Obama apologists are furiously attacking the questions because their inexperienced candidate did not have good answers, lied and looked unfit for the position to which he aspires.
Team Clinton was right: Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. was awful, not awesome, in the Pennsylvania Democrat presidential primary debate.
The proof that the rookie United States Senator and presidential hopeful should have declined that twenty-first debate with Hillary Rodham Clinton is in his pathetic whining the next day about the questions.
When Obama has a problem, he deals with it by trying to deflect attention and hoping his media allies will let him redirect the public focus with his brand of hocus pocus.
Obama wants presidential debates restricted to policy and questions involving character and integrity prohibited.
That doesn't inspire confidence.
Obama flip flopped like that wind surfer John Kerry.
THAT inspires fear among Democrats intent on taking back the White House.
In his Race in America speech, designed to save his presidential campaign, Obama deftly shifted attention from what he did and did not do to America's racial problems and not only refused to "disown" his long-time pastor and political supporter Rev. Jeremiah A. "God damn America" Wright, Jr., but equated doing that with disowning the black community.
In the Philadelphia debate, Obama said he HAD disowned Rev. Wright!
If he did that previously, it must have been done very privately, because the media never noticed.
Has Obama disowned the black community too?
Without the black bloc vote, Obama would be trailing Hillary significantly.
In addition to the issue of whether Rev. Wright should be "disowned," Obama flip flopped on American flag pins.
Obama during the Philadelphia debate: "I have never said that I don't wear flag pins or refuse to wear flag pins."
WRONG!
Obama, October 4, 2007:
"You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.
"Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testimony to my patriotism."
Telling the American people what you believe is what Obama should do.
Lying about what he's done and said, he should NOT do.
Obama apologists are furiously attacking the questions because their inexperienced candidate did not have good answers, lied and looked unfit for the position to which he aspires.
Pennsylvania's Nash McCabe politely asked a simple, straightforward question: "Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't."
It's a fair question to ask a man, especially one who is friendly with a domestic terrorist.
And Obama's reply when asked about that subject--that President Clinton had pardoned or commuted the sentences of other domestic terrorists--prompts the conclusio that Senator John Sidney McCain is preferable to either of his potential Democrat challengers.
Michael J. Gaynor has been practicing law in New York since 1973. A former partner at Fulton, Duncombe & Rowe and Gaynor & Bass, he is a solo practitioner admitted to practice in New York state and federal courts and an Association of the Bar of the City of New York member.
Gaynor graduated magna cum laude, with Honors in Social Science, from Hofstra University's New College, and received his J.D. degree from St. John's Law School, where he won the American Jurisprudence Award in Evidence and served as an editor of the Law Review and the St. Thomas More Institute for Legal Research. He wrote on the Pentagon Papers case for the Review and obscenity law for The Catholic Lawyer and edited the Law Review's commentary on significant developments in New York law.
The day after graduating, Gaynor joined the Fulton firm, where he focused on litigation and corporate law. In 1997 Gaynor and Emily Bass formed Gaynor & Bass and then conducted a general legal practice, emphasizing litigation, and represented corporations, individuals and a New York City labor union. Notably, Gaynor & Bass prevailed in the Second Circuit in a seminal copyright infringement case, Tasini v. New York Times, against newspaper and magazine publishers and Lexis-Nexis. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed, 7 to 2, holding that the copyrights of freelance writers had been infringed when their work was put online without permission or compensation.
Gaynor currently contributes regularly to www.MichNews.com, www.RenewAmerica.com, www.WebCommentary.com, www.PostChronicle.com and www.therealitycheck.org and has contributed to many other websites. He has written extensively on political and religious issues, notably the Terry Schiavo case, the Duke "no rape" case, ACORN and canon law, and appeared as a guest on television and radio. He was acknowledged in Until Proven Innocent, by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson, and Culture of Corruption, by Michelle Malkin. He appeared on "Your World With Cavuto" to promote an eBay boycott that he initiated and "The World Over With Raymond Arroyo" (EWTN) to discuss the legal implications of the Schiavo case. On October 22, 2008, Gaynor was the first to report that The New York Times had killed an Obama/ACORN expose on which a Times reporter had been working with ACORN whistleblower Anita MonCrief.
Cover
•
Commentary
•
Books & Reviews
•
Climate Change
•
Site Links
•
Feedback
