It looks like Al Franken is in more trouble…

…and Barack Obama has been saying his uncle “was part of the first American troops to go into Auschwitz and liberate the concentration camps.” He’s been telling that story for years, even though it can’t possibly be true since Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz.

Liz Mair, RNC spokeswoman, says Barack has some explain’ to do.

Barack Obama owes the American public an explanation in light of his statement yesterday regarding his uncle and the liberation of Auschwitz. It is a well-known fact that Soviet troops liberated Auschwitz. Unless Obama’s uncle served in the Red Army, his statement looks nothing short of fatuous—and Americans expect something better than exaggerations and outright distortions from a candidate who hopes to become our next Commander in Chief.

Oh wait, there’s more.

Barack Obama’s campaign scrambled Tuesday to set the record straight after the Democratic presidential candidate said on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

There were two obvious problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama’s American mother was an only child.

Caught in the lie, Obama’s campaign “corrected” the story, saying it was his great-uncle, not uncle, and that it was the Ohrdruf camp at Buchenwald, not Auschwitz.

Is Obama that desperate to improve his image with Jewish voters that he has to exaggerate about his own family history? This is just as pathetic as Hillary’s sniper fire story.

Have at it.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: And a little humor from Stuff White People Like:

It is a fact that white people will never turn down an opportunity to enlighten other people on the correct way to think. While this is very easy to do through email or face to face conversation, it is exceptionally difficult to do while driving a car. Fortunately for white people there is a solution that is both popular and ineffective: bumper stickers.

Before talking about the types of bumper stickers that white people like, it’s very important to get an understanding about layout and placement. When a white person drives an older car (6+ years old) that has a resale value under $2000, they will coat the entire backside of the car in bumper stickers. Because of the abundance of space they are free to include stickers from all areas of white support: music, politics, the environment, insults to right wing politicians, and various movements that tell people to keep a city “weird.”

But when white people have a nice new car such as a Prius or an Audi station wagon, the fear of losing resale value prevents them from applying more than one sticker. Therefore that one sticker must properly capture the essence of the car and the political views of the driver.

The safest and most accepted choice for a sticker is always one that supports a Democratic Presidential candidate (Ralph Nader is an acceptable substitute). As of February 2008, white law requires an Obama 08 bumper sticker to be placed on the back of every Prius…

Love that site – sheer genuis.

Hillary scores big victory Kentucky while Obama has won a majority of pledged delegates.

Clinton won Kentucky by more than 30 points, but Obama’s share of the state’s 51 delegates was enough put him over the threshold, according to CNN estimates.

Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod, said this was an “important milestone,” but not the end of the trail.

A candidate needs 2,026 delegates to win the Democratic nomination. Obama has 1,932 total delegates, while Clinton has 1,753.

After Kentucky’s results came in, Clinton thanked her supporters for handing her a victory “even in the face of some pretty tough odds.”

“Tonight we have achieved an important victory,” Clinton said in Louisville.

“It’s not just Kentucky bluegrass that’s music to my ears. It’s the sound of your overwhelming vote of confidence even in the face of some pretty tough odds.”

Clinton beat Obama across all age groups, income groups and education levels in Kentucky.

Eighty-nine percent of Tuesday’s voters in Kentucky were white, according to the exit polls. Among them, Clinton won 72-22 percent. Nine percent of the voters were African-American and they overwhelmingly broke for Obama, 87-7 percent.

While Camp Obama may be patting themselves on the back for hitting their milestone, there’s some bleak news that may or may not influence superdelegates:

The exit polls from Kentucky also suggest a deep division among Democrats. Video Watch how Clinton’s win could affect the race »

Two-thirds of Clinton’s supporters there said they would vote Republican or not vote at all rather than for Obama, according to the polls.

Forty-one percent of Clinton supporters said they’d cast their vote for John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, and 23 percent said they would not vote at all.

I’m looking forward to November.

We’re now learning that Ted Kennedy’s seizures from the other day were caused by a malignant brain tumor, and the outlook for the senior senator from Massachusetts isn’t very good.

Despite Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s well known rampant corruption, he was easily reelected back in 2006. But it looks like Illinois voters are finally realizing that it’s time to stop letting party loyalty make them turn a blind eye. A new poll shows that nearly 2/3 of Illinois registered voters want the Democrat governor to be impeached.

A new statewide poll has found that 59 percent of Illinois registered voters want the Illinois Legislature to begin impeachment hearings against Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The survey of 600 registered voters was conducted May 7 to 10 and has a margin of error of plus/minus 4 percent.

Conducted by the Glengariff Group, the poll found Blagojevich’s disapproval rating was a whopping 65 percent, while just 26 percent approve. An Ipsos poll conducted in late March found 54 percent disapproved of Blagojevich’s performance, but Ipsos also asked whether respondents had “mixed feelings,” whereas Glengariff just asked straight up whether they approved or disapproved.

The governor’s job approval ratings, the coverage of the Tony Rezko trial, the frustrated attempt to put recall on the ballot, the disastrous debate over yet another pay raise for legislators and the governor, and the horrendous right-track/wrong-track numbers (14 percent said the state was on the right track, while 71 percent said it was on the wrong track) all likely contributed to the impeachment hearings result.

Just 29.6 percent of registered voters opposed holding impeachment hearings, while 38 percent strongly supported holding hearings and 20.5 percent “somewhat supported” the idea.

Even a plurality of Democrats supports holding impeachment hearings. Democratic voters said they supported the idea by a margin of 49.4 percent to 41.5 percent. Independents overwhelmingly like the proposal, backing it 63 to 24. And it’s probably no surprise that Republicans love it. A whopping 73.5 percent of GOP voters said it was a good idea, compared to just 16 percent who said it wasn’t.

Blagojevich’s troubles go way back, and Mark and I even went into some detail about the dark ethical cloud hanging over him in our book, Caucus of Corruption. I’m glad the people of Illinois have finally begun opening their eyes.

Oh, I almost fell off my chair laughing when I read this quote from Barack Obama.

“The GOP, should I be the nominee, I think can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record,” Obama said. “I’ve been in public life for 20 years. I expect them to pore through everything that I’ve said, every utterance, every statement. And to paint it in the most undesirable light possible. That’s what they do.”

Sounds exactly like what Barack Obama and the Democratic Party have done with John McCain… of course, they’ve gone further, deliberately twisting McCain’s words, evening splicing sentences together to alter the meaning.

Obama praised his wife’s patriotism and said that for Republicans “to try to distort or to play snippets of her remarks in ways that are unflattering to her I think is just low class … and especially for people who purport to be promoters of family values, who claim that they are protectors of the values and ideals and the decency of the American people to start attacking my wife in a political campaign I think is detestable.”

I guess Obama finds himself and his own party detestable.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: Advice to Mrs. Obama – if you don’t want to catch any political flack, then don’t make any political statements outside of generalised support for your husband. You want to be in the political kitchen? Then get used to the heat…

Egomaniac Barack Obama appears even more desperate today as he continues whine like a 5 year old child about Bush’s speech to the Knesset, which Obama thinks was an attack directly on him.

Barack Obama has called President Bush’s comments on appeasement “exactly the kind of appalling attack that’s divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world.”
Obama criticized Republican rival John McCain and President Bush for “dishonest and divisive” attacks in hinting that the Democratic presidential candidate would appease terrorists.

Obama strongly responded Friday to the comments Bush made in Israel on Thursday and McCain’s subsequent words. Obama told a town hall meeting, “That’s the kind of hypocrisy that we’ve been seeing in our foreign policy, the kind of fear-peddling, fear mongering that has prevented us from actually making us safer.”

Of course, the fact that Obama, by every indication we’ve received on the campaign, would be a terrorist appeaser, but let’s face it, he’s trying to make an issue out of something that really wasn’t about him specifically. No one can deny that Obama is part of a larger group of individuals who seem to believe that we can sit down for tea and biscuits with terrorists and the world will be A-OK after that. But, Obama may just not have enough experience to have a realistic understanding of the world and our enemies.

Meanwhile, in Columbus, Ohio, McCain said he took the White House at its word, but then he weighed into the spat himself, saying: “This does bring up an issue that we will be discussing with the American people, and that is, why does Barack Obama, Senator Obama, want to sit down with a state sponsor of terrorism?”

Asked if Obama was an appeaser, McCain said Obama must explain why he wants to talk with leaders like Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and added that Obama’s position was a serious error. “It shows naivete and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country that says Israel is a stinking corpse, that is dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel. My question is, what does he want to talk about?”

The answer is, Obama doesn’t want to talk about anything that may hurt his candidacy. He feels he is exempt from explaining himself or his positions when such positions could hurt his candidacy.

Keep crying Barack. Waaaa… Waaaa.

The Washington Times has an interesting article about John McCain’s blog reachout efforts, which have recently include left-leaning and apolitical bloggers.

Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is trying to tap a new audience of potential voters by taking his campaign message straight to liberal and nonpolitical issues-based blogs, which reach millions of readers but don’t often delve into conservative politics.

The strategy was in full swing yesterday when Mr. McCain invited non-conservative bloggers to join his regular blogger conference call, just hours after he delivered a major speech previewing his war strategy and other priorities for a first presidential term.

It already has started a war among liberal bloggers over how to react to Mr. McCain’s overture.

In answering the first question on the call, Mr. McCain said his likely Democratic opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, lacks the judgment to be commander in chief, which set him up for a bruising from the readers at TalkingPointsMemo.com, a liberal-leaning site that joined in the call.

Blogger Greg Sargent said it amounted to “what may be [Mr. McCain’s] most direct attack yet on Barack Obama’s national security credentials.” But commenters were split: Some took aim at Mr. McCain, some said they were thankful for the intelligence on “what the enemy is planning,” and others lashed out at Mr. Sargent, saying he should have been harsher in evaluating Mr. McCain’s attack.

“This IS a Democratic blog, and as such, it would seem to me that there SHOULD be SOME bias with regards to how YOU report of McCain’s craziness, as opposed to treating his ranting and attacks with a sort of dignity they and he DO NOT deserve,” wrote one emphasis-abundant reader.

Ahh, there’s some of that liberal “tolerance” on display. While in many ways this broader blog reachout strategy is good, there are clearly many bloggers on the left who have no interest in actual dialogue. They don’t want to debate issues, they want to be agreed with.

The question I have is, would Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton ever attempt to reachout to conservative bloggers? While both claim they can unite the country and both parties, their campaign rhetoric and actions have proven the opposite. I don’t see either of them attempting to deliver their message to conservative bloggers and field questions. They were too afraid to debate on a Fox News debate, so I’m sure they are equally, if not more afraid of conservative bloggers who will actually challenge them on issues and ask hard questions.

A whopping 147 House Democrats voted against our troops today.

David Dreier, the Ranking Republican on the Rules Committee, reported heared a Democrat laughing about their strategy to vote against the troops. “It was a process the likes of which this country has never seen. In our 219-year history, never before on a war-funding supplemental have we had the minority denied an opportunity to have a motion to recommit. It was an outrageous, atrocious, unprecedented process that was never, ever going to succeed.”

Why am I not surprised that a Democrat would laugh about defunding our troops.

As I expected, the California Supreme Court gave a big F.U. to the will of the people, and legalized gay “marriage” in the state.

California’s Supreme Court declared gay couples in the nation’s biggest state can marry – a monumental but perhaps short-lived victory for the gay rights movement Thursday that was greeted with tears, hugs, kisses and at least one instant proposal of matrimony.

Same-sex couples could tie the knot in as little as a month. But the window could close soon after – religious and social conservatives are pressing to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot in November that would undo the Supreme Court ruling and ban gay marriage.

UPDATE, by Mark Noonan: My question to the gay rights activists who pressed this in the courts: Are you stupid? I mean, seriously – here’s a year when strong-with-hispanics McCain has a shot at winning California against weak-with-hispanics Obama, and you – in an act of pure self-centeredness – have to press an issue which will add to McCain’s strength an energised and united conservative base coming out in November to send gay marriage down in flames at the polls, as has happened every single time it comes on the ballot in the United States.

Stupid, stupid, stupid…but, hey, we’ll take it and thanks very much.