Obama Needs To Explain His Belief In Black Liberation Theology

Unless you have been living in a cave, most of you know by now that Barack Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright is a 100% devotee to “black libertion theology”.  This fact is supported not only by Wright’s sermons, but by the Trinity Church website.  The core theology of Wright, Trinity Church, and by association Barack Obama is black liberation theology.  As David Limbaugh points out below, Barck Obama needs to address to what extent he embraces black liberation theology and how those beliefs would shape his Presidential administration.  Further, Obama needs to explain why he has raised his children in a church that promotes racism.  How much of Barack Obama’s belief in black liberation theology includes Marxist beliefs?  Hillary, Obama Wreaking Presidential Havoc

By David Limbaugh

Many of us understood from the beginning the unrealism in the promises of this extreme liberal partisan to be a messianic uniter. But little did we know that he attended a church whose pastor, Jeremiah Wright, has distinguished himself through anti-American and racist rants and as a scholar and practitioner of black liberation theology. Former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell warned on “Hannity & Colmes” that what we really need to focus on with this Obama/Wright flap, are the tenets of black liberation theology and to what extent Barack Obama embraces them, assuming his pastor and church truly endorse this theology. Blackwell said he is concerned this theology supports partial-birth abortion, pacifism in foreign policy, and economic socialism. He suggested that responsible voters have a duty to inquire whether Obama subscribes to these views. As it turns out, Blackwell’s observations are just the tip of the iceberg concerning this theology. If half of what I’ve read about it is true, it promotes anything but a unifying message. Instead of centering on God and his relationship to man, it appears to be unduly man-centered, race-oriented and more political than theological. Rather than adopting Martin Luther King’s colorblind approach, it stresses — according to Anthony B. Bradley of Covenant Theological Seminary — “an unqualified commitment to the black community as that community seeks to define its existence in the light of God’s liberating work in the world.” The theology, says Bradley, “laid the foundation for many [black pastors] to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of perpetual ‘victim.'” Doesn’t America have a right to know whether the leading Democratic presidential contender buys into the reputed theology of the church he has attended for 20 years? If Wright’s Trinity Church doesn’t teach this theology, Obama should have no problem telling us so. But if it does, he has much explaining to do. It won’t suffice for him to dismiss the inquiry with the same casual indifference by which he attempted to trivialize Wright’s disturbing sermons as just a few remarks over 30 years condensed into a 30-second sound bite. Even a tenuous connection to black liberation theology undermines Barack’s self-description as a unifier.

http://www.newsmax.com/limbaugh/obama_hillary/2008/03/27/83553.html

 

Hillary – Lies, Lies and More Lies

What follows is an excellent article by Carl Bernstein that helps get to Hillary Clinton’s core values, beliefs and character.  Dick Morris also has an excellent article that helps to understand why Bill Safire, in 1996, said Hillary is a “congential liar” and Britt Hume says keeps telling “howlers”.  We have to ask ourselves, given Hillary’s lack of competence (her claim to 35 years of experience is, get this, also a lie), and her flawed character, “What kind of president would she be?”  Would she be a Democratic “Nixon”, seeing conspercies at every turn, would she have to confess, “I am not a crook/liar?”, would she use a secret “plummers group” to break in on her opposition? How did the Democrats allow this to happen this election? Bernstein: Hillary Clinton: Truth or ConsequencesPosted: 10:14 AM ETHillary Clinton has many admirable qualities, but candor and openness and transparency and a commitment to well-established fact have not been notable among them.  The indisputable elements of  her Bosnian adventure affirm (again) the reluctant conclusion I reached in the final chapter of A Woman In Charge, my biography of her published last June:   “Since her Arkansas years [I wrote], Hillary Rodham Clinton has always had a difficult relationship with the truth… [J]udged against the facts, she has often chosen to obfuscate, omit, and avoid.  It is an understatement by now that she has been known to apprehend truths about herself and the events of her life that others do not exactly share. ” [italics added]  As I noted: “Almost always, something holds her back from telling the whole story, as if she doesn’t trust the reader, listener, friend, interviewer, constituent—or perhaps herself—to understand the true significance of events…”The Bosnian episode is a watershed event, because it indelibly brings to mind so many examples of this tendency– from the White House years and, worse, from Hillary Clinton’s take-no-prisoners presidential campaign. Her record as a public person is replete with “misstatements” and elisions and retracted and redacted and revoked assertions…     
When the facts surrounding such characteristic episodes finally get sorted out — usually long after they have been challenged — the  mysteries and contradictions are often dealt with by Hillary Clinton and her apparat in a blizzard of footnotes, addenda, revision, and disingenuous re-explanation: as occurred in regard to the draconian secrecy she imposed on her health-care task force (and its failed efforts in 1993-94); explanations of what could have been dutifully acknowledged, and deserved to be dismissed as a minor conflict of interest — once and for all — in Whitewater; or her recent Michigan-Florida migration from acceptance of the DNC’s refusal to recognize those states’ convention delegations (when it looked like she had the nomination sewn up) to her re-evaluation of  the matter as a grave denial of basic human rights, after she fell impossibly behind in the delegate count.The latest episode — the sniper fire she so vividly remembered and described in chilling detail to buttress her claims of  foreign policy “experience” — like the peace she didn’t bring to Northern Ireland, recalls another famous instance of faulty recollection during a crucial period in her odyssey.On January 15, 1995, she had just published her book, It Takes a Village, intended to herald a redemptive “come back” after the ravages of health care; Whitewater; the Travel Office firings she had ordered (but denied ordering); the disastrous staffing of the White House by the First Lady, not the President — all among   the egregious errors  that had led  to the election of the Newt Gingrich Congress in 1994.On her book tour, she was asked on National Public Radio about the re-emergence of dormant Whitewater questions that week, when the so-called “missing billing records” had been found. Hillary stated with unequivocal certainty that she had consistently made public all the relevant documents related to Whitewater, including “every document we had,” to the editors of the New York Times before the newspaper’s original Whitewater story ran during Bill Clinton’s 1992 presidential campaign.    Even her closest aides — as in the case of the Bosnian episode18 years later — could not imagine what possessed her to say such a thing.  It was simply not true, as her lawyers and the editors of the Times (like CBS in the latest instance) recognized, leading to huge stories about her latest twisting of the facts. “Oh my God, we didn’t,” said Susan Thomasas, Hillary’s great friend, who was left to explain to the White House lawyers exactly how Hillary’s aides had carefully cherry-picked documents accessed for the Times in the presidential campaign.  The White House was forced — once again — to acknowledge the first lady had been ‘mistaken;” her book tour was overwhelmed by the matter, and Times’ columnist  Bill Safire that month coined the memorable characterization of Hillary Clinton as “a congenital liar.”“Hillary values context; she does see the big picture. Hers, in fact, is not the mind of a conventional politician,”  I wrote in A Woman In Charge. “But when it comes to herself, she sees with something less than candor and lucidity. She sees, like so many others, what she wants to see.”The book concludes with this paragraph:“As Hillary has continued to speak from the protective shell of her own making, and packaged herself for the widest possible consumption, she has misrepresented not just facts but often her essential self.  Great politicians have always been marked by the consistency of their core beliefs, their strength of character in advocacy, and the self-knowledge that informs bold leadership. Almost always, Hillary has stood for good things. Yet there is a disconnect between her convictions and her words and actions. This is where Hillary disappoints. But the jury remains out. She still has time to prove her case, to effectuate those things that make her special, not fear them or camouflage them. We would all be the better for it, because what lies within may have the potential to change the world, if only a little.”The jury — armed with definitive evidence like the CBS tape of  Hillary Clinton’s Bosnian adventure — seems on the verge of returning a negative verdict on her candidacy.   And from Dick Morris, the (partial) list: Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here’s her scorecard:Admitted Lies• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn’t cover the market back then.)
Whoppers She Won’t Confess To• She didn’t know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn’t know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn’t know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn’t know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the ’90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).
With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward? 

Obama’s Pastor, Jeremiah Wright Says Israel Killed Blacks

Here’s another Jeremiah Wright statement, this one directed at Israel.

“I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs.”

Black Liberation Theology & Marxism & Islam – Is Obama The Nexus?

Political Night Train is reprinting the following article in its entirety

Liberation Theology in Kenya and the U.S. Elections

By David J. Jonsson

This is the sixth of a series of articles on The Clash of Ideologies and Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance

      We are seeing first hand the role Liberation Theology is playing in the Ideological conflicts in Kenya led by Barack Hussein Obama and the opposition leader, Raila Odinga. In spite of Obama’s and to some extent Hillary Clinton’s objections to involvement in the political situations in foreign countries we are see the fingerprints of Obama in his support of Raila Odinga and the implementation of Shariah law in Kenya.

      Similarly, we are seeing within the theme of “The Election of Change” the increasing role of Liberation Theology and Black Liberation Theology espoused by Barak Obama following the teaching of Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Pastor of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

      Judaism and Christianity aim to solve the problems of an unjust world, but they reject revolution as a solution since the roots of evil and injustice lies not in economics but in man himself. Consequently, Judaism and Christianity are religions designed to change individuals before it and they can ever hope to succeed in perfecting the world. This is admittedly a considerably slower, hence less romantic process than fomenting revolutions, and many people will find its demands restrictive compared with the personal moral anarchy of revolution making. But Judaism’s and Christianity’s methods are infinitely more effective in achieving its results, for when Marxist revolutionaries attain power they are at least as cruel as their predecessors.” The promise of liberation theology is a grotesque lie. As a cynical perversion of language it ranks with the slogan posted above the portals of Auschwitz by another revolutionary movement: Arbeit Macht Frei – Work frees. The freedom which liberation theology proffers is the oblivion of the crematoria.

      As I commented in my article From the Mosque to the Schoolhouse to the White House of November 9, 2008 on the Global Politician:

      “The West has a worldview based on the analysis and actions influenced by looking through the lenses of politics and economics, whereas the Islamists look at the world through the lens of ideology. It is time for the West to place importance on looking at events happening around the world through the lens of ideologies. In the case of the Muslims, their worldview and subsequent actions are shaped by their vision for world domination, the establishment of Islamic kingdom of God on Earth – the creation of worldwide Caliphate and the End Times.”

The Growth of Dhimmi Doctrine

   The contribution of dhimmi (http://www.dhimmitude.org/) Christian collaborationism to Islam is even more important. It satisfies three objectives: 1) its propaganda shores up the mythology of past and present peaceful Islamic-Christian coexistence and confirms the perfection of Islam, jihad, and Shariah; 2) it promotes the demographic expansion and proselytism of Islamic propaganda in the West; 3) in the theological sphere it eliminates the Jewish Jesus and implants Christianity in the Muslim Jesus, in other words it facilitates the theological Islamization of all Christendom. See: Bat Yeor writing in the National Review on September 18, 2003, Eastern Christians Torn Asunder.

Liberation Theology and Marxism

   In the days when the Superpowers were locked in a Cold War, Latin America seethed with revolution, and millions lived behind an iron curtain, a group of theologians concocted a novel idea within the history of Christianity. They proposed to combine the teachings of Jesus with the teachings of Marx as a way of justifying violent revolution to overthrow the economics of capitalism.  

   Religion will become obsolete, when humanity rejects the supernatural G-d of antiquity for the new dialectical deity, fathered by historical forces, leading its chosen to the land promised by Marx and Lenin. In this secular messianic vision, clearly there is no place for Judaism or Christianity, with its insistence on a G-d above and outside of history and obedience to His dictates, revealed in the Oral and Written Law.

   Liberation theologians agree with Marx’s famous statement: “Hitherto philosophers have explained the world; our task is to change it.” They argue that theologians are not meant to be theoreticians but practitioners engaged in the struggle to bring about society’s transformation. In order to do this liberation theology employs a Marxist-style class analysis, which divides the culture between oppressors and oppressed. This conflictual sociological analysis is meant to identify the injustices and exploitation within the historical situation. Marxism and liberation theology condemn religion for supporting the status quo and legitimating the power of the oppressor. But unlike Marxism, liberation theology turns to the Christian faith as a means for bringing about liberation. Marx failed to see the emotive, symbolic, and sociological force the church could be in the struggle for justice. Liberation theologians claim that they are not departing from the ancient Christian tradition when they use Marxist thought as a tool for social analysis. They do not claim to use Marxism as a philosophical world view or a comprehensive plan for political action. Human liberation may begin with the economic infrastructure, but it does not end there.

      The biblical notion of salvation is equated with the process of liberation from oppression and injustice. Sin is defined in terms of man’s inhumanity to man. Liberation theology for all practical purposes equates loving your neighbor with loving God. The two are not only inseparable but virtually indistinguishable. God is found in our neighbor and salvation is identified with the history of “man becoming.” The history of salvation becomes the salvation of history embracing the entire process of humanization. Biblical history is important insofar as it models and illustrates this quest for justice and human dignity. Israel’s liberation from Egypt in the Exodus and Jesus’ life and death stand out as the prototypes for the contemporary human struggle for liberation. These biblical events signify the spiritual significance of secular struggle for liberation.

      The church and the world can no longer be segregated. The church must allow itself to be inhabited and evangelized by the world. “A theology of the Church in the world should be complemented by a theology of the world in the Church” (Gutierrez). Joining in solidarity with the oppressed against the oppressors is an act of “conversion,” and “evangelization” is announcing God’s participation in the human struggle for justice.

      In an article by Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger – Benedict XVI, Liberation Theology written in 1984, he commented.

      “The moral challenge of poverty and oppression presented itself in an ineluctable form at the very moment when Europe and North America had attained a hitherto unknown affluence. This challenge evidently called for new answers which were not to be found in the existing tradition. The changed theological and philosophical situation was a formal invitation to seek the answer in a Christianity which allowed itself to be guided by the models of hope — apparently scientifically grounded — put forward by Marxist philosophies.”

      “[In] the new philosophical climate of the late sixties… the Marxist analysis of history and society was largely accepted as the only “scientific” one. This means that the world must be interpreted in terms of the class struggle and that the only choice is between capitalism and Marxism. It also means that all reality is political and has to justify itself politically. The biblical concept of the ‘poor’ provides a starting point for fusing the Bible’s view of history with Marxist dialectic; it is interpreted by the idea of the proletariat in the Marxist sense and thus justifies Marxism as the legitimate hermeneutics for understanding the Bible.”

Liberation Theology and Nazism

      In the U.S. elections cycle, we are seeing an increase in the influence of religiosity, however simultaneously we are seeing many diverse positions presented. Bruce Walker writing in his November 17, 2007 article on American Thinker, The Nazis and Christianity comments that: “Many atheists presume that the Nazis were a weird variation of Christianity.”

       ”Christianity had declined severely in Germany at the time the Nazis came to power, which is why the Nazis were able to come to power.  In his book, The Dictators, Richard Overy states that in the decades preceding the First World War Germany was becoming increasingly secular, and that after that war, from 1918 to 1931, 2.4 million Evangelical Christians formally renounced their faith as well as almost half a million Catholics.  In Prussia, only 21% of the population took communion and in Hamburg only five percent of the population took communion.  Before Hitler, German religious leaders were publicly condemning the rise of moral relativism and decline of traditional religious values.”

      “Weimar Germany largely had abandoned Christianity and increasingly was embracing hedonism, Marxism and paganism.  There, decline of Christianity in Germany led directly to the rise of Nazism. Professor Henri Lichtenberger in his 1937 book, The Third Reich, describes the religious life of the Weimar Republic as a place in which the large cities were “spiritual cemeteries” with almost no believers at all, except for those who were members of the clergy.  The middle class went through the motions, but lacked all living faith.  The workers, influenced by socialism, were suspicious of the church.  Even in the countryside, preachers had little influence on the people.  In the 1938 book, The War Against God, by Sidney Dark and R.S. Essex, describes pre-Nazi antipathy toward Christianity by noting that churches had lost all their vitality and that their services were lifeless.  Mower, in his 1938 book, Germany Puts the Clock Back, wrote that by 1920, God and Christianity had been in steady decline, a process that had begun in 1860.  Mower talks about a culture not so much casual as vicious about sexuality.  He writes of art sickened into atonal music, about the absence of any sense of sin, about entire graduating classes in high school turning up for birth control devices, and about the commonplace occurrence of abortion.” 

      Within a year of taking power, Hitler was saying: 

      “Christianity was incapable of uniting the Germans, and that only an entirely new world-theory was capable of doing so.” 

      Also within a year of the Nazis taking power, The Twenty-Five Theses of the German Religion, a conscious modeling of the twenty-five points of the Nazi program, was published in Germany. Thesis XV of that Nazi publication states: 

      “The Ethic of the German Religion condemns all belief in inherited sin, as well as the Jewish-Christian teaching of a fallen world.  Such a teaching is not only non-Germanic and non-German, it is immoral and nonreligious.  Whoever preaches this menaces the morality of the people.”

Liberalism and Fascism

      To quote Daniel Pipes in his article from the Jerusalem Post of January 10, 2008: Fascism’s Legacy: Liberalism,Liberal fascism sounds like an oxymoron – or a term for conservatives to insult liberals. Actually, it was coined by a socialist writer, none other than the respected and influential left-winger H.G. Wells, who in 1931 called on fellow progressives to become “liberal fascists” and “enlightened Nazis.”“
 

      “Jonah Goldberg points out in his brilliant, profound, and original new book, Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning (Doubleday), First, he offers a “secret history of the American left”“:

  • Woodrow Wilson’s Progressivism featured a “militaristic, fanatically nationalist, imperialist, racist” program, enabled by the exigencies of World War I.
  • Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “fascist New Deal” built on and extended Wilson’s government.
  • Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society established the modern welfare state, “the ultimate fruition” (so far) of this statist tradition.
  • The youthful New Left revolutionaries of the 1960s brought about “an Americanized updating” of the European Old Right.
  • Hillary Clinton hopes “to insert the state deep into family life,” an essential step of the totalitarian project.

      “To sum up a near-century of history, if the American political system traditionally encouraged the pursuit of happiness, “more and more of us want to stop chasing it and have it delivered.”“ [Economic Parity]

      “Second, Goldberg dissects American liberal programs – racial, economic, and environmental, even the “cult of the organic” – and shows their affinities to those of Mussolini and Hitler.” [Deep Ecology movement]

David J. Jonsson is the author of Clash of Ideologies —The Making of the Christian and Islamic Worlds, Xulon Press 2005. His next book: Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad: The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist – Islamist Alliance will we released in spring 2006. He received his undergraduate and graduate degrees in physics. He worked for major corporations in the United States and Japan and with multilateral agencies that brought him to more that fifteen countries with significant or majority populations who are Muslim. These exposures provided insight into the basic tenants of Islam as a political, economic and religious system. He became proficient in Islamic law (Shariah) through contract negotiation and personal encounter, and presently writes on the subject for the Global Politician. Mr. Jonsson can be reached at: djonsson2000@yahoo.co.uk

Update: Obama’s Pastor – Jeremiah Wright – Too Hot for Houston Baptist Church!

Upcoming Dallas-area appearances by Rev. Wright have now also been canceled. 

Political Night Train recently reported that Senator Obama’s pastor, Jeremiah Wright was scheduled to preach sermons at a Baptist Church in Houston.  It seems that all the stories about Wright’s racist sermons are causing churches to rethink having him anywhere near there members.

Houston Chronicle — Obama’s former pastor won’t be giving sermons in Houston: “Security concerns have prompted the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to cancel his appearance at Houston’s Wheeler Avenue Baptist Church for the first time in two decades. Wright, who until February was minister of Sen. Barack Obama’s church, Chicago’s Trinity United Church of Christ, was scheduled to preach three guest sermons in Houston on Sunday. … Widely publicized recorded excerpts from Wright’s past sermons, in which he quoted a former Iraq ambassador as saying that U.S. actions prompted the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and that the government created HIV to target people of color and harassed blacks through ‘three strike’ laws, prompted Obama to address race issues in a speech last week. Obama termed Wright’s comments ‘divisive,’ but also suggested that the snippets were not representative of the clergyman he has known for more than two decades.” Yesterday, a long-planned appearance by Wright at a Tampa revival was also canceled.

The Long Goodbye, Hillary Clinton Style

Jim Vandehei, an advisor to Hillary Clinton has told Politico that Hillary’s chances of winning the Democratic nomination are only 10 percent.  That’s one chance in ten!  Davidson has a better chance of taking it all in the NCAA.  The likely hood of an Obama bombshell is probably less than one-in-a-hundred.  For months now the Clinton camp has spread rumors that they have dirt on Obama.  Well, if it was Jeremiah Wright, they blew it big time.  Like so many political rumors, and this one sounds too much like a Carville-rumor, this one has, so far, been a bust.  But then, lying is a Hillary character trait, or flaw.

So, how long will Hillary play out her long goodbye?  The body appears nearly dead, but the brain is still thinking, calculating, conniving the next attack.  But like a poor archer who shakes at the critical moment, the Clinton machine can’t put a silver arrow through Obama’s political heart.  Makes one wonder just how well Hillary would respond to one of those 3 am phone calls.  Obama’s rope-a-dope straategy has worked, thus far.  Now while Hillary tries to defend her lies (remember, Bill Safire got it right when he said she is a “congential liar”), Obama is soaking up the sun in the USVI.

Much of Hillary’s character, style and campaign reminds one of Richard Nixon, especially whenhe ran against JFK.  But that’s another story, comparing Hillary to Nixon.  Recall, the Nixon-JFK, make or break moment came during the debate where Nixon looked tired and pale, while JFK, just back from a vacation, looked tanned and rested.  Will Obama look tan and rested next week in PA?

It is unlikely that Hillary will decide on her own to end the campaign.  It simply is not in her character.  Bill to the rescue, you say?  Bill shot his wad (no pun) in SC by injecting racism in the campaign.  His effectiveness is done, mostly to his own decision to inject racism.  Does Bill secretly want Hillary to fail?  Political Night Train believes this is the case.  A successful Hillary Presidency would do much to deminish Bill’s legacy.  This would explain why he’s committed numerous fatal compaign errors.  But more on that in a later article.

If not a self-imposed withdrawal from the campaign, then who will tell Hillary it is time to quit?  Bill Richardson, in his phone call to Hillary to tell her he is supporting Obama came close, but couldn’t make the leap.  Apparently he was taking a tongue lashing from Hillary.  Ted Kennedy can’t do it, as he is now in the Obama camp.  Pelosi is out, as she has taken what amounts to an anti-Hillary stand on the superdelegates.  The former Governor of NYS is out, er, on his way to a trial.  The DNC leadership is out, as they were appointed by the Clintons.  That leaves three likely candidates to do the dirty deed:  Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, or Al Gore.  Bill is unlikely to step up as he does not want to incur the wrath of Hillary, again.  Al Gore invented hating the Clintons, even more than he hates Bush.  That leaves Barack Obama to do the awful task.  Is Barack up to it?  Stepping up to the plate and telling Hillary she needs to quit would prove to all that he’s ready to lead.  What better way to prove his skills than to convince Hillary to get out?  So the question is, Barack, are you man enough to step up to the plate and take one for the team?  Or, willyou prove your real character and avoid the tough play?

Will Hillary Clinton Pull A Tonya Harding?

Democratic Party Official: Clinton Pursuing ‘The Tonya Harding Option’March 25, 2008 3:44 PM

<!–

Jennifer Parker

–>ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper

 I just spoke with a Democratic Party official, who asked for anonymity so as to speak candidly, who said we in the media are all missing the point of this Democratic fight.The delegate math is difficult for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, the official said. But it’s not a question of CAN she achieve it. Of course she can, the official said.The question is — what will Clinton have to do in order to achieve it? What will she have to do to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, in order to eke out her improbable victory? She will have to “break his back,” the official said. She will have to destroy Obama, make Obama completely unacceptable. “Her securing the nomination is certainly possible – but it will require exercising the ‘Tonya Harding option.'” the official said. “Is that really what we Democrats want?” The Tonya Harding Option — the first time I’ve heard it put that way. It implies that Clinton is so set on ensuring that Obama doesn’t get the nomination, not only is she willing to take extra-ruthless steps, but in the end neither she nor Obama win the gold.(In this metaphor, presumably, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would be Oksana Baiul. Does that make former President Bill Clinton Jeff Gillooly?)

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/dnc-official-cl.html