he said on Tuesday, Obama then further clarified his explanation giving us clues as to what resides in that Harvard educated brain of his. Or is that a 6th grade education stuffed up inside that giant brain of his? No offense to Jethro Bodine intended.

There's more...

On the eve of March 4th elections, some voters would appreciate more detailed answers from Barack Obama to questions that seem to be accumulating as the primary season heads into Spring and Summer.

In no particular order, the questions for Sen. Obama are:

ONE: A) What has the SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EUROPEAN AFFAIRS accomplished in the 14 months you've been Chairperson; B) Is it true that you've never traveled to Europe or convened a policy hearing as Chairperson of this Subcommittee; and C) If you have not had time to lead this important Subcommittee due to your presidential bid, why haven't you stepped aside to let another Senator chair who will have the time?

    Ref:  http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/200 7/12/29/obama_europe/

TWO: A) Why didn't you back up your 2002 speech opposing MILITARY ACTION IN IRAQ with strong opposition once you became a U.S. Senator;  and B) Why does your voting record as a U.S. Senator contradict your original opposition?

    Ref:  http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id= 6226
        Ref:  http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washin gton/articles/2007/03/20/obamas_record_s hows_caution_nuance_on_iraq/?page=1

THREE: A) What did your SENIOR ECONOMIC ADVISOR AUSTAN GOOLSBEE say to the Canadian Consulate General in Chicago regarding your NAFTA intentions; and B) Why does your campaign refuse to provide a straight answer?

    Ref:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/1/19551 2/6896

FOUR: A) Why did TONY REZKO's wife buy the lot next door to you, on the same day you bought your house, when the Rezkos were in near financial ruin; B) Why did you participate in any transaction involving Tony Rezko when you knew he was under criminal investigation (saying that this was a "boneheaded mistake" does not sufficiently explain your actions); and C) Will you release all records related to Tony Rezko, as the Clinton campaign has requested?

    Ref: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/pol itics/02rezko.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea se/view/?id=6292
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/wo rld/us_and_americas/us_elections/article 3433485.ece

FIVE: A) Why don't you take the high road and publicly denounce the harassment, pressure, and threats being made on BLACK SUPERDELEGATES to switch their allegiance to you based on racial loyalty; and B) Would you similarly remain silent if white Superdelegates were pressured to support Hillary Clinton?

    Ref:  http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?u uid=62619699-3048-5C12-001FF2E54D94FE36

SIX: Why won't you state that you clearly and unequivocably reject the endorsement of LOUIS FARRAKHAN?  Your response in last Tuesday's debate to Tim Russert's question fell short of rejecting Farrakhan's endorsement.  This may help your electability with the Jewish population in the General Election.

    Ref:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083. html

SEVEN: A) Why do you continue to associate with REV. JEREMIAH WRIGHT of  your controversial church, Trinity United Church of Christ, when Wright has praised Louis Farrakhan; and B) Why didn't you address this part of Tim Russert's question in last Tuesday's debate?

    Ref:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/27/1545 39/783

EIGHT: Why is your campaign employing a strategy that encourages REPUBLICANS to change their registration for only one day, vote for you in the primary, then switch their registration back?  Is it because of the facts outlined in this article:  http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/a rchive/2008/02/28/a-number-you-probably- haven-t-seen.aspx ?

    Ref:  http://taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php ?id=27096
    Ref:  http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/2/23/1430 43/153

NINE: Why do you consistently accuse the Clinton campaign of NEGATIVE CAMPAIGNING, painting Sen. Clinton as divisive and yourself as a uniter, when your campaign has played the race card and employed numerous strong-arm tactics against Sen. Clinton?

    Ref: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?i d=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304
    Ref: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id= 6206
    Ref: http://facts.hillaryhub.com/archive/?id= 6156

TEN: On the theme of "unity," what specific accomplishments in your legislative record back up your claim of BIPARTISAN COLLABORATION?

       Ref: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022902784. html

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD QUESTIONS I MIGHT HAVE OMMITTED.

UPDATE: See this new article in Huffington Post today about Obama's foreign policy/war record: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joe-wilson/obamas-hollow-judgment_b_89441.html

There's more...

I had rather naively hoped that MSNBC would redeem itself last night and conduct a fair debate.

Unfortunately, that does not seem to be possible.  

While Obama was allowed to talk at length without answering questions directly, Russert hammered Hillary when she tried to answer questions.  He interrupted her a number of times to argue with her.  He did not do that with Obama.  There was a difference in the level of respect demonstrated by Tim Russert toward the two candidates.  If you don't believe me, watch the tape again.

There was also a difference in the level of respect shown by each candidate for the other.  Does anyone else notice how impatient Obama gets when Hillary is speaking, as if he can't stand to wait his turn?  When she makes a point, he waves his hand like an anxious school kid, turns his head away from her, looks pleadingly at the moderators for sympathy, displays frustrated facial expressions, and often tries to butt in.

And they call him "presidential."

If Hillary acted like that, they'd say she whines.

I watched the debate with my fiancé who is not fond of either Clinton, does not vote Democrat, and does not have much tolerance for political discussions in general.  He is sick and tired of my "obsession" with Hillary.  So I was surprised when, out of the blue, he said:"wow, Russert is really going after Hillary and really going easy on Obama.  I guess that`s because Hillary has more of a record."

During a commercial I vented: "Obama will win and I'll tell you why.. Because he is a man."

Later, when Russert asked Obama about Farrakhan and Rev. Wright, I was relieved that the questions had finally been asked.  I turned up the volume, only to hear Obama give a 5-minute explanation of how he has denounced Farrakhan and how much the Jews love Obama. Obama said something about building bridges between the black and Jewish communities.  Ironically, though, Obama did not address his continued association with Rev. Wright, the pastor of Obama's "unabashedly black" church who has praised Louis Farrakhan. I kept waiting for Russert to interrupt Obama to repeat that part of the question but, of course, that did not happen.

Hillary, however, spoke up to make the point that Obama should more strongly reject support from bigots and should disassociate with such people.  Her point was laughed off as a mere rhetorical distinction between denouncement and rejection.  Obama's response infuriated me, and that Russert did not pick up the ball on Hillary's point infuriates me even more.

Hillary is absolutely correct. As a liberal American Jew, I find it deplorable that Rev. Wright has been Obama's spiritual advisor for years.  The Obamas' wedding was performed by Rev. Wright and his kids were christened by him.  Presumably the Obamas still attend Wright's church. This relationship indicates to me a level of tolerance by Obama for values that, as Hillary said, should be soundly rejected.  Obama should have nothing to do with Rev. Wright.  It's troubling that Obama continues to associate with him.  And yes, Obama should emphatically state that he rejects the support and endorsement of Louis Farrakhan.  That is the moral integrity my President should possess.

What's even more troubling is the MSM's refusal to hold Obama accountable for his relationship with Wright.  I have seen bloggers defend Obama on this matter by asking if all Catholics should leave the Catholic church because some priests are immoral.  The answer is no, not necessarily, but they should stay far away from any individual priest whose character is in question.

I used to think Tim Russert was a fair journalist and I've long been a fan of Meet the Press.  These days I boycott all MSM news shows because I cannot bear to watch the sexist and imbalanced treatment of Senator Clinton.  I can't imagine ever going back to being a regular viewer of CNN, MSNBC, NBC, or the rest.

My phone rang last night immediately after the debate ended.  It was my mother, who is 74 years old and lives in another state.  She was on fire.  "Obama will win," she said, "and I'll tell you why....These men just can't stand to see a woman be president."

I think mom, as usual, is right.

There's more...