PERTZ

Here's the rap that's getting all the attention this morning.  It all started in 2006 when Obama said he listened to Ludacris on his I-Pod.  Well, Ludacris (Chris Bridges) repays Obama with a little song.   But Obama's campaign is not happy! 

What do you think about that?  Comments below.

In West Virginia, this is one car you can't miss!

A Clinton landslide victory will not help her pass Obama who is sure of getting the Dem. nomination. However, since 1916, no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia.

Nixon Now?  If you think political ads are bad now.....Check out this baby.

How times have changed hey????

We urge them to choose Obama - an untried candidate, to be sure, but preferable to the junior senator from New York.

Obama represents a fresh start.

His opponent, and her husband, stand for déjà vu all over again - a return to the opportunistic, scandal-scarred, morally muddled years of the almost infinitely self-indulgent Clinton co-presidency.

Does America really want to go through all that once again?

It will - if Sen. Clinton becomes president.

That much has become painfully apparent.

Bill Clinton's thuggishly self-centered campaign antics conjure so many bad, sad memories that it's hard to know where to begin.

Suffice it to say that his Peck's-Bad-Boy smirk - the Clinton trademark - wore thin a very long time ago.

Far more to the point, Sen. Clinton could have reined him in at any time. But she chose not to - which tells the nation all it needs to know about what a Clinton II presidency would be like.

Now, Obama is not without flaws.

For all his charisma and his eloquence, the rookie senator sorely lacks seasoning: Regarding national security, his worldview is beyond naive; America must defend itself against those sworn to destroy the nation.

His all-things-to-all-people approach to complicated domestic issues also arouses scant confidence. "Change!" for the sake of change does not a credible campaign platform make. But he remains a highly intelligent man, with a strong record as a conciliator.

And, again, he is not Team Clinton.

That counts for a very great deal.

A return to Sen. Clinton's cattle-futures deal, Travelgate, Whitewater, Filegate, the Lincoln Bedroom Fire Sale, Pardongate - and the inevitable replay of the Monica Mess?

No, thank you.

And don't forget the Clintons' trademark political cynicism. How else to explain Sen. Clinton's oft-contradictory policy stands: She voted for the war in Iraq, but now says it was a bad idea. She'd end it yesterday - but refuses to say how.

It's called "triangulation" - the Clintonian tactic by which the ends are played against the middle.

Once, it was effective - almost brilliant. Today, it is tired and tattered - and it reeks of cynicism and opportunism.

Finally, Sen. Clinton stands philosophically far to the left of her husband, and is much more disciplined in pursuit of her agenda.

At least Obama has the ability to inspire.

Again, we don't agree much with Obama on substantive issues.

But many Democrats will.

He should be their choice on Tuesday.

Clinton set observers atwitter when she waded through the crowd before the speech to shake hands with Democratic dean and senior Sen. Edward Kennedy (Mass.), who made headlines Monday by endorsing Obama in the primary.

The race between Obama and Clinton has become colored with growing animosity in recent weeks as each side has leveled veiled accusations that the other has used race as a political weapon.

But Obama and Clinton seemed to see eye to eye on Bush’s domestic agenda, sitting firmly on their hands through most of the first half of his speech.

“I think there is some consensus in the Democratic Party,” Obama said in an interview with CNN immediately after the State of the Union when asked about the lack of difference between him and Clinton on economic policy.

Clinton and Obama’s divergent views on the troop surge in Iraq, however, were plainly visible.

When Bush proclaimed, “Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among terrorists there is no doubt,” Clinton sprang to her feet in applause but Obama remained firmly seated. The president’s line divided most of the Democratic audience, with nearly half standing to applaud and the other half sitting in stony silence.

In one instance Clinton appeared to gauge Obama’s response before showing her own.

When Bush warned the Iranian government that “America will confront those who threaten our troops, we will stand by our allies, and we will defend our vital interests in the Persian Gulf” Obama jumped up to applaud. Clinton leaned across Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), seated to her left, to look in Obama’s direction before slowly standing.

The Illinois senator strongly criticized the former first lady last year when she supported a resolution calling for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard to be designated a terrorist organization. Obama supporters and other Democrats charged the vote would give Bush political cover to begin military operations against Iran.

There also appeared to be some division among Democrats Monday over whether to continue to pump money into the Iraq war effort. When Bush said he would “ask Congress to meet its responsibilities to these brave men and women by fully funding our troops,” Obama and Clinton remained seated while Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) stood up behind them to applaud.

Dissension was not limited to Democratic ranks. Though a mostly united GOP caucus applauded Bush enthusiastically throughout the speech, the president received a mixed response from Republicans when he asked Congress to strengthen the No Child Left Behind Act, his signature legislative achievement in the area of education reform. While many Republicans clapped to endorse No Child Left Behind, Sen. Charles Grassley (Iowa), ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee remained motionless. Grassley is one of seven Senate Republicans to cosponsor legislation that would significantly reform No Child Left Behind. The Bush administration opposes the bill.

While many Republicans applauded Bush’s announcement that he would issue an executive order directing his administration to ignore earmarks contained in conference reports accompanying future spending bills, some lawmakers voiced skepticism.

“We’ll see about that when the time comes,” said Hal Rogers (Ky.), a senior Republican member of the House Appropriations Committee.

After his speech, Bush sought out Kennedy, his former partner in education reform, to exchange greetings. He also shook Obama’s hand and said hello in typical Bush fashion: “Hey buddy, how’s it going,” he said, according to Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), who also sat next to Obama for the speech

Indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko leaves Chicago's federal building in this Oct. 19, 2006, file photo. Rezko, who has poured thousands of dollars into Barack Obama's political campaigns, was arrested by federal agents Monday, Jan. 28, 2008, after his $2 million bail was revoked. Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering, and is scheduled to stand trial Feb. 25. (AP Photo/Nam Y. Huh)

By MIKE ROBINSON – 12 hours ago

CHICAGO (AP) — A judge revoked the $2 million bond Monday for indicted businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who has raised thousands of dollars for Barack Obama and Illinois politicians.

U.S. District Judge Amy J. St. Eve said she grew concerned after learning Rezko received $3.5 million from a company in Lebanon; he had claimed that he had no income. St. Eve said she feared Rezko could be a flight risk.

The real estate developer and fast food magnate was arrested Monday morning at his home in suburban Wilmette. At an afternoon hearing, the judge ordered him into custody and scheduled a Tuesday hearing where Rezko's attorneys will attempt to get bond reinstated.

Rezko has pleaded not guilty to charges of fraud, attempted extortion and money laundering, and is scheduled to stand trial Feb. 25. He is accused of pressuring businesses seeking work before two state regulatory boards to make campaign contributions and payoffs.

Rezko had long been a fundraiser for Gov. Rod Blagojevich and for Obama, the presidential candidate and senator from Illinois. Neither Democrat has been accused of wrongdoing in the case.

Obama has said he had no indication of problems with Rezko when he accepted thousands of dollars in campaign contributions. When prosecutors unsealed their charges against Rezko in 2006, Obama gave $11,500 in Rezko contributions to charities.

Obama has since sought to distance himself from Rezko, even as his main Democratic rival — Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton — invoked Rezko's name and his "slum lord business" during a recent debate.

The Obama campaign declined to comment on Rezko's arrest Monday.

Federal prosecutors say Rezko was deceptive in leading St. Eve to grant bond by claiming in April 2007 that he had no income of his own and was instead living off the generosity of friends and relatives.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Reid J. Schar said $3.5 million from a Lebanon-based firm had been distributed to various funds and individuals, indicating that Rezko had more money than he had led the court to believe.

"This defendant has played a shell game and I think misled the court about what his assets are," Schar said.

He said Rezko's $2 million bond was no longer adequate to make certain he would remain in the United States and show up for trial.

Defense attorney Joseph Duffy said "there isn't anything that suggests flight." He said Rezko, a U.S. citizen born in Syria, returned from overseas to face the charges against him.

Duffy said initially that the $3.5 million was a loan secured by part of a 62-acre parcel of land south of Chicago's Loop. But then in the middle of the hearing he interrupted to say he had just been informed that it was not.

Asked after the hearing if the $3.5 million was a secured loan, he said: "I don't know that."

Prosecutors also said that some of the people who put up property in Rezko's name are renting out or trying to sell the property, raising concerns there may not be enough collateral to secure Rezko's bond.

Schar said in the case of one man who posted his home as bond, Rezko funneled the home's exact value back to him.

Once the estimated eight- to 12-week trial is over, Rezko still will face federal charges alleging he swindled General Electric Capital Corp. out of $10 million in connection with the sale of two pizza restaurant chains.

It was learned last week that an associate of Rezko's had sent a $10,000 campaign contribution to Obama's U.S. Senate campaign using money from the alleged pizza scheme. Obama's campaign then sent $40,000 in Rezko-related campaign contributions to charity.

Earlier this month, Obama gave to charity more than $40,000 in past political contributions from seven individuals with ties to Rezko. The decision to donate the money contributed to Obama's House and Senate campaigns — but not his current presidential bid — came after a published report that Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" in one paragraph of a 78-page prosecution document that outlines the case against Rezko.

Obama also has had to answer questions about how Rezko became involved in the purchase of the Obama family home as well as other ties to Rezko that go back more than 15 years.

Obama says he did five or six hours of work in the early 1990s for community groups that partnered with Rezko in apartment house development projects. Obama says he never represented Rezko in those deals, but his law firm at the time did represent Rezko's real estate development company, Rezmar.

This is one of the many examples of how history views a candidate, floating out there on Youtube ....Let's post more in the months ahead from both camps

Who saves all these clips ????

St. Louis, Jan 24, 2008 / 06:33 am (CNA).- Archbishop Raymond Burke has criticized a Catholic basketball coach at the Catholic University of St. Louis (SLU) for declaring himself pro-choice and in favor of embryonic stem cell research, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports.

Coach Rick Majerus was at a Hillary Clinton rally on Saturday to show his support of her candidacy.  The basketball coach looked into the television camera and said “I am pro-choice, personally.” 

At the rally he also a reporter he was in favor of destructive research on human embryos.

Archbishop of St. Louis Raymond Burke, speaking to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch newspaper before the March for Life in Washington, D.C. strongly criticized the coach’s statements.

"It's not possible to be a Catholic and hold those positions," Burke said. "When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don't have to embrace everything the Catholic Church teaches. But you can't make statements which call into question the identity and mission of the Catholic Church."

Archbishop Burke said the coach should be disciplined, saying, "I'm confident [the university] will deal with the question of a public representative making declarations that are inconsistent with the Catholic faith," Burke said. "When you take a position in a Catholic university, you don't have to embrace everything the Catholic Church teaches. But you can't make statements which call into question that identity and mission of the Catholic Church."

The archbishop was concerned the coach’s statements would cause scandal, defined in the Catholic catechism as "an attitude or behavior which leads another to do evil."

Some St. Louis University faculty members were not happy with the archbishop’s remarks.

"If SLU wants to have a policy of, 'you have to be Catholic and believe the Catholic way,' SLU wouldn't exist," Laura Willingham, research assistant in SLU's School of Medicine, said to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "Should [Majerus] have said it publicly? There's freedom of speech."

Jeff Fowler, a spokesman for the university, emphasized the coach was speaking in a private capacity.

"Rick's comments were his own personal view," he said to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "They were made at an event he did not attend as a university representative. It was his own personal visit to the rally."

Archbishop Burke has no direct control over St. Louis University.  The Jesuit-founded university itself is nominally Catholic, but a 2007 Supreme Court decision ruled that the school “is not controlled by a religious creed,” making the school’s new arena eligible for $80 million in public funding.  In the Supreme Court brief, the school’s lawyers said the university is not controlled or owned by the Society of Jesus and does not require employees or students "to aspire to Jesuit ideals, to be Catholic or to otherwise have any specific religious affiliation."

The lawyer’s brief also citied the 1998 sale of St. Louis University Hospital to Tenet Healthcare, which the school did "despite the strong and well-publicized objections of the Archbishop of St. Louis."

Less than 35 of the 1,275 St. Louis University faculty and staff are Jesuits, and fewer than half of the students are Catholic.

Let's be Blunt about it

Surprised?  I was...Imagine how Nixon felt!

Someone is campaigning a bit too much

I've been there Bill! Having worked the early morning shift for 10 Years.