Wednesday, April 30, 2008


A little more than a month ago, a Philadephia newspaper wrote that Obama's speech on race was a great performance. I didn't exactly believe that I heard anything great. What people were calling Obama's "Lincoln Moment" I was calling his "I am not a crook" moment. The only thing I did agree with was that it was a performance. Though nothing that was going to end up at (pardon the pun) Lincoln Center.

Yesterday Obama took to the stage again and gave us another performance. While we are still waiting for Tom Shale's review I think the consensus is that it stunk. And by his demeanor and body language I could tell that Obama could hear the boos as he walked off the stage.

The candidate who has been telling us over and over that he, not Clinton, is the one with the judgement to step in on day one, decided it was time to renounce his close ties and association with Wright and his anti-American, anti-white,anti-semitic ideas on day 6,205 of his relationship with Wright. Maybe Obama's new slogan should be, "Better late than never."

Only Obama's explanations, retractions, and attempts at damage control. arent sticking. And his credibility is in shreds. He seems to be confirming everything many thought about him based on his speeches, demeanor and manner. That he was a snake oil salesman in a new package trying to tell us he is good for what ails us. A Prof. Harold Hill beating the drum, telling us we have trouble right here in River City and that he was the one who would fix it, selling his hope like it was soap on a rope. What some people called "inspiring" rhetoric, I thought had all the inspiration of a "thinking of you:" greeting card, blank on the inside so you could fill it in yourself and feel it was from him. And a lot of people did.

There were also the tinges of megolomania, like his congratulatory speech after losing Texas Ohio and Rhode Island that made it sound like he was the winner and that the nomination process was over ( in many ways it was only he didn't realize it then). And who could forget his press conference after Super Tuesday when Clinton landslided him in New York, California, Massachusetts, and New Jersey and he humbly told the media that it meant nothing because in a general election he could win those states too. The fact that the people of those stated didn't want Obama to be the one to carry them but wanted Clinton seemed to him to be besides the point. Up until that moment, I had no idea that when Obama spoke of rejecting the politics of the past he was talking about elections.

And then there was his message that simply the act of electing him would be enough to prove that America isnt the bad place of Uncle Jeremiah's speeches,and would show the world that America is beyond racism. Not a very clever ploy if you take to heart Martin Luther King's admonition that people should be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. But it was one that a lot of people swallowed. Obama was offering absolution. Vote for me and you can say "look ma, I'm not a racist".

He, his campaign and his followers, (it's hard to refer to them as "supporters") tried to put forth the argument that if you are for rising beyond racism and moving to a higher level then he is the one you vote for and that will be change enough. And if you aren't then don't.

It's snake oil to be sure to say that simply electing an African American, regardless of his qualifications or lack of, regardless of his character or lack of, will be an act that will show the world we are now different, that we have conquered our demons. Its an argument even some journalists like Andrew Sullivan has swallowed whole. But they dont call it snake oil for nothing. It just doesn't work. And Im sure Andrew Sullivan, along with Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Alter, Jim Vandehei, Bill Richardson, Senator Leahy and others who called for Hillary Clinton to drop out, as far back as early March, are waking up this morning trying to figure out why they are feeling so lousy.

The fact that Obama has gotten as far as he has is proof enough that America has gotten beyond racism. Its not his success. Its America's. And now any black man or black woman, or anyone of any ethnicity can say that if they have what it takes, they have as good a chance to be President as anyone. For that,.having Obama around as a symbol, has been useful. But now everyone can see through what was apparent to many from the beginning.

Far from being a new kind of politician he is an old one in a new package. He lies. He whines. He bobs. He weaves. He loses 3 out of 4 primaries and the next day Mr. Rejecting the Politics of the Past is screaming for Clinton's tax records. He makes the idea of voices being heard one of the center pieces of his campaign but is now doing all he can to keep the legitimate voices of 3 million people in Florida and Michigan from being heard because they are not saying what he wants to hear.

When Obama said he never knew of or heard of any of Wrights hate speeches in the 17 years he has known him, it was Nixon saying, " I am not a crook". Obama has proved he will say anything to get elected.. Whether its about NAFTA, or Wright. All anyone has to do is look at Obama's responses immediately after the controversy broke to see how dishonest he was willing to be and saying what he thought he could get away with.

At first he accused the press of cherry picking Wrights comments. When that didnt work, he called Wright an uncle, a member of the family who says things with whom he sometimes disagrees ( presumably things like the US creating AIDS and exporting it to Africa to commit genocide.). When that didnt work he was "denouncing" him but not disowning him. All within a week. Now,he is throwing Wright out of the house. Presumably for the same things Wright has been saying and Obama has been hearing for 17 years.

Obama took the title of his book from one of Wright's sermons and called Wright his spiritual mentor. Is he now telling us to reject his own book? He has talked about the role of his church in his life and the importance its played. Is he telling us "never mind"? Where exactly was Obama on Sept 16,2001? If he was in Chicago and what he says about the role of his church in his life is true, its beyond credibility that on the first Sunday after the 911 attacks Obama would not have gone to church, assuming he could have. And if he didnt its beyond credulity that he heard nothing about Wrights speech that day, about how America deserved it and how it was pay back for the evil America had done in the world.

Does anyone believe that in all of the 17 years that Obama has been going to that church, the church that played such an important part in his life, he knew nothing of Wright's 911 sermon? He wasnt there? No one told him? Not even his wife? Never heard a word of Wright's accusations that America created AIDS and exported it to Africa until it was on YouTube?

If not ,then why did he revoke his invitation to Wright to deliver an invocation on the day he declared for President? Obviously someone thought it wasnt such a good idea.And obviously Obama agreed. For political reasons..But not before Axelrod,his campaign manager tried to sell the snakeoil that it was because it was cold that day and they wanted to shorten the program.

Obama has now realized as of yesterday that Wright has shortened the program.

So yesterday we heard again from Obama about Wright. This time saying all those things that werent particularly controversial a month and a half ago are now are outrageous. With Obama we're supposed to follow the denouncing ball.

Far from Lincoln Moments,these are Obama's " I am not a crook" moments. Except he is a crook. And what he has stolen is everything from his supporters that they thought he was giving them. And now its time for them to take it all back.

The irony is, that yesterday Obama actually did have a Lincoln Moment. Because his speech personified one of Lincoln's most famous admonitions. You cant fool all of the people all of the time.

Saturday, April 26, 2008


There is only thing standing in the way of resolving the issues of Florida and Michigan: Barack Obama. Obama and his supporters in and out of the press seem to be ready, willing and able to do what they accuse Clinton of doing - win at any cost by denying both Florida and Michgian their right to be heard.

Part of the reason is, they refuse to acknowledge that what they thought was in the bag never really was, and deluded themselves into believing the media hype surrounding Obama's campaign. Especially the mainstream media who are responsible for creating the hype in the first place -- the hype of inevitability. And instead of acknowledging it, they do what psychiatrists call projection, projecting onto Clinton and her campaign what is actually true for them but to which they are in denial as the recent imbecilic editorial from the New York Times demonstrated.

Does anyone have any doubt that if Florida and Michigan didnt matter everyone would be calling for them to be seated?

This is the only real issue facing Democrats and super delegates now and now is the time to resolve it. One way or the other, Florida and Michigan will define the Democratic Party for years to come and will define Obama and his supporters right now and prove one way or the other who and what he truly is.

Florida and Michigan have to be seated one way or the other because the Democrats will destroy themselves as a party and guarantee losing both the White House and the congress if they arent. Of that there is no doubt. Given what happened in 2000, it would be unconscionable if the Democrats sent out a candidate who is there only because votes werent counted in Florida. The fact that Obama and his supporters are willing for that to happen is as good a testimony as any to the hypocrisy of the Obama campaign and his most vocal supporters.Not to mention the fact that if that did happen the Democrats could kiss Florida and Michgian goodbye. And with them probably most of the remaining states that usually go Democratic.

The arguments for Florida and Michigan being seated are so obvious stating them is hardly neccessary. Except that Obama and his surrogates in the press are trying to wage an almost fascistic campaign against it. Suffice to say you dont negate the voices of 3 million people in a process to nominate a candidate for President of the United States over a scheduling conflict.

Both primaries were conducted fairly (yes Michigan too which I will get to later) and the results are completely valid. And as of this very moment, there is not a single reason not to count them in the popular vote since that has nothing to do with the delegate issue in the first place, and contrary to Obama and his supporters, Florida and Michigan do exist, airlines are still flying there and those people did vote.

There have been attempts to work out compromises, the sleaziest of which was floated by Obama in which he had the nerve to suggest he and Clinton split the delegates 50-50. That would be nothing short of a political mugging with Obama trying to steal delegates from Clinton that he didnt win, doesnt deserve, and go against the wishes and voices of the people who cast their votes for Clinton not for him. None of which seems to faze Obama in the slightest which is one more defining fact about his character and those who support him. If the situations were reveresed and Clinton had suggested anything remotely similar, imagine the outcry of the press and Obama's supporters and the current collection of editorial imbeciles at the New York Times. They would be accusing Clinton of trying to steal the election. Which is exactly what Obama is hoping to do. It is also why when such hypocrisy is running rampant in the press and we have a candidate in Obama and his supporters who are the most intellectually dishonest collection of moral and political hypocrites and willing to play the dirtiest politics since Richard Nixon it is up to people to stand up themselves and demand Florida and Michigan be seated.And if takes 15 milion Clinton voters, and Obama voters with a conscience to send a message to super delegates and the Democratic Rules Committee then so be it.

There is not a single reason why those delegates should not be seated in exactly the same numbers as the primary results.

We have heard Obama and many of his supporters justify their untenable position that the voices of Florida and Michigan be silenced and not represented because "rules are rules" and that the state party broke "the rules" ( of course they have nothing to say about the fact that the 3 million people who voted, who are the only ones that count, had nothing to say about this), so let's talk about "the rules".

In the first place there is no "rule" that says any state party who changes their primary date gets their delegates disenfranchised. Howard Dean used that as a threat to try and head off Florida and Michigan from moving their dates up, the state parties saying "you cant tell us what to do" and Howard Dean saying, "oh yeah"?

There were many things Dean could have done beside threatening to disenfranchise their delegates and Im sure now he wished he had. He could have levied a heavy fine against the state party leaders or the party itself. He could have banned the party leaders from the convention. And what actually occurred, that is forbidding the candidates from campaigning in the state (though some Obama commercials did somehow make it into portions of the state) was a heavy sanction in and of itself, in that it imposed a heavy economic loss to the people of both states. No campaigning meant no media hordes, no campaign people, no hotel rooms being booked or restaurants filled, or gas pumped, or advertising bought. It probably cost the people of both states, waitresses, hotels,cab drivers,restaurant owners, TV stations,$15-20 million at least. That is enough punishment and doesn't involve punishing 3 million people by trying to suppress their votes.

But Obama's argument is the state party heads broke the Democratic Rules Committe rules. It doesn't matter that the rules had nothing to do with the fairness of the vote. It doesn't matter that breaking those scheduling rules had nothing to do with the outcome of the election or it's validity. But Obama hopes to keep them silenced because he was landslided in both elections and so he says "rules are rules" and they (the heads of the state parties) broke the rules.

But the rules that were broken were scheduling rules, not rules that undermined the democratic process. So now its time to talk about "breaking the rules" when it comes to democracy and what is important, "the rules" or democracy?

The reason this country even exists is because a group of men reasoned that when the "rules" are unjust, when the rule are unfair, when the rules deny people their basic rights and priviliges, you ignore the rules, break them if need be and make new rules. The Declaration of Independence is about one thing -- breaking the rules and breaking them when rules are unjustly applied. And the next time Obama and his campaign wants to use "the rules are the rules" to justify why Florida and Michigan should not be seated, let him and his supporters remember that at one time in America "the rules" were African Americans had to sit in the back of the bus. "The rules" said that African Americans couldn't drink out of the same water fountains, couldn't live in the same neighborhoods, have the same jobs, make the same money, eat at the same restaurants and their children couldn't go to the same schools as whites. But in 1954 Martin Luther King came along and said the rules have to be ignored and there has to be new rules, because these rules are denying people their rights and ignoring the rules is exactly what Rosa Parks did.

When it comes to Florida and Michigan, if Barack Obama and his supporters want to apply a rationale that is closer to the beliefs of a Mississippi sheriff in 1950 than anything resembling a "breaking with the old politics of the past" then let them take responsibility for it.If Obama and his supporters were what they claim to be they would be the first ones to stand up and demand that both delegations be seated and resolve this now.

Is "voices must be heard" a principle Obama believes in or is it a cheap campaign slogan? So far the answer is obvious. The real test of character is when your principles are put to the test and sticking to them is not to your personal benefit. But that's what a principle is. Its something bigger than you. And when it comes to principle is this the candidate the Democratic party wants to put up against John McCain, a man who stuck by his principles in the face of torture as a POW in a North Vietnamese prison camp?

As of right now there is no other conclusion to be drawn other than Barack Obama is willing and able to throw the very thing he claims to represent , that voices must be heard, right out the window because they have become politically inconvenient. And after hearing Bill Richardson and Bonier, two Obama supporters on PBS the other night trying to defend the denying of those 3 million people their votes on this specious technicality, it should give people just cause to question what in the world an Obama Justice Department would be like.

The unfortunate thing is that, like most people who think principles get in the way, Obama doesn't understand that by doing the right thing, you always benefit more in the long run than doing the wrong thing. What would be the reaction if Obama stood up now and called for those delegations to be seated? If he in fact was the one to resolve the issue since he is the one who would be disadvantaged (actually, he would be losing an unfair advantage), and to be what he claims to be, a uniter not a divider? He has had the power to do it. And if he did how many voters would see him in a new light, as being genuine and exactly what he claims to be? How many more votes would he actually get for such a gesture instead of fighting as hard as he can to keep those other votes from counting? He might make up for the votes he didn't get in Florida and Michigan.

But a decision like this takes exceptional judgment, magnanimity, seeing things on a higher level, a plane where principle comes first and personal advantage comes second. This is not what we have seen from Obama in his campaign. After he's suffered landslide losses in the country's biggest states (13 times out 14) he has tried to claim that losing didn't matter because he could win those states in a general election. What he chooses to completley dismiss is that it matters to the people in those states because they clearly said they dont want him to the be one to take those states in a general election they want Clinton to take them and thats why they voted the way they did. Those are the voices Obama doesnt want to hear and those are the voices he wants to silence in Florida and Michgian.

In order for Obama to resolve this conflict which he could easily do, he would have to be all the things he actually claims to be, putting principle above his own political fortunes and the fact that he doesn't and wont, says more about who he really is and the hypocrisy of his campaign than anything anyone can say.

Its simply a fact that when you do the right thing for the right reasons good things come to you and if Obama resolved this conflict himself by doing what was right, the benefits he would get would far outweigh the short term losses he is so worried about. But I dont think he will. I dont think it's who he is. Or what he is. And that says all that needs to be said about Obama and what matters to him.

Two more points about Florida and Michigan. With regards to Florida,while the Democratic Party in Florida did go along, the decision to move their primary up was a decision made by the Republican governor and the Republican legislature. It wasnt just the Democratic primary that was moved up, it was Primary Day for both parties that were moved up. The Democrats, as Pat Schroder pointed out on PBS, had nothing to say about it and couldn't have stopped it if they wanted to. Not that I believe it should matter. What matters are the votes of 3 million people who had nothing to do with a scheduling conflict and to deny them their votes and voices based on that is nothing short of criminal.

With regards to Michigan: many people erroneously believe that Obama was not on the ballot. What they either dont know or are forgetting, or dont want to talk about, is that Obama made an agreement with the Democratic party in Michigan that his name would be represented by a line that said "uncommitted". John Edwards also agreed to that. Every single Democratic voter in Michgian knew well before election day that Obama and Edwards were represented by "uncommitted" and that if you wanted to vote for either Obama and Edwards that was the button to push. The proof that everyone knew it is that "uncommited" drew 39% of the vote, the second highest total. It should also be noted that every other candidate still in the running at the time, Biden, Dodd, Richardson, et al, had their names on the ballot.Obama taking his name off the ballot was a grandstand play and when he found out no one else did and couldnt get his name back on he made the "uncommitted" agreement along with Edwards. The only issue with regards to Michigan is how to divide the popular vote and delegates for the "uncommitted" line and that is easily accomplished.

In virtually every primary in which he participated, John Edwards received between 13% and 15% of the vote which would give Obama about 25% of the "uncommitted" vote in Michigan. The way to do it is this: to err on the side of caution let both sides agree that Obama will receive 30% of the Michigan vote. That is extremely generous since it is inconceivable that a populist like Edwards would have gotten only 9% of the vote in Michigan but lets bend over backwards to satisfy Obama and his supporters. Give him 30% of the popular vote and a proportionate number of delegates. Nothing could be more fair.

Except that once you do that, Hillary Clinton has the popular vote lead and trails Obama by only 57 delegates. Which is the real reason Obama doesn't want them seated, not any affinity he has for any rules.

There is only one thing standing in the way of resolving the issues of counting the valid votes of 3 million people in Florida and Michigan. Only one roadblock. Barack Obama. So lets not pretend it is anything else. Let's not pretend its about rules or fairness or the democratic process which demands that both delegations be seated.

As the party who wouldnt gain if the delegates are seated, Obama can resolve this by calling for the entire delegation to be seated right now. If he doesn't resolve this now by calling for the delegations to be seated exactly as per the results of two perfectly valid elections then we have proof that his ambitions are more important than his principles and "voices must be heard" and "rejecting the old politics" is nothing more than slogans.

Obama and his supporters have to understand there is only one way to resolve this nomination process. That he wins fairly and with all voices heard or he doesn't win. If the majority of those voices say "Clinton" then so be it. And if Obama and his supporters have a problem with that, then its time for them to ask what are you and your candidate really for?

Since this post first appeared a new web site has been created designed to make the case to super delegates that they need to count Florida and Michigan and both add the popular vote and the approximately 70 delegates that Clinton would net if their votes are counted.
Here is the link to COUNTTHEVOTES.

Friday, April 25, 2008


Dick Morris is at it again. His latest brilliant politcal insight is again on display and it's his favorite topic ( or is it hope?) -- Clinton having no chance at the nomination.

And so Morris continues his farewell tour as the Clown Prince of political consulting giving us more of his insight, taking time to enlighten us between sessions of sticking pins in a Hillary Clinton voodoo doll. The question is, is anyone listening? Does anyone really care?

This is the same political genius who predicted that Hillary would "crash" in California and Obama would win. He wrote two peices, "Why Hillary Will Crash and Burn in California" and "Why Hillary Can't Win". That is the same California that is located on the planet earth ( in case Morris was looking for some wiggle room). And the same California Clinton won by 14 pts. a landslide margin.

To be fair, the Rassmussen Poll which publishes a lot of Morris' drivel also had their poll the day before the election as Obama actually winning by a point which must have had Morris drooling. This is also the same poll that had Clinton ahead by 2 in Ohio, a state she won by 10. So I guess the margin of error for the Rassumussen Poll is now around 11.

Morris then wrote another peice of objective political journalism after Obama's big losses called "Obama Has To Hit Back and HARD!" One can envision Morris making a fist and punching his palm when he finished that one.

What is really mystifying is how you can be proven to be so completely wrong about every mindless thing you think and say, day after day and week after week and still be given a platform to express your opinions. But, then again if all it took to silence someone was being wrong all the time we wouldn't have a mass media would we.

The lastest drivel from Morris is this:

"The Democratic superdelegates aren't about to risk a massive and sanguinary civil war by taking the nomination away from the candidate who won more elected delegates. If they ever tried it, we'd see a repeat of the demonstrations that smashed the 1968 Chicago convention and ruined Hubert Humphrey's chances of victory. "

First Morris is assuming ( or is it hoping) that Florida and Michigan wont be seated. If you count their delegates now ( for arguments sake since Obama always likes to frame his remarks as "making the argument") Obama's delegate lead is only 57. Very surmountable. In fact based on Clinton's lead in the polls in 6 of the 8 remaining primaries she has a good shot at getting the delegate lead.

But more to the point, it is Clinton who now has the popular vote lead ( yes counting the votes in Florida and Michigan and regardless of what happens with the delegates there is no rational reason to not count them when you total up how many votes each candidate actually received).

The fact is, whether Clinton ends the primary season with the delegate lead or not, she is going to end with the popular vote lead and Obama's delegate lead, if he keeps it, will be so small as to be insignificant and will not influence a super delegates decision.

Add to that these facts: Obama has the delegate lead at all because he was awarded 610 delegates getting landslided by Clinton in 13 of 15 of the biggest states ( and losing Texas by 4 so losing 14 of the 15 biggest states) and received those delegates based more on the allocation of delegates based on John Kerry's vote in 2004 than anything he's done.He won another 125 delegates in mid state caucuses totally slanted towards his demographics and in states that havent gone Democratic in 40 years. Those delegates were won racking up vote totals like, 11,000 in Nebraksa.

As for the convention, Morris again has it completely wrong.

What would look like 1968 would be if Florida and Michigan arent seated. They are vowing to show up anyway. Imagine the scene on television if they hold a sit in, refusing to move unless they are seated. What is Dean going to do? Call the cops while the country watches as they are handcuffed and dragged away? Can you see those network shots of the delegations empty seats?And what of Obama? Imagine the spectacle of the first serious African American candidate keeping his mouth shut and supporting the dragging away of people having a sit in because their votes arent being counted. That would really rally the troops and make the rest of the country rush out to vote for Obama wouldnt it.

If Florida and Michigan arent seated it will not only gurantee that the Democrats will lose the White House and the Congress it would probably destroy the party. If super delegates dont take their votes into consideration when casting their own as far as "the will of the people" is concerned, there will be mass defections from the Democrats that they wont recover from for years to come.

There is really not a super delegate with 2c for a brain who is not going to vote for Clinton if she ends up with the popular vote and the delegate lead counting Florida and Michigan, or if Obama's delegate lead, counting those states, is under a 100 and it surely will be. After what happend in 2000 the Democrats are simply not going to send out a candidate who is there only because votes werent counted in Florida. And if Democrats apportioned delegates in any kind of a sane way, Clinton would have a 450 delegate lead now.

The electibility issue is already decided. It's clearly in Clinton's favor as the primary map shows, the fact that she beat Obama 2-1 in states that held elections and not caucuses and every poll shows that in the batteground states the Democrats have to win against McCain there is no contest between Clinton and Obama. And those battleground states happen to be, Florida, Pa, and Ohio.

I think Dick Morris should save his breath. And his pins. I dont think anyone is going to be taking Dick Morris' advice anytime soon.

Monday, April 21, 2008


Lets get right to the point. The candidate who has claimed to be a uniter, someone who can help people bridge the divisiveness that has existed in the past has proved to be the most divisive figure in the history of Democratic politics.

While his suporters claim he is the new "hope" and represents the "new politics" those who oppose him see Obama as the exact opposite of everything he claims to be. And with good reason.

Obama has lied so often about so many things its hard to keep up with it all. He has lied about his so called accomplishments of the past which no one including him can specifically name, he lied to the people of Ohio about getting rid of NAFTA only to send an emissary to the Canadians to tell them not to pay attention to what he says publicly and he lied no less than 6 times in one week about Wright and his relationship with him. And he is still lying about it.

This is the candidate who claims to be "the new politician", the candidate who was rejecting the politics of the past.

As a "new politician" during the last debate he tried to claim that he never talked about or brought up Clinton's misstatements on her Bosnia trip only to have it pointed out to him that his campaign sent out countless emails about it. Obama's response? That was his campaign not him. The dog ate his homework.

Only the most dishonest of politicians would try and pretend that he and his campaign are not the same thing but that was Obama's "new politician "response after getting caught in still another false statement.

The problem with Obama and his campaign is that they are living proof that he is the opposite of everything he claims to be.

Let's take his central claim, that he is a unifier, someone who can bring people together to unite and heal the divisions of the past.

It shouldn't matter whether you are for him or against, whether you are as blind as Maureen Dowd,as hypocritical as Olbermann or as inept and incompetent as Jonathan Alter, Jim Vanderhei, Roger Simon and E.J, Dionne. The one thing you have to admit no matter who you are for, is that Barack Obama is now the most divisive force in the history of Democratic politics.
Right now the party is divided right down the middle 50-50. between Obama and Clinton. It is the most divided the party has been in at least the last 100 years.Much more so than during Viet Nam. Obama and his supporters are viewed by Clinton supporters as hypocrites, liars and playing the same kind of dishonest politics that Obama supporters have accused the Republicans of playing in recent years. Obama supporters have called Clinton "a monster", divisive, and that she will say anything to win.

Clinton supporters accuse Obama and his supporters of trying to bully Clinton out of the race(and with good reason -- they have). Obama supporters also accused her of playing the race card in South Carolina when it was clearly Obama who played it, and Obama and his supporters accuse her of the very tactics they themselves employ which they call dirty.

Obama and his supporters also blame everyone but Obama for the revealing dismal performance he gave at the last debate. And finally 30% of Clinton voters say they would never vote for Obama in a general election. You can bet that if 30% are saying it, 60% are thinking it and would probably act on it.

Though Obama claims he is a unifier his baseless, juvenile, even infantile,and hypocritical and dishonest attacks on Clinton sounds like the stuff of someone who couldn't unify two ends of a shoelace much less a country.

As a unifier he has provem to be a total sham. He is virtually despised by Clinton voters,and many Obama supporters return the sentiments towards Clinton. But Obama is also mocked by Republicans as well as Democrats supporting Clinton for his weak and constatly changing answers about Wright and what he knew and when he knew it and what it really does say about his character and his beliefs. And the constant whinning of Obama and his supporters when things dont go his way has engendered contempt, snickering and derisive laughter by both Clinton voters, independents,and Republicans.

The proof as they say is in the pudding. And it doesn't matter whether you are for or against him. And it doesn't matter at all what you think the reasons are or what you think is the cause. The results are irrefutable.

Obama claimed from the beginning that he and he alone had the ability to be a a unifier. At that he has failed miserably and the attacks on Clinton by himself and his supporters in support of nothing more than his own amibtion is what is to blame. The cold hard truth is,no political figure has been as divisive than Obama. Not even Nixon. And it's only primary season.

So its become fair to ask that if the central premise of Obama's entire candidacy is so obviously a failure and a sham, brought on mostly by himself, if he is so obviously such an enormous failure at the thing he claims to be his biggest talent, then why wouldnt he be the same disaster and failure at everything else he claims he would do?

He has half the Democratic party not just disagreeing with him but despising him for his political tactics, and he has Republicans, conservatives and independents against him also. So if nothing else (and there is a lot else) we can say that judged on his most central claim, that he is a uniter, that he is able to help people overcome the things that divide us, Obama has been both a fake and a failure.

Except in one sense he has in fact succeeded. He has managed to unify half the Democratic party most of whom are liberals, with Republicans, conservatives and independents all who seem unified in their contempt for him, his dishonesty and hypocrisy, and his associations with Wright which many point out show his lack of character, courage and conviction, his lack of moral leadership, and his inability to stand up to an anti-white, anti- American and anti-semetic demagogue who has given support and space in a church newsletter to the suicide bombing terrorist organization Hamas .

So in a very real sense he has very much succeeded in helping bridge long standing divisions that have existed between people. Just not in the way he intended.


There seems to be a consensus among certain segments of our society known as journalists and Obama supporters that its been a fait accompli that Obama will win the democratic nomination.

We've had Jonathan Alter's brilliant political insight in Newsweek suggesting Clinton get out of the race back in early March, before she won Ohio, Texas,and Rhode Island, Jim Vandehei's column in called "Hillary Has No Chance", and Obama political mouthpeices like Richardson and Leahy calling for her to drop out (so that Obama could play out the good cop/bad cop routine and come on as Mr. Noble saying Clinton should stay in the race).

But the more one looks at the actual facts and not the dishonest spin of the media or Obama supporters, the facts say it's Obama who is going home and in fact has no chance for the nomination.

There are the simple, irrefutable facts supporting this. Facts that have existed for quite some time and ignored by media types like Alter, Maureen Down, Keith Olbermann and other Obama cheerleaders in the media who want to skew perceptions and then act as if they are reality in the service of, not journalism but in promoting their own agenda.

So here are a few facts that should tell them, Obama's supporters and Obama himself that they are not in Kansas anymore.

Obama's lead in the popular vote is, as of now, a day before the PA primary, 0.06%.That is 92,000 votes. That is going to be gone after Tuesday and Clinton will have taken the popular vote lead and in all liklihood will not give it up since she is favored to win 6 of 8 of the remaining primaries.So it will be Clinton who is going to end the primary season with the popular vote which alone gives her 100% of the "will of the people" argument. Even if there were nothing else it would be enough to secure the remainder of the uncommitted super delegates since the argument has been made that super delegates should not overturn the will of the people.

This figure of a 92,000 includes the popular vote of both Florida and Michigan. And don't tell me that in counting the popular vote Florida and Michigan doesn't count. Even if there are some dumb enough to believe that after what happened in 2000 the Democrats would send out a candidate who was there only because votes weren't counted in Florida, there is not a single reason not to count them in the popular vote. Unless of course youre hoping to steal an election.( As an aside, the principled Obama actually floated the proposition that he and Clinton split the Florida and Michigan delegates 50-50 even though he was landslided in both primaries. In other words Mr. Principled Politician was willing to try and steal delegates that didn't belong to him, that he didn't earn, didnt' win, and that the voices of the people who placed those votes said were not for him but for Clinton).

As for their delegates, Dean has vowed they will be seated, and they most certainly will be. But even if they werent, super delegates can still count. And if you count Florida and Michigan's delegates, Obama's true delegate lead one day before the Pennsylvania primary is 70, not the 140 being touted by the media .Clinton netted 70( or more) delegates in both of those fair and square primaries and an inside dispute over what amounted to a parking violation isn't going to negate that. Not unless the Democrats want to kiss Florida and Michigan goodbye and give the election to McCain which isn't going to happen.

A big win in PA on Tuesday will cut that 70 delegate lead to less than 50 and and a Clinton win of 60% of the vote or more, a very real possibility, could cut the lead in half. to 35. It could even be more depending on the size of the Clinton win, which based on the past performances of the current polls ( which have under counted Clintons margin of victory by 10 or more) a win of 20 pts. or more is possible.

A delegate lead of 50 or less is certainly a surmountable lead and the polls in the upcoming primaries show Clinton leading in 6 of the 8 remaining. So she has a very good shot at endiing up with the delegate lead as well as being a virtual lock to win the popular vote.

That would be more than enough to show that Obama has no chance but there is more. Clinton will have won every important state in the northeast, Florida, the entire southwest from Oklahoma to Nevada, the industrial Midwest and California. She has also won Tennessee and is favored heavily in Indiana, W.Va and Ky. Since when does the loser of all those states get the nomination? And all the other metrics which show a candidates strength are overwhelmingly in Clinton's favor.

Here are a few as reported by Michael Barone in US News and World Report.

In electoral votes Clinton beats Obama 263-202 before PA. In population of states won, one of the most important and strongest indicators of strength in a general election as well as the will of the people, Clinton leads 163,000,000 to 101,000,000. and that is going to increase enormously after the PA primary. These arent landslide margins, these are earthquake margins. The population of the states Clinton has won is 63% greater than Obama's now and is going to increase to more than 70% after Tuesday's primary.

And in states that had actual elections and not caucuses Clinton beats Obama 2-1.

Finally, if Democrats apportioned delegates in primaries that were winner take all, like the Republicans which is the only sane way of doing it since it emulates the general election, Clinton right now would have a 300 delegate lead.

Most of these statistics are more than a month old. Yet it didn't stop the mainstream news media from painting a picture of Obama's invincibility and inevitability when it' been the opposite that has been true. A stunning picture of media dishonesty which I think will haunt them with the public for a long, long time.

Given all the metrics showing Obama is clearly the weaker candidate and that a Clinton candidacy is really the will of the people, given the exposure of Obama's unprincipled relationships with people like Wright, Rezko and Ayers and his deceptions and the misstatemens he has made when first confronted by them, and the justifiable mistrust that has been created in both his judgement, abilities, honesty and patriotism, and add to that the head to head match ups with McCain in states Democrats have to win, Ohio, Pa, and Florida, where the polls show Clinton completely wipes out Obama and beats McCain where Obama can't, there will not be a super delegate with 2c for a brain who wants to win in November who is not going to vote for Clinton by the time the primary season ends. Which is why most of them are waiting to do just that.

Saturday, April 19, 2008


These are the latest Newsweek polls regarding Clinton/Obama for the democratic nomination and the head to head match ups for each against McCain.

Democratic nomination:

04/16 - 04/17 - 588 RV - Obama 54 - Clinton 35 - Obama +19.0

General Election

McCain 44 - Obama 48 - Obama +4.0

McCain 43 - Clinton 47 - Clinton +4.0

Same poll. Same methodology. So what are we to believe? One very real possibility is that the Newsweek poll is the work of village idiots. This is especially true when compared with other polls. But since this poll is almost certainly to be used by pro Obama forces in the media ( Newsweek is already using it to show that Clinton is in a tailspin) lets take a closer look because if the polls are accurate, it is devastingly bad news for Obama.

According to these numbers, Obama loses 6% of his supporters in an Obama-Clinton matchup to McCain while in the head to head Presidential matchup against McCain, Clinton picks up 12%. Which shows clearly that Obama is the much weaker candidate against McCain.

Of course it also might show that the Newsweek poll isnt worth a dime and in that case Obama's 19 pt lead over Clinton is nonsense. But if it is to be believed, Democrats favor Obama as the nominee by 19 pts over Clinton but 6% of them would desert Obama and vote for McCain, while Clinton picks up all of Obama's McCain defections in a general election. Make sense? Only if you believe that a lot of Obama's Democratic supporters are idiots. Which may or may not be the case. One thing we do know. Someone is an idiot.

So is the poll just worthless or, if Democrats choose Obama as the nominee is it simply how Democrats lose elections? And why is it that the news media trumpets the fact that the poll shows Obama with a 19 pts lead over Clinton in the nomination race but says nothing about both beating McCain by 4? Are they afraid of looking stupid? No,cant be. If that was the case none of them would show up for work in the morning.

Other polls?

How about both Zogby and Rassmussen. Zogby had Obama and Clinton tied in Ohio the day before the primary. Clinton won by 10 so when looking at Zogby factor in a margin of error of 10 in Clintons favor. Rassmussen had Obama by 1 in California the day before the primary which Clinton won by 15. And Rassmussen had Clinton by 2 in Ohio. Taking an average, factor a margin of error 12 in favor of Clinton for a Rassmussen poll. The interesting thing is factoring those numbers in both polls they would be in line with the Survey USA poll taken for the four biggest TV stations in PA, giving Clinton a lead of anywhere from 14-18 pts.

And these are the latest tracking polls for the general election, the most startling being the Gallup poll which now shows Clinton leading by 1. When compared with the Newsweek poll one thing is clear no matter who you are for: One of them are so stupid, so incomptetent, so inept they should never be quoted again. The question is, which one?

Gallup Tracking - 04/16 - 04/18 - 1241 V - Obama 45 - Clnton 46 - Clinton +1.0
Rasmussen Tracking - 04/15 - 04/18- 900 LV -Obama 45- Clinton 43-Obama +2.0
Newsweek 04/16 - 04/17 - 588 RV -Obama 54- Clinton 35 -Obama +19.0

Based on past performances the following polls should be looked at as for entertainment purposes only:

ABC News/Washington Post
CBS/New York Times


One of the hot columns of the last few weeks was one from Jim Vandehei and Mike Allen in, entitled "Hillary Has No Chance".

What's interesting is, that today in Politico, Vandehei does something of a mea culpa, virtually admitting that he had been poisoned with the Obama Kool Aid in an article defending ABC's debate of Wedesday night ( far and away the best of all the debates and one which Obama finally didnt get a pass).

But what we'eve seen ever since the beginning are a collection of journalists who seem to be unable to reason, gather factual information and come to a logical conclusion.

Is it stupidity or just the total destruction of journalistic integrity and principle that ignored the fact that Obama, in every speech, talks about how "voices must be heard" and then himself has been strangely silent over seating the delegates in Florida and Michigan representing 3 million voices because those voices say they want Clinton and not him? Yes it is certainly to Clinton's benefit and not to Obama's to have those delegations seated since she won by landslide margins in both states. But if you claim that you are running on principles, principles that "reject the politics of the past", that you are a new kind of politician, and then you throw those principles under a bus when it becomes politically inconvenient, it calls into question your character, your honesty, and just how truthful you really are about everything. Usually. But not for the likes of Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Alter and what tries to pass for "journalism" at Huffington Post. What really seemed to matter to the press were things like Clinton's misstatement about her Bosnia trip, a misstatement that she wrote about accurately in her 2004 book.

The press seems to want to ignore the fact that Obama's actions prove that "voices must be heard" is more of a slogan than a principle and an empty one at that. Or are they really too stupid to see through it? And let's not forget how little the press made out of the fact that Obama tried what amounted to a political mugging in Florida and Michigan floating the idea that he and Clinton should split the delegates 50-50. Can you imagine the rightous indignation of the press if Clinton tried to steal delegates from Obama? The press ignored what that had to say about Obama's character which showed that he was quite willing to steal delegates he didnt deserve and didnt earn, and just as importantly, perverted the wishes of the people of Florida and Michigan who clearly dont want him to have those votes. Yet this is the campaign that accuses Clinton of doing anything to win which journalists gleefully print and then write stories about Clinton's untrustworthiness.

So at what point do we have a class of journalists who, like Pravda in the old Soviet Union, simply lie and distort to promote the party line? And what party is it that they think they are promoting when 50% of the Democratic party oppose Obama?

We have also seen the kind of journalistic stupidity that you would think wouldnt even make it past an editor consistantly from Jonathan Alter in Newsweek who called for Clinton to quit before she won Texas and Ohio, and then after her wins wrote a column about math in which he proved it was a subject he didnt now much about. Those "math" stories have surfaced before. Which shows that the current crop of journalists cant even count much less make an intelligent assessment of what is in front of them since all the math is now trending in Clinton's favor.

We had more had more journalistic and editorial imbecility in a story in the New York Times by Katherine Q, Seeley in which she seems to think Florida and Michigan arent supposed to count when counting electoral votes either. In doing a story where Bayh of Indiana suggested that super delegates will also take into account the electoral votes of primary states won, Seely wrote that Clinton was leading in electoral votes, 219 to 202 "not counting Florida and Michgian".(With both states Clinton's electoral vote lead is 263-202). While many people fall asleep counting sheep one envisions Seeley trying to fall asleep not counting Florida and Michgian.

But certainly the dumbest column was from Jim Vandehei, the now self confessed Kool Aid drinker whose column "Hillary Cant Win" ( before the Ohio and Texas primary) seemed to intentionally, or possibly stupidly, ignore every metric available showing exactly the opposite: that the facts show that Clinton is far and away the stronger candidate, is far and away the one more likely to beat McCain in a general election. Every metric shows she is indisputably stronger against McCain in the states the Democrats have to win in Novemeber. Vandehei based all his erroneous assumptions both on the affects of the Kool Aid and his certainty ( or was it hope?) that Florida and Michigan would never being seated, something that we now know is Dean has guranteed is going to take place.

But in reporting on the race, journalists like Vandehei have decided that Florida and Michigan have just ceased to exist, that airlines have cancelled their flights to both states and that they are no longer on the map . For the rest of us on the planet earth, both states exist, both states voted,both primaries were held fair and square ( yes Michigan's too if you bother to actually look at what happened there and then do something most journalists cant seem to do -- think.) and in the process Clinton netted approximately 70 delegates ( the figure may be higher but not lower). As of right now counting Florida and Michigan, Obama's delegate lead is 61. His popular vote lead is 0.06%.

In spite of journalists who cant count, by the end of the Pennsylvania primary, it is a certainty Clinton will have the popular vote lead. Obama's delegate lead could be cut in half, down to 31, with a big win. And as we all know, if the Democrats had a winner take all primary which is the only sane way to do it since it mimics the general election, Clinton right now would have a 300 delegate lead. These are the realities that have brought people like Jonathan Alter, Vandehei and others calling for Clinton to drop out, either showing that they are truly too stupid for their jobs or are the most dishonest collection of journalists in American history,using every dishonest method they can to try and promote their own agenda, an activity guaranteed to shred their credibility in further than it has been.

To give these journalists a dose of unwanted common sense, after what happend in 2000 the Democrats are not going to send out a candidate who is there only because votes werent counted in Florida. And super delegates can count even if journalists cant. If Clinton ends the primary season with the popular vote lead and delegate lead counting Florida and Michigan, there is not a superdelagate with 2c for a brain who is not going to give their vote to Clinton in spite of all the expected whining from the press and especially Obama.

With a win in PA a virtual certainty and Clinton leading in the polls in 6 of the 8 remaining primaries the probabilities are that counting Florida and Michigan, Clinton, not Obama will end the primary season with both the popular vote and delegate lead. The will of the people argument will be 100% on her side. And as Michael Barone pointed out in US News and World Report, just about every other metric used to gauge the strength of a candidate not just favors Clinton, but favors Clinton in landslide numbers which include electoral votes of states won, ( Clinton 263, Obama 202) population of states won ( Clinton 163,000,000, Obama 101,000,000) and that in actual primaries not caucuses, Clinton also destroys Obama. Yet to read the press converage you would think that Clinton is just hanging around. The fact is, if one goes by the metrics Obama is the one with no chance.

And Barone's peice shows that not all journalists are stupid. Only most of them.

Friday, April 18, 2008


FADE IN:The Cleaver living room. WARD is sitting in his chair reading the paper. JUNE is vacuuming. BARACK enters carrying an arm load of American flags.

BARACK: Hello Mr. Cleaver, Mrs. Cleaver.

JUNE: Oh, hello Barack.

WARD: Hello Barack

BARACK: That's a lovely dress youre wearing today Mrs. Cleaver

JUNE: Oh thank you Barack.

BARACK: And lovely perfume.

JUNE: Thank you again Barack.

BARACK: I hope you're not vacuuming out of bitterness,Mrs. Cleaver.

JUNE: No Barack, I just like a clean house.

BARACK: A very worthy endeavor Mrs. Cleaver.(to WARD). That's a very nice cardigan youre wearing today Mr. Cleaver.

WARD: Thank you, Barack, but its just an old thing Ive had for 20 years.

BARACK: Is that so? I swear I've never seen it before.Not once in 20 years. I must've been away every time you wore it.

WARD: Well that's not really true Barack. I was wearing it last week and you were here. In fact you've seen me wear it a number of times.

BARACK: No, I dont think so Mr. Cleaver.I dont ever remember seeing you in that cardigan.(thoughtful pause) Oh wait. That's right. I do remember you wearing it now Mr. Cleaver. I just forgot. Was it made in the US? Im against NAFTA you know.

WARD: Actually it was Barrack. But didn't your cousin Mary Jane tell everyone not to pay attention to what you were saying in public that in private you'd never get rid of NAFTA?

BARRACK: Gee Mr. Cleaver, are you going to take her word for it over mine?

JUNE: Well Barrack she said you told her to say it.

BARACK: I dont know where she got that crazy idea. In fact I didn't even know she was my cousin.(pause) Is Wally around?

JUNE: No, Im sorry Barack, he and the Beaver went out to get a birthday present for the Beaver's teacher.

BARACK: Oh, well I wanted to give him an American flag. And I want you and Mr. Cleaver to have one too. I want you to know how patriotic I am and how proud I am of it and much I really love my country.

WARD ( taking the flag): That's very nice Barack but you know the neighbors are getting a little upset listening to your Uncle Jeremiah damning America at the top of his lungs all the time.

BARRACK: Really? When did you hear that? I never heard anything like that.

JUNE: But he's been living with you for 20 years. You never heard him say we got what we deserved on 9-11?

BARACK: Well,no. Did he say that? Gee Mrs. Cleaver I didn't know he was saying all these things. You do believe me I hope.

WARD: Barack, everybody in the neighborhood heard him last night around dinner time screaming at the top of his lungs that the US created AIDS to kill black people.

BARACK:Oh that. I do remember hearing something like that. But I was in my room trying to get my homework out of my dog's mouth.

WARD: You have to admit Barrack, that is a pretty strange thing to say. We heard about it because Wally said he was walking by the house and could hear the yelling and said he saw you through the window.

BARACK: You know now that you mention it, I do remember something about that now. I think I went downstairs after I successful retrieved my homework. And I want you to know Mr.and Mrs.Cleaver that I denounce every word I never heard him say. Im going to have him move out.

JUNE: Do what you think is best Barack.

BARACK: Well tell Wally I was here and not to vote for that lying Hillary Ann McGuillicuddy.

WARD: We think Wally can make up his own mind, Barack.

BARACK: Right. Well that's what I meant to say. A poor choice of words on my part ( sniffs the air) That sure does smell good Mrs. Cleaver. You know how I've always loved your cooking..

JUNE: That's oven cleaner, Barack.

BARACK: It is? (a beat) I mean, yes I knew that. That was a poor choice of words Mrs. Cleaver. What I meant to say is I can already smell the wonderful dishes that are going to come from your oven once it's clean.

WALLY and the BEAVER enter.

BARACK: Hey Wally, Hey Beav.

WALLY: Hi Barack.

BARACK (handing a flag): Have an American flag Wally from your patriotic friend who loves his country.

WALLY (taking it): Youre in a lot of trouble Barack.

BARACK: What did I do now?

WALLY; They just found Flora Didaman and Michelle Egansky tied to chairs in your garage with tape over their mouths. They said you're trying to keep them from voting for Hillary Ann McGuillicuddy.

BARACK: But they showed up for gym class not wearing the proper uniforms and broke the rules so I didnt think they should have the right to vote. Well I have to be going. Don't forget to vote for me Wally,and don't forget how patriotic I've always been. And don't believe anything Hillary Ann McGuillicuddy says. She'll say anything to win.


BARRACK: Hello?(pause) Oh hello Uncle Jeremiah.(pause) What? The dog is eating my homework? Okay I'll be right there.


BARACK: I have to get going. Don't forget to vote for me.

WALLY: See ya Barack.

WARD and JUNE: Goodbye Barack.


They all look at each other, shake their heads and shrug.