According to my anonymous sources, Barack Obama has been attending a church  which reveres a certain book, known to adherents as the "Holy Bible." This book, as we shall see below, calls for the murder of homosexuals, blasphemers, breakers of the Sabbath, and other non-offenders. It also promotes slavery as moral and allows God's people to enslave foreigners.

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and all other current and former Presidential candidates from both parties share an affinity for this strange book. In fact, former candidate Mike Huckabee may have been directly involved in spreading this hate speech himself from the pulpit. More below....

Due to the double standards being played by the mainstream media, the Clintons have been able to hide their racist skeletons.
 The Clintons' "Birth of a Nation" tactics have gone unnoticed by many White people, but best believe that African-Americans peeped it in South Carolina and definitely in Pennsylvania as we witnessed Hillary chant over and over again to her predominately White audience "he's not one of us"and "I will fight for you."   Well, people here's the iceberg to HRC's already sinking Titanic:  The United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC). The UDC is a neo-Confederate organization that is affiliated with white supremacist groups including: the Council of Conservative Citizens and the League of the South, to name a few.  The organization was formed in 1894, and limits its membership to white women who are related to Confederate veterans of the “War Between the States.”  Now how are the Clintons affiliated with them? Oh, they've  just only written letters lavishing praise upon the organizations values and ideology for more than 10 years!!  I can't believe this woman has audacity to say she's more electable.

Senator Obama has shown a remarkable capacity to change perceptions of him among persons initially inclined to vote for someone else.* Partly this is due to his character and message. Partly this is due to the massive funds at his disposal for advertising, which came from an unprecedented number of individual donors. Partly it may be due to the unfairness of some of the attacks upon him, the campaign of religious innuendo, the misleading of voters about their registration status, etc.--a backlash against "dirty politics."

But the Obama campaign has not been able to seal the deal with certain traditional Democratic constituencies–most notably "inherently conservative" white, blue-collar workers. I think I can offer a couple of research-blessed reasons why.

So, we've heard all of the media bashing and all of the complaints from voters about not knowing Senator Obama.  For as much as Senator Clinton has been around, how much do we really know about the skeletons that are sitting around in the closet just waiting for the GOP to pounce on them.

Certainly the latest fiasco has hurt Senator Obama, we'd be foolish to think that it wouldn't have some impact.

What disturbs me so much about this is the 'guilt by association' that is supposedly fueling the folks who are abandoning Senator Obama for Senator Clinton.  Let's talk about some 'association' for Senator Clinton.

[NOTE: I humbly request that you read this diary all the way to the end.  And if the title and initial content make you angry, please skip right down.  Thank you.]

*
*
*

It's been covered very little in this campaign, but Hillary Clinton used to work for actual Communists and Black Panthers -- members of organizations whose radical agendas believed that the United States is a corrupt, decadent, criminal nation.  

Here's Carl Bernstein describing how Hillary worked for radicals who rejected America...

(more)

OK, so McCain is getting silly.  First he caved in to the pro-torture Republicans.  Then he caved into the tax-cuts-for-the-rich Republicans.  Now he's caving into the most empty of Republicans, the spin masters and the negative ad peddlers.

He's saying this;
That because Obama referred to the Wright-controversy as a "legitimate political issue," McCain doesn't have to feel guilty for using it.  It's ridiculous.  He's silly.  Now, it's time to hit back.

I do not believe in guilt by association. As a youngster though my mother would always say "show me your friends and I will tell you who you are."
We are all by products of the strong influences of our family friends and associates. This is why I now question whether Barack Obama is the most qualified to lead this country in the next few years.  

Let's Play the GBA Game!

Welcome to the new game/reality show, ***GBA***, where sinister associations are exposed and explored for fun and profit.

Once again we'll engage in the fascinating past time of exploring random links between famous people and their "associates."  Come join us for tonights GBAfest.

Bob:  Johnny...whose past associations do we look at tonight?

Johnny:  Well, Bob, tonight we're going to examine the associations of William Ayers.

Bob:  William Ayers?  Isn't he that radical that got into so much trouble back in the 60's?

Johnny:  Right you are, Bob.  And tonight we take him, and his friends, apart!

cue music.........

IT IS fair to make presidential candidates squirm about dubious associations in debates. But the way ABC News moderators stretched Barack Obama on the rack for his ties to Rev. Jeremiah Wright was curious. For nearly three decades, such moderators of debates and their journalist panels have failed to probe similar ties of other candidates.

  That is the opening paragraph of a column today by Derrick Jackson of the Boston Globe entitled Tough questions or just plain bias?  It is one of two things I have read that have cover somewhat similar ground, that of how Obama is being treated far differently than have other candidates, Democratic or Republican, as to their previous associations.  The other is Mark Kleiman's Motes-and-beams dep't. Both are useful, and I will quote from each as I explore further the idea of guilt by association.

As we hear about Deathblows to Obama concerning the Rev. Wright story,  I can't help but feel that the threat here is more hype and melodrama than real.  After all,  Obama's message has been consistently distinct from Wright's more angry rhetoric.  And why not?

The conservative movement sensibility which informs the argument is the paranoid "you are who you associate" argument.  Associate with communists and radicals at all, and guess what?  You are one!  Never mind your stated beliefs.  even if you explicitly disagree and distance yourself, the arguers say, you're contaminated.

It's a crappy tactic.  And it works, for the most part when our response to these guilt by association tactics is fear and panic.