HE F'n killed him!!!!!!!! Are YOU F'n blind! Yes!

holy shit he fucking killed him!!!!!!

Over

Oh yeah, he definitely beat him. His campaign may as well be over now that he got his ass handed to him by him.

The biggest loser? Grammarians who insist on unambiguous pronouns.

But yeah, the trajectory of this race was not changed, which means Obama is still ahead.

Doctor Pot said:

Oh yeah, he definitely beat him. His campaign may as well be over now that he got his ass handed to him by him.

The biggest loser? Grammarians who insist on unambiguous pronouns.

But yeah, the trajectory of this race was not changed, which means Obama is still ahead.

Click to expand...

now don't tease fantasy is all they got left , the polls will be out soon and it's the undecided that decide these matters and the rights standard bs aint working on the sheep this time

McCain is done and has been done for awhile, anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.

Question to my educated friends:


Was Al gore 11 points ahead of bush at this time in the election?

Answer: YES!!


Question: Did he end up losing?


answer: YES!!


now have you guys really let your gaurd down thinking its in the bag???


if so you are gonna lose. just like last time with Al Golimite


see if your guy looks like hes gonna win, all the lazy voters will stay home thinking its in the bag


did you guys let your gaurd down already???


how did all gore lose if he was 11 points ahead??


since Obama is black , many people will provide lip service and say they are voting for him, when in reality they will not.

and he is only up 5% right now as opposed to the loser Al gore who was up by 11 points at this time.

couple this with the knock out punches from Sarah palin in the VP debate


The revalation of Bill Ayers who is a terrorist and is pictured standing on the american flag in magazine covers.


this is Obamas father figure. Bill Ayres chose obama to distribute $60 million dollars in grants. and Obama has the nerve to say he hardly knows the guy?????


he must think you guys as fools. $60 million dollars!!!


if I chose you to spend my $60 million dollars, if i had that trust in you,

you can damn well be sure you will be visiting me and my family on a brotherly basis even on holidays and hug a kiss.

lets get real guys


Obama is a stinkin lier. he actually said he didnt even know bill ayres was a terroist!!!! but now that he knows, he is still buddies with him???



are you guys that dumb? apearently Obama thinks so.


Dr. you seem like a real smart guy, and i have much respect for you for that. does this not scare you? what is the real Obama going to do if he becomes president?? why is he trying to hide things from us??


i used to think obama was a good guy even tho im a Mccain supporter but now after finding out all these details i am trulley concerned


I think Obama has many secrets about his views he is not sharing, but can be read by the people he has put around him. Haters of america, terrorist against america.








now am I a lier?




you guys are getting duped into a very dangerous situation possibly, specially if the senate becomes democratic and obama wins. this country will change terribly

and the beat goes on,


hot off the press ZOGBY


The telephone tracking poll shows neither candidate with a clear advantage in the national horserace UTICA, New York - The race for President of the United States remains far too close to call between Democrat Barack Obama and Republican John McCain as both candidates head toward the finish line, a recent Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby daily tracking telephone polls shows.

[SIZE=+1]Data from this poll is available here​

​

The survey, including a three-day sample of 1,220 likely voters collected over the previous three days - approximately 400 per day from Oct. 5-7, 2008 - shows that Obama holds a slight advantage amounting to 1.9 percentage points over McCain. This represents a bit of a recovery by McCain, who had been sliding in some polls before his running mate, Sarah Palin, put in a strong performance in her one and only debate performance last Thursday.
Obama
McCain
Others/Not sure

The Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby poll, was conducted before Tuesday's Obama-McCain debate. It was performed by live telephone operators in Zogby's in-house call center in Upstate New York, included a total of 1,220 likely voters nationwide, and carries a margin of error of +/- 2.8 percentage points.
Candidates Doing Well Among Their Own Party Members
The two candidates are doing well at attracting support from their own partisans - Obama is winning 84% of the Democratic Party support and McCain is winning 85% of the Republican Party support - but Obama has the edge among independent voters. He leads McCain among independents, 48 to 39%.
Obama wins support from a slightly higher percentage of conservative voters than McCain is winning from liberal voters, but the advantage is small.
Daily Tracking Continues
This daily tracking telephone poll will continue each day until the Nov. 4 election, keeping in touch with the daily twists and turns in the race for the White House. The running poll of about 1,200 likely voters consists of three days of polling - about 400 from each of the last three days. With each new day of polling that is folded into the poll, the oldest third of the survey is replaced with the fresh data, so the poll "tracks" movements and events in the campaigns. Keep up to date every day by visiting Zogby International.
For a complete methodological statement on this survey,
[/SIZE]

the slime is floating up to the surface:



Alleging fraud, authorities raid voter group

ACORN's canvassers filled out forms with fake names, addresses, officials say

By ADRIENNE PACKER and MOLLY BALL
REVIEW-JOURNAL

State authorities on Tuesday raided an organization that registers low-income people to vote, alleging that its canvassers falsified forms with bogus names, fake addresses or famous personalities.

The secretary of state's office launched an investigation after noticing that names did not match addresses and that most members of the Dallas Cowboys appeared to be registering in Nevada to vote in November's general election.


"Some of these (forms) were facially fraudulent; we basically had the starting lineup for the Dallas Cowboys," Secretary of State Ross Miller said. "Tony Romo is not registered to vote in Nevada. Anyone trying to pose as Terrell Owens won't be able to cast a ballot."

Agents with the secretary of state and state attorney general offices served a search warrant on the headquarters of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, at 953 E. Sahara Ave. shortly after 9 a.m. They seized voter registration forms and computer databases to determine how many fake forms were submitted and identify employees who were responsible.

They also sought information regarding current and past employees and managers.

"We don't know how many (falsified forms) are here; there may be two, or there may be thousands," said Bob Walsh, spokesman for the secretary of state's office.

Registration fraud typically stems from workers striving to meet their daily quota of submitted voter forms, Miller said.
Most organizations require their workers to sign up 20 voters a day. Fraudulent forms start filtering in when workers struggle to meet their quota and either fill in bogus names or accept documents with names that are clearly falsified, Miller said.

In a statement released by ACORN on Tuesday, Interim Chief Organizer Bertha Lewis said the group based in Clark County routinely flagged suspect applications and notified the Clark County Election Department. The group provided state and county officials with the names of individuals who submitted the falsified registration forms.
"Election officials routinely ignored this information and failed to act," Lewis said. "ACORN pleaded with them to take our concerns about fraudulent applications seriously."

In late July, election officials requested copies of the same documents that previously had been handed over by ACORN, Lewis said. In September, ACORN received a subpoena requesting information on 15 employees, whose names already had been turned in to election officials by the organization.

"Today's raid by the secretary of state's office is a stunt that serves no useful purpose other than to discredit our work registering Nevadans and distracting us from the important work ahead of getting every eligible voter to the polls," Lewis said.

Miller said that is not the case. He said the state's investigation began before ACORN submitted the forms referred to in Lewis' statement. In early July, investigators began looking through ACORN's registration forms. One canvasser turned in 17 applications; only four addresses existed, the investigators alleged.

According to an affidavit filed by the secretary of state, the canvasser was interviewed and told investigators that meeting the daily quota was difficult because it was hot outside and potential voters rejected her invitation to register.

Other canvassers hired by ACORN were residents at the Casa Grande Transitional Housing Facility, a Nevada Department of Corrections institution that offers convicted felons an opportunity to take part in work-release programs.

"It raises significant concerns that they hired prison inmates, some of whom have been convicted of identity theft," Miller said.
ACORN's field director in Nevada and the head of its voter registration effort, known as Project Vote, said the agency is cooperating fully with the investigation.

"We're proud of what we did here," Chris Edwards said. "We've got nothing to hide."

Tuesday morning's raid came on a day when ACORN had been planning a news conference and potluck lunch to celebrate the culmination of its voter registration drive, which the group said resulted in 90,000 new registrants since February, and to launch a get-out-the-vote push for the election.

The event went ahead around noon, starting with a pep talk of the group's staffers and volunteers, who stood to testify to the mission of the enterprise and who said they would remain undaunted.

"This is a great organization," Bonnie Smith-Greathouse, head organizer for Nevada ACORN, told a group of about 15 gathered in front of the organization's office. "We've done great things in the community, and we're going to do even greater things in the future."

Smith-Greathouse suggested that powerful interests were trying to squelch the voices of the poor that ACORN is trying to empower.
"Project Vote has been attacked all over the country because we registered at least 1.2 million voters," she said. "That could sway an election. You should be very proud. Something so significant in history has never happened in Nevada before."

Edwards stressed the mission of empowering those on society's lower rungs. "We don't go to Trader Joe's to register voters," he said. "We don't go to Macy's or Whole Foods. We sign people up to vote at welfare offices. We sign people up at post offices in poor neighborhoods."
ACORN's voter registration drive has consisted of recruiting people from off the street, many of them down-and-outers desperate for work, with the promise of $8 an hour for often grueling work. The canvassers were required to be on their feet, flagging down potential registrants, often in the 100-plus-degree heat of the Las Vegas summer.

Although they were not paid a set fee per registration form collected, which is illegal, they had to meet certain quotas of registrations each day, which is legal.

Clark County Registrar of Voters Larry Lomax, who has been speaking out about the fraudulent submissions and passing them along to the secretary of state's office for months, said under those circumstances, there was an obvious temptation for workers to duck into an air-conditioned library, for example, and start copying out of the phone book or off a sports roster.
"Anybody who decides they're going to pay people to go out and register voters is basically opening themselves up to that," he said. Lomax said he did not think there was a systematic attempt to submit phony forms.
Once turned in, the voter registration forms are subject to a verification process by Lomax's office.

People whose forms listed phony or business addresses would have been sent a letter advising them they would be voided if they didn't respond within 15 days. People who didn't list a driver's license or Social Security number that matched their name and address would be flagged on the voter rolls and required to bring photo identification to the polls to be allowed to vote.

Because of the safeguards, Lomax said he was confident no one will vote who shouldn't be allowed. "People don't need to fear for the integrity of this election," he said.

ACORN said it had a quality-control operation of its own in place to check
registration forms before they were turned in. Joe Camp, who was in charge of the effort, said he would call the phone number the registrant had listed and ask whether the information on the form was correct.
"To my standards, to ACORN's standards, everything that was turned in to the Board of Elections was legitimate," said Camp, a 28-year-old Las Vegan who said he previously worked as a real-estate appraiser.
Lomax said he has seen some evidence of quality control on ACORN's part this year. The registration forms legally cannot be discarded or destroyed, and some would be turned in with a note saying that they appeared to be fraudulent and that the canvasser had been fired, but that was "by no means the majority" of the suspect forms, Lomax said.

ACORN is a nonpartisan organization, but it is affiliated with a political action committee that has endorsed Democrat Barack Obama in the presidential election. The Nevada authorities spearheading the investigation, Miller and Attorney General Catherine Cortez Masto, are both Democrats.

Obama's work as a community organizer in Chicago in the early 1990s was with Project Vote, but his campaign said it was not affiliated with ACORN at the time. Obama also was part of a team of lawyers representing ACORN in 1995 in a lawsuit that accused the state of Illinois of putting up barriers to poor people trying to register.
A spokeswoman for Obama's campaign would not comment on his past ties to the group but said the work ACORN is now engaged in is separate from the campaign.

"The Obama campaign is not affiliated with nor do we work with ACORN," Kirsten Searer said. "We have our own, separate voter registration campaign."

Republicans seized on the news of Tuesday's raid. The Clark County Republican Party issued a statement condemning voter fraud and calling for full prosecution of anyone responsible.
ACORN's other major activity is housing aid, for which it is eligible for federal grants from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under newly enacted affordable-housing provisions.

Nevada Sen. John Ensign, a Republican, on Tuesday called for the suspension of the affordable housing funds because they might be going to "controversial groups like ACORN."

Nevada Gov. Jim Gibbons, also a Republican, said the ACORN problem was
evidence Nevada needs a law requiring voters to present photo identification at the polls. Assembly Minority Leader Heidi Gansert, R-Reno, has proposed such a bill to be considered by the 2009 Legislature.
In the interim, Miller urged residents who registered with third parties to check the Nevada secretary of state's Web site to reaffirm their voting status. The deadline to register for the November election is Oct. 14. New registrations must be submitted in person at the Clark County Government Center or the Clark County Election Department.
Contact reporter Adrienne Packer at apacker@reviewjournal.com or 702-384-8710. Contact reporter Molly Ball at mball@reviewjournal.com or 702-387-2919.

And the dispicable connection: you guys' support for Obama is Hitleresque, blind to who and what he is.


you will be sorry, by the way, what does and acorn do??

it turns into a huge oak tree. You are supporting an a growing oak tree of fraud bigotry and hate. god help us


Inside Obama’s Acorn
By their fruits ye shall know them.

By Stanley Kurtz


What if Barack Obama’s most important radical connection has been hiding in plain sight all along? Obama has had an intimate and long-term association with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn), the largest radical group in America. If I told you Obama had close ties with MoveOn.org or Code Pink, you’d know what I was talking about. Acorn is at least as radical as these better-known groups, arguably more so. Yet because Acorn works locally, in carefully selected urban areas, its national profile is lower. Acorn likes it that way. And so, I’d wager, does Barack Obama.

This is a story we’ve largely missed. While Obama’s Acorn connection has not gone entirely unreported, its depth, extent, and significance have been poorly understood. Typically, media background pieces note that, on behalf of Acorn, Obama and a team of Chicago attorneys won a 1995 suit forcing the state of Illinois to implement the federal “motor-voter” bill. In fact, Obama’s Acorn connection is far more extensive. In the few stories where Obama’s role as an Acorn “leadership trainer” is noted, or his seats on the boards of foundations that may have supported Acorn are discussed, there is little follow-up. Even these more extensive reports miss many aspects of Obama’s ties to Acorn.

An Anti-Capitalism Agenda
To understand the nature and extent of Acorn’s radicalism, an excellent place to begin is Sol Stern’s 2003 City Journal article, “ACORN’s Nutty Regime for Cities.” (For a shorter but helpful piece, try Steven Malanga’s “Acorn Squash.”)

Sol Stern explains that Acorn is the key modern successor of the radical 1960’s “New Left,” with a “1960’s-bred agenda of anti-capitalism” to match. Acorn, says Stern, grew out of “one of the New Left’s silliest and most destructive groups, the National Welfare Rights Organization.” In the 1960’s, NWRO launched a campaign of sit-ins and disruptions at welfare offices. The goal was to remove eligibility restrictions, and thus effectively flood welfare rolls with so many clients that the system would burst. The theory, explains Stern, was that an impossibly overburdened welfare system would force “a radical reconstruction of America’s unjust capitalist economy.” Instead of a socialist utopia, however, we got the culture of dependency and family breakdown that ate away at America’s inner cities — until welfare reform began to turn the tide.

While Acorn holds to NWRO’s radical economic framework and its confrontational 1960’s-style tactics, the targets and strategy have changed. Acorn prefers to fly under the national radar, organizing locally in liberal urban areas — where, Stern observes, local legislators and reporters are often “slow to grasp how radical Acorn’s positions really are.” Acorn’s new goals are municipal “living wage” laws targeting “big-box” stores like Wal-Mart, rolling back welfare reform, and regulating banks — efforts styled as combating “predatory lending.” Unfortunately, instead of helping workers, Acorn’s living-wage campaigns drive businesses out of the very neighborhoods where jobs are needed most. Acorn’s opposition to welfare reform only threatens to worsen the self-reinforcing cycle of urban poverty and family breakdown. Perhaps most mischievously, says Stern, Acorn uses banking regulations to pressure financial institutions into massive “donations” that it uses to finance supposedly non-partisan voter turn-out drives.

According to Stern, Acorn’s radical agenda sometimes shifts toward “undisguised authoritarian socialism.” Fully aware of its living-wage campaign’s tendency to drive businesses out of cities, Acorn hopes to force companies that want to move to obtain “exit visas.” “How much longer before Acorn calls for exit visas for wealthy or middle-class individuals before they can leave a city?” asks Stern, adding, “This is the road to serfdom indeed.”

In Your Face
Acorn’s tactics are famously “in your face.” Just think of Code Pink’s well-known operations (threatening to occupy congressional offices, interrupting the testimony of General David Petraeus) and you’ll get the idea. Acorn protesters have disrupted Federal Reserve hearings, but mostly deploy their aggressive tactics locally. Chicago is home to one of its strongest chapters, and Acorn has burst into a closed city council meeting there. Acorn protestors in Baltimore disrupted a bankers’ dinner and sent four busloads of profanity-screaming protestors against the mayor’s home, terrifying his wife and kids. Even a Baltimore city council member who generally supports Acorn said their intimidation tactics had crossed the line.

Acorn, however, defiantly touts its confrontational tactics. While Stern himself notes this, the point is driven home sharper still in an Acorn-friendly reply to Stern entitled “Enraging the Right.” Written by academic/activists John Atlas and Peter Dreier, the reply’s avowed intent is to convince Acorn-friendly politicians, journalists, and funders not to desert the organization in the wake of Stern’s powerful critique. The stunning thing about this supposed rebuttal is that it confirms nearly everything Stern says. Do Atlas and Dreier object to Stern’s characterizations of Acorn’s radical plans — even his slippery-slope warnings about Acorn’s designs on basic freedom of movement? Nope. “Stern accurately outlines Acorn’s agenda,” they say.

Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.

But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post–New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist “New Party.”

Obama Meets Acorn
What has Barack Obama got to do with all this? Plenty. Let’s begin with Obama’s pre-law school days as a community organizer in Chicago. Few people have a clear idea of just what a “community organizer” does. A Los Angeles Times piece on Obama’s early Chicago days opens with the touching story of his efforts to build a partnership with Chicago’s “Friends of the Parks,” so that parents in a blighted neighborhood could have an inviting spot for their kids to play. This is the image of Obama’s organizing we’re supposed to hold. It’s far from the whole story, however. As the L. A. Times puts it, “Obama’s task was to help far South Side residents press for improvement” in their communities. Part of Obama’s work, it would appear, was to organize demonstrations, much in the mold of radical groups like Acorn.

Although the L. A. Times piece is generally positive, it does press Obama’s organizing tales on certain points. Some claim that Obama’s book, Dreams from My Father, exaggerates his accomplishments in spearheading an asbestos cleanup at a low-income housing project. Obama, these critics say, denies due credit to Hazel Johnson, an activist who claims she was the one who actually discovered the asbestos problem and led the efforts to resolve it. Read carefully, the L. A. Times story leans toward confirming this complaint against Obama, yet the story’s emphasis is to affirm Obama’s important role in the battle. Speaking up in defense of Obama on the asbestos issue is Madeleine Talbot, who at the time was a leader at Chicago Acorn. Talbot, we learn, was so impressed by Obama’s organizing skills that she invited him to help train her own staff.

And what exactly was Talbot’s work with Acorn? Talbot turns out to have been a key leader of that attempt by Acorn to storm the Chicago City Council (during a living-wage debate). While Sol Stern mentions this story in passing, the details are worth a look: On July 31, 1997, six people were arrested as 200 Acorn protesters tried to storm the Chicago City Council session. According to the Chicago Daily Herald, Acorn demonstrators pushed over the metal detector and table used to screen visitors, backed police against the doors to the council chamber, and blocked late-arriving aldermen and city staff from entering the session.

Reading the Herald article, you might think Acorn’s demonstrators had simply lost patience after being denied entry to the gallery at a packed meeting. Yet the full story points in a different direction. This was not an overreaction by frustrated followers who couldn’t get into a meeting (there were plenty of protestors already in the gallery), but almost certainly a deliberate bit of what radicals call “direct action,” orchestrated by Acorn’s Madeleine Talbot. As Talbot was led away handcuffed, charged with mob action and disorderly conduct, she explicitly justified her actions in storming the meeting. This was the woman who first drew Obama into his alliance with Acorn, and whose staff Obama helped train.


Surprise Visit
Does that mean Obama himself schooled Acorn volunteers in disruptive “direct action?” Not necessarily. The City Council storming took place in 1997, years after Obama’s early organizing days. And in general, Obama seems to have been part of Acorn’s “inside baseball” strategy. As a national star from his law school days, Obama knew he had a political future, and would surely have been reluctant to violate the law. In his early organizing days, Obama used to tell the residents he organized that they’d be more effective in their protests if they controlled their anger. On the other hand, as he established and deepened his association with Acorn through the years, Obama had to know what the organization was all about. Moreover, in his early days, Obama was not exactly a stranger to the “direct action” side of community organizing.

Consider the second charge against Obama raised by the L.A. Times backgrounder. On the stump today, Obama often says he helped prevent South Side Chicago blacks, Latinos, and whites from turning on each other after losing their jobs, but many of the community organizers interviewed by the L. A. Times say that Obama worked overwhelmingly with blacks.

To rebut this charge, Obama’s organizer friends tell the story of how he helped plan “actions” that included mixed white, black, and Latino groups. For example, following Obama’s plan, one such group paid a “surprise visit” to a meeting between local officials considering a landfill expansion. The protestors surrounded the meeting table while one activist made a statement chiding the officials, after which the protestors filed out. Presto! Obama is immunized from charges of having worked exclusively with blacks — but at the cost of granting us a peek at the not-so-warm-and-fuzzy side of his community organizing. Intimidation tactics are revealed, and Obama’s alliance with radical Acorn activists like Madeleine Talbot begins to make sense.

“Non-Partisan”
The extent of Obama’s ties to Acorn has not been recognized. We find some important details in an article in the journal Social Policy entitled, “Case Study: Chicago — The Barack Obama Campaign,” by Toni Foulkes, a Chicago Acorn leader and a member of Acorn’s National Association Board. The odd thing about this article is that Foulkes is forced to protect the technically “non-partisan” status of Acorn’s get-out-the-vote campaigns, even as he does everything in his power to give Acorn credit for helping its favorite son win the critical 2004 primary that secured Obama the Democratic nomination to the U.S. Senate.

Before giving us a tour of Acorn’s pro-Obama but somehow “non-partisan” election activities, Foulks treats us to a brief history of Obama’s ties to Acorn. While most press accounts imply that Obama just happened to be at the sort of public-interest law firm that would take Acorn’s “motor voter” case, Foulkes claims that Acorn specifically sought out Obama’s representation in the motor voter case, remembering Obama from the days when he worked with Talbot. And while many reports speak of Obama’s post-law school role organizing “Project VOTE” in 1992, Foulkes makes it clear that this project was undertaken in direct partnership with Acorn. Foulkes then stresses Obama’s yearly service as a key figure in Acorn’s leadership-training seminars.

At least a few news reports have briefly mentioned Obama’s role in training Acorn’s leaders, but none that I know of have said what Foulkes reports next: that Obama’s long service with Acorn led many members to serve as the volunteer shock troops of Obama’s early political campaigns — his initial 1996 State Senate campaign, and his failed bid for Congress in 2000 (Foulkes confuses the dates of these two campaigns.) With Obama having personally helped train a new cadre of Chicago Acorn leaders, by the time of Obama’s 2004 U.S. Senate campaign, Obama and Acorn were “old friends,” says Foulkes.

So along with the reservoir of political support that came to Obama through his close ties with Jeremiah Wright, Father Michael Pfleger, and other Chicago black churches, Chicago Acorn appears to have played a major role in Obama’s political advance. Sure enough, a bit of digging into Obama’s years in the Illinois State Senate indicates strong concern with Acorn’s signature issues, as well as meetings with Acorn and the introduction by Obama of Acorn-friendly legislation on the living wage and banking practices. You begin to wonder whether, in his Springfield days, Obama might have best been characterized as “the Senator from Acorn.”


Foundation Money
Although it’s been noted in an important story by John Fund, and in a long Obama background piece in the New York Times, more attention needs to be paid to possible links between Obama and Acorn during the period of Obama’s service on the boards of two charitable foundations, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation.

According to the New York Times, Obama’s memberships on those foundation boards, “allowed him to help direct tens of millions of dollars in grants” to various liberal organizations, including Chicago Acorn, “whose endorsement Obama sought and won in his State Senate race.” As best as I can tell (and this needs to be checked out more fully), Acorn maintains both political and “non-partisan” arms. Obama not only sought and received the endorsement of Acorn’s political arm in his local campaigns, he recently accepted Acorn’s endorsement for the presidency, in pursuit of which he reminded Acorn officials of his long-standing ties to the group.

Supposedly, Acorn’s political arm is segregated from its “non-partisan” registration and get-out-the-vote efforts, but after reading Foulkes’ case study, this non-partisanship is exceedingly difficult to discern. As I understand, it would be illegal for Obama to sit on a foundation board and direct money to an organization that openly served as his key get-out-the-vote volunteers on Election Day. I’m not saying Obama crossed a legal line here: Based on Foulkes’ account, Acorn’s get-out-the-vote drive most likely observed the technicalities of “non-partisanship.”

Nevertheless, the possibilities suggested by a combined reading of the New York Times piece and the Foulkes article are disturbing. While keeping within the technicalities of the law, Obama may have been able to direct substantial foundation money to his organized political supporters. I offer no settled conclusion, but the matter certainly warrants further investigation and discussion. Obama is supposed to be the man who transcends partisanship. Has he instead used his post at an allegedly non-partisan foundation to direct money to a supposedly non-partisan group, in pursuit of what are in fact nakedly partisan and personal ends? I have no final answer, but the question needs to be pursued further.

In fact, the broader set of practices by which activist groups pursue intensely partisan ends under the guise of non-partisanship merits further scrutiny. Consider the 2006 report by Jonathan Bechtle, “Voter Turnout or Voter Fraud?” which includes a discussion of the nexus between Project Vote and Acorn, a nexus where Obama himself once resided. According to Bechtle, “It’s clear that groups that claimed to be nonpartisan wanted a partisan outcome,” and reading Foulkes’s case study of Acorn’s role in Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign, one can’t help but agree.

Radical Obama
Important as these questions of funding and partisanship are, the larger point is that Obama’s ties to Acorn — arguably the most politically radical large-scale activist group in the country — are wide, deep, and longstanding. If Acorn is adept at creating a non-partisan, inside-game veneer for what is in fact an intensely radical, leftist, and politically partisan reality, so is Obama himself. This is hardly a coincidence: Obama helped train Acorn’s leaders in how to play this game. For the most part, Obama seems to have favored the political-insider strategy, yet it’s clear that he knew how to play the in-your-face “direct action” game as well. And surely during his many years of close association with Acorn, Obama had to know what the group was all about.

The shame of it is that when the L. A. Times returned to Obama’s stomping grounds, it found the park he’d helped renovate reclaimed by drug dealers and thugs. The community organizer strategy may generate feel-good moments and best-selling books, but I suspect a Wal-Mart as the seed-bed of a larger shopping complex would have done far more to save the neighborhood where Obama worked to organize in the “progressive” fashion. Unfortunately, Obama’s Acorn cronies have blocked that solution.

In any case, if you’re looking for the piece of the puzzle that confirms and explains Obama’s network of radical ties, gather your Acorns this spring. Or next winter, you may just be left watching the “President from Acorn” at his feast.

Ok, from the looks of it, ACORN is a group whose goal is to increase political activism in poor neighborhoods, right? One of the things they do is hire poor people to register voters. Poor people though, are notoriously unreliable and often turn in phony forms. Obama represented this group in 1995, as a lawyer, and did similar work as ACORN did during his earlier days as a community organizer.

My reaction is, so what? This isn't a group that Obama has been very close with, and I think it's safe to say they've done some admirable work as well. I'm sure most voters they registered were legit, and it sounds like they've made strong efforts to weed out the fakes. This seems to fall into this same pattern that's been used to smear Obama:

X has done some things that most Americans would strongly disapprove of.
Therefore, X is evil and corrupt to the core.
Barack Obama has associations with X.
Therefore, Barack Obama shares X's undesirable characteristics.

For X, you can put in ACORN, Tony Rezko, Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, Rev. Pfleiger, or any Chicago politician that has a negative image. The logical fallacy here comes from the fact that none of these entities are 100% evil, and the work that Obama has cooperated with them on has typically been good stuff.

Here is what has annoyed me about the whole Bill Ayers situation. I work in a job that requires a security clearance. During my background check if it was shown I had an association with someone like Bill Ayers I would have never recieved my clearance. What annoys me is, the President of the United States does not require the same background investigation.

Chrisuperfly said:

Here is what has annoyed me about the whole Bill Ayers situation. I work in a job that requires a security clearance. During my background check if it was shown I had an association with someone like Bill Ayers I would have never recieved my clearance. What annoys me is, the President of the United States does not require the same background investigation.

Click to expand...

Hey chris, where you been? I guess you know, I have to disagree with you, but that is not news, the news is where you been? Oh and welcome back.

Chrisuperfly said:

Here is what has annoyed me about the whole Bill Ayers situation. I work in a job that requires a security clearance. During my background check if it was shown I had an association with someone like Bill Ayers I would have never recieved my clearance. What annoys me is, the President of the United States does not require the same background investigation.

Click to expand...

I don't believe you. Well, maybe you'd get rejected if you were Bill Ayers, or maybe you'd get rejected if you were a member of the Weather Underground, but if your association with him was similar to Obama's, I highly doubt you would run into security clearance problems.

Doctor Pot said:

I don't believe you. Well, maybe you'd get rejected if you were Bill Ayers, or maybe you'd get rejected if you were a member of the Weather Underground, but if your association with him was similar to Obama's, I highly doubt you would run into security clearance problems.

Click to expand...

i see what your saying, but truly they would deny your clearance. I am foreign born arab and it took me a long time to get my clearace but they finally gave it to me.

I used to work at a company that worked on top secret defense projects although I did not work on the top secret stuff i still had to get that first level clearance.

anyway, to have an association with Ayers would definatly disqualifiy you depending on how important the clearance was.


there are many way these "terroists" / undesirables can get you to reavel secrets,

black mail is a great way. any association you have with a guy like that would disqualify you of clearance due to the fact that he may know somthing about you and black mail you for government secrets. any little thing that they can use would be used. If you cooperate with them once. you are in thier pocket forever as they will out you if u stop helping them,

this was part of my training the day they finally approved my clearance.

Ironically shortly after that the attacks of september 11th happend and the place where I worked was evacuated.

I then quit that job. decided it was time to move to bigger and better things

They gave *me* a secret security clearance, and later a top secret, so I could work on encrypted satellite communications between aircraft carriers near the Mediterranean and Belgium and Turkey. If I could get a high-level security clearance, with my record as a pot-smoking juvenile delinquent, being on the board of a *charity* with someone who hasn't committed a crime in 40 years should not be a problem for anyone.

I think its a problem


I think his freindship with this man that stands atop the flags our fathers died for disqualifies him to lead out great nations military and people.

God Help America







I feel like they are all watching

medicineman said:

Hey chris, where you been? I guess you know, I have to disagree with you, but that is not news, the news is where you been? Oh and welcome back.

Click to expand...

Wow where have I been....took some time off from work and traveled a little, spent a few weeks in Jamaica. During that time I cleared my mind and came back with a new outlook on a lot of things. For one my government. I am not a Obama supporter but I am definitely not a McCain supporter. Changes need to be made but, niether Obama or McCain are the people to do it.