"The Flim-Flam Man"

I know that this title and the comparison I am making with it here is a bit of a stretch, but what the hell.

Bill Clinton denied doing something that he should not have done.

Barack Obama denied doing something that he should not have done.

Barack Obama appeared on MSNBC, CNN, and FNC Friday night to say that he had not ever heard Reverend Wright say any of the horrid things that he had said nor did he ever hear that he had said any of them.

After hearing Obama say these things I called a friend and told him: "Obama is lying."

Clinton's administration was destroyed, not by the "act" with Monica Lewinsky but rather by his lie that attempted to cover up the act.

The same will be true in my opinion with Obama, notwithstanding that he gave one of the greatest speeches I have ever heard about racism in America, while sliding adroitly and artfully by the issues at hand in his decades long acceptance of Reverend Wrights insane rants and un-American statements. Parts of his speech also took disingenuousness to a brilliant new level.

He also managed to be critical of the media for repeating the "highlights" of the Reverends sermons. ` Blaming the media by transgressors has historically been thought of as a good thing.

Bill Clinton who was great at this type of speech would be proud of Obama.

I on the other hand am not!

The big time Obama "mislead" is not OK with me!

Norman Horowitz

Comments

[HeevenSteven]

This one miss-truth does not outweigh the enormous number of lies that have and continue to come from the Clintons. You're the flim-flamer Norman.

[hapkidokid]

I like this comment, "while sliding adroitly and artfully by the issues at hand in his decades long acceptance of Reverend Wrights insane rants and un-American statements."

Hey Norman, maybe we can count on you to head up a call for a brand new 21st Century version of the "House Un-American Activities Committee." You sound willing to fire the first torch, what say you? Can we digress this into simply Us vs. Them, with Us being rock-solid, unquestioning, patriotic Americans, and Them, being the questioning, dissident, ingrates!

[Beelzebufo]

I was trying to remember what Obama reminded me of after listening to him speechify. It nagged at me until I saw the title of your blog "The Flim-Flam Man". Then it came to me: Obama reminds me of a carnival barker!

Thanks, Norman!

[DavidJames]

Thanks Norman. I needed to be brought back to earth.

It was a good speech though, wasn't it!

Regards

[Trace8089]

I couldn't agree more. This speech shows how good of a POLITICIAN Obama has become. He tells Mr. Countdown (Who gave Obama a pass for lying last night), he never heard these vile statements from Rev. Wright. But, in his speech admitted hearing the vile nature of the Reverend. St. Obama Caught himself in a Lie. Let's not forget Obama dis-invited Rev. Wright to his campaign kick off Because of his fiery sermons. Proof of the lie. Obama knew of these problems before running and has had his fingers crossed the MSM wouldn't bring it up. If, he thinks one speech will sweep it under the rug he's mistaken. Right wing talk radio will play the known statements and will roll out new ones. You can bet some right wing butt boy has already gone thru all of Rev. Wrights tapes and cross referenced days Obama was sitting in the pews. It's time the Obamanites realize Obama is just another greasy ass politician just like the rest only a little smoother.

[Colonial82]

Two Words. Grow up.

Obama spoke to us as if we are adults. Grow up and you will get it.

[LDW]

Obama lied about NAFTA.

Obama, to try to quiet rising rumours about Rezko, met with the Chicago Tribune editorial board. His defence? He doesn't remember. He never heard. He didn't know.

Then, about the Rev Jeremiah Wright, who preaches that all the evil in the world is the fault of Rich White People, and even that AIDS was created in secret labs in the US as germ warfare against Blacks, once again, Obama doesn't remember. He never heard. He didn't know.

The MSM and Obama supporters rush to cheer his latest speech, marvelling at his "candour", and calling his speech elevating and inspiring,

Nice, that he can give an uplifting speech about the racist problem in America, but what has that got to do with his lack of judgement in attending Wright"s congregation for 20 years?

The Rev Wright has strong views about American foreign and domestic policies, and he probably has a fair degree of support for some of his views. Further, Rev Wright has the right to express himself publicly on these or any topics. However, Rev Wright specifically blames Rich White People for all the problems besetting not only Black Americans but the whole world, and I think this is not true and is also not helpful. Rev Wright more or less dictates that Blacks can excuse any personal failure, including dropping out of school, drug abuse, violence and sexually transmitted diseases on Rich White People. Societal problems are complex, and multi-levelled. For Obama to associate himself with a man who seems to think that removing Rich White People from the face of the earth would solve all the world"s problems is to show an extreme lack of judgement for a man who wishes to be President of all Americans.

Bad, evil behaviour, unfortunately, is not limited to one race or ethnicity, or socio-economic class, but crosses all divides, and problems like racism are not going to be solved by any grand event or gesture. Blacks in America must also work to eliminate racism, by building stronger communities and promoting and supporting self-improvement strategies nationwide. Of course, institutional and traditional barriers that hinder Blacks must be removed by legal means or eroded by social pressures, but Blacks will not achieve parity by marginalizing and vilifying another group in society, or by any reverse-racism.

But Barak Obama got comfort in a Church that allowed him to feel special and entitled, and whose pastor even likened him to Jesus, and he was unable or unwilling, for twenty years, to see that his own personal salvation and succour was not appropriate or available to the majority of Americans.

Barak Obama"s political career was handed to him in many ways, and when it was not, he took it by somewhat unscrupulous means. He booted his mentor, Alice Palmer, off the state senate ballot on a technicality. He allowed Democratic State Majority Leader Emil Jones Jr. to put him as sponsor on a host of bills he had done little or no work on, in order to pad his résumé to prepare for his run for Congress. He kicked back $300 million in earmarks to Illinois, including tens of millions to Emil Jones Jr."s own district, and has not released an accounting of these. He turned his back on poor Chicago Blacks living in Rezko-owned buildings, and helped his political "fixer" and fundraiser Rezko by writing him glowing letters of recommendation. He then personally benefited by a real estate deal "coincidentally" closed on the same day with Rezko that netted Obama a mansion for a $300,000 discount. He was named Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee's Subcommittee on European Affairs, but failed to hold even a single hearing over NATO"s role in Afghanistan, and never even travelled to Europe (unless one counts a short stopover in London), even while he lectured other about the need to make hard, important decisions on Afghanistan. He was too busy fundraising for himself and feathering his own nest. But Obama has been packaged as some sort of prophet and saviour for American, some sort of new and pure type of politician " which he clearly is not.

Obama"s supporters seem to selectively quote his speeches, and dismiss any parts of his past or previous statements that do not accord with their view of him as some sort of shining Messiah, and rail that those who do not share their views are missing the chance to make a uniquely positive change by electing Obama, and charge their opponents with collusion in a great cabal headed by the Evil Hillary, and charge their opponents with racism.

Opponents of Obama have a different view. Opponents recognize his ability to give a good speech, but fail to see how his actions or experience match his rhetoric, and frankly do not trust his judgement. Obama may prove them wrong, but has not so far shown anything persuasive enough to sway his opponents. More importantly, Obama has consistently been taking jabs at Hillary Clinton, fraudulently accusing her of "playing the race card", and allowing his Camp to vilify her and her supporters. This has been extremely divisive, and has created huge resentments amongst Hillary Clinton supporters.

Lately, Obama " who touts himself as a new and different kind of politician " has been working against seating delegates from Florida and Michigan. This is seen by many as undemocratic, especially since the early elections in both these states were not entirely the responsibility of the Democratic organizers in these states, and the Party"s decision to disenfranchise them in the first place was arguably a mistake. And, If the shoe was on the other foot " if Obama was trailing in delegates and could have gotten a large boost from admitting the votes from these two states " well, what would Obama and his supporters be saying about the situation then? Obama"s position on this situation is not the position of a "New" and "Different" politician, it is the position of a hypocrite.

[AOGutierrez]

Obama didn't lie about NAFTA. Check with the Canadian consulate in Chicago or call the Toronto Globe & Mail. They have both said that Obama's public statements about NAFTA were consistent with the substance of meetings held in Chicago with Mr. Goulsbee. The "issue" was created by Ian Brody, an assistant to conservative PM Harper, and a known Clinton intimate. The RCMP is thought to be investigating the issue. The Globe &Mail also made it clear that the only back channel contacts from the US campaigns were made by Senator Clinton's people to give the Canadians assurances that they were not as hard core on NAFTA as their rhetoric seemed to indicate. Mr. Goulsbee was contacted by the Canadians for comment after the fact. Its a bull s**t issue constructed by the Clinton campaign to avoid admitting that she has nothing new to offer when we definitely need something new.

[Lon]

What is the dishonesty that Obama supposedly has been caught in? Reverand Wright over 20 years has given a lot of speeches. At least one we know Obama found deeply inspirational, and in fact named his first book after it. Some of them were contraversial. A few of them were over the top, although given the degree to which they have apparently been scoured by now, and the few clips that are being played over and over again, not such a high percentage that it seems unreasonable that Obama did not see any of the worst of them.

The media deserves criticism when it dumbs down debate. The fact that the media is also criticized as a way of avoiding serious discussion does not mean that it should not ever be criticized. And to point to Obama's speech as an example of someone blaming the media to avoid talking about the serious issues is to engage in a kind of silliness that is hard to believe. The media was not the focus of his speech, and there was no attempt to distract from the important issues.

[maggieb]

Thank you Norman, but you know you will be trashed by Obama's supporters. They think their guy can do no wrong. This speech will ultimately be diminished because of said lie and also because he gave it out of desperation and not out of conviction.

[Pendejoe]

Norman, your candor in admitting that you heard the speach but did not get it is valuable. Barack plainly articulated the choices available to each of us and you clearly indicated your selection. It is, however, strange that you would brag about it.

[MarineBugler]

I think what Obama was denying was that he was not in the pews when the statements in the ENDLESS 30 second snippets were spoken.

So what?

Obama is not a sitting President with a stain on his pants.

I respect Mrs. Clinton, and would probably vote for her, if Obama were not in this race.

Not this time.

- Semper Fi, America

[Chachi]

There has been such intellectual dishonesty by some (only a few thankfully) that are focusing on whether they caught Obama in a lie. Some people, no matter what the issues can't help but play gotcha when they've got it out for someone.

Well, guess what? You didn't catch him in a lie, so stop lying and pretending you did.

Obama said specifically that he wasn't present during the sermon clips that were being played on TV over and over... of which there were only a few that kept getting played: The reverend saying "god damn America" and the one about "noone ever called Hillary a N-word". Obama said he was not present during those statements. Then during his speech he said he has been in the pew when the reverend has made some controversial statements. So, there's no lie here.

By the way, you know who else told the same bald faced lie yesterday at the opening of his show? O'reilly - who said Obama admitted to being in the pew when the reverened made anti-American remarks, which is clearly not what Obama said. So, that's the level of your intellectual dishonesty Norman.

[RabidRightRebel]

Why is it that rather than focusing on the positive attributes of Clinton the only thing that Clinton supporter seem capable of is making reckless negative comments about Obama. This is another case in point , no substantive issue other than to suggest that he is a "FLIM-FLAM MAN". If this is all that Clinton has to offer why should anyone support her.

[ulmew]

yes, obama is misleading because he did what, exactly? denied what? what should he not have done? attend a black church in chicago, one of the most respected and philanthropic churches in the city? what did he deny? hearing wright firsthand? he wasnt even there. as if it matters. you yourself admit your comparison is a stretch. I would call it absolute absurdity, unworthy of serious consideration by all but the most ignorant minds.