Early voting in Charlotte, NC

I got back about an hour ago from early voting here in Charlotte. I had planned on waiting til election day, but changed my mind when I read about all the lines here. I figured the lines we are seeing now would only be longer on election day, even in the early morning, which is when I usually go to vote.

There were about 125 people in line ahead of me – I was at the early voting location for about an hour. If you’d like to look at early vote election stats for different states, click here and scroll.

I also had some dental work done earlier today, which has made the left side of my face (the cheek area) numb and sore, so I may call it a night if I’m not feeling any better by 9 or so. Not sure if I’ll be watching the Obama “informercial” tonight. I’m just not in the mood.

Obama then: “Our campaign is responsible to no one but the people”

Obama has repeatedly claimed that his campaign is responsible to “no one but the people” but as I’ve reported numerous times, it’s a shameless lie. Add to that this morning’s report from The Politico regarding how Obama donors, depending on how much they give, get “access to top advisers” in the Obama campaign. Nothing illegal about it, of course, but that’s not the point, anyway. The more you give, the more higher up you’ll get in the campaign terms of access, which begs the question: What are the advisers saying/promising in return?

Let’s not forget, how they’re making the media pay for exclusive access on election night. Those who can’t pay much – or refuse to – will get a “general access” to Obama advisers in Chi-town on November 4th. Sort of like sitting up in the nosebleeds.

Hmmm. This makes me wonder: Just who did “Doodad Pro” get access to for the money “he” contributed? :-?

HuffPo’s attempts at moral relativism fall flat

Yesterday, the HuffPo attempted to link McCain to former PLO operative and longtime associate of Barack Obama Rashid Khalidi:

In regards to Khalidi, however, the guilt-by-association game burns John McCain as well.

During the 1990s, while he served as chairman of the International Republican Institute (IRI), McCain distributed several grants to the Palestinian research center co-founded by Khalidi, including one worth half a million dollars.

A 1998 tax filing for the McCain-led group shows a $448,873 grant to Khalidi’s Center for Palestine Research and Studies for work in the West Bank. (See grant number 5180, “West Bank: CPRS” on page 14 of this PDF.)

The relationship extends back as far as 1993, when John McCain joined IRI as chairman in January. Foreign Affairs noted in September of that year that IRI had helped fund several extensive studies in Palestine run by Khalidi’s group, including over 30 public opinion polls and a study of “sociopolitical attitudes.”

Of course, there’s seemingly nothing objectionable with McCain’s organization helping a Palestinian group conduct research in the West Bank or Gaza. But it does suggest that McCain could have some of his own explaining to do as he tries to make hay out of Khalidi’s ties to Obama.

I’m going to check the HuffPo sourcing later, but assuming all the i’s are dotted and t’s are crossed with it, do they not honestly not see the difference in Obama’s close relationship to Khalidi – even knowing the kind of person Khalidi was – to a group McCain chaired 10 years ago giving grant money to a group Khalidi was co-chair of?  Do they honestly not see that it’s not just Obama’s association with Khalidi that is troublesome, but alongside it the ties to Bill Ayers and other radical leftists who share similar views about America?

It’s very convenient of the HuffPo to cherrypick this to make it look like McCain is no better than Obama on the issue, but once again this is a pattern with Obama: He has reportedly toasted Khalidi (did McCain even know Khalidi was co-chair of the group, and if so did he know about Khalidi’s PLO ties?), and reportedly Obama’s children were even babysat by the Khalidis, and Obama has indicated that he  knows that Khalidi has controversial views on the issue of Israel – yet he still saw (sees?) fit to associate with an outrageous figure who has condoned the use of violence against Jews?  Not only that, but again, you’ve got the black liberation theologist and purveyer of “social justice” Rev. Wright – a man who believes we deserved 9-11 and who has praised the Jew-hating Louis F., you’ve got unrepentant domestic terrorist Bill Ayers who believes we deserved 9-11, white guilt sufferer Father Phleger (sp?) and other radical left ties.  If McCain had this many associations with rad righties he’d have been laughed out of the primaries early on.  The media would have jumped his behind over them (and rightly so).   Yet, because it’s Obama, most in the mainstream media have given these connections little to no attention – with the exception of the Rev. Wright issue, and that was only after “Faux News” and ABC ran the tapes of Wright bashing America relentlessly to the point the rest of the media had no choice but to weigh in.

A perfect example of the media’s blatant willingness to cover for Obama is the fact that the LAT still refuses to release a tape of Barack Obama praising Khalidi in 2003 at a banquet in Khalidi’s honor.  Show of hands how many of you believe that the LAT would have taken the same approach had this been McCain toasting a radical right figure sympathetic to violence against another group of people?

I didn’t think so.

What the hell is wrong with people?

Michelle Malkin details some recent stories about how Obama supporters in certain states are pushing disabled and mentally handicapped citizens into voting for The One.

There are just certain lines you do not cross. Why could anyone think it’s ok to do this??

In semi-related news, the Washington Post has an article that should get more attention that it will. The headline? “Obama Accepting Untraceable Donations.” Beldar takes a close look at the story and makes it clear that Obama has a lot to answer for on the issue of transparency (which other bloggers, like Ed Morrissey, have noted in the past as well). As Tim Graham at Newsbusters notes, they published it on page two, but hey, in a year where the media has shown an overwhelming bias towards Barry Oh!, I’ll take whatever I can get.

Campbell Brown: Obama’s gotten here, in part, based on a broken promise

Hmm. I wonder how much hate email Brown has received tonight over this one?

Without question, Obama has set the bar at new height with a truly staggering sum of cash. And that is why as we approach this November, it is worth reminding ourselves what Barack Obama said last November.

One year ago, he made a promise. He pledged to accept public financing and to work with the Republican nominee to ensure that they both operated within those limits.

Then it became clear to Sen. Obama and his campaign that he was going to be able to raise on his own far more cash than he would get with public financing. So Obama went back on his word.

He broke his promise and he explained it by arguing that the system is broken and that Republicans know how to work the system to their advantage. He argued he would need all that cash to fight the ruthless attacks of 527s, those independent groups like the Swift Boat Veterans. It’s funny though, those attacks never really materialized.

The Washington Post pointed out recently that the bad economy has meant a cash shortage among the 527s and that this election year they have been far less influential.

The courageous among Obama’s own supporters concede this decision was really made for one reason, simply because it was to Obama’s financial advantage.

On this issue today, former Sen. Bob Kerrey of Nebraska, an Obama supporter, writes in The New York Post, “a hypocrite is a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue — who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. And that, it seems to me, is what we are doing now.”

Here’s Kerrey’s op/ed in full.

Some liberals who read this may think I’m bringing it up simply because they believe I’m “jealous” of how much money Obama has raised. But it’s really not an issue of jealousy (and we’ll just ignore for the moment some of the questionable ways he’s raising that money). It’s more about being consistent with your word – and as we’ve seen time and time again throughout this campaign, Barack Obama, the candidate who has claimed to be a “different” kind of candidate, has essentially run one of the most dishonest campaigns in modern history, and the issue of public funding for campaigns is just one example of many. While it’s true that every politico has been dishonest more than once, Obama has taken it to absurd heights.

Probably the two most glaring examples of Obama’s dishonesty are how not only he has portrayed himself as someone he’s not (for example: He’s not beholden to lobbyists and special interests? Ha!) but he’s portrayed McCain as another Bush, and any conservative who has had to grit their teeth over McCain’s “maverick moves” over the years knows he’s hardly a Bush stooge.

And the repeated use of the race card from both him, his campaign, and his campaign’s surrogates … well, that’s the far cry from the “racial healer” Obama has implied he will be. Can’t bridge those racial divides if you’re too busy widening them.

I don’t know. It’s late, I’m tired and I’m rambling. I just can’t believe we’re one week away from the election. Will McCain’s divided government argument win? Or will Obama and his party essentially be rewarded with 4 years of total domination in DC? Will common sense prevail? Or will Obama’s celebrity status rule the day?