Thursday, 20 March 2008


Ken Berwitz

Have you ever heard of a web site called

No this is not a reference to any particular anatomical part of Ms. Clinton.  Please keep your mind out of the gutter (and lfit mine up with it.  Thanks).  It is a reference to the belief of whoever runs this site that Hillary should be and will be the 44th President of the United States.

To that end, puts out a daily hit piece on Barack Obama.  One that, I assure you, Ms. Clinton herself could never ever associate herself with.

Just how strident is the verbiage?  Here is the site's lead article today.  You tell me:

Thursday, March 20th, 2008

Two Wrongs Dont Make A Wright

The superdelegates are watching. Voters in states crucial to Democratic victory are watching. Obama is sinking. The lies and the hypocrisy of Barack Obama can no longer be kept hidden even by his Big Media protectors.

BEFORE Obamas blaxploitation speech this past Tuesday we wrote:

Again, Obama is stoking racial strife, racial issues, race itself - for his own personal benefit. Instead of answering why Obama has displayed, repeatedly, total lack of judgment in decades long, generations long relationships - Obama will try to drag us all into his Obama drama of race in a broader context. We dont need to discuss Reverend Wright in a broader context. We need Obama to specifically address his lack of judgment.

AFTER Obamas Tuesday speech we wrote that Obama had proven himself a liar and a hypocrite. We noted Obamas repeated denials, for days, of knowledge regarding Pastor Wrights comments.

Buried in the Tuesday speech Obama fessed up.

ABC News, echos our reports:

Buried in his eloquent, highly praised speech on Americas racial divide, Sen. Barack Obama contradicted more than a year of denials and spin from him and his staff about his knowledge of Rev. Jeremiah Wrights controversial sermons.

Similarly, Obama also has only recently given a much fuller accounting of his relationship with indicted political fixer Antoin Tony Rezko, a longtime friend, who his campaign once described as just one of thousands of donors.

Until yesterday, Obama said the only thing controversial he knew about Rev. Wright was his stand on issues relating to Africa, abortion and gay marriage.

I dont think my church is actually particularly controversial, Obama said at a community meeting in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month.

ABC News, as we wrote, politely calls Obama a Liar and a Hypocrite:

His initial reaction to the initial ABC News broadcast of Rev. Wrights sermons denouncing the U.S. was that he had never heard his pastor of 20 years make any comments that were anti-U.S. until the tape was played on air.

But yesterday, he told a different story.

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes, he said in his speech yesterday in Philadelphia.

Obama did not say what he heard that he considered controversial, and the campaign has yet to answer repeated requests for dates on which the senator attended Rev. Wrights sermons over the last 20 years.

We need dates and specific sermons he heard from Obama. This is the week Obama was to assault Hillary on transparency. Where is the Obama openness and transparency on his schedules and documents?

In the case of his relationship with Rezko, Obama has also been slow to acknowledge the full extent of his relationship.

It was only last week that he revealed Rezko had raised some $250,000 in campaign contributions for him.

The campaign had initially claimed Rezko-connected contributions were no more than $60,000, an amount the campaign donated to charity. Then the figure grew to around $86,000, and there were additional revelations that put the amount at about $150,000. Obamas $250,000 accounting was a substantial jump and clearly contradicted earlier campaign statements that Rezko was just one of thousands of donors. [snip]

Obama was initially vague about Rezkos role in helping him buy a new home on Chicagos south side. Unable to afford an adjacent vacant lot the seller wanted to sell at the same time as the house, Obama approached Rezko. Rezkos wife bought the lot on the same day Obama bought the house, and then later, Mrs. Rezko sold the Obamas a strip of the lot which gave the Obamas a larger backyard.

Obama called it a bone-headed mistake but never revealed, until he met with Chicago reporters last week, that Rezko had actually toured the house with him and been deeply involved in the transaction.

Obama repeatedly stated he would have walked out of his church if he had heard things that made him uncomfortable. For 20 years Obama remained comfortable. Maybe it was those Big Media provided pillows.

Big Media for years protected Imus too. Imus, the bigot, Imus of the nappy headed hos runs a big ranch for kids with cancer. Imus still had to go. Defending Wright by citing non-wrongs is a non-starter. Every criminal in jail can cite a good deed. Obama, on Tuesday, excused his Pastor using the Don Imus defense - which failed.

The Imus Wrong defense:

Our British cousins see the cement block tied to Obamas feet which superdelegates also see:

Was the speech a turning point? No. Will the issue of the Rev Jeremiah Wright and his views on race be a burden to Barack Obama all the way to election day? Yes. [snip]

The Democratic Party establishment is privately deeply worried about this election. This is a year when it should be relatively easy for them to reclaim the Oval Office, yet there are nagging doubts about whether Obama, if nominated, could carry states such as Florida, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio and Pennsylvania, which will determine the outcome of this battle. Obamas words will undoubtedly impress those who take the trouble to listen to him. Whether they will work with those who are watching rather than listening is far more debatable.

Florida and Michigan are lost to Obama the election thief. Ohio is certainly lost to McCain if Obama is the nominee. Pennsylvania too is beyond Obamas reach.

But, not to worry Obama incense burners! Hillary Hater Dick Morris comes to the Obama rescue. Morris insists Obama has already won. Yet, Morris tries to save already won Obama by throwing him an anvil.

Why did he stay in the church? Because hes a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. But obviously, he cant say that. So what should he say? [snip]

What Obama needs not to do is to resort to the kind of Clintonian fudging that animated his interview with Keith Olbermann. By saying I wasnt there and I didnt know and I didnt hear him say it, he will invite contempt and derision. If he were to continue in that vein, he would buy himself a controversy akin to that which drowned John Kerry in the facts and allegations of his service in Vietnam. People will surface to say, I sat next to him, and Wright said such and such, and Obama will be hostage to everybodys subjective memory.

But if he handles the situation with subtlety and lets what he cannot say that it was opportunism that led him to stay in that church sink in among the electorate, he can and will survive this battle.

Gurgle, gurgle, as Obama sinks after catching that rescue anvil.

Obama is exploiting race to save himself. Again.

Hooboy.  That is rough stuff.

I always wonder if people who put out material like this help or hinder their candidate.  Sometimes a point of view, even if it is mostly fact-based, is so aggressive and nasty that people see it as overkill.  This causes them to turn off to the facts being presented and feel sympathy for the object of the attack.

I find myself tempted to use keith olbermann as an example here, because he has spent years trying to overcome his anemic ratings versus Bill O'Reilly through use of vicious, disgraceful, unprofessional personal attacks.  But doing so would require me to credit olbermann with a level of veracity I do not think he provides on his show.  So that isn't in the cards.

In any event, there is the site and that's what they put on it.  If you want more of the same, you can get your fill there every day.

No wonder John McCain is smiling more and more these days.


Ken Berwitz

Between Hillary Clinton's lies and Barack Obama's incredible racial meltdown it's hard to tell which campaign is self-immolating faster.

Well, here's the latest entry.  I got it from and I'm excerpting it below, but you an read the entire piece (and I urge you to do so) by clicking here:

AP, FNC's Hume Pick Up Hillary's Bosnia Fib; Will Rest of Media Follow?

By Rich Noyes | March 20, 2008 - 11:58 ET

On Wednesday, Fox News became the first news network to pick up on the contradiction between claims made by Senator Hillary Clinton about her 1996 trip to Bosnia and the reality reported by journalists at the time. In a speech on Monday, Clinton asserted that I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.

But no news outlet mentioned sniper fire at the time, and TV news footage from the day of Clintons visit, which was first posted Tuesday on NewsBusters, shows Clinton and her daughter walking around without helmets, greeting various people including the acting President of Bosnia and a Bosnian child who read a little speech for the then-First Lady.

In short, Ms. Clinton's claim is a lie. A clear, obvious, easily checkable lie.

Of course Mr. Obama did pretty well in the lie department too.  Earlier this week, in his race speech, he stated unequivocally that he had heard some of the garbage spewed out by his "spiritual mentor" jeremiah wright while at church. 

The fact that, just days before, Obama said that he had never heard this kind of material in his church - the exact opposite?  Hey, what do you want?  HONESTY?  I'm Barack Obama and you're supposed to love me.

But the truth is that Mr. Obama's lying will probably be forgotten, because people are focusing so much more on his telling them that his grandmother is a racist -- and then explaining that it wasn't really her fault because, after all, she was just a "typical White person"

It's hard to remember much else when Obama first craps on his own grandmother and then excuses her on the grounds that people of her skin color do it all the time.

This is some pair.  Compared to Clinton and Obama, Scylla and Charybdis look like sweetness and light.


Ken Berwitz

Is there any realistic hope that Israel can make peace with the people of Gaza?  Is there any realistic hope that Israel can do anything but conclude they are an enemy unequivocally committed to Israel's destruction and, for that reason, vanquish them as the allied forces vanquished Germany in world war II?

Maybe you can find a way to answer yes.  But I find it exasperatingly difficult to do so. 

Here is an excellent article by R. Emmett Tyrell Jr. of  The American Spectator (, which lays out the dispiriting facts:

The Gaza Syndrome
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 3/20/2008 12:08:22 AM
WASHINGTON -- On the evening of March 6 in Jerusalem, a heavily armed Palestinian terrorist from nearby East Jerusalem entered the Mercaz Harav yeshiva and opened fire on the unarmed teenaged students studying there. Eight died, and eleven were badly wounded before another student and an off-duty soldier shot the terrorist. The atrocity ignited wild celebrations in Gaza.

If you thought that the celebrations were anomalous, you might want to know about recent findings just published by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research, an independent polling organization based on the West Bank. According to its polls, 84% of Palestinians approved of this attack. Moreover, 64% approve of Hamas randomly firing rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israeli communities and 75% favor ending negotiations between their leaders and the Israeli government. In September of 2005, Israel in an irenic gesture withdrew its military from Gaza, but since then it has endured some 2,500 rocket attacks from Gaza and almost an equal number of mortar attacks. I wonder if 64% of the Palestinians would approve if Israel began reciprocal random attacks on Gaza. What is the old line, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you?"

Instead of lobbing artillery randomly, the Israel Defense Forces have attempted to counter Hamas's attacks with surgical strikes against their leaders and their rocket factories. However, Hamas's leaders nestle their headquarters and rocket factories in civilian neighborhoods, and civilians suffer collateral damage. That appears to have made Palestinians angry, and not at Hamas for its bellicosity but at Israel for responding to these cruel attacks. According to Mr. Khalil Shikaki, the Palestinian pollster who headed the aforementioned poll, never in the 15 years that the poll has been conducted has a majority of Palestinians favored rocket assaults on Israel or an end to negotiations. For handing over Gaza to the Palestinians this is the thanks Israel has received. Now Palestinians want further Israeli withdrawals from the West Bank. One does not have to be a student of the late Niccolo Machiavelli to advise against further withdrawals. Mr. Shikaki's poll demonstrates that such withdrawals only make the Palestinians angrier.

When the Israel Defense Forces withdrew from Gaza (taking with them civilian settlers), the Palestinians had an opportunity to set up a peaceful community that might encourage further accommodations from Israel. As Victor Davis Hanson observed in a recent column, "Gaza has plenty of natural advantages. It enjoys a picturesque coastline on the Mediterranean with sandy beaches and a rich classical history. There is a border with Egypt, the Arab world's largest country and spiritual home of pan-Arabic solidarity." Hanson mused imaginatively that Gaza could become another Singapore or Hong Kong. Instead the Palestinians immediately began a civil war among themselves and after that began lobbing rockets and mortars into Israel. Somehow I doubt these people want peace. In fact, I suspect, peace would be a disappointment to many of them.

A recent book, The Global War on Terrorism: An Assessment, by Robert C. Martinage of the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, illuminates the problem that Israel faces with Hamas and that the West faces with Islamic terror in general. Says Martinage, "Since the death of Muhammad in 632, Islamic history has been punctuated by many periods in which various heterodox sects have emerged and clashed violently with mainstream Muslims, as well as with the West." We are living through one of those periods. Whether Israel existed or not, these Islamic terrorists would still be with us.

All that Israel and the West can do is resist the terrorists, the best way being to go on the offensive. Withdrawing from Gaza certainly has not weakened the terrorists. It has made them and their Palestinian sympathizers more eager for violence. There is one sentiment, however, in this poll that I for one agree on. Negotiations have been of no benefit, at least not to those who want peace.
I would love to conclude something other than that this is a hopeless situation.  But how can I do it?  Where is the logic to support such a conclusion?

Simply stated, you cannot reason with, or negotiate with, or make peace with,  people who hate you and want your country annihilated and everyone in it either gone or dead - preferably dead. 

Those are the plain facts.  The facts Israel lives with every day.  I wonder when Israel will decide it is time to face them.


Ken Berwitz

Here is how you compete in Democratic primaries these days.  It is brought to you by Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama -- with an assist from the Associated Press, which is exerpted below.  You can read the entire article by clicking here :

Obama: Trust me to end the war

By MATT APUZZO, Associated Press Writer

Wed Mar 19, 7:05 PM ET

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. - Barack Obama suggested Wednesday that Hillary Rodham Clinton could not be trusted to end the Iraq war because she only started opposing it when she began her bid for president.

In a speech not far from North Carolina's Fort Bragg military base, the Democratic presidential hopeful told military families and local officials that the war has emboldened al-Qaida, the Taliban, Iran and North Korea.

"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, an independent from Connecticut, whispered in his ear, McCain corrected himself to say Iran was training Shiite militants.

These two are like children in a playpen fighting over the Elmo doll.

And the funny part (ironic funny, not ha-ha) is that they are both right.

Hillary Clinton did vote to authorize the war and did speak approvingly of the fact that we invaded until it was politically opportunistic to sing another tune.

But Barack Obama was NOT IN THE SENATE when that vote was cast, therefore no one, him included, knows whether he would have voted for or against.  And if you think I am being disingenuous in any way, consider this quote, from a Chicago Tribune interview Mr. Obama gave in July, 2004:

Theres not that much difference between my position and George Bushs position at this stage.

It is just me, or does that suggest Barack Obama was just a wee bit less intransigently anti-war than he makes out to be?

Plus, this is the man who sat in the Trinity United Church of Christ for almost 20 years, listening to jeremiah wright spew out the most low-down racist anti-USA filth he could come up with, and stayed in that church anyway. 

We're supposed to trust the judgment of a man who did that?

Meanwhile, the troop surge continues to succeed.  Yes there are still suicide bombings and there are still US casualties.  But the numbers of bombings and casualties is way down.  And more and more Iraqis are siding with the USA over al qaeda (presumbably  because we are protecting them and al qaeda is killing them).  Reports, including those that have been captured from their own people, indicate that al qaeda is virtually decimated in Iraq

But these are the Democratic nominees.  So none of this matters.  And instead of celebrating the success we are in the process of achieving, they have to attack relentlessly in any way they can. 

Put another way, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama literally have to take the position that al qaeda takes - i.e. that we are failing, we are the problem, we should get out and leave the Iraqi government to whatever comes once we do.  And the fate of Iraq with its geographic location and oil resources, has nothing to do with peace in the world or the interests of the USA. 

That is a pretty awful thing I just said.  I wish even one word of it were wrong.


Ken Berwitz

Is Barack Obama's sainthood finally ending?  Are voters starting to come down to earth - despite the daily hagiography written about him by mainstream media?  Are they now seeing him as a very inexperienced and very flawed man, whose eloquent speaking style has pulled the wool over their eyes for months and months?

Here is the story from Reuters.  See if you think so:

Clinton takes lead over Obama in Gallup poll

Thu Mar 20, 10:11 AM ET

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has moved into a significant lead over Barack Obama among Democratic voters, according to a new Gallup poll.

The March 14-18 national survey of 1,209 Democratic and Democratic-leaning voters gave Clinton, a New York senator, a 49 percent to 42 percent edge over Obama, an Illinois senator. The poll has an error margin of 3 percentage points.

The poll was a snapshot of current popular feeling, but Clinton trails Obama in the state-by-state contest which began in January to select a nominee to face presumptive Republican nominee John McCain in the November election to succeed President George W. Bush.

The nominees are formally chosen by delegates at the parties' conventions in the summer.

Gallup said the poll lead was the first statistically significant one for Clinton since a tracking poll conducted February 7-9, just after the Super Tuesday primaries. The two candidates had largely been locked in a statistical tie since then, with Obama last holding a lead over Clinton in a March 11-13 poll.

Gallup said polling data also showed McCain leading Obama 47 percent to 43 percent in 4,367 registered voters' preferences for the general election. The general election survey has an error margin of 2 percentage points.

The Arizona senator also edged Clinton 48 percent to 45 percent but Gallup said the lead was not statistically significant

Some time ago I said that Obama was a balloon about to burst and jeremiah wright was an aneurysm on that balloon.

Let's just say that this story is doing nothing to dissuade me.


Ken Berwitz

Eliot Spitzer had to resign because of the way he used funds to pay for his call girls. 

David Paterson, his lieutenant Governor and replacement,  who was sworn in just a few days ago,  has admitted to having extra-marital affairs.  First he said it was with one woman and then with a succession of women.  Not good, but not actionable either.  New York still has a Governor.

But now we have this, from Ed Morrissey - formerly of Captain's Quarters and currently blogging at

New York governors can apparently make it anywhere!

posted at 7:00 pm on March 20, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

Maybe theres something in the drinking water in Albany. New York has gone through one gubernatorial sex scandal just to land in the middle of another. What appeared to be limited to simply a personal issue with incoming Governor David Paterson has now blossomed into an issue of potential electoral misappropriation of funds. Paterson now admits that he may have used campaign funds to pay for his extramarital trysts and youre not going to believe how he categorized the expense:

Gov. Paterson admitted Wednesday he may have improperly billed his campaign for at least one hotel tryst with a girlfriend.

The hotel tryst was apparently listed as constituent services.

A Daily News review found that in a handful of other campaign expenditures, Paterson may have used campaign funds to cover personal expenses and misstated their purpose in public disclosure forms.

The records also show he made reimbursements, but he acknowledged he may have failed to pony up in one instance.

Constituent services? Well, perhaps Paterson wanted some truth in accounting.

After the departure of Eliot Spitzer for hiring high-priced prostitutes, New York had hoped to settle into a calmer political period with the mild-mannered Paterson at the helm. He shocked the state by immediately admitting to several affairs a few years earlier, when his marriage had foundered. The disclosure intended to get past the rumors that had run in the capital and eliminating a source of distraction for the transition.

Now, though, it looks like New York has a bigger headache. Using campaign funds for personal use is as illegal as hiring prostitutes; both of them are misdemeanors. Patersons offense will not likely cause him to step down, though, because as the Daily News reports, every politician in Albany has probably committed the same crime. They may not have paid for hotel expenses for paramours, but the purpose matters little to the commission of the crime.

So heres a question for the New York political structure: if all of you are using campaign funds for personal expenses, why not just make it legal? One answer is that it destroys the firewall between campaign contributions and personal kickbacks, which is why the law exists in the first place. Its good to know that the people New York voters elect to pass and enforce laws dont seem to have trouble ignoring them, especially when they ignore the laws that specifically apply to themselves, which they themselves pass to make themselves appear clean.

If David Paterson used campaign funds (given in faith by political donors for his political races) to fund his extra-marital events - sometimes paying it back and sometimes not - he has no business being the Governor of New York.

Will he be forced out?  Well, this is New York, where bad things are often not punished at all, so maybe not.  But maybe so too.

Besides, if this is what we have found out about Mr. Paterson in just the first few days of his term as replacement Governor, why should we think for a minute that there isn't anything else?  How many more women?  How much more campaign money?  What other things has Mr. Paterson done?

And if David Paterson has to resign, New York will be left with Joseph Bruno, a 78 year old Republican hack, who currently is the senate majority leader, thus next in line.

It's almost enough to wish Spitzer were back in Albany.

Welllllllllll, almost.


Ken Berwitz

One of the worst things Barack Obama did in his race speech earlier this week was to gratuitously call his grandmother - the woman who RAISED him - a racist.  There was no need whatsoever to do this.  It did not enhance Mr. Obama in any way.  All it accomplished was to embarrass and humiliate the elderly woman who gave him her love.

The comment made me sick to my stomach.

It would be hard to come up with a way of making this worse.  But, incredibly, Mr. Obama found that way.  Here, courtesy of National Review, is proof - the bold print is theirs, not mine:

Thursday, March 20, 2008


Obama Helpfully Clarifies That His Grandmother Is a "Typical White Person"

In Philadelphia this morning, Barack Obama confronted the remains of the Jeremiah Wright brushfire, the smoldering embers of this anecdote of his grandmother using racial stereotypes that made him cringe... and promptly spilled gasoline on those embers.

610 WIP host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

The grandmother reference from the speech, as you'll recall:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

You know, typical.

There you go, granny.  Feel better now?  Yeah, you're a racist, but you can't help it.  You're White.  And that's what all White people do.  Too bad you aren't Black.  Then you wouldn't be the racist you are.

This is the man who we are being asked to elect to the presidency based on his GOOD JUDGMENT?????????????????/

Buy Our Book Here!

Return to Current Blog
We're Hopelessly Partisan, is a web site which is dedicated to honest, blunt, debate on the issues of our time.

About Us

Privacy Notice: In conjunction with the ads on this site, third parties may be placing and reading cookies on your browser, or using web beacons to collect information.

At “Hopelessly Partisan” we discuss all issues, big and small. In here, nothing is sacred and nothing is out of bounds.

So settle back, preferably after laughing your way through a copy of “The Hopelessly Partisan Guide To American Politics”, and let the battle begin. In this blog, your opinion counts every bit as much as anyone else's, maybe even more.

And to show that my willingness to provide all sides of the issues is sincere, here are links to a variety of web sites, from the left, the middle (more or less) and the right. Read them and either smile in agreement or gnash your teeth in anger!!