Is this the October Surprise???

Hello Drannhh, Hmmm, holding out on us are ya? OK, then the next time your Oracleness requires a tithe, I'm holding back the sweet, juicy, grapes! (chuckle, chuckle) So then you're predicting a complete surprise of an October Surprise? OK, your Oracleness, we'll bite our fingernails until the PC scandal is revealed. Geesh, I hope my heart can take it!

It would probably be more clever of whomever to make the October surprise a complete surprise since the Obamas have strategies in place to de-bunk everything that has been publicized already. I admire your insight.

Thank you for sharing your insights here, ClarusVisum.

I am crippled this week and only have one hand to type with but this one I couldn't pass-up; Ladyluna, What "insights"?

Hello Sir Rodney, Geesh, I'm sorry to hear about your hand. What a bummer! I do hope that you're up and typing in no time. As for the insights comment: I asked for perspective from any and all. That included Obama supporters, which we know the respondent to be. I don't want to be rude, and I also see no reason to engage the comment -- so I've simply, politely acknowleged it. We always have a choice of whether to take 'the bait' or not. It's my choice to pass.

In their minds, I'm sure they do think they are doing a 'nice' thing. The truth is of little consequence to such people in light of the bigger truth.

Hello Red, That's awfully nice of them, isn't it?

Hello Whiteheather, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this issue. While I'm sure that every effort will be made to make this a 'non-issue', and to sweep this under the rug, I suspect that this Annengerg issue will instigate a much closer inspection of Sen. Obama's history with the incestuously, slimy Chicago-IL political machine. Geesh, Obama's buddy Tony Rezko was just convicted, and the investigation into Rezko's illegal shenanigans was the direct result of the decade long corruption hunt which led to the conviction of Illinois former Governor George Ryan in 2006, and implicated Gov. Blagojevich. Eight years of investigation led to Ryan's conviction, followed by Sorich as linked to Chicago's Mayor Daley & suspicions of his connection to political racketeering, and then Rezko's conviction. And, who is smack, dab in the middle of it all with a growing connection to the radical Wm. Ayers and his politically and financially connected father -- but Sen. Barack Obama. Hmmm????? http://www.caveat.net/blog/2006/04/chicago-political-pay-off.html I suspect that this story will have the same kind of purvasive 'legs' that the Rev. Wright story had. At least I hope it will. In response to your last point, I suspect that some people won't believe something until the New York Times says that it's so. I don't have the foggiest reason why, given the NYT's questionable reputation of late, but it seems that that is the case. The alternative media has picked up on the NRO & Malkin expose. While there are many layers to this story, the alternative media is just now exploring the $50 million dollar Annenberg Challenge foundation. While we've known about the Ayers-Obama connection to the Woods Foundation for months now, the Annenberg Challenge is a whole new investigation, which puts Sen. Obama's earlier direct statements about his limited relationship to Wm. Ayers in question. Perhaps I'm seeing it wrong, but I can't imagine how the Ayers-Obama-Rezko connection can escape further scrutiny. To me the only question is: Do we find out how immersed Sen. Obama is before it's too late, or not?

The following statements in Obama's own words from his books (which cannot be swept under the rug) show me that he is a racist and that his ties to Islam cannot be denied. From Dreams of my Father: I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race. From Audacity of hope: I will stand with the Muslims should the winds shift in an ugly direction. I am the only one who finds these statements show that Obama is not what he shows on the surface.

oops meant to say... Am I the only one....

Hello Guardian, I've also been absent, my friend. I've been away for about a week. So, I guess that synchronicity is very much in play. I fully concur about Hillary hanging in the wing. She said it loud & clear, when she insisted that Obama will not be able to survive the scrutiny of a general election. The fact that Obama conceeded to Hillary's demand for a roll-call vote is a looming undercurrent to next week's convention.

Hello Sir Rodney, Thanks for providing the link. I find Morris to be a highly valuable pundit, mostly because he knows the Clinton Machine inside and out. That gives him a vantage point that is so crucial to the average political junkie who is just trying to make heads or tails out of the agglomerated reality of the political world. I was particularly drawn to Morris' closing point: "Is Obama an over-intellectualizing Hamlet who is incapable of decisive, strong action? With Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and Russia resurgent, there isn’t much room for on-the-job learning." With the Veep choice shining a spotlight on Joe Biden, I'm reminded that Biden said nearly the same thing about Obama being constrained by the need for on-the-job training. Interesting, eh???

Guardian and Ladyluna, Here goes again with only one hand! I ran across the following article from Newsmax(the conservative rag!)and thought it would go right along with what you are discussing here! Basically, the Clintons have pretty much already stolen the show from Obama at "his" convention! Check out the article. I was going to start a discussion with this on and still may but it takes so long one-handed. By the way, Ladyluna, thanks for the sympathy! Actually I had shoulder surgery and the whole arm is in a brace to keep me from moving it. I hope the Dr.lets me get rid of the brace next Tuesday, if he doesn't I'm going to ask for a second opinion (he he). Okay, here is the article: http://www.newsmax.com/morris/obama_new_jimmy_carter/2008/08/20/123638.html

Hello Thegreatdebater, Thank you for the follow up! Goodness, if you think my previous response is a novel, you should see some of my other contributions. Not always captivating for sure, but quite typically thorough. When I have committed the time to research an issue, and pen it as a discussion, I can get pretty involved. Of course, I do not see that as a fault. Rather, I see it as an asset. Specifically, it demonstrates a willingness to stay on topic, and confront the issues from all possible angles. Hmmm, I acknowledge your tactic of comparing other leaders with their own association or judgement issues, and I find it to be a very interesting debate tactic, albeit not terribly successful. To that point: I broke down the Ayers connection, and demonstrated that questions associated with that 'friendship' persist, and grow. Yet, in response you bring into question other Presidents and their judgement and association issues. I can only imagine that your point might be that a President can be a good President even if he or she has judgement and association issues. Of course, for that to be your argument, you must be implying that G.H.W. Bush and G.W. Bush were both good Presidents. Based on the rest of your reply, it doesn't seem as though you believe that to be the case. As such, I will be so bold as to suggest that we've come full circle, and that your point is that Presidents with judgement and associations issues are not good Presidents. Which, of course means that we should make sure that Sen. Obama is not elected because he already has such problematic judgement and associations issues -- and he's only a candidate hoping to be President. Which brings us to a Ben Franklin close, of sorts. Specifically, we are left comparing the judgement and associations issue of Sen. Obama to the judgement and associations issues of Sen. McCain. From my vantage point, there is no comparison. However, I am of the mindset that neither is the kind of leader that I would hope to be voting for this November, leaving me with a lesser of two evils decision. Sadly, I will be voting as many before me have, which is against the more problematic of the two.

Hello Thegreatdebater, I'm sorry that I missed Mr. Kurtz on O'Reilly. I would have appreciated hearing his case, as opposed to just reading it. Did you hear the entire interview? Or, did you come in at the tail end? I ask because the details of this incident are voluminous, so I would be interested to learn what Mr. Kurtz' focus was. You're absolutely correct that no 'cover-up' has been identified -- yet. Of course, the UI library staff are doing their best to make sure that that remains the case. If they refuse access long enough for the as yet unidentified 'blocking party' to access the collection, then there's little reason to believe that the damning portions thereof will be spared 'sandy burglary'. I understand that it's difficult to prove a cover-up. Yet, it's impossible to ignore that a highly questionable 'about face' has occurred. The library staff granted Mr. Kurtz access to the entire collection AND chronicled/indexed the contents of the collection (which is how Mr. Kurtz knows what was in the collection). Then after having granted unfettered access, the library staff retracted that permission, followed by an evolving series of excuses, and refusals to disclose the referenced though unnamed 'blocking party's' identification. That absolutely does NOT prove a cover-up, but it certainly is suspicious. Especially since the collection became public property once it was donated to the public library of the public university. You say that Ayers isn't currently advising Obama. I ask: Can you prove that he isn't? Can you prove that Mr. Ayers, who put B.O. in control of his $50 million dollar foundation, and in charge of distributions of that foundations assets, is not or has not made a permanent impression on B.O.? Can you prove that the 12 year association, and 'friendship' as quoted by Team Obama, will not be a factor if B.O. is elevated to the highest position in the land? Let's look at the facts: 1. B.O. & the former Weather Underground terrorists, Ayers & Dohrn, have had a relationship of twelve years. 2. Ayers put B.O. at the helm of his $50 mil foundation, (Would you turn your $50 million over to just any guy from the neighborhood?) and was instrumental in lauching B.O.s political career. "Ironically, MSM attention has focused on Obama's "board" service with Ayers, as well as the odd speaking engagement, and totally ignored the fact that Obama was Ayers' Potemkin (front) as leader of the Annenberg Challenge. In other words, Ayers used Obama as a front man to control the disbursement of CAC's $50 million patronage fund. Pretty close relationship, wouldn't you say? Pretty powerful, too. And, so, presto, properly analyzed and interpreted, we now know that Obama was a tool, or pawn, or stooge, of William Ayers as Ayers controlled the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from behind the scenes." 3. "Obama was hired at a law firm where Ayers's father (a co-founder of the Annenberg Challenge) controlled the major client." I not only suggest that you and others read the below links -- I absolutely challenge you to read through the links, and the linked corroboration. If only 10% of the allegations against B.O. are true, then it would constitute more than what caused Bill Clinton's impeachment or Richard Nixon's resignation!!! http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-on-the-explosive-relationship-r573726.htm http://globallabor.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2008-04-25T06%3A43%3A00-07%3A00 And, the pista de resistance: [i]"The Ayers connection with Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez has also not surfaced in the MSMs. It is a time bomb waiting to explode. We make the connection today for the first time. Chavez' alleged associates were indicted in Miami for trying to funnel illegal campaign cash to Argentina. Can Chavez be planning similar machinations on behalf of Obama? Only Chavez and Ayers know. The fact that Ayers is totally unrepentant, and continues to associate with vicious dictators who espouse violent revolution, makes the Ayers/Obama/Chavez connection one with long legs through November. The fact that a Chavez stooge recently pleaded guilty to participation in the Venezuelan campaign cash scheme raises the bar in so far as possible Venezuelan intervention in the U.S. campaign is concerned. www.miamiherald.com/775/story/506633.html Well, I could go on, but you get the point. Barack Obama's links to unsavory people such as William Ayers raise not only historical questions about his past poor judgment and serving as a lackey and front man for unrepentant violent revolutionaries, but also provide concern for the present and future, that Ayers' associate Chavez may attempt to reprise in the United States the same kind of clandestine cash operation in support of Obama that Chavez was caught financing in Argentina. "Oh, what a tangled web they weave." Obama isn't as dumb as he claims, and he's a lot more slick, and crooked, than he admits. A lot more than the MSMs have told Democratic voters."[/i] Now, add to all of this the questions about B.O.s acceptance of international, loosely monitored, illegal campaign contributions (the Palestinian Arab brothers to the tune of $33,000 & the contributions raised in July when B.O. was predominantly overseas, as well as the European/George Clooney Swiss fundraiser), to the fact that a reference to an Obama support pledge communicae was found among the belongings of a captured Venezuelian infiltrator of the current guerrilla antics of S. American communist rebels, and we begin to see that B.O.s recent, if not current relations with American-hating, radical, violent, revolutionary terrorists, like Wm. Ayers is indeed problematic. Oh, and let's remember that B.O. led the nation to believe that Tony Rezko was an insignificant link in his shady past. Yet, the money and the influence peddling links are still being investigated. Employment provided to large contributor's family members (the son of Rezko's partner granted a job in Sen. Obama's legislative office), the shady land deal, funding favors to Michelle's hospital link, etc... At best ... B.O. has demonstrated that he suffers from a terribly flawed sense of judgement, at worst he is linked to traitorous enemies of the state -- Dohrn and Ayers!!!

Thanks for your response Lady. I believe that Mr. Kurtz was on a wild goose chase according to the man that was sitting in for Mr. O'Reilly. After reading your novel, I see that you believe the Obama has some shady friends. I do agree that sometimes our leaders make decisions that they regret later. How about Bush Sr. trusting Saddam in Iraq, and supporting Bin Laden in Afghanistan? I would have to say this wasn't one of the highlights of his career in politics. How about George W. Bush's seeing into the eyes of Putain, and his trusting the Afghanistan military to get Bin Laden in Tora Bora. Again, not his best moment in the sun (but not his worse, as opposed to his daddy). How about McCain: He has continued to employee Randy Scheunemann as his top foreign policy expert, even though he is working for the government of Georgia, and it appears his company is profiting off of his access to McCain. The same day that McCain made his harsh stand on the crisis in Gerogia, the government of Georgia extended their use of Scheunemann's company Orion Strategies with a check for $200,000. Looks like Randy is worth every penny to the Gerogian government. He supported Charles Keating's attempt to make an investigation go away, taking $112,000 in donations from Keating, taking serveral trips on Keatings jet, and his wife and father in-law entered into a very sucessful land deal with Keating that consisted of an initial investment of $359,100, they sold their stake for over $15 million dollars. When ask if Keating felt that his contributions had bought him influence, Keating said: "I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so." Don't you wish that you had friends like that? Sounds like McCain, and his friends have problems choosing their friends.

LadyLuna I am also going to call, maybe something will come out of it. Even if nothing comes out, we know that we tried. Thank you for the info on Bernadine Dohrn. No there is nothing normal about murderous, theiving, criminal thugs.

Hello Gewcew, Not to worry, we'd never start the party without you! Funny, I was thinking that there was something wrong with me because I don't have any friends who bombed the Pentagon. Woosh, reading your reply takes some of that angst away -- thanks! Yes, Wm. Ayers is married to Bernadine Dohrn, a fellow Weather Underground terrorist. I'm not really sure what that additional info does to the speculation about recipe exchanges, though I'm not terribly comfortable considering it. Some accounts from the early '70s have Dohrn pegged as much more hard-core than Ayers. It seems that many have focused on the political 'freedom fighter' flag of the Weather Underground, and too many have forgotten that they were no more glorious than any other murderous, theiving, criminal thugs. They robbed an armored car, killing three to fund their revolutionary goals. So, as I ponder your point about political revolutionaries, and enemies of the state as normal, I also have to consider if it's normal to have violent, criminal thugs for friends either who would murder some poor guards who were just trying to do their jobs, and put food on their tables. While I am quite confident that you are right, I have to hope by some small miracle that the Annenberg Collection has not been scrubbed. I've made my calls to the U of Illinois to pressure the administration into allowing immediate access. Perhaps enough other people have done so as well. Perhaps that will make the UI administration nervous enough to safeguard the collection. One can hope anyway, eh?

Hello Lloydanthony, I know that I've previously shared with you that I'm not a McCain supporter, but I guess that you've forgotten. Which is easy to understand, since it's not your job to remember who supports who. I just wanted to remind you of this in hopes that you'll not henceforth assume that anyone who opposes Obama is automatically a McCain supporter. When you build your case on the foundational charge that "I have such faith in John McCain", and then it surfaces that I've never been a McCain supporter, it really negates the case. "Obaman (sic) has run a clean campaign and hasn't resorted to these type smears." I'm inclined to ask you Lloyd, how do you define a smear? Is something that is truthful or factual a smear? Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this issue.

Hello Patms1, Thanks for sharing your thoughts here. I was going to welcome you to MyLot, since you're so near the 100 posts mark, but then I checked your profile and see that it is more appropriate to welcome you back to MyLot. So, Welcome Back! "Off Kilter" -- well, that's a phrase that I haven't heard in some time. It's also an description that is very appropo. To clarify: it is not me who is on the front line to access the Annenberg Collection of documents, it is a professional journalist. Of course, I have done my part by contacting the University of Illinois to assert my will that the media be given unfettered access to the entire collection of publicly owned documents. Interestingly, O'Reilly and I believe Hannity have picked up on this issue. Michelle Malkin has, as has National Review. That kind of alternative media coverage assures me that the digging will continue -- which I believe is good for Lady Justice. A fully vetted Presidential candidate is good for the whole of the USA, whether certain groups like it or not. Full disclosure is simply a demonstration by the party(ies) that they put the interests of the nation above their own party interests. Huh, huh -- would that it could be so, eh???

Hello Lloyd, I'm going to ask you to rein it in. You had your say ... you expressed your opinion, now what makes you think that it's acceptable and appropriate to tell another that they "need to rethink that statement"? Are you alleging to be the 'thought police'? Geesh, that's not the Lloydanthony that I've come to respect! The fact of the matter is that a great many people have expressed a similar theory -- that if Sen. Obama had exactly the same experience and credentials, but was white-skinned, that he would have been laughed off of the campaign trail. None of us will ever know if that is true or not, because Barack is not white-skinned. Yet, there is no denying that the prospect of the possibility of 'the First Black President' has certainly propelled if not fueled Sen. Obama's campaign. As for your denunciation of concern over racially fueled riots if Sen. Obama loses: you need to do your own due diligence there, Lloyd. You know that I could care less if a person's skin color is black, brown, white, green, blue, or purple. Yet, I have read similar concerns in both the mainstream media and the blogosphere. Racially motivated violent outbursts have certainly erupted over less nationalized issues. To discuss the possibility is certainly not errant. So, I'm compelled to ask you to quit jumping all over someone's back for daring to utter inferences that have been uttered elsewhere -- and with frequency. I would ask that you particularly refrain from jumping all over new or infrequent member's backs. That is most likely perceived as bullying, and neither you nor I are bullies. So, let's play nice in the sandbox, and let others have their say, OK?

patms1. How can you write "The only real thing he has going for him is his color" In my opinion, you need to rethink that statement. When did being Black in America give you a political advantage in a Presidential race? Since there have never ever been a Black President or Vice President I believe you need to check into the reasons behind Barack Obama's popularity before making such a statement. You also wrote "i also believe that many Americans are afraid that is he losses the Blacks in this country will revolt and riot." I'm Black and some of my best friends are Black. I haven't heard anything close to what you have written. Where do you get your information. I'm very curious because if it's true I want to start preparing for the riots to come. Lighten up. There is no need to be so paronoid. Barack Obama isn't the Anti-Christ as some have mentioned. Lloyd