Is America Ready for Obama? Is America Ready for a Socialist?

[Tigermike 3,054]

Is America Ready for Obama? Is America Ready for a Socialist?

Barak Obama... America's First Socialist President?

Ebony Magazine- January 2007

Is America ready for a socialist in the White House?

USA Today asks the "big question" about Barak Obama today... But, it's not what you would think, if you knew anything about the junior senator from Illinois.

The elite media is keeping its distance from Barak's socialist past and present.

His Far Left voting record tells part of his Far Left story and his speeches and early days in New York dot the "i" and cross the "t" in socialist!

This is what Obama had to say about capitalism adn free enterprise back in March 2006:

“The reason they don’t believe that government has a role in solving national problems is because they think government is the problem,” Obama said to approximately 1,500 people at the Kansas Democratic Party Washington Days convention.

Obama, a Democrat from Illinois, said Bush’s political philosophy consists of giving tax breaks and encouraging “everyone to go buy your own health care, your own retirement and security, your own child care, your own schools, your own private security forces, your own roads, your own levees.

“It’s called the ownership society. In our past there has been another name for it; it’s called social Darwinism. Every man or woman for him or herself,” he said.

The Opinion Journal published an article on Obama back in August 2004:

Obama, an Illinois state senator representing the South Side of Chicago, is in fact a far-left politician who -- as I'll show in a future column -- seeks to force ever more socialist and racist laws and programs on the American people...

"Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion," he says. "I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago teaching constitutional law. [Actually, Obama is not a law professor, but a "senior lecturer." As Chicago Sun-Times columnist Lynn Sweet has pointed out, and I know from six-and-a-half years as a college adjunct lecturer, "In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles." As Sweet also notes, however, Obama's misrepresentation of his academic position is the least of his credibility problems.]

"I am a great admirer of our founding charter and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country.

Newsmax is one source that reported on his connections to controversial billionaire George Soros back in 2004:

"A lot of his policies have the government taking care of people. Instead of giving people a leg up, he would rather give them a leg."

Soros initially was attracted to Obama because of his vision on education and health care, Vachon said. But Santos said if Obama got his way, the U.S. health care system would be worse than what Hillary Clinton proposed after her husband was elected president. She said voters should be wary of Obama's "any time, anywhere" stance on abortion.

But, his socialist foundation was probably shaped most during those early days at the Socialist (Marxist) conferences he attended in New York City:

Obama wrote that the wealth and stark racial divisions of Manhattan in the early 1980s had a profound effect on him...

He went to socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he'd become "one of those freaks you see on the streets around here."

So, the real question that USA Today should be asking- but won't -is not if America is ready for a "rookie" in the White House, but rather, if America is ready for a socialist in the White House!

link

link

link

link

link

link

link

[DKW 86 7,441]

Mike, "Mr. Big Conservative Neocon even though I have never met one" here. I say let this play out. If he is all that is in that post, he will be shown that. Going to a meeting doesnt make you anything. Show me the text of a speech HE made etc. I want to read it in context.

I remember the McCarthy era. Someone would get accused of attending an event and be forever pilloried. Hey we have all done stupid things. We have all done stupid things for sex especially. So attending a few meetings to get in a girl's pants would not surprise me.

I just want to give him the same chance I know a conservative would never get from them.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

I thought Clinton was the first socialist President-- no wait, it was LBJ...uh, I mean FDR...

[Tigermike 3,054]

I thought Clinton was the first socialist President-- no wait, it was LBJ...uh, I mean FDR...

No Clinton was the first black President.

[saniflush 0]

I thought Clinton was the first socialist President-- no wait, it was LBJ...uh, I mean FDR...

No Clinton was the first black President.

I though Clinton was the first john President.

[otterinbham 0]

I thought Clinton was the first socialist President-- no wait, it was LBJ...uh, I mean FDR...

No Clinton was the first black President.

No, you're confusing Clinton with Scrushy, who was a poor, oppressed black man.

Actually, the country would readily elect a black man today, as long as he's not of the Jessie Jackson stripe. Colin Powell would probably win in a walk. Before the Iraq debacle, Condoleeza Rice would have made a strong run at it, too.

What I really have a problem is this guy being offered up to us after barely two years in the Senate. Before that, the man was a state representative in Illinois. I agree that he's bright, articulate, and certainly falls outside of the usual Al Sharpton stereotype. But the Junior Senator from Illinois has a great deal to learn about economics, foreign affairs, etc., before he's presidential timber. Personally, I think the national media are excited to have a black democrat who isn't just another civil rights warrior. They feel that voting for or against Obama is a national referendum on whether this country is racist or not, when most people will vote against him based on his inexperience and strange adherence to statist economics.

[GalensGhost 0]

Show me the text of a speech HE made etc. I want to read it in context.

You won't get that. This is a media vehicle all the way. Empty suit.

[AURaptor 1,126]

With out knowing her views on..well, anything, I have no problem lookin' at Mrs Obama. She's easier on the eyes than Mrs Heinz-Kerry, Mrs Edwards or Mrs Tip-O'Neil-per Gore.

[DKW 86 7,441]

Show me the text of a speech HE made etc. I want to read it in context.

You won't get that. This is a media vehicle all the way. Empty suit.

I kind of knew that G2. That was why I was waiting to be shown one...either way. The video was not much IMHO>

[Tigermike 3,054]

What I really have a problem is this guy being offered up to us after barely two years in the Senate. Before that, the man was a state representative in Illinois. I agree that he's bright, articulate, and certainly falls outside of the usual Al Sharpton stereotype. But the Junior Senator from Illinois has a great deal to learn about economics, foreign affairs, etc., before he's presidential timber. Personally, I think the national media are excited to have a black democrat who isn't just another civil rights warrior. They feel that voting for or against Obama is a national referendum on whether this country is racist or not, when most people will vote against him based on his inexperience and strange adherence to statist economics.

I think you are absolutely correct with that statement.

[DKW 86 7,441]

What I really have a problem is this guy being offered up to us after barely two years in the Senate. Before that, the man was a state representative in Illinois. I agree that he's bright, articulate, and certainly falls outside of the usual Al Sharpton stereotype. But the Junior Senator from Illinois has a great deal to learn about economics, foreign affairs, etc., before he's presidential timber. Personally, I think the national media are excited to have a black democrat who isn't just another civil rights warrior. They feel that voting for or against Obama is a national referendum on whether this country is racist or not, when most people will vote against him based on his inexperience and strange adherence to statist economics.

I think you are absolutely correct with that statement.

And otter is right on too. That is why you will likely never see anything from his before life. I am willing to wait and see though. Stuuf I have heard makes me think that he is not from the Sharpton-Jackson-Lewis-Mfume-Julian Bond screaming meemie wing of the party. If he isnt, there is an "Uncle Tom" arrow in his future.

[Tigermike 3,054]

What I really have a problem is this guy being offered up to us after barely two years in the Senate. Before that, the man was a state representative in Illinois. I agree that he's bright, articulate, and certainly falls outside of the usual Al Sharpton stereotype. But the Junior Senator from Illinois has a great deal to learn about economics, foreign affairs, etc., before he's presidential timber. Personally, I think the national media are excited to have a black democrat who isn't just another civil rights warrior. They feel that voting for or against Obama is a national referendum on whether this country is racist or not, when most people will vote against him based on his inexperience and strange adherence to statist economics.

I think you are absolutely correct with that statement.

And otter is right on too. That is why you will likely never see anything from his before life. I am willing to wait and see though. Stuuf I have heard makes me think that he is not from the Sharpton-Jackson-Lewis-Mfume-Julian Bond screaming meemie wing of the party. If he isnt, there is an "Uncle Tom" arrow in his future.

You won't hear any "Uncle Tom" arrows aimed at him, for one reason. He is a dem. Those barbs and arrows are aimed almost exclusively at conservative republicans. They have been saying for some time that Condoleezza Rice was not black enough. I don't know if they ever said that about Powell or not.

[DKW 86 7,441]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070117/ap_on_...bama_s_record_1

Here we go...Obama's past offers ammo for critics

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama (news, bio, voting record) may have a lot of explaining to do.

He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive. He supported allowing retired police officers to carry concealed weapons, but opposed allowing people to use banned handguns to defend against intruders in their homes. And the list of sensitive topics goes on.

With only a slim, two-year record in the U.S. Senate, Obama doesn't have many controversial congressional votes which political opponents can frame into attack ads. But his eight years as an Illinois state senator are sprinkled with potentially explosive land mines, such as his abortion and gun control votes.

Obama — who filed papers this week creating an exploratory committee to seek the 2008 Democratic nomination — may also find himself fielding questions about his actions outside public office, from his acknowledgment of cocaine use in his youth to a more recent land purchase from a political supporter who is facing charges in an unrelated kickback scheme involving investment firms seeking state business.

Obama was known in the Illinois Capitol as a consistently liberal senator who reflected the views of voters in his Chicago district. He helped reform the state death penalty system and create tax breaks for the poor while developing a reputation as someone who would work with critics to build consensus.

He had a 100 percent rating from the Illinois Planned Parenthood Council for his support of abortion rights, family planning services and health insurance coverage for female contraceptives.

One vote that especially riled abortion opponents involved restrictions on a type of abortion where the fetus sometimes survives, occasionally for hours. The restrictions, which never became law, included requiring the presence of a second doctor to care for the fetus.

"Everyone's going to use this and pound him over the head with it," said Daniel McConchie, vice president and chief of staff for Americans United for Life.

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said voters will be able to judge distorted accounts of his votes against his legislative career in general.

"I don't doubt that if you take a series of votes and twist them and kind of squint, you can write a narrative the way you want to write it," Gibbs said. "I think what people understand is that (what matters) is taking the full measure of his career and the full measure of his legislative efforts."

Abortion opponents see Obama's vote on medical care for aborted fetuses as a refusal to protect the helpless. Some have even accused him of supporting infanticide.

Obama — who joined several other Democrats in voting "present" in 2001 and "no" the next year — argued the legislation was worded in a way that unconstitutionally threatened a woman's right to abortion by defining the fetus as a child. So if a child is born during abortion it is not a child, it must be defined as a fetus?

"It would essentially bar abortions because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this was a child then this would be an anti-abortion statute," Obama said in the Senate's debate in March 2001.

During his 2004 run for U.S. Senate, Obama said he supported similar federal legislation that included language clarifying that the measure did not interfere with abortion rights.

Such hot-button issues were the exception in a legislative career that focused more on building consensus to improve the justice system and aid the poor.

Gibbs noted Obama's leadership on legislation requiring police to videotape interrogations in murder cases. It started out as a controversial idea but ended up passing the Senate unanimously.

Allies and opponents alike say he listened to those who disagreed, cooperated with Republicans and incorporated other people's suggestions for improving legislation.

"He was looked upon by members of both parties as someone whose view we listened carefully to," said Republican state Sen. Kirk Dillard from Hinsdale, Ill.

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.

"It's bad politics to be on the wrong side of the Second Amendment come election time," said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It will certainly be talked about. You can take that to the bank."

On the other hand, Obama parted company with gun control advocates when he backed a measure to let retired police officers and military police carry concealed weapons.

Obama occasionally supported higher taxes, joining other Democrats in pushing to raise more than 300 taxes and fees on businesses in 2004 to help solve a budget deficit. The increases passed the Senate 30-28.

That's one reason Illinois business groups gave Obama a low rating, while labor groups praised him. But even Obama's allies say he refused to become a rubber stamp for their legislation.

"He always wants to understand an issue and think it through," said Roberta Lynch, deputy director for Council 31 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. "You have to make your case no matter who you are."

For six years, Obama served in a Republican-controlled Senate, so he and fellow Democrats only got a fraction of their bills signed into law.

During his last two years, Democrats controlled the chamber and he was the go-to guy on a variety of issues. He helped pass legislation overhauling Illinois' troubled capital punishment system and was a key figure in requiring a massive statewide study of traffic stops to look for signs of racial profiling. Although police groups opposed the legislation, they say Obama listened to their concerns and accepted some of their suggestions to improve the bill.

Even when he was in the political minority, Obama sometimes played a critical role. He helped write one of the rare ethics laws in a state known for government corruption and worked on welfare reform with Republicans.

He sponsored legislation to bar job and housing discrimination against gays, and he helped create a state version of the earned income tax credit for the poor. Obama also led efforts to reject federal rules that would have put workers' overtime checks in jeopardy.

[SouthLink02 8]

I hope his Bear loving ass gets murdered in the primary's

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Well, we tried a fascist last two times and that didn't work so well, so why not?

[AUloggerhead 2,253]

Well, we tried a fascist last two times and that didn't work so well, so why not?

Agreed. Thank God neither Gore nor Kerry got elected, huh?

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Well, we tried a fascist last two times and that didn't work so well, so why not?

Agreed.

Wow! Thanks!

[DKW 86 7,441]

Well, we tried a fascist last two times and that didn't work so well, so why not?

Tex, you shouldnt be so hard on Kerry and Gore.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Well, we tried a fascist last two times and that didn't work so well, so why not?

Tex, you shouldnt be so hard on Kerry and Gore.

I'm talking about the President we installed, not the ones we elected.

[GalensGhost 0]

With out knowing her views on..well, anything, I have no problem lookin' at Mrs Obama. She's easier on the eyes than Mrs Heinz-Kerry, Mrs Edwards or Mrs Tip-O'Neil-per Gore.

Mrs. Obama looks like she drank a great big cup of buck and it went straight to her teeth.

[otterinbham 0]

Well, TT, if you are really an ardent Democrat, then you should really support a candidate who will be able to hold his/her own in the general election. Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think Obama will be able to hold his ground with a McCain or a Giuliana in a televised debate? Actually, could you same the same for Hillary Clinton. The man is a lightweight. An empty symbol. A man wholly unprepared to sit in the Oval Office.

The real issue here is another suicide attempt by the Democratic Party. After getting flung out of congress in 1994, the American people finally give the Dems a slim majority again. Instead of regarding this as a second chance to gain the country's trust, however, the Democratic Party keeps regurgitating up fringe characters such as Pelosi and Obama and Reid, thrusting them into leadership positions.

Yet, if you ask the average American what they want, you'll find most of the country on the same page: An economy that will remain economically competitive, lower taxes, a solid national defense, good schools, and a Social Security system that isn't just a gigantic Ponzi scheme. Keynsian economics proved a collosal failure (witness Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program), there is an absolute correlation between lower taxes and higher overall economic growth, the public schools continue to fail despite funding being doubled over the past two decades after inflation, and Social Security is still unsustainable in its current model even if you raise the SS taxes.

However, the Democratic Party simply doesn't understand this. Actually, Bush and the current Republican regime doesn't seem to understand it either. They fumbled an historic opportunity to really overhaul the relationship between government and the people (And have really done a botch job prosecuting the war on terrror). And, given a choice between a far left and far right candidate, the American people will choose a far right candidate any day of the week. It's too bad that the Dems can't crap out a moderate during the upcoming primaries. They might actually have a shot at winning the presidency if they did that.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Well, TT, if you are really an ardent Democrat, then you should really support a candidate who will be able to hold his/her own in the general election.

I haven’t picked a candidate yet.

Do you really, in your heart of hearts, think Obama will be able to hold his ground with a McCain or a Giuliana in a televised debate?

Probably. If he decides to run it will depend on how well he’s thought out his positions. He’s bright, thinks well on his feet and seems unusually comfortable in his own skin. But I don’t see either McCain or especially Giuliani getting the nomination. Huckabee has a better chance.

The man is a lightweight. An empty symbol. A man wholly unprepared to sit in the Oval Office.

My immediate reaction to this statement is that it well reflects the person I assume you voted for in the last two elections. Six years in, and he’s still wholly unprepared to be President, although he may be able to sit in the office.

The real issue here is another suicide attempt by the Democratic Party. After getting flung out of congress in 1994, the American people finally give the Dems a slim majority again. Instead of regarding this as a second chance to gain the country's trust, however, the Democratic Party keeps regurgitating up fringe characters such as Pelosi and Obama and Reid, thrusting them into leadership positions.

Again, the notion of fringe players being thrust into leadership positions reminds me of how Republicans all fell behind Bush in 2000. And Frist in 2002. And Delay in 1994. And Boehner and McConnell now. What a bunch of losers.

Yet, if you ask the average American what they want, you'll find most of the country on the same page: An economy that will remain economically competitive, lower taxes, a solid national defense, good schools, and a Social Security system that isn't just a gigantic Ponzi scheme.

After 6 years of total Republican domination we asked the people what they wanted and they cried out for a totally different direction. We’ll see how the Dems do. It is difficult to imagine them doing worse than the utterly incompetent buffoons just turned out of power.

Keynsian economics proved a collosal failure (witness Lyndon Johnson's Great Society program), there is an absolute correlation between lower taxes and higher overall economic growth,

LBJ was the last President before Clinton to balance the budget. Ike was the last Republican. Taxes were high under LBJ, but that was because we actually paid for the ill conceived, poorly implemented war we were in. Taxes were only slightly higher under Clinton and the economy produced millions more jobs that Bush’s.

[otterinbham 0]

Probably. If he decides to run it will depend on how well he’s thought out his positions. He’s bright, thinks well on his feet and seems unusually comfortable in his own skin. But I don’t see either McCain or especially Giuliani getting the nomination. Huckabee has a better chance.

I've seen the man interviewed by the media a great deal. I actually like him as a person. But I've yet to see him get thrown anything except softballs in interviews by an adoring media, which was my point in my original post. Ask him some challenging questions on fiscal policy or foreign policy and let's see how he does.

My immediate reaction to this statement is that it well reflects the person I assume you voted for in the last two elections. Six years in, and he’s still wholly unprepared to be President, although he may be able to sit in the office.

Oh, you make an excellent point when it comes to foreign policy, hence the reason for painting Obama with the same brush. I have made no secret of my contempt for Bush's handling of Iraq. However, economically, the country has enjoyed quite healthy growth, despite the wholesale collapse of the equity markets beginning in 2000. In fact, household income, adjusted for inflation has actually increased at couple of points under Bush's economic watch, as opposed to the 2.5 points it dropped during the Clinton administration, when we were supposedly so prosperous.

Again, the notion of fringe players being thrust into leadership positions reminds me of how Republicans all fell behind Bush in 2000. And Frist in 2002. And Delay in 1994. And Boehner and McConnell now. What a bunch of losers.

Again, you utterly miss my point. I despise the current Republican leadership. The entire point of my post is that the Democrats could actually seize the ideological middle ground. Instead, they immediately hand party leadership over to a grim posse of leftist ideologues who will prove just as bad as the recent Republican leadership.

After 6 years of total Republican domination we asked the people what they wanted and they cried out for a totally different direction. We’ll see how the Dems do. It is difficult to imagine them doing worse than the utterly incompetent buffoons just turned out of power.

Oh, I think it's entirely possible. A razor-thin majority in Congress is not a popular mandate. The Republicans lost their majority because they betrayed their principles of limiting governmental growth. That, the page scandal, and the stupid allegiance to this venture in Iraq is what cost them the majority. However, that does not translate into support for Pelosi's notion of expanding the Nanny State. I think you will terribly mistaken when the 2008 elections roll about if you really believe that.

LBJ was the last President before Clinton to balance the budget. Ike was the last Republican. Taxes were high under LBJ, but that was because we actually paid for the ill conceived, poorly implemented war we were in. Taxes were only slightly higher under Clinton and the economy produced millions more jobs that Bush’s.

LBJ, by greatly increasing the scope of government in this country, caused the economic woes that plagued this country from the late 60s through the early 80s. His fiscal policy eviscerated the capital markets, his well-meaning social policies wound up having the opposite effect of what was intended, and his entitlement programs continue to consume greater and greater shares of the GDP. Don't take my word for it...just read Bernanke's statements this week. Or Milton Friedman for that matter, God rest his soul.

As far as Clinton balancing the budget, I'll concede that was true for the last two years of his presidency. However, the current budget deficit, with considerably lower taxes (especially capital gains) actually is a lower proportion of the GDP than at anytime EXCEPT the final two years of the Clinton administration. Further, by cutting capital gains tax rates from 25% to 15%, capital gains collections doubled within a three year period. Of course, Pelosi and her philosophy of soaking the rich sounds great, but it's really terrible fiscal policy.

Finally, unemployment remains below 5% in this country. In fact, if you examine pockets where unemployment is high in this country, you'll find it in states where taxation levels are the highest.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

Oh, you make an excellent point when it comes to foreign policy, hence the reason for painting Obama with the same brush. I have made no secret of my contempt for Bush's handling of Iraq. However, economically, the country has enjoyed quite healthy growth, despite the wholesale collapse of the equity markets beginning in 2000. In fact, household income, adjusted for inflation has actually increased at couple of points under Bush's economic watch, as opposed to the 2.5 points it dropped during the Clinton administration, when we were supposedly so prosperous.

Not sure what you base this assertion on. Everything I've seen says the opposite. Here's one such source:

http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAr...ontentID=252964

Instead, they immediately hand party leadership over to a grim posse of leftist ideologues who will prove just as bad as the recent Republican leadership.

Not sure what your characterization is based on. Reid's a pro-life Mormon. Steny Hoyer is the majority leader in the House and he's a moderate. I'm sure you have issues you disagree with them on, but they are hardly extremists. And what positions has Obama advocated as a Senator that you think labels him a "leftist ideologue" out of touch with the eletorate?

However, that does not translate into support for Pelosi's notion of expanding the Nanny State. I think you will terribly mistaken when the 2008 elections roll about if you really believe that.

Again, more stereotypes without facts. I'm not sure what Pelosi's ideal vision of America would be, but I think she knows she is limited by the same moderate Dem majority that rejected Murtha for Hoyer. So far, the American people agree with the agenda enacted so far by the Dems.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are floundering. They kept Boehner! They kept McConnell!

How will the Dems do? We'll see. You're right that they've been given an opportunity that they need to seize. I just don't see the basis on which you are so confident that they will fail AND that the Republicans will be able to make a credible case that they deserve another chance so quickly. It is the SAME Republican leadership.

But since you're so confident, you should place some money down. Right now, the money is on the Dems, so if you're right, you'll do very well:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/01/19/t...rly-line-on-08/

As far as Clinton balancing the budget, I'll concede that was true for the last two years of his presidency. However, the current budget deficit, with considerably lower taxes (especially capital gains) actually is a lower proportion of the GDP than at anytime EXCEPT the final two years of the Clinton administration

Don't know if thats true, but Republicans always trot out the "proportion of GDP" argument. The fact is that after inheriting what was then the largest budget deficit ever, all of Clinton's budgets moved in the right direction. Bush's budgets have all increased the national debt and increased the amount of interest we are paying on the debt. Spending is the most out-of-control that it has been in years.

Yes, lower taxes should typically expand economic growth, especially in comparison to very high rates. However, the tax rates and spending policy under Clinton proved very effective at both promoting economic growth and balancing the budget, i.e. generating the tax revenue necessary to support the functioning of government. The Republicans demonstrated over the last several years that they seemingly see no connection between paying for what you spend. If you want to tax less, spend less. This isn't complicated, but it seemed to flummox the Republican party that can no longer hold to the myth that it is fiscally conservative-- at least the public doesn't buy it anymore.

[TexasTiger 13,028]

With out knowing her views on..well, anything, I have no problem lookin' at Mrs Obama. She's easier on the eyes than Mrs Heinz-Kerry, Mrs Edwards or Mrs Tip-O'Neil-per Gore.

Mrs. Obama looks like she drank a great big cup of buck and it went straight to her teeth.

Already insulting the wife. Page 72 of the Republican playbook.