Pamela Geller: Obama Behaved Despicably

Pamela Geller on Atlas Shrugs has a remarkable column on the often bizarre behavior of Barack H. Obama. I urge you to read it. (I'll comment more on Sunday about Pamela's revelations.)

Here's the link:http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/08/cnn-tells-sells-more-lies-about-palin-its-time-to-expose-the-truth-about-obama.html

Like Pamela, I've determined that the stream of baseless rumors about Gov. Sarah Palin come directly from Obama's political gurus David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel. (More about this in coming days.)

You got it: "Our" president is a scumbag. No Mt. Rushmore for him.

Obama: Class Warfare Against Palin

Obama/Axelrod/Emanuel and their blog lackeys, Moveo.org, The Daily Kos, and Democratic Underground don't believe anyone but an elitist like Obama should serve in the nation's highest offices. That's why they have been trashing Sarah Palin since the day McCain named her as the nominee. Read about Obama's version of class warfare on my other blog: http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.

Is Obama really "one of us?" Last year Barack and his wife, according to his 2008 tax return, made $2.7 million. How many people reading this fall into that category? I think it's safe to assume the answer is "no one."

Obama is one of those rich people he pretends to trash, but has done everything in his power to emulate. He's spent a lifetime having things handed to him, especially his education at a prestigious prep school in Hawaii, as well as his years at Columbia and Harvard. In his campaign, he talked about "working" his way through Harvard Law School. In fact, he was talking about two cushy summer jobs.

His wife, Michelle, recently talked about a new experience for her: meeting military families. I suggest her next move might be going to Wasilla, Alaska and meeting a true military family, the Palins. Apparently, the Obamas have never really known people in the military or their loved ones. I guess you don't run into a lot of such people at Columbia, Harvard, and Princeton -- or in the U.S. Senate.

Sarah Palin's slogan in the 2012 presidential race may well be: "Sarah . . . she's one of us." Obama's slogan could be: "Barack . . . he's one of them." He has nothing substantial in common with 299 million out of 300 million Americans. And that's why he and his cronies detest Sarah Palin . . . and take every opportunity to smear her.

AIG Bonuses: Obama's Issue "Deflection"

On the $165 million in AIG bonuses that transfixed the nation (and Obama loved every minute of it), I had mentioned on a blog that the cost of the bonuses was $56 per American. Actually, as as reader pointed out, it was 56 CENTS.

In other words, it was peanuts. It was nothing. It was irrelevant. It was a phony issue used by Obama to deflect attention from an Administration dedicated to undermining the U.S. Constitution. It wasn't worth a minute of our nation's time.

Okay, regarding the real issues, the $700 billion TARP bailouts and the $748 billion Stimulus: How much was the debt those huge expenditures imposed on every American, male and female, young and old ? About $5,000 for every man, woman, and child!

Of course the MSM played along with Obama's game. It treated the AIG bonuses, a drop in the bucket compared to Obama's ocean of spending, as the only issue that mattered. The U.S. Congress, which had authorized the bonuses, did its best imitation of a lynch mob.

In other words, five thousand bucks each -- versus 56 cents each. And the nation went into a frenzy for the 56 cents -- and basically ignored the $5,000.

This is the true meaning of a technique Obama-Axelrod-Emanuel excell at: deflection, or making us obsess on irrelevancies. Deflection means tilting at windmills. It means fidding while pocket change while the economy burns. It means getting the public to rely on rage instead of reason.

Wake up America!

Obama's Rules for Campaigning, Governing

To understand the tactics used by Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod, it's necessary to grasp the "rules" outlined long ago by radical labor organizer Saul Alinsky (in his "Rules for Radicals"). In the last campaign, John McCain and, especially, Gov. Sarah Palin faced such tactics. (In fact, Alinsky influenced both Hillary Clinton, who wrotea thesis on him, and Barack Obama.)

[Note: I'm cross-posting today with my other blog; tomorrow, I will return to offering different columns on each site.]

Supporters of Gov. Palin need to understand Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Frankly, there's no reason they can't be used AGAINST Obama and his minions. The following points summarize Alinsky's Rules and note how Obama/Axelrod used them in the campaign -- and continue to apply them to undermine potential opponents, such as Gov. Palin.

1. “Rub raw the sores of discontent” – in other words, get irritated people angry enough to demand change, which was Obama's mantra;
2. Convince skeptical and demoralized people that real change is possible (“Yes, we can!”);
3. Understand that hopefulness can overcome a sense of powerlessness; (e.g., Obama's stress on 'hope");
4. Sharpen resentments, fan hostilities, and exploit controversies; (BO’s continual, contemptuous references to "George Bush!" and the targeting of Rush Limbaugh)
5. Begin organizing by first disorganizing the community – to overcome complacency;
   Convince your opponent that your movement is invincible; (“This is OUR time.”)
6. Stay within your people’s comfort zone – their limited experience (e.g., symbols are more effective than substance);
7. Force your opponent outside his comfort zone to create uncertainty and fear;
8. Demand your opponent obey his stated rules, which he usually won’t; (e.g., demanding that Obama's wife not be subject to any criticism -- "lay off my family," as BO said)
9. Use ridicule to infuriate your opposition and generate overreaction (e.g., Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” reference to Palin);
10. Apply tactics that your people enjoy carrying out (e.g., chanting slogans);
    Change your tactics regularly to keep your opponents off-balance; (e.g., wwitching attacks from Bush to McCain to Palin)
11. Maintain constant pressure on the opposition to encourage confusion (e.g., make so many charges your opponent won’t be able to answer them);
12. Threaten an extreme action, such as tying up a major highway, because it's more terrifying than carrying it out; (e.g., suggestions that if Obam lost, there would be “riots in the streets”)
13. Have a constructive alternative to your opponents’ proposals; (“95% will get tax cuts”; a phony promise by Obama)
14. Avoid vague abstractions by picking, personalizing, and polarizing the target (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, or George Bush!);

If you go through these “Rules” line-by-line, you’ll be reminded of what Axelrod and Obama did (such as using fear and ridicule/smear tactics). You’ll also understand exactly how we must proceed to overcome Obama and his minions. Being “Mr. Nice Guy” and “Miss Nice Gal” will get us nothing.

Barack Obama's "Nameless, Unreasoning Fear"

The motto of the woman pictured below is "Serve the people." To find out what Obama's motto could be, scroll down

Most Americans remember a part of Franklin Roosevelt's Depression-era remarks about fear. Yes, he did say in his 1st Inaugural, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself," but that's not the whole statement. It went this way, "The only thing we have to fear is . . . fear itself . . . nameless, unreasoning fear." The final three words, starting with "nameless," are extremely important.

Granted, there are situations in which fear is appropriate -- for example, if you wake up and see a hungry grizzly bear climbing through your bedroom window. In a case like that, there's nothing unreasonable about fear. (After the initial surge of terror, of course, the most important thing you can do is to calm down and decide -- reason -- quickly about how you're going to get out of the situation. In other words, act like Captain "Sully," not like Nervous Nellie.

Barack Obama has told us that, without his (potentially catastrophic) Stimulus Bill, we will face a financial "catastrophe." How he knows that -- the reasoning part -- remains unclear. So, why did he appeal to one of our primal instincts? Because he knows -- or at least his speech guru Aexlrod knows -- that fear sells. Scare people half to death and many of them will do your bidding.

The last thing Obama wants his audiences to do is have reasoned responses to his rhetoric. When he tells us, for example, that "95% of the American people are going to get a tax cut," he is lying to us. He knows that nearly 50% of American wage earners (and their immediate dependents) don't pay federal income taxes.

When they get their $500 or $1000 "tax cut" from the Treasury -- and yes, Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle who didn't pay their taxes, will get one -- it will not be a tax refund. Instead, it will be a welfare check. In other words, Obama will be putting half the population on what our grandparents used to call the "dole," welfare. As Obama told Joe the Plumber, it's not about stimulus, but rather about "redistribution of wealth."

Why do such a damaging thing? Because Axelrod/Obama know that dependent people are reliable providers of votes in future elections. When the government basically "owns" someone, he or she expresses gratitude by voting for bigger and bigger government. Sadly, though, he or she is no longer a free, independent citizen.

Thus, we have FDR, along with all other great American leaders, arguing against reliance on "nameless, unreasoning fear." In contrast, we have Obama and his minions relying completely on fear because reason isn't on their side. As every tyrant knows, fear is his most powerful ally.

Gov. Sarah Palin's motto is "Serve the people." In contrast, Obama's seems to be: "Scare the people."

In today's difficult times, we will still sing "God bless America." Yet the more appropriate phrase might be "God help America." In fact, God generally blesses our land most abundantly when the vast majority of Americans do everything in their power to help themselves, their families, and their communities.

How To Defeat Obama: Attack!

The McCain Campaign could have used a graphic like the one above as a potent image to diminish the standing of Barack Obama. Unfortunately, McCain did no such thing. In fact, they let the Obama Campaign use Gov. Palin as a political pinata. That can't be allowed to happen again.

In the 2008 election, John McCain refused to "go negative" on his Senate colleague, Barack H. Obama. That was one decision, among many, that ensured McCain could not win the election. In fact, what happened was that the Obama Campaign relentlessly attacked . . . Sarah H. Palin, one of the most remarkable women ever to hold elective office in America.

The McCain staffers never figured out how to respond effectively to the smear campaign aginst Gov. Palin. They should have counter-attacked with ferocity. They didn't, and the fault for that lies mainly with John McCain.

Where did campaign manager David Axelrod and candidate Barack H. Obama learn how to conduct an all-out war against Sarah Palin? They probably learned the approach from what might seem an unlikely source, Republican strategies Lee Atwater. He was an expert in the use of images and symbols, something at which the Obama effort also excelled.

Consider how Atwater used the American flag as a powerful symbol in George H. W. Bush's 1988 campaign against Michael Dukakis. The following paragraphs are from John Brady's super biographty entitled Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater, a book I urge everyone to read.

Atwater associated Dukakis with Harvard University and highligted the Massachusetts governor's membership in the ACLU. He emphasized Dukakis' veto in 1977 of a bill passed by the Massachusetts legislature requiring teachers to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance.

In the campaign, the American flag became a powerful symbol distinguishing Bush from Dukakis. The implication was that the former was for it -- while the latter's position was less certain.

As Brady says, "Bush stuck to Atwater's script, making the Pledge of Allegiance the centerpiece of his campaign. He recited the Pledge constantly, attended the 'First Annual Flag Festival' in Findlay, Ohio, [and] toured a flag factory in New Jersey. "

By October of 1988, Dukakis' once big lead in the public opinion polls had evaporated. Bush surged ahead and won big in November (54% to 46%).

What about Dukakis' own efforts at symbolism? The governor had to demonstrate that he wasn't merely a liberal wimp. "He visited a General Dynamics facility in Michigan and went for a spin in an M-1 tank. The helmet was too large. The grin on his face was sickly. 'Dukakis looked like he wanted to call for his mother,' said Sam Donaldson as the cameras whirred."

In fact, Atwater got a copy of the video of Dukakis riding around aimlessly in the tank. The Republican strategist used it as a commercial to demonstrate exactly how ridiculous the Massachusetts governor was. As part of his campaign of ridicule, Atlwater always mispronounced the governor's name, calling him Du-kay-kis.

As the 2008 campaign unfolded, I wished many times that I -- yes, me -- had been able to play the role of Lee Atwater for Gov. Palin. The McCain Campaign let a national role model, Sarah Palin, be tarred and feathered by Obama and his minions in the media and blogosphere. Lee Atwater never would have allowed it to happen -- and neither would I.

Palin, Obama: Psychology of Victory

"I want hip-hop Republicans. I want Frank Sinatra Republicans." (Michael Steele, new head of the Republican National Committee). Sarah Palin, with one foot in the hip-hop world and another in the Sinatra-era would nod in vigorous approval at Steele's statement.

Do the vast majority of Americans really understand what's going on in politics? No, they do not.

That's the view proposed by Lee Atwater, the greatest political strategist of modern times -- yes, he was better than Karl Rove, better even that Obama's campaign guru, David Axelrod. He helped engineer Reagan's landslide reelection in 1984 and was George H. W. Bush's campaign manager in the winning effort against Dukakis in 1988.

This week on both of my blogs (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/ and http:stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com) I'll be writing about Atwater's insights -- and suggesting how they're similar to Gov. Sarah Palin's approach to political success. The emphasis will be on the psychology of winning.

Regarding Atwater, he's the subject of perhaps the most intriguing political biography of recent decades. It's John Brady, Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater, Addison-Wesley, 1997 It's beautifully written and profoundly substantial. Brady, a journalist and a consultant to magazine publishers, is a former editor of Boston and Writer's Digest. He wrote The Craft of Interviewing, a classic how-to book for journalists, and The Craft of the Screenwriter.

The material below has several quotes from Brady's Atwater book. As you read the excerpts, consider the two most remarkable politics events of this decade: (1) Barack Obama's election as America's first African-American President; (2) Sarah Palin's victories in 2006 over incumbent Republican Governor (and former U.S. Senator) Frank Murkowski and then over popular former Democratic Governor Tony Knowles.

How did Obama and Palin accomplish these feats? You'll never find out from the MSM, which presents a simple-minded view of what happens in big-time electoral politics.

In fact, Palin and Obama, both master politicians, plugged into a powerful attitudinal current: a yearning for CHANGE. They both offered HOPE to people who had become so exasperated by politics-as-usual that they had veered to the edge of hopelessness.

Lee Atwater died of cancer at a young age in 1991. However, as you'll see below, he would have understood why people like Barack Obama and Sarah Palin won. It had little to do with "issues" -- and even less to do with stated "opinions." It had everything to do with deeply held --and mainly emotional -- attitudes.

Brady describes Atwater's key insights this way: "[In life generally and politics specifically], It's not what happens to us that matters - it's how we interpret what happens to us. The interpretation establishes an attitude, which can then be catered to emotionally - [a form of] mental crowd control. When we want your opinion, we'll give it to you."

(In other words, attitudes drive opinions -- not vice versa. Concentrate on attidues, and the opinions will follow.)

In Atwater's words, "attitudes are deeply ingrained. You can't even necessarily verbalize them."
In other words, attitudes are so powerful that they override even what we believe are our opinions. They are deep within us -- visceral and largely subconscious.

Brady adds, "Before going negative on an opponent . . . he [Atwater] cultivated strong positive attitudes among the electorate. He used impressionistic images and symbols to depict his candidate in such a way that perception 'can't be busted up even with opinion changes on specific issues that my opponent might accomplish.'"

(By the way, Sarah Palin is even better at using images and symbols -- especially ones related to her husband and children -- than Obama. Everything Palin does reinforces her most powerful theme: "She's one of us." She's a mother, a wife, a middle-class woman whose life closely resembles ours. And, wonder of wonders, she's HONEST!)

Brady observes, "The average voter was kind of slow, actually . . . . The average voter could absorb only a limited amount of information about his candidate, Lee thought, and should never be bewildered with specifics"

Brady goes on, "Lee realized that in order to get swing votes, [George H.W.] Bush had to tap voters' emotions instead of their brains. It was Lee's job [as a campaign guru] to find the specific example, the outrageous abuse, the easy-to-digest tale that made listeners feel - usually, repulsion - rather than think. Like the old carnival barker, he needed a hook to get them into the tent."

In future blog columns , I'll discuss more of Atwater's insights -- and how they can help a Sarah Palin get voters "into the tent."

Comparing Sarah Palin with Obama

Never, never understimate Sarah Palin's toughness . . .

Right now (8 p.m. ET Saturday), Barack Obama and Sarah Palin are at the Alfalfa Club dinner in DC. Like you, I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that event.

Today, I was reading John Brady's superb biography of political genius, Lee Atwater (Bad Boy: The Life and Politics of Lee Atwater). Brady opens the book with the following quote: "The things we admire in men [and women, hopefully], kindness and generosity, openness, honesty, understanding and feeling are the concomitants of failure in our system. And those traits we detest -- sharpness, greed, acquisitiveness, meanness, egotism and self-interest -- are the traits of success. And while men [and women] admire the quality of the first, they love the produce of the second." (John Steinbeck, Cannery Row)

Is that true? For the most part, it is. Someone like Sarah Palin falls mainly in the first category, while Barack Obama -- and the men around him -- fall mainly in the second. Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, is a specialist in smearing -- defaming -- his client's opponents. Axelrod was the primary sources for the flood of lies about Palin. To a degree, his tactic worked, driving down Sarah's "favorables," which was Axelrod's intent.

I've talked about Joe Biden uttering one falsehood after another during the campaign. He's now the vice-president of the U.S. No one has yet identified one lie told by Sarah Palin. She's the one who's not the vice-president.

Does all this mean that Obama inevitably defeats Palin in a head-to-head match? Not necessarily. We cannot ignore Sarah's toughness, which far exceeds that of Barack Obama. Also, as former Ms. editor Elaine Lafferty observed, Sarah is infinitely curious and a fast learner.

How much exactly she learned in 2008 -- and continues to learn -- we're beginning to see. Perhaps at tonight's Alfalfa Club dinner, Obama will begin to see it also.

Hammer Away at Palin Haters

Note: on Jan. 20, 2009, the posts on this site will diverge from those on my other site: http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com. This site will focus on the presidency of Barack H. Obama. The other site will concentrate on the future presidency of Gov. Sarah Heath Palin. I hope you'll visit both sites regularly.

Sarah Palin: Ready to Ride Her Way to the White House?

I've had an interesting discussion with Silvia, a member of TS, dealing in part with "friends" who mindlessly repeat the smears made against Sarah that originate from the endless Obama Campaign and are spread through "hate-sites" such as The Daily Kos and Moveon.org.

Here are Silvia's comments:

I admire Gov Palin because she has the executive experience she's built from the ground up. I connect to her experience as a mother as well.Recently, I argued with a friend who 'claims' to have heard on Fox News that Gov Palin increased funding for special needs education AFTER her nomination. Now this liberal friend despises Fox, yet he was able to walk away [and retain] that lie. The real record was on CNN, where they cited the factcheck website. (http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html)

WE NEED TO GET THE GOVERNOR'S RECORD OUT THERE, not her personal stuff but her ACCOMPLISHMENTS. That remains a major challenge.Silvia

My response:

Silvia, you make excellent points, and I'll try to use your comments on my blog (http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com/) -- and respond to them.Obama managed to run with no accomplishments, including his laughable tenure as a "community organizer." perhaps asked why they're so gullible. When Sarah's media critics throw a stone,

As for your friend, I think such people need to be "beaten up" (metaphorically). If they're spreading lies, they should be informed that's what they're doing -- and we need to respond with an avalanche of boulders.

Ask your friend who he thinks it is (hint: Axelrod handles the smears/lies and they come through The Daily Kos) that's providing her with such misinformation?People like to feel comfortable with their illusions. Let's make them uncomfortable.

Sarah herself is doing that now, with her comments about "class" and the dismissing of Katie Couric as a narcissist and Obama shill. When such people are confronted aggressively, they fold quickly.

Obama-Axelrod: Deceit, Information Grabs

Note: Until Jan. 1, 2009, I'll be cross-posting here and on http://camp2008victorya.blogspot.com. I'll have fresh columns 5-6 times per week on http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com.

Dear Friends: Please read the following (in italics) from Janet of the ReadMyLipstickNetwork. "I expect all of you would check out a website before adding it as a link or making it part of your blogroll, and you may already be familiar with this one, however, just to be on the safe side wanted to let you know that www.electpalin.com redirects straight to a donation page for Obama / Biden. Someone just sent it to us wanting to join the network. Ha ha. We've also had one titled 'when pigs can fly palin' want to join..." -- Janet


The Obama Campaign does something people like Janet and I, as well as other Palin backers, will NEVER do: it participates in "information grabs," an especially sleazy practice.

What is an "information grab?" Let me give you an example: if you remember back to August, Axelrod/Obama announced that people who gave them their cell phone numbers would get an early heads-up on The Chosen One's vice-presidential choice.In fact, the text message about the Biden selection went out 3-4 hours AFTER the news announcement appeared on TV.

So, the people who provided the cell numbers got nothing of value. On the other hand, what did the Obama Campaign get? It received valuable information: more than 500,000 cell phone numbers. Thus, it was able to use those numbers to solicit donations and other forms of support. It was underhanded and cynical.

Sadly, it was helpful to a campaign willing to do anything to win the election. Axelrod/Obama had no interest in providing real information to its supporters. It had great interest in stealing their cell phone numbers.

Obama and his personal Svengali, the odious David Axelrod, will do any to undermine Gov. Palin, their most feared opponent. One of my favorite quotes -- a masterpiece of alliteration -- from early in the presidential campaign was a headline in the Black Conservatives Group, which read, "Democrats Desperate to Dig Up Dirt to Destroy Palin.' Famously, Obama dispatched 30 lawyers to Alaska to find out -- and to make up -- information harmful to the Governor.

What dirt did they find? Basically, they discovered none. Thus, it largely fell to Obama supporters, such as "Markos," the founder of Daily Kos, to invent preposterous stories aimed at harming the Governor.

One of those was the Kos story that Bristol Palin was the mother of baby Trig. Of course, it turned out that when Trig was born, Bristol was newly pregnant with her own unborn child, whose name will not be "Trig." In short, the Kos story was despicable, an outright lie.

Did the many lies hurt Gov. Palin? Sadly, they did. People are gullible. If they hear something on CNN or MSNBC, two of the main media culprits, the tendency is to believe it. I avoid such a temptation by never watching CNN or MSNBC.

"Information" from the Obama Campaign -- and, trust me, it continues -- is invariably false or misleading. With them, mendacity is a way of life. In their world, "spin" is reality. Thus, Obama and friends delight in grabbing information from unwitting individuals. However, they don't PROVIDE information -- factual, verifiable truths.

I've taken a few days off, but I'll be writing again on my main blogs, including this one and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com) My emphasis will be on simple, practical steps Gov. Palin should take to build up support to defeat Obama in 2012.

If you've been watching Sarah Palin on TV recently, you may note that she's doing everything necessary to take such a step -- aside, perhaps from wearing a "Palin for President" button.Mainly because of his embrace of deceit, cynicism, and voter fraud, Obama is not going to be easy to beat. However, defeating him is not a hopeless task. In fact, if John McCain had received a million more votes in the right states he would now be President-elect.

There's no reason Sarah Palin couldn't get those million votes -- and then some. Remember, it's not necessary to win the popular vote, which skews in the favor of the Democratic candidate (mainly because he gets huge majorities in CA, NY, and IL). Prevailing in the electoral college is lot easier than winning a "paper" majority in the popular vote.

NOTE: I'd be very interested in your own thoughts on any of the subjects covered here, particularly steps you believe the Gov. should take. Thanks.

And Happy Thanksgiving to all! Let's continue to take the actions necessary to make Thanksgiving, 2012 the happiest one of all.

Obama's Politics of Racial Animosity

In Obama's latest campaign ad directed toward white voters (he already has the Black vote), he says of his grandfather ("never saw combat") and grandmother ("typical white person") and mother (whose race he began to keep secret): "They taught me values straight out of the Kansas [i.e., almost all white] heartland." That was the heartland presumably where, in his words, "the farm boys stank like pigs." C'mon Barack, tell us how you really feel -- or do we have to rely on Michelle for that?

Barack Obama uses this picture in his campaign commercials, identifying the two relatives as "my white grandparents." In commercials and speeches, he identifies them as mildly heroic figures ("fought in Patton's Army . . . worked in a bomb assembly plant"). In his book Dreams From My Father, he characterizes them as clueless white bumpkins.

"My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join me as we try to change it." (Barack Obama)

"I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." (Barack Obama)

"I found solace [as a young man] in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother’s race." Barack Obama

"I learned to slip back and forth between my black and white worlds. One of those tricks I had learned: [White] People were satisfied so long as you were courteous and smiled and made no sudden moves." Barack Obama




Could a candidate like John McCain (or Hillary Clinton? or any white candidate?) get away with comments like these? The national media, which sees its function as waving pom-poms anytime they hear Obama's baritone, cuts the Illinois Senator an endless amount of slack.

They do so mainly because he identifies himself (sometimes) as a Black man. Most journalists know they're expected to show deference toward Black politicians -- unless, of course, they happen to be Republicans.

David Axelrod, Obama's campaign manager, is celebrated by the the national media as a man of organizational genius. In fact, he's become legendary in Illinois and nationally for shamelessly using the race card to gain political advantage. In his crazy-quilt world, if you oppose one of his Black candidates, you must be a racist.

Candidate Obama himself -- a product of a Black African father and a White American mother -- uses race regularly when it helps his cause. In his current commercials -- directed toward white voters in states like Pennsylvania and Ohio -- Obama shows a picture of himself as a young man with his white grandparents.

These are the same grandparents he makes fun of his first autobiography (he has two), Dreams From My Father. In commercials and campaign speeches, he salutes the grandfather as a man who "served in Patton's army."

In Dreams, however, he dismisses grandpa as "someone who never saw combat." His grandmother -- now 85 and appearing in at least one commercial to help establish Obama's Caucasian roots -- he slurs in the book as "a typical white person."

When the grandmother was accosted by a large Black man demanding money, Obama acts as if it were her fault.That's the same grandmother he referred to in his Philadelphia speech on "race," surely one of the emptiest political statements made in our lifetime.

He implied at the time that his grandmother had been perhaps as racially insensitive as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. He said he could no more "disown" the race-baiting, America-hating preacher than he could his "own grandmother."Later, of course, he did disown Wright for "disrespecting" him -- Obama! Somehow the disrespect (actually, hatred) the preacher showed for people like his grandparents and mother didn't seem to bother Obama.

What's more, the disrespect Wright showed for the nation and for Senator Clinton apparently didn't matter. In the current commercial -- the one aimed at white people who voted mainly for Hillary -- he talks about what a "loving" family his grandparents and (Caucasian) mother were. Apparently, he wants to have it both ways.

Obama won the Democratic primaries in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Virginia, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana mainly because he was Black. In those states, large proportions of the Democratic electorate are African-American, and Obama got roughly 85%-90% of their votes. That happened even though Mrs. Clinton has a long record of championing Black causes.

When Geraldine Ferraro raised such facts, she was maligned by Obama's surrogates and his media sycophants as a racist. Her reputation as a civil-rights champion was ignored. Her reputation remains in tatters.

Now that Obama has the nation's Black vote in his pocket, he's becoming -- at least metaphorically -- a lot "whiter." The comic, supposedly insensitive grandparents re-emerge as symbols of his connections to the white world.

His previously volatile wife, Michelle, who wasn't proud of her country, has now re-surfaced as a Black version of Laura Bush. The next time we see her on TV this formerly militant Black woman probably will be baking cookies.

At the same time, Obama's online wrecking crew is going around calling McCain supporters racist. After all, what reasons other than race could they (we) have for not supporting "St. Barack?"On Clintons4McCain, an organization I've urged all McCain supporters to join, Cristi Adkins, one of the founders, talks today about the charges against her organization.

Here's what Cristi, a true heroine of political decency, says:"[At Clintons4McCain] we're . . . getting emails asserting that the only reason anyone WOULD vote for McCain is because they're racist. . . . [Such] questions/statements have the same source -- blind partisanship and built in excuse-making and blame-shifting. Both assume simple motives, and both assume everyone's a puppet, parrot-robot like the writers of these emails."

This is not going to be a "fun" campaign. Obama and his minions are going to do more than play the "race card." They're going to throw at opponents every card in the deck. As they did with Hillary Clinton in the primary, they'll going to hurl great loads of mud at McCain and his supporters.

Meanwhile, Obama will continue to be either White -- or Black -- or a mixture of the two -- depending on his immediate political goals. It's a disgusting show, but we'd better learn to live with it until November 4.

(Note: my definition of racism? "Stereotyping members of one or more races in order to denigrate them." I'd love to hear the Obamas' definition.)