Posted on 02/17/2008 4:47:34 PM PST by guinnessman
By now it's a familiar tale: On July 27, 2004, Barack Obama strode to the podium at the Democratic National Convention and captivated the nation with a soaring and memorable keynote address entitled "The Audacity of Hope." The speech marked America's first encounter with a rising political star. By the time Obama took the stage in Boston, he was already a shoo-in to become the next United States Senator from Illinois; he enjoyed a massive lead in the polls back home, where the state Republican Party was in total disarray and his carpet-bagging opponent seemed to specialize in alienating voters. Since that summer night more than three years ago, Obama has rocketed into the political stratosphere and now faces the possibility—if not the probability—of becoming his party's standard-bearer in the 2008 election.
Several questions still linger. How did Barack Obama rise from relative obscurity to his current level of prominence? How many Americans have heard of Alice Palmer, Blair Hull, or Jack Ryan? These names may hold no significance to the legions who now chant "yes we can," but they are names that Barack Obama should remember well...
What, nothing about being a coke addict or his homosexual acts? What kind of history is this?
Needless to say, the author of that piece was Guy Benson, not me.
Sorry about the screw up.
“A Brief History of Barak Obama”
Redundant.
I am not one of those shouting "Yes we can" but I don't know who they are either. Who are they?
I think his speaking shows the opacity of dope. Most of what he says is meaningless if melodious.
As all IL residents know.. Obama was only elected because his main rivals had ethical issues and sealed divorced records and because SafeRoads Ryan decimated the Republican Party in IL with his corruption. The guy was a lightweight even back them... Mike Ditka was thinking of running against Obama after Jack Ryan was forced to drop out of the race and Da Coach was only behind Obama by six/ seven points.
Brief is all there is.
This skinny halfbreed even has the clintons intimidated. That's no mean feat.
LOL!
Somehow his admissions of cocaine addiction didn’t receive the same scrutiny as the speculation back in 2000 of George Bush’s alleged drug use.
what’s the point of “sealing” records is the right combination of money and broken fingers will get them unsealed?
“is” ~~ “if.”
And the driving force behind unsealing those records was the Chicago Tribune, maintaining that “the public has a right to know”, at least about Republican candidates.
the omnipotent media. Thank God it’s not eternal.
All of them were much more qualified political opponents who stepped aside for Obama.
Both Blair Hull and Jack Ryan’s divorce records were “unsealed.” It turns out that Blair Hull’s ex-wife had a restraining order against him and that Jack Ryan’s ex-wife alleged that he liked kinky sex clubs. Blair Hull was a friend of the Daleys (who basically control Chicago politics... all Dems except Mayor Daley are lightweights because he likes to be the only person of substance around) and was leading the field for the Dem. nomination until about a week before the election when this claim was dropped by the Tribune. Jack Ryan ended up having to drop out because kinky sex clubs (even those that cater to married couples) didn’t go over very well with the conservative downstate Republican electorate.
The Chicago Tribune always confuses me... They always support the Republican candidate for President wholeheartedly. (Compare their McCain endorsement to their Obama endorsement). But then they pull these lefty tricks out of their sleeves.
gee, how backward is Chicago? When Barney Frank was paying his male pages for favors (in the ‘80’s it was revealed), it played like political genius. /sarc
They must be very conflicted about it. Their editorial staff is generally pretty liberal, yet the paper was founded by Joseph Medill who was an abolitionist, a Republican, and an early supporter of Abraham Lincoln.
So they have these liberal editorial positions, but when election time comes, they feel they have to support the Republican (as long as he’s not too conservative).
Yes... but their editorials are quite praiseworthy and don’t come off as “obligations.” Which is odd because both Clarence Page and James Warren are major lefties. And it isn’t just McCain... I remember them having highly praiseworthy editorials for Dubya, Dole, and Bush 41.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.