So it would appear.

this is a PDF put together by Democrats supporting Hillary....It's very well documented with links out the waazoo.....

I would read it and keep in mind it's not partisan........

http://www.realdemocratsusa.org/research/obamaoding.pdf

Did you read it?  The first link states:

What we can confirm is that Obama has remained neutral in Kenyan politics, and did not support Odinga during his trip. Odinga attended some of Obama's events while Obama was in Kenya, and clearly wanted to associate himself with Obama, but there is no evidence to indicate that Obama "openly supported" Odinga.

and

Corsi states that Obama "openly supported" Raila Odinga. We found public statements from Obama during the trip saying the exact opposite. We found no other evidence to support Corsi's statement, so we rate his statement False.

Just because the same party made the document doesn't make it objective.  They were still competing with each other.  I consider this document biased and refuse to read it

Good work TheMasterBaron.  Island D said it couldn't be refuted and you did it.

On another note there is a right wing pac that's been advertising against democrats here in my home state that has produced ads that are so blatantly false and misleading a judge issued an injunction against one of their ads that was separately upheld(the injunction).  Talk about baring no responsiblity for the information one communicates.  I guess they found out there really is a limit to how many lies you can put into a political advertisement.

We covered this with facts in previous links.  Just because our military isn't reporting civilian deaths, and blocking access to our journalists to report them, doesn't mean we're not the biggest mass murderers in the region these days.  The facts and links are earlier in this thread.

EVERY politician in Chicago, Republican AND Democrat has worked with Ayers!   That's why NONE of them are saying a word about this.  Even the local REPUBLICANS think this is a non-issue and have stated so all over the place. It's like saying you are pro-gun just because you worked with Charleton Heston on a charity fundraiser once, hahahahaha.

George Bush is the ranking War Criminal these days in the free world.  Lots of people associating with him...  McCain was not only associating the the Keating 5 Savings and Loan crooks, HE WAS ONE OF THE KEATING 5.  Yet, with the economy collapsing in the same damn way as he and his people caused, you aren't on his case at all.  I'm not on his case because he was cleared of wrongdoing and I don't hold a man accountable for the actions of the people he's met in his long life.  Especially politicians who have to meet and great EVERYBODY and have to, as part of their job, often negotiate and compromise with real scum bags.

Really?!  He's got really good PR. 

Cause the way I see it, he's the President who got caught with his PANTS DOWN on 9-11.  In every other country, they kick the bum out of office who is found to be THAT incompetent and asleep at the wheel when disaster strikes.  But what do we do?!  We rally around the moron in chief who had advanced warning of this and was too busy taking naps and vacations while working bankers hours in the White House to prioritize OUR safety over his comfort and agenda.

So, are you going to give credit to Clinton and all the other Presidents who WEREN'T attacked on our HOME SOIL because we weren't enforcing visa and passport restrictions like Bushie boy?  Meanwhile, while Bush was STILL in office, London and Madrid were bombed by Al Quaeda and Osama bin Laden is STILL FUCKING FREE AS A BIRD.  Why don't you hold him responsible for THAT?  I do.

You can pretend George Bush has "kept us safe".  How convenient for him that we only get attacked on our home soil once every 50 years or so.  He doesn't take blame for being caught with his pants down, AND gets credit for nothing happening in between.  Lucky George.

I think, however, I'm a little more worried about the 10,000 NEW terrorists that our bombing of civilians in Iraq has created.  Because, we're all going to be paying the price for them for DECADES, just like we paid the price for US funding and CIA training Osama bin Laden twenty years ago.  Imagine what 10,000 bin Ladens are going to be like.  And you can't blame that on Clinton.  Those new terrorists are all Bush's legacy.

Oh, so now you are saying they attacked us on 9-11 because they perceived Bush's leadership as weak?  I'm confused.  How can you have it both ways?  Either Bush is strong on defense and that scares terrorists (rofl) or Bush is so weak he encourages them to attack us brazenly.  You contradict YOURSELF in the self-same post, amigo.

And for the record, Osama attacked us because of Bush family meddling in the Middle East since the 1950's.  From the Shah of Iran, to the creation of Saddam, to Bush's palling around with the Saudi Royal Family - which has put US bases right in the middle of their holy land.   Now, Osama's a nutter, plain and simple, but to ignore the fact that WE are responsible for them hating us because of REPUBLICAN meddling (all tied to the Bush family for over 50 years) is just plain ignorant of US and world history in a very extreme way.

PS  Osama used the techniques WE (as in the CIA under Bush Sr. btw) taught him to attack us on 9-11 and hide from us in Pakistan/Afghanistan.  Bush Sr., Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld were there for ALL of this.  Just read their bios and weep.

I look forward to that.  Although, something tells me if you can't accept the evidence that Bush is the worst president in the history of this nation, you're never going to be able to see enough proof that ANYONE (Obama, whoever) has done a good job as President. 

Tell that to the people in Florida - like my parents, haha.  When the final votes were tallied, after the Supreme Court intervened when it should not have, Gore WON that state's popular vote.  If the Supreme Court had just let the count continue, Bush would not have become President.

[quote]Um....the problem is they had more than "minor" contact. Ayers and Obama relationship goes much deeper and 0bama lied about it, that is another fact.[quote]

I've already addressed this in previous posts...ad nauseum.  Even the REPUBLICANS in Chicago say this is a waste of breath.  They've all worked CLOSELY with Ayers for decades.

And Bush's daddy got him the governorship of Texas.  So friggin what?!  You can't have voted for Bush, who hasn't earned a damn thing in his entire life, and then pretend Obama's rise to power is somehow "suspicious". 

Obama's charismatic, intelligent, and hard-working.  The right man at the right time.  You know, like Clinton, Kennedy, Reagan, and many other men who've come out of nowhere to become President - and like Lincoln, for another fine example.

If he was Joe Biden and had been in politics for decades, then you'd all be ranting that "he's a Washington insider, a career politician" blah blah blah.

You're obviously just cherry picking "points of difference" with no cognizance of how it relates to previous candidates in order to serve a narrow ideologically driven viewpoint.   And as soon I take any of the "excuses" and apply it to all of the other candidates the "conservatives" have supported, it's just so blatantly hypocritical.

Nice try.

If we applied the same criteria of naive ignorance, closet bigotry, and agendas build upon fear and hate that we've seen in right wing blogs all over the Internet, we'd have...

Bush/Cheney  

Good, right or left wing 527 lie/smear tactics are just despicable (like that ridiculous pdf above).  I don't care which side they come from. 

People are human, they make mistakes.  It is INSANE that Obama has had to life such a nearly perfect life just to ONLY be getting this level of smear tactics thrown at him.  The same goes for McCain.  There are so many things Obama's people could have tagged him with, some actually relevant to current events, but they took the high road as long and as much as possible and have brought up any of the really big ones.

there is eveidence that Obama trashed his opponent however, while acting buddy-buddy with Odinga..........did you watch any of the videos?...............but I suppose they were doctored too.......amazing.........

Well the conservatives are PMing you cause they are trying to be conservative.

Seriously though, the internet is what it is. You can't really call it "liberal internet" That's a really blanket statement and unfair to all the people and sites that aren't. What you've seen may be mostly liberal. So that's your view of it. But, let's not judge the whole internet based on the sites you visit.

The internet is the best and worst of every aspect of the world and societies...if you can't find something to prove/backup/justify your personal viewpoint whatever it may be...you aren't looking hard enough. And in the end...it won't matter anyway...those who truly rule this chunk of rock we call earth will do what they want...your just along for the ride...so strap in and hold on tight because you ain't seen nothin yet! 

nicely said WG