Bill Clinton went from being thought of as the first black President to actually being accused of racism. Among others, McCain has now faced that charge, as well.
Stanley Kurtz and David Fredossa went from being serious journalists and solid researchers to being portrayed as perpetrators of hate and loathsome smear merchants.
Sarah Palin, no matter what you may think of her, went from being the nation's most popular governor to being thought of as a mindless boob now parenting a fifth child they won't even accept as her own.
Now, via Michelle, the NY Times felt compelled to weigh in on a would be plumber. It's truly sickening to see that just about every on line MSM news site is reveling in taking that man down. Just scroll.
Meanwhile, Obama's treasurer - with his own tax liens, it seems - Bill Ayres, Franklin Raines, Jeremiah Wright, James Johnson - Obama himself and others ... are all just fine ethical, upstanding Americans undeserving of any real scrutiny, I guess.
The people above were taken down by Obama supporters in and out of the MSM, his actual campaign, or some combination thereof.
The O-body count is growing and the Left and Obama haven't really even achieved any power of the executive kind so far. Everyone who has gotten in the way of Obama's path to power has been horribly run down. It's also obvious that they would happily destroy them if they could.
If you needed one single reason to vigorously oppose Obama and energetically support McCain, this might be it.
According to this I'm not alone in thinking that.
And yet, for that Joe is being pilloried, every aspect of his private and professional life being sorted through and exposed. To prove ... what? What does that have to do with Obama's answer? What does Joe's situation have to do with Obama's philosophical answer — that he wants to "spread the wealth"? Obama's answer goes down the memory hole while the nation concentrates its fire on obliterating Joe the Plumber.
It's sickening, it's maddening and it's downright chilling.
Sorry for the length. But I am just SEETHING.
And if all that isn't enough - how about simply giving the Netroots and Keith Olbermann a truly, truly horrible day.


"His law license became inactive in 2002 as politics took over."
That is not proof that he passed the bar, now proof that he had a law license. Just proof that that is a great excuse if someone checked recent updates and didn't find his name. Where is the proof that he passed the bar?
Posted by: mary | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:32 PM
"Essentially, what people would like to see is absolute proof that the guy passed the bar somewhere.'
By people, you mean crackpots like you? You're the same loon who questioned whether BO wore some crazy outfit for his wedding photo.
Face it, you're a nut.
Posted by: chris | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:32 PM
That's right, a person asks for proof and you berate them when, if proof is available, wouldn't it be so easy to provide?
Posted by: mary | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:34 PM
Whenever the libs are asked a direct question, they won't answer it.
Where may I find proof that he took and passed the bar in any state?
Posted by: mary | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:35 PM
Why not ask that angry old man that you are set to vote for? Word is that he is "aware of the internet".
Posted by: chris | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:39 PM
BTW, I wanted to see the wedding photo for other reasons and my suspicions were confirmed.
Posted by: mary | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:42 PM
"Why not ask that angry old man that you are set to vote for? Word is that he is "aware of the internet"."
Always change the subject. Proof?
Posted by: mary | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:43 PM
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=898764312
Posted by: jharp | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:54 PM
Suspicions of what???? Lady, you're a nut.
Posted by: chris | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 02:55 PM
"--- I'm really getting annoyed by the BO campaign against those who are older. I thought it was just here on this board but then BO made that comment last night so I guess it is one of the main talking points. I'm telling you, to that BO, old people are "useless eaters" and "annoying", what does BO have in store for you when you get OLD? ---"
BO (Obama) was born in 1961 -- placing him just on cusp between the youngest Baby Boomers and the eldest Generation X'ers.
Generation X was long (mis)represented as having a bit of a grudge against the Boomers for their self-centred-ness and arrogance ... and ultimately for their destiny to become a very large financial burden on the X'ers (and older Y'ers).
Perhaps this anti-gerontological bias on the part of Obama, and especially the very large swath of youth who have never been brought up with a proper respect of their elders - and veiw them as a burden rather than a source of wisdom.
What shall be the end of this? Will mandatory euthanasia of our elders-cum-"useless eaters" ala "Logan's Run" become as much the norm as state-sponsored infanticide became over 30 years ago with Roe v. Wade?
For all of "chris"'s ageist "hatred", I suspect that he is not of advanced years, but shall one day face his own disposal at the hands of his daughter's generation. I wonder how he shall prepare himself for such an event.
For those who believe in "karma", this might be fitting as the Boomers in their time often spat in the face of *their* elders, the Greatest Generation and the Silent Generation, who all but gave the Boomers the world on a platter.
I don't beleive in "karma", but rather, the Biblical truth of:
"----- Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. -----" (Galatians 6:7, KJV)
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 03:54 PM
Here ya go. You can find something new to nitpick about:
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=898764312
Posted by: Worst President Ever | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 04:00 PM
Does anyone have real proof that BHO actually graduated high school? I've never seen his transcripts. I would expect to be copied on that sort of stuff.
Posted by: chris | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 04:12 PM
Harpo: "Why do suppose demand is down so dramatically?"
I suppose demand is down so much because: (1) Our government has scared the hell out of a lot of folks with their drastic actions and alarms. (2) Home prices are down and many folks mistakenly (IMHO) believe a home is a valuable asset that helps determine their wealth. They feel a loss of a home's value diminishes their wealth. (It doesn't really unless they need to sell now for some reason (eg, a business transfer.) When people feel poorer they usually spend less. (3) Because the stock market has gone down. See last sentence in (2).
Posted by: Fred Beloit | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 04:36 PM
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=595938384
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 07:24 PM
And for Michelle Obama:
https://www.iardc.org/ldetail.asp?id=181414962
Posted by: seekeronos | Friday, October 17, 2008 at 07:25 PM