Straight Talk Express No More
A strange and sad thing is happening in America.
The more half-truths, untruths, fabrications, and misrepresentations—whatever you may want to call them—the McCain-Palin team tells, the more the Republican base is energized. In addition, the more the same old lies are repeated, verbatim, the wilder and louder the crowds cheer.
For example, as of yesterday, Sarah Palin had repeated with relish the same widely discredited half-truth about the “Bridge to Nowhere” seven or eight times: “I told Congress: ‘Thanks but no thanks for that Bridge to Nowhere up in Alaska. If we wanted a bridge, we’ll build it ourselves.” And the crowds cheer and whoop every time!
The same is the case with Palin’s disingenuous claim that she auctioned Alaska’s plane on e-Bay. Leave it to John McCain to take this half-truth and turn it into a full-blown lie by gleefully claiming, “You know what I enjoyed the most? She took the luxury jet that was acquired by her predecessor and sold it on eBay — and made a profit!” And the crowds cried and whooped it up.
And the beat, and the list, goes on. And the crowds lap it up and clap even more.
And the more frequently and jubilantly these untruths are repeated, the more jubilantly the crowds react to them, and believe them to be facts.
That is what the title of a story in this morning’s Washington Post alludes to: “As Campaign Heats Up, Untruths Can Become Facts Before They’re Undone,” and provides more examples of such untruths and of how they may be beginning to “stick” because they are repeated so often—with impunity and without shame.
The Post says, “Nevertheless, with McCain’s standing in the polls surging, aides say he is not about to back down from statements he believes are fundamentally true, such as the anecdote about the bridge.”
And that is what is so sad, as long as the crowds keep cheering and the polls keep surging, why would the McCain-Palin team want to get back on board the “Straight Talk Express.” They might as well keep sprinting and telling half-truths all the way to the White House, always surrounded by those adoring, wildly cheering crowds.
193 Responses to “Straight Talk Express No More”
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
CO- I have only criticized Palin for what she has actually done, and posted a list of rumors about her that were debunked by Newsweek. But if she supported the Bridge to Nowhere before the scandal hit and then spun around to change her position afterwards (while keeping the money) I can't condone her “thanks but no thanks” lies now.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Don Quijote~
When Obama talks about his background, he needs to know what he is talking about, rather than saying something off the wall like Kennedy was “responsible for his very existence”. He did say this in a speech to a civil activist group probably because of the selective crowd present:
“In a speech to a Selma, Alabama crowd meant to pump up his civil-rights movement authenticity and his Kennedy Camelot image, Barack Obama claimed that the Kennedy administration paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and therefore was responsible for his “very existence”. However, the first march on Selma took place on March 7, 1965. Obama would have been about three and half years old at that time. For some reason the media never did the math on this.”
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/john-stephenson/20…
Whether the speech writer planned it this way is irrelevant. Accuracy is a key when you talk about where you came from.
Here is a list of inconsistencies on what Obama is on record as saying that pertain to his ability to remain focused and decisive in an executive position:
http://www.audacityofhypocrisy.com/fashion-shows/
If you want to discuss this further, I am open to that. Both campaigns do appear to be about smearing lately, so I am not letting anyone off the hook here. I have observed Obama in interviews and before the public, and I have not seen a secure presentation of his ability to lead. When the debates begin, we will see who comes out more sure of themselves. It's one thing to have good intentions, it's a whole other ballgame to be able to follow through with a solid stance.
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U
Also, DQ, here is the 2004 link where Obama has just been elected to the senate, and his reasons for not running for President. His demeanor has not changed one iota since that day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nj6syUD1I4U