In a move sure to ease the minds of Americans who are concerned that Barack Obama lacks experience when it comes to things like foreign policy, The One has added an impressive leader to his list of advisors.

George Clooney once famously declared he could never run for public office because he’d ‘slept with too many women, done too many drugs and been to too many parties’.
…
But now the Hollywood heart-throb has entered the political arena at
the highest level – by becoming an unofficial adviser to US Presidential front-runner Barack Obama.

Oscar-winner Clooney, 47, is said to be helping the Democratic candidate to polish his image at home and abroad.

But he is also sharing with Obama his strong opinions on Iraq and the Middle East.
…
But Democratic Party insiders have revealed that Clooney and Obama regularly send texts and emails to each other and speak by phone at least twice a week.

And why not? Afterall, this tough new advisor has “experience” dealing with such important topics like the Middle East, Healthcare, the Environment, and Crime.

The star has never tried to hide his liberal views and last week announced he is making a £15million film about the lawyer who defended Osama Bin Laden’s former driver, Salim Hamdan, on terror charges.

Lights… Camera… Death to America!

That ought to be the DNC’s new slogan. It seems to apply to pretty much every candidate they ever put forward. This time, however, it’s the “son of a mill worker” and Obama’s potential Attorney General pick who cheated on his wife while she battled cancer. Nice touch, Silky. (See Update 2, apparently John was counting the days until the her cancer made him an eligible bachelor again)

John Edwards repeatedly lied during his Presidential campaign about an extramarital affair with a novice filmmaker, the former Senator admitted to ABC News today.

In an interview for broadcast tonight on Nightline, Edwards told ABC News correspondent Bob Woodruff he did have an affair with 44-year old Rielle Hunter…

Not only is this an indictment on the moral character of the Democrats’ choice for VP in 2004, but it’s yet another indictment on the MSM, who refused to touch this story for almost a year. It says a lot when the National Enquirer has more credibility than traditional media. Was it just biased journalism or was there a coverup extending into the MSM?

Sure, Democrats will spin this as nothing more than sex between consenting adults. They don’t have the capacity to understand moral character, so it will be fairly easy to dismiss this as a non-event as they’ve done in the past.

But the questions are mounting. If he lied repeatedly on the campaign trail about this, what else did he do to cover it up? Was Hunter paid to deny the allegations? Did he know about payments made to Hunter? Were campaign funds used? (See Update 3 for more on this question) Is Andrew Young part of a coverup claiming to be the father of the child? If the affair ended as long ago as Edwards claims it did, and he’s not the child’s father… what was he doing secretly meeting with Hunter in a Hollywood hotel until the early morning hours last week?

Finally, I think John Edwards, the 2004 Democrat VP nominee and 2008 Democrat Presidential Candidate sums up why this story is worthy of publicity…

I think every single candidate for president, Republican and Democratic have lives, personal lives, that indicate something about what kind of human being they are. And I think it is a fair evaluation for America to engage in to look at what kind of human beings each of us are, and what kind of president we’d make

Consider the evaluation complete, Silky.

Maybe this is what he meant by “Two Americas“… one for each of his families.

UPDATE: HotAir has a good roundup, including the press as “victims”, fellow Democrats as “victims”… it’s always about the victim mentality for Democrats.

UPDATE 2: Well, isn’t that sweet? In March, 2007, the Edwards campaign announced that Elizabeth Edwards’ cancer had returned and was incurable. A few months later, the New York Post published this interesting question:

WHICH political candidate enjoys visiting New York because he has a girlfriend who lives downtown? The pol tells her he’ll marry her when his current wife is out of the picture.

I guess we now know the answer to “which political candidate”. I’ll let you figure out what he meant by “out of the picture”…

UPDATE 3: About that hush money. Fred Baron, a renowned Texas trial lawyer who evolved into one of the Democratic Party’s key fund-raisers and chairman of Edwards’ 2004 and 2008 finance committee, admitted making payments to Hunter. He claims Edwards didn’t know about the payment. Is he that big of an idiot, or does he think we are?

But the payments raise questions about money paid to Hunter through Edwards’ political action committee.

Edwards and Hunter first met during the winter of 2006 in a New York bar, according to published reports.

Hunter’s film company, Midline Groove Productions, was incorporated in Delaware on June 30, 2006, according to business records.

In a four-month span, Edwards’ political action committee paid $100,000 to Hunter’s newly formed video production company for four Web videos. That was followed by two smaller payments totaling $14,461 from Edwards’ PAC, the last one coming on April 1, 2007.

It was unclear why the campaign stopped contributing to Midline.

And about Andrew Young, the campaign aide who claims to be the father of Edwards’ mistress’s child:

[Hunter] and Andrew Young, who claims to be the father of her baby, worked under Baron during Edwards’ campaign.

Young was described by acquaintances as an unassuming family man from North Carolina who developed a loyalty to Edwards over the years.

Late last year, amid tabloid reports that Edwards had fathered Hunter’s child, Young, 42, suddenly surfaced to issue the statement that the baby was his. He abruptly quit his position with Edwards and, with financial help from Baron, packed up his family and went into hiding.

I don’t think Hollywood could get away with a script this obvious.

This is why most Democrats oppose debates and unscripted interviews.

They end up looking like babbling jackasses when confronted with questions about their ridiculous, indefensible policies…

See if you can count how many different reasons Pelosi cites for not bringing the measure to an up or down vote. Yet, despite the numerous evasive answers, dodges and attempts to spin, she never provides the one truthful answer… that her stupid position wouldn’t survive a vote.

UPDATE: One commenter at HotAir says Pelosi’s performance here is reminscent of another mindblowingly idiotic Q&A. Hard to tell the two apart… except that Miss South Carolina actually blinked once or twice.

Here’s another example of why Democrats can’t be trusted on… well, anything.

John Kerry is on the campaign trail trying to sell the benefits of candidate Barack Obama by attacking Obama’s opponent as “dangerous“…

For his part, Kerry was deeply critical of presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. “He doesn’t get it,” Kerry said. “He’s even dangerous, I think, for the direction of this country.”

What makes this statement so ridiculous is the fact that this “dangerous” guy was courted by John Kerry himself as a running mate just 4 years ago.

John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, has repeatedly and personally asked Senator John McCain, the independent-minded Arizona Republican, to consider being his running mate, but Mr. McCain has refused, people who have spoken to both men said Friday.

Mr. Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, made his first direct overtures to Mr. McCain about three weeks after locking up the Democratic nomination in March and approached him again, in person or by telephone, as many as seven times, as recently as last week, according to one person who has discussed the issue with both.

So if we’re to believe John Kerry, he’s either slandering a man he thought was qualified to lead this country not so long ago to score political points for his party in the current campaign…

…or he’s admitting that he wanted a running mate who was “dangerous” for the direction of this country.

Either way, his word appears to be about as good as a Clinton wedding vow.

(ht: jwf)

Last week, the Obama campaign feigned outrage over a McCain ad which compared Obama’s celebrity status to that of Paris Hilton and Britney Spears. Obama had grown impatient of waiting for his opponent to launch racist attacks, so he breathlessly used this moment to insinuate such attacks had taken place… thereby being the first to truly inject race into the campaign.

Of course, Obama denied his comments about his race were comments about his race:

“I was in Union, Mo., which is 98 percent white — a rural, conservative [town]. and what I said was what I think everybody knows, which is that I don’t look like I came out of central casting when it comes to presidential candidates… There was nobody there who thought at all that I was trying to inject race in this.”

Nobody, perhaps, except Obama’s chief campaign strategist…

Sen. Barack Obama’s chief strategist conceded that the Democratic presidential candidate was referring to his race when he said Republicans were trying to scare voters by suggesting Obama “doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”
…
When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told “GMA” it meant, “He’s not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He’s new to Washington. Yes, he’s African-American.”

By the way, all this outrage manufactured by the Obama camp in response to being compared to Paris Hilton is just as lame as the candidate himself… considering the first comparison of Barack Obama to Paris Hilton came from none other than…

Barack Obama.

“Andy Warhol said we all get our 15 minutes of fame,” says Barack Obama. “I’ve already had an hour and a half. I mean, I’m so overexposed, I’m making Paris Hilton look like a recluse.”

(HT: Seton)

I guess he was just trying to scare voters. What a racist.

I hear Barack Obama is celebrating a birthday today.

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama will celebrate … in Boston with a giant fundraising event at the State Room on Aug. 4.
…
The first-term senator from Illinois, a graduate of Harvard Law School, will mark [the] birthday in a room with one of the great panoramic views of Boston Harbor. The State Room, on the 33rd floor of 60 State Street, features a glass wall, 30 feet by 120 feet and the facility seats up to 800.

Wow, what a fancy party. I didn’t even realize he knew when my birthday was. Regardless, I’d like to thank the Obama campaign for holding such a big celebration on my birthday. (Yeah, I used to think I had a cool birthday, sharing with the likes of Roger Clemens and John Riggins… and recently I realized that fate had another name to add to the list: Barack Hussein Obama. Joy)

But I guess if he doesn’t even give birthday presents to his daughters, I probably shouldn’t be expecting a new bike or anything.

The Obama campaign is asking for donations in honor of today’s birthday, but they’ve inadvertently linked to their own campaign contribution website instead of my donation page. I’m sure this is a simple oversight, what with having to campaign in 57 states and all, but to be sure, you can click the “Make a Donation” link on the right and make an Obama Offset Contribution to show that you are environmentally conscious… Every donation will be used to offset the damage caused by liberalism in my environment.

RFK, Jr. and some other dimwitted liberal published a post on Huffington Post a few days ago entitled, “Unearthed: News of the Week the Mainstream Media Forgot to Report“. And they provide a host of links to the stories that the MSM is apparently trying to hide from the public. So from where did these journalistic detectives “unearth” the stories?

CNN, Washintgon Post, and the New York Times, of course.

Caution: Liberal genius at work.

Face it, there’s a liberal bias in mainstream media. The actions of the New York Times this week in publishing an editorial for their darling, Barack Obama, while initially refusing to do so for John McCain is just the latest evidence. In addition, McCain is getting the standard election-cycle treatment by the media, enjoying 1 minute of coverage for every 3 minutes for Obama… to say nothing of the fact that much of that single minute is negative coverage to boot.

Of course, the liberal media defends itself with claims that the “liberal” charge is merely an unsubstantiated rightwing talking point. They also casually dismiss the charges by claiming Obama is simply “more newsworthy“. They want us to think that Obama’s “historic” campaign is the bias-neutral reason for the slanted coverage, yet the coverage has been slanted for many campaign cycles, so there’s got to be another reason. Unfortunately for them, it’s the reason that undermines the credibility of their profession. Bias, plain and simple.

- The amount of money “journalists” contributed so far this election cycle favors Democrats by a 15:1 ratio over Republicans, with $225,563 going to Democrats, only $16,298 to Republicans.

- 235 journalists donated to Democrats, just 20 gave to Republicans — a margin greater than 10-to-1. An even greater disparity, 20-to-1, exists between the number of journalists who donated to Barack Obama and John McCain.

- Other newsroom categories (reporters, correspondents, news editors, anchors, newspaper editors and publishers) produces 311 donors to Democrats to 30 donors to Republicans, a ratio of just over 10-to-1. In terms of money, $279,266 went to Dems, $20,709 to Republicans, a 14-to-1 ratio.

- Discounting contributions to Paul and Giuliani, who was a favorite son for many folks in the media, the totals look like this: $315,533 to Democrats, $3,150 to Republicans (four individuals who donated to McCain) - a ratio of 100-to-1.

And it’s not even like the Democrat candidates need these overwhelmingly lopsided campaign contributions, because the very people making such donations are responsible for providing hours and hours of free, positive campaign coverage for the candidates anyway.

It’s not bias… it’s, it’s… deliverance!

It will probably come as no surprise that Barack Obama is more interested in bar-hopping in Berlin than meeting with brave American war heroes.

Sen. Barack Obama scrapped plans to visit wounded members of the armed forces in Germany as part of his overseas trip, a decision his spokesman said was made because the Democratic presidential candidate thought it would be inappropriate on a campaign-funded journey.

So he blames it on being a campaign trip… But in order to have it both ways, he makes it clear in his speech that he’s not there as a candidate…

“Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen – a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world,”

You could almost set your watch by this guy’s inconsistencies…

And what’s he going to do, now that he’s cleared his schedule of the annoying visit with wounded soldiers? A night on the town, of course.

Obama noted that in a break from his whirlwind schedule, “we’ve got some down time tonight. What are you guys gonna do in Berlin? Huh? Huh? You guys got any big. plans? …I’ve never been to Berlin, so…I would love to tour around a little bit.”

Ah, the priorities of a Democrat.

The Obama campaign is trying to have it both ways with respect to his foreign campaign tour through the Middle East and Europe. On one hand, they’re making it a big campaign event and on the other hand they’re trying to portray it as some sort of official Congressional tour (the fact it’s coinciding with his Presidential campaign is just pure coincidence, of course).

Yet, a campaign aide at the briefing said the Berlin speech “is not for campaign purposes.”

“I don’t think the fact that large numbers of people gather to hear a speech makes it a campaign speech,” the aide said. “The substance of what he addresses is what’s important. And what he is addressing has nothing to do with campaigns. It has to do with his view of where we are today in the world.”

Aides suggested the speech would not target Republican John McCain, but might draw contrasts with President Bush’s policies.

When pressed by reporters, aides could not rule out that the campaign might use a film crew to shoot footage for an ad.

It seems to me that the Obama campaign is trying to portray this political campaign tour as an official Congressional trip so taxpayers will foot the bill and he doesn’t have to dip into his campaign donations to fund it…

It would be interesting to know who he’s charging for this political campaign trip.

And some in his campaign don’t realize that Obama isn’t actually the President:

“It is not going to be a political speech,” said a senior foreign policy adviser, who spoke to reporters on background. “When the president of the United States goes and gives a speech, it is not a political speech or a political rally.

“But he is not president of the United States,” a reporter reminded the adviser.

Hell, he’s not even officially the Democrat nominee. But the arrogance of his campaign bubbles over yet again.