Ok, this is getting out of hand.

In the last few days the word troll seems to be getting used with increasing frequency. In comments, people say this guy is a troll, we read diaries denouncing yet another troll.

Is the new definition for troll: A guy I disagree with or someone I don't like?

What I see are people trying to kick each other out...

I have as much proof of the following being true as the troll diarist does of his story being true, except, I'm not on a progressive blog trying to smear the future first lady.

Sites carrying this story are suffering denial-of-reality attacks.  All trolls should know about this, whether you want to believe it or not.  It certainly is on the radar of the McBloggers.   So ... here's what's being smeared on the intertubes by trolltastic people with no interest in getting a Democratic elected president.

The M***r 2**8 and President Obama Rant Tape was filmed between June 26th - July 1st 2004 in Crawford, TX at the ranch of our fearless leader, who tells us to go online and pretend to be liberals.

Hillary Clinton explodes at news of her imminent Downfall -- from inside her bunker!

Now that Barry Obama has secured the nomination -- despite the protests from some quarters -- we turn our attention to his choice of vice presidential nominee. On this issue, things couldn't be any clearer.

First, let's dispatch with the wannabes who have NO chance! We'll take them one at a time:

1)RODHAM-CLINTON.......hahahahahahahahah ahahahahah, sorry I'll try to control myself.  Rodham-Clinton represents the old Washington politics that Barry O spent the ENTIRE campaign denouncing.  If she was on top of the ticket, he'd be offered the second spot and he'd definitely take it.  Democrats would have their "dream ticket."  However, she's not, he is.  There is no advantage to Barry O to offer the job to her (and her husband) unless he wants to have a nightmare ticket.  He doesn't, he wants to win.

2)JOHN EDWARDS.......despite his protests that he's been there, done that, if Obama offered the job, the Breck Girl would accept.  But he does nothing to shore up Obama's foreign policy and military credentials.  Therefore, it's not gonna happen.

3)CHRIS DODD......the only possible reason to offer the spot to this woman/man is, um, is, a, yea, well, actually there are no reasons. (Would it surprise anyone if it turned out Chris Dodd is a transvestite?)  He adds nothing to the ticket and would put voters to sleep.  No sale.

4)GOVERNOR RICHARDSON......the stumbling-bumbling, rolly- polly Richardson has already endorsed Obama, and would probably excite some hispanics.  Problem is he doesn't engender real confidence in any measurable degree across the political spectrum.  His appeal is extremely limited to ethnic pride; therefore, he's a definite no.

5)JOE BIDEN.....a.k.a. Senator foot-in-the-mouth.  I think Barry already answered this question when Biden described him as an "articulate and clean" black man....that's "just Joe" said Obama with a detectable air of disgust.  The general election is gonna be a rough and tumble affair; Obama can't afford to turn that crazy man loose.  No deal.

6)Dennis Kissinich and all the remaining wannabe candidates... the fact that they're grouped with Dennis Kissinich tells you all you need to know.

So who IS his choice gonna be?  I can tell you EXACTLY what, although not yet who it will be.

It will be a man with impeccable military credentials.  America is at war.  Senator Obama has NO military or foreign policy credentials whatsoever.  His standard refrain, "I have the judgment" will grow old quickly in the general election.

He will have to choose someone his base will find mostly unpalatable and then reassure them that the guy will only be second in command, so just suck it up and bear it.

And there is a 100% guarantee that I'm right, so just remember where you read this first.

Where I use satire to diagram racism:

What must Obama do next?

Harold Ford Jr. -- not so long ago the rising black politician within Democratic ranks -- now heads an arm of the party that seeks to keep its focus on "middle" America and crafting centrist messages: the Democratic Leadership Council. Often vilified by liberal activists, the DLC sees itself as quintessentially practical.

From that perspective, and in the wake of Hillary Clinton's win in the Pennsylvania primary, Ford just set a political bar for the black politician that surpassed him in prominence.

"You have to win Indiana," Ford told Barack Obama (via an interview on MSNBC). And, Ford added, Obama has to "steamroll" Clinton in the other state with a primary two Tuesdays from now, North Carolina.

The Obama camp will not publicly embrace that equation. But for him to truly regain the momentum he captured during his February surge, most party pros will see Ford's formulation as spot-on.

-- Don Frederick  Pro Clinton - LA Times blogger

April 22, 2008 (Full text of post)

Hillary Clinton is mentioned twice in this blog post, but her color is never identified.  But luckily, Harold Ford's and Barack Obama's color were identified for the reader.

You see, the writer implies Harold Ford is connected to Obama.  

But just how are they connected?  

Are they from the same state?  No.  

Are did they attend the same school?  No.

Do they both belong to the DLC?  No.

Is it because they're both men? No. He doesn't mention their gender, he doesn't even identify Hillary's gender.

Are they related by blood or marriage? No.

Hmmm.  What is it.  What connects them?  What can if be?

Oh, I know, they're black!  Got it.

Thankfully the blogger informs us that Harold and Barack are BOTH black.

Phew!!

I'm glad, I read this article, I had no idea!

OMG!  Barack Obama and Harold Ford are black!!  Did you know that?  I didn't. I sure am glad he cleared that up.  I thought they were Cuban.

But I'm confused, he doesn't tell us what's Hillary's color?  

Now would he leave that out?  

Hmmmmm, I wonder why?

Is Hillary Clinton white or black?  I don't know. Is  The LA Times' creep didn't tell us.  I'm gonna have to do some research!!

HAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHA!  

What a piece of shit post.

SHAME ON YOU, LA TIMES!!!

SHAME ON YOU!!

Any wonder why charges of the race card are invoked?

Instead of touting an empty and odious piece of shit argument, Clinton supporters should be rejecting and denouncing this LA Times blogger and his kind of racism.

Victim of Ayers and Dohrn Appears on National Television, Describes His Entire Family's Near Murder
by Susan UnPC

The story was based on the devastating memories of Mr. Murtagh, described in his op-ed, "Barack Obama pal is an enemy, too," in yesterday's New York Daily News. In 1970, Mr. Murtagh's entire family was targeted for murder by the Weather Underground because his father was a New York State Supreme Court justice who was presiding over the trial of the so-called "`Panther 21′, members of the Black Panther Party indicted in a plot to bomb New York landmarks and department stores." (The Weather Underground and Black Panthers were allies in their dedication to the violent overthrow of the U.S. government.)

Mr. Murtagh is "an attorney, an adjunct professor of public policy at the Fordham University College of Liberal Studies and a member of the city council in Yonkers." It is important to note that a longer version of his op-ed is available at CityJournal.org under the title, "Fire in the Night: The Weathermen tried to kill my family."

Tonight, in a two-part interview, Fox News's Greta Van Susteran, an attorney and host of On The Record with Greta Van Sustern, interviewed John M. Murtagh, an educated, articulate and well-informed man. Mr. Murtagh is a Republican, and isn't involved in either Democratic presidential candidate's campaign. It is important to note that, in part two of the interview, Mr. Murtagh refers to the findings of Larry Johnson about Barack Obama's eight years of employment by William Ayers, reported in "Why is Obama Hiding the Truth About William Ayers? Follow the Money."

CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST AND WATCH THE COMPELLING INTERVIEW

Bill Clinton and other Clinton surrogates and supporters are insisting, incredibly, that Barack Obama is the one color-arousing the presidential race, even though it was the head of Clinton's New Hampshire campaign who suggested, based on no evidence whatever, that Barack Obama might have been a drug dealer.  One syndicated columnist observed at the time,

But could it be that this story is even worse than many in the national press will say? Isn't it interesting that Shaheen, or whoever is behind this, opted to invoke the image of a drug dealer in referencing the first top-tier black candidate for president? That's quite a coincidence. This wouldn't be an ugly Willie Horton-type tactic intended to harvest fear and play on stereotypes about who is a criminal and who isn't, or -- in this case -- who uses drugs and who sells them?

Nah. Liberal Democrats would never sink that low. Why if they did, how could they continue to package themselves as a kinder and gentler -- and more enlightened -- alternative to Republicans? Certainly not with a straight face.  Drug rumors about Obama playing on stereotypes?