I decided to take a look at the FNS transcript from Barack's appearance there today, and some of Senator Obama's comments were very distressing.

Here's the link:
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/27/ transcript-obama-on-fns/

read more after the flap...

First, Senator Obama continues to rant on about how the only reason why Hillary wins big states is because she's "well known" and he's not:

OBAMA: Keep in mind that Senator Clinton was well-regarded in the state of Pennsylvania. Just as she was well-regarded in the state of Ohio. The fact that they voted for her shouldn't come as a huge surprise. We started off 20 points down in that race. Just like we started 20 points down in Ohio. And we actually made significant progress there.

And when you look at the polling that's now being done, post Pennsylvania, about how we match up in a general election, I think Senator Clinton does a couple points better than I do. But it's not substantial. Most of those voters will vote for me.

But they are more familiar with her. They shared a - she is from a bordering state. On the other hand, in Wisconsin I won those same voters over Senator Clinton. In Virginia I won those voters over Senator Clinton. In Iowa I won those voters over Senator Clinton.

This comment, and the pattern of comments up and down from the Obama campaign seriously disturb me because while they always give the token "she ran a good campaign" line, they always seem to want to throw that jab in there that she's Bill's wife and that means that no matter how hard I try, I can't beat here with white people and rural voters. Not because of her own laurels or work...just because she was First Lady. This certainly doesn't mesh with the "change we can believe in" message and the "end of negative campaigning", because the insinuation is that the main thing that Hillary wins voters with is her martial relationship. An absolute lack of respect for a person who would have accomplished alot in life without Bill--and did accomplish more than most of us have in our lives before she was even married to Bill.

But what's also disturbing about Senator Obama's above statement is his fundamental misrepresentation of the defecit he faced in PA, and how much he truly "made up" in the last few months. Jerome, actually, had an excellent post up about it, showing post-Super Tuesday deficits in PA polling for Obama when you DON'T cherry pick polls:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/22/8560 /27582

Obama says he doesn't expect to win, but do better than expected. The Clinton camp says a win is a win and that's that. Here's something that ought to frame the expectations game. The monthly averages for the polls, via here, were:

February: 47.8 - 38.3, a 9.5% margin for Clinton
March: 51.3 - 38.4, a 12.9% margin for Clinton
April: 45 - 38.6, a 6.4% margin for Clinton

The one thing that easy to see is this was never a "20 percent lead" by Clinton [since Super Tuesday on Feb 5th]. Also, despite all the resources Obama has put into PA, he had been stuck at 38 for three months. Now, the final poll of polls shows it a bit closer. The last 10 polls show 50 percent for Clinton and 42.8 percent for Obama.

An interesting "poll of polls" there. So, Senator Obama's excuse that they have "closed the gap" since campaigning there in in all actuality, really untrue, because, on average, he had almost ZERO movement over three months while outspending Hillary almost 3 to 1 in the state in the last month, and with his national noterity moving up! It appears that once the people of PA got to know Senator Obama, in Feb., he hasn't been able to make much of any movement with anyone there, despite his spending. So let's not buy into the idea that since he started campaigning there, he picked up tons and tons of support. It's simply not true and it's a lie that has gone unchallenged by the media.

Let's revisit one of Senator Obama's quotes from the program today:

And when you look at the polling that's now being done, post Pennsylvania, about how we match up in a general election, I think Senator Clinton does a couple points better than I do. But it's not substantial. Most of those voters will vote for me.

So, basically, no worries, because most of Senator Clinton's supporters will vote for him? Not true, Barack, and maybe you and your campaign manager should get on the same page, since days ago he was spewing how Hillary's base (working class whites) were a lost cause to the GOP and we should probably give up on them, since we don't win them anyway. This is an extremely arrogant comment, and contradicts the fact that anywhere from 25-50% of Hillary supporters would not vote Obama in a general election, according to Gallup polls and an assortment of exit polls from states.

And, even though you thought he would have learned his lesson from before, he continues to triangulate on the LIE about not hearing Wright's anti-American hate speech in church:

WALLACE: By the way, in your speech on race, you said that while you haven't heard these remarks that have been public, that you had heard controversial remarks from the pulpit.

OBAMA: Right.

WALLACE: But you've never said what those were.

OBAMA: Well, you know, I didn't have any particular examples.

WALLACE: Can you tell us anything that you heard him say?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that he has oftentimes talked about some of the problems in the black community in very controversial ways. I mean, I think -- or in sharp ways, in ways that are provocative.

You know, he will talk about the failure of fathers to look after their children in ways that sometimes people might be taken aback by. He can use street vernacular in his sermons in ways that people wouldn't expect to hear-

WALLACE: But did he ever say anything about America or about white racism that troubled you?

OBAMA: Well, you know -- well, I think that, you know, he has certainly preached in the past when I was there about the history of race in this country in very blunt terms, talking about slavery, talking about Jim Crow. The problem -- and I pointed this out in my speech in Philadelphia -- was where oftentimes he would err, I think, is in only cataloguing the bad of America and not doing enough to lift up the good. And that's probably where he and I have the biggest difference, but -

So, if anything, Obama won't even tell us the truth about what he heard in church--because he knows he did not stand up to stop the speeches and the things that Wright was saying about good hard working Americans, calling us the "US of KKA", or that "9/11 was revenge on White America". It's time to stop triangulating, Senator Obama--what did you hear Wright say? Because I need a leader who will stand up against race baiting and anti-Americanism in this world--and you can't stand up against your pastor when he says that the "Chickens are coming home to roost", or that America created AIDS to kill all the African Americans (which is really going to help racial harmony and getting to a post-racial society, by perpetuating that lie), then how can I expect you to stand up for America in the world today?

Senator Obama's interview today with Fox was not good for him. He continues to dismiss Clinton supporters as people who are an auto-vote for him, he bashed Hillary's popularity by insinuating that the only reason why she wins is because of her marriage to Bill, and I'm SICK of him taking credit away from her, while perpetuating the LIE that he had made up any ground in the PA presidential primary in the last 3 months.