Thursday, July 31, 2008


Ladies and gentlemen and childish minds of all ages, step right up and plunk down your money then go right into that tent and see the sensational wonder packing them in from one end of these continental United States to the other, having just returned from a triumphant trip abroad where he performed his stupefying act to sell out crowds and heads of state alike, and not as some might tell you because he was giving away free food and a free rock concert, no don't believe a word of it, because this is an act hailed by the ladies and gentlemen of the press -- except by Der Speigel the German magazine who called him a total fake, but what do they know -- as one of the greatest attractions ever seen,playing to standing room only crowds, the one, the only, the amazing, Barack the Clown.

He flips, he flops he talks out of both sides of his mouth so fast your ears won't believe a word they're hearing. You'll see a quick change artist change so fast your eyes won't believe what they are seeing which is why we say its change you can believe in.

He will conduct feats of prestidigitation never before seen on this continent or abroad as the Israeli's and Palestinians themselves will testify, as will liberal groups who witnessed it to their utter amazement, and newspaper editors who watched in disbelief. You'll watch in disbelief too as Barack the Clown will use these feats of prestidigitation to make promises and pledges disappear right before your very eyes. He will reverse himself in midstream so fast you won't know if he is coming or going. Ask him a question and to your utter amazement he will tell you exactly what you want to hear and smile doing it. And you will roar with laughter at the sight of Barack the Clown putting not one, but both feet in his mouth at exactly the same time.

All this alone is worth the price of a contribution, a paltry $5, but no, that's not all. With just a wave of his hand and his patented smirk you''ll see Barack the Clown make the ladies and gentlemen of the press, famous names like Keith Olbermann, Jonathan Alter, journalists from the Nation and the New York Times, and special guest star Chris Matthews, jump through hoops, roll over, sit up and beg and eat right out of his hand even while keeping both feet in his mouth. You'll see his famous Presidential seals clap their fins and play "Feelings" on a set of cell phones provided by Verizon and AT&T, then swallow everything he throws their way.

Think I'm finished? Not by a long shot. To top it off you'll see the famous Barack the Clown Bus, you don't ride in it you get thrown under it, and you won't believe what Barack will throw under it right before your very eyes, including an entire church with a couple of pastors, the voters of Florida and Michigan, the 4th Amendment to the Constitution, and last but not least, even his own grandmother, and a whole lot more, all for your own mirth and amusement.

Ladies and gentlemen there has never been an attraction like Barack the Clown or my name isn't Howard F for Fairness Dean. Just step right up and plunk down your money to our lovely Miss Pelosi looking lovely in her Barack the Clown nose and wig, who will be glad to show you to your seat. Prime seats are still available.

Now c'mon folks, this is your big chance to see the great Barack the Clown. Who's gonna be first to step right up and get their seat? No reason to hesitate this is a once in a lifetime chance to see a true clown at work, the best clown you'll ever see. Trust me folks you've never seen a clown like Barack the Clown. So who's gonna be first?

No point in looking over yonder at that other tent, there's nothing there folks. The big attraction is right here in Barack the Clown. Don’t believe that sign-- there is no Hillary in that tent. She's a big fan of Barack the Clown and said so. The lovely Hillary is going to be right here watching with the rest of you. She might even make an appearance as a guest star. Don't pay any attention to that sign they're putting up. Did I mention Barack the Clown will saw the lovely Miss Pelosi right in half before your very eyes? Hey, come back here...forget that sign...Hillary's gone...there's no show there...this is the only show in town....hey, we're you all going? Okay, we'll throw in the free food and a rock concert...who do you want to see? Bruce Springsteen? Keith Olbermann playing the kazoo? How about the synchronized marching of the famous Obamabots Marching Band? Hey, come on back here...we'll do the free food..

Monday, July 28, 2008


Someone who can only be considered a paid liar for the DNC by the name of Tom McMahon sent out a fund raising letter on behalf of Barack Obama and the DNC that is nothing short of being an out and out lie, inviting Democrats to "the first truly open Democratic Convention in a generation".

It was interesting that the DNC and Obama chose to use the key words that are in every Denver Group ad calling for "an open convention:" But in reality Obama and the DNC are inviting people to an open convention in much the same way they stood up for Florida and Michigan when it came to fulfilling democratic principles. And Obama wants an open convention the same way he kept his campaign promises of "every vote must count" and "voices must be heard" when it came to seating Florida and Michigan.

First the Fowler letter and now this. It seems there are no depths to which Obama and the DNC will not sink and no lie too shameless.

What the DNC deserves is a barrage of calls and letters demanding a true open convention since they have decided to use the term to dishonestly try and raise money unless of course they are willing to truly have an open convention which means only one thing -- Senator Clinton's name in nomination. If they don't have that truly open convention, or if Senator Obama is still the choice of super delegates after all his dishonesty, then they deserve one other thing -- the worst defeat in history of the party which Clinton supporters can accomplish if they refuse to vote for Obama. That will purge the party of all the dishonest players that seems to have taken over the party. They need to know it's going to be one or the other. Either way Clinton supporters will win.

Below is a copy of the blatantly dishonest letter being sent to Democratic party members. They deserve a response but maybe not the one they were hoping for. Below the letter is the Denver Group's response issued in a press release.

Dear ________ -- One month from today, more than 75,000 Americans will join Barack Obama at the first truly open Democratic National Convention in a generation. If you make a donation in any amount before midnight this Thursday, July 31st, you could join Barack backstage before he accepts the Democratic nomination. Watch this short video invitation from Barack and make a donation of $5 or more today: This year, the convention will be built around the participation of ordinary Americans. Democrats like you are opening up the political process like never before, and it is a bold and exciting time for our party. Free tickets to the convention will be available soon. But if you make a donation in any amount by Thursday, July 31st, you and a guest could be flown to Denver, spend a couple of nights in a hotel, participate in the convention, and then go Backstage with Barack before the big event.

Watch Barack's invitation and make a donation of $5 or more today to be part of this extraordinary opportunity: Your donation will not only support our party, but will build our 50-state strategy to secure victories up and down the ballot in November.
Thanks, Tom
Tom McMahon Executive Director Democratic National Committee

If you do not wish to make a donation, you can still be selected to join Barack at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. Learn more here . Paid for and authorized by the Democratic National Committee, .

This is the response issued in a press release from the Denver Group.

A statement was issued today on behalf of Barack Obama regarding what he is calling an invitation to "the first truly open Democratic National Convention in a generation". This statement is in fact blatantly untrue. The very fact that this statement parrots an invitation coming from Barack Obama himself is proof that this is willfully untrue.

A 'truly open convention" is not something that can be offered by Barack Obama . It is not something he has any control over. A "truly open convention" is something that is dictated by democratic principles and Democratic rules, not Barack Obama and not as a cheap pitch to dishonestly use the concept of an open convention to try and squeeze $5 out of unsuspecting Democratic supporters.

But if Barack Obama wants to really mean what he says, we welcome his support for "the first truly open Democratic National Convention in a generation" which will mean that Senator Clinton's name will be placed in nomination according to Democratic Party rules and that super delegates will have the opportunity to vote for either candidate as the rules dictate. It also means that Barack Obama is acknowledging that he is not the Democratic candidate for President and that there will not be an official nominee until the roll call vote August 27 in which both he and Senator Clinton will have their names in nomination and at which time super delegates will cast their votes to decide the nominee.This is what "a truly open Democratic National Convention" means and only means.

We are glad Barack Obama seems to understand that there is such a thing as a "truly open Democratic Convention". When he acknowledges what it really means, not what he tries to make it mean, then we will look forward to his statement of support for our efforts to secure that.


Don Fowler, the former DNC Chair recently issued a letter to Democrats complaining that Clinton supporters weren't sufficiently falling in line behind the presumptuous nominee who, Fowler explains, "won" the nomination even though it's clear that by the DNC's own rules Obama has won nothing as of yet. Now we learn that Fowler explained the entire super delegate function in a video back in February, a video which shows the level of hypocrisy currently reached by the leadership of the Democratic Party.

The video is long ( almost 9 minutes) but what is most telling, and flies in the face of his letter and public pronouncements begins approximately 5:50 seconds into the video, where he makes clear that if super delegates voted in a way that was contrary to the popular vote winner, i.e., the will of the people, he would consider it a big problem.

It's become clear that one of the big problems facing Democrats this year has become the leadership of the Democratic Party who seem to have become as corrupt as the candidate they have been trying to force feed down the throats of more than half the party.

Fowler, Donna Brazile, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean, have shown the worst kind of dishonesty and hypocrisy through the primary, Brazile going so far as to state she would resign if super delegates decided the nomination and, and like the candidate she supports, has shown her word means nothing and has reneged on that promise.

It's time to use this video and Fowler's own words, not only to influence super delegates but Dean and the rest of the party leadership making it clear that if there is not an open convention with Senator Clinton's name in nomination so there is an honest opportunity for either candidate to be voted on by super delegates, they are going to face an even bigger problem-- an electoral disaster in the fall both in the Presidential election and for Democratic members of Congress and they can expect contributions to the DNC to dry up from more than half the party. It's time to make it clear that just because they have endorsed a candidate who can't live up to his own words, it doesn't mean that they won't be held accountable for theirs.

Watch the video HERE.

NOTE: As many of you know ( but some might not) I've been busy with my work for the Denver Group which I co-founded with Heidi Li Feldman which includes doing the work on the ads that have been running and potentially some TV spots. That work has resulted in my time to write pieces for my blog which tends to be lengthy, being greatly curtailed but I have future posts in the works and will continue to post as often as I can and as time permits.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008


Don Fowler's letter has been written about elsewhere and has received a reaction appropriate to its arrogance and stupidity, characteristics that seems to head the list of DNC transgressions in a year that was supposed to be a cakewalk for the Democrats. But at the risk of being redundant, there are some things worth repeating about his letter and other things worth pointing out.

His assertion that Barack Obama has "already won" the nomination is a microcosm of the larger chasm that exists between truth, reality, honesty, integrity, having a moral compass and what the DNC and people like Fowler currently represent.

Obama himself has proven to be the most untrustworthy politician since Richard Nixon and it seems that anything he touches becomes just as corrupt. Nowhere is that more apparent than with the actions of the DNC, Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean during this entire process and this letter from Fowler, a former head of the DNC just re-enforces it.

Fowlers letter really does give one pause as to what exactly they are thinking at the DNC and his letter makes him sound like the latest victim in the DNC production of Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Barack Obama as anyone remotely familiar with DNC rules and democratic procedures knows, has, as of now, won absolutely nothing despite the pronouncements of Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi, the Tokyo Rose of the Democratic Party, Donna Brazile and now Don Fowler and the usual compliant news media.

If Fowler wants to prove he and the DNC are right about their assertions let them quote the DNC rules chapter and verse that show unequivocally that Barack Obama has won the nomination.And since we know he can't, people should demand that he issue a public apology for his misleading and at times dishonest statements. As a former head of the DNC he should know better and probably does.

His claim that he was a Clinton supporter is also factually false. He publicly opposed the full seating of the Florida and Michigan delegations and spoke out against it both before and during the meeting of the Rules Committee of which he was a part. His reason for opposing their seating, according to him, were the "DNC rules". These are the same DNC rules he now chooses to ignore when it comes to his assertion that "Barack Obama has won" a statement contradicted by the DNC's rules.

Fowler then goes on to use as an analogy the Boston Celtics championship victory and Nadal's Wimbledon win that begins to become bizarre. He complains that the Lakers accepted the Celtics championship win "without demands or preconditions" as did Federer in accepting Nadal's victory so why can't Clinton supporters simply accept that Obama has won?

What he doesn't say is that the referees in both events didn't try to rig the rules in favor of the Celtics or Nadal. They didn't show favoritism or referee with a double standard in order to try and help them win. The referees didn't deduct points from the Lakers or Federer that they legitimately won, and didn't give points not legitimately won to the Celtics or Nadal. The referees also didn't declare the winner before the games were over.

If any of what happened to Hillary Clinton had happened to the Lakers or Roger Federer neither they,nor their fans, nor tens of millions of others would accept the Celtics and Nadal as champions. Instead the Lakers and Federer would be screaming bloody murder over the unfairness and so would tens of millions of fans.

There would surely be massive protests and both organizations would have their credibility in shreds. Their ability to function as credible organizations would cease. Officials of both organizations would be forced to resign, the referees would had been fired and neither championship would be recognized as valid.

By using Fowler's analogies and applying them to the current situation, he and the rest of the leadership of the Democratic Party can know what to expect in Denver if Senator Clinton's name does not appear in nomination and if there isn't an honest roll call vote according to DNC rules so super delegates can vote for either candidate and decide the nominee the way the rules provide. And they can know what to expect in November for Democratic candidates at every level if Clinton's name is not placed in nomination and the 30-50% of Clinton voters, disgusted with a rigged process decide to stay home (and that number may well be higher)

Since we know from the Fowler letter is that he and the DNC are feeling "fatigued" by the refusal of millions of democrats to accept someone as "the winner" who hasn't as yet won and since we know Gatorade won't help, if you want to contribute to Mr. Fowler's fatigue and that of the DNC, a $5 contribution to The Denver Group will do just that. You can give them gastronomical distress for $10 and $25 will probably give them a raging headache. And a contribution of $100 just might put them on the disabled list.

By popular demand Don Fowler's email address is:

Saturday, July 19, 2008


It's fitting that this appears on the 160th anniversary commemoration in Seneca Falls of the First Woman's Rights conference in 1848 because one of the truisms expressed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton was "Women will always be dependent until she holds a purse of her own".

Most women now have that purse. Or they share it. Or they have both. And having that power is important because sometimes its the only power that makes people listen. And when women choose to use it things happen.

It may be time to use it now over what happened early in the primary campaign. Clinton supporters had not yet seen the extent of the sexist, underhanded bullying treatment of Clinton by Obama and his supporters, the DNC and the news media or what was to come. But it was a watershed moment in the campaign (one of two) and it changed the nature and tone of the primary season from that moment on. It was David Shuster's on air remarks where he referred to Senator Clinton and President Clinton as "pimping out their daughter" because Chelsea Clinton was making phone calls to super delegates on her mother's behalf.

The degree of outrage expressed at the time by the news media and Howard Dean and the DNC was nowhere to be found and the punishment meted out by MSNBC added insult to injury. We all remember Don Imus being fired for his tasteless remarks about the Rutgers women's basketball team. Shuster's remarks about Clinton were no less tasteless and just as offensive and came in the heat of a Presidential primary and were directed at the first woman candidate for President in history.

At the time Senator Clinton essentially had to come to her own defense, threatening MSNBC with pulling out of a debate if something wasn't done. The something that was done was tepid. The network's response to Shuster's' comment about the first woman candidate for President and her husband, a former President as "pimping out their daughter" was a two week suspension. It was almost reminiscent of that scene in the Godfather where the undertaker comes to Don Corelone complaining that two men who beat his daughter received nothing more than a suspended sentence. "They went free that very day. And those two bastards looked at me and smiled at me."

There was probably a lot of smiling going on in the ranks of the anti Clinton news media ( though I think Obama wiped that smile off their faces by now) and in the Obama campaign (though I think the smiles are gone there too and they are now scared to death of an open convention with Clinton's name in nomination). There were probably some smiles at the DNC also who, in their infinite stupidity thought they were going to "re-brand" the Democratic Party with Obama and that has backfired also now that Obama has been exposed for what more than half the party saw from the first. But at the time they probably thought Shuster was making their job easier.

Referring to Senator Clinton as "pimping out her daughter" also reduced Chelsea Clinton to some kind of political prostitute simply because she was helping out her mother, and there was also the inherent implication that they were abusing or even exploiting their daughter.

The way that moment was treated let Clinton's adversaries know early in the campaign that it was open season on Hillary Clinton. And there would be no public price to pay. Those remarks opened the door for the news media, Howard Dean and the DNC and Barack Obama to pile on knowing they could get away with it and for most the part they did -- but only so far -- because its not too late. The statute of limitations hasn't run out and with the kind of economic power women alone now have ( they make up about 60% of Clinton supporters) if they use that power they can get David Shuster fired.

This may be water under the bridge to some, or maybe to even more than some, but if there had been more outrage at the time and had there been some organized demand that Shuster be fired, MSNBC would have had no choice. And it would have changed the tone of the entire campaign.

The meager punishment handed down to Shuster trivialized what he said and created an atmosphere where bullying, condescension and a lot more would become par for the course. It was open season on Clinton. Nothing to worry about. Say what you want. There will be no consequences.

Had Shuster made the same comment about Obama and his wife, the uproar and demands that he be fired would have been so great that Shuster not only would have been fired within 24 hours, they wouldn't have so much as let him back into the building to get his belongings. And when Imus' suspension wasn't considered harsh enough, ironically it was Obama who was the first elected official to demand that Imus be fired.

All Shuster received, like the two men who "ruined" the undertakers daughter, was a two week suspension -- a leave of absence that allowed MSNBC and Shuster to save face and that shouldnt be good enough. Nothing short of firing him should have been acceptable. But that doesn't mean it's over.

GE is the parent of NBC. And GE and Microsoft are the parent of MSNBC. All it would take would be a boycott of Microsoft and GE products by Clinton supporters offended by Shuster's remarks and Shuster would be gone after some feeble attempts at face saving. And there is no reason why Clinton's supporters shouldn't demand the action now that should have been taken then.

If Clinton's supporters, especially women, let it go without taking specific action against Shuster, its going to be harder to get those kinds of complaints taken seriously the next time a woman gets steam rolled in the political arena. In fact its been almost impossible to get the media to admit to the sexism even now. A massive boycott of the products of the parent companies unless Shuster is fired would be a step towards making sure something like that never happens again. And it will let those in power know that the next time something like that happens, there are going to be a lot of Godmothers out there to contend with.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008


Arrogance and stupidity are interesting characteristics. Like nitro and glycerin each by itself, kept separate is relatively harmless. The same is true of arrogance and stupidity. These characteristics in people can’t do much harm as long as they are kept separate. If someone is arrogant but has ability, people will put up with them and things can be accomplished. If they are stupid but humble people will help them and things can be accomplished. But if someone is both arrogant and stupid, when you combine that in a person in a position of power, it's like mixing nitro and glycerin. Both elements become unstable and it explodes resulting in catastrophic damage.

This is what we've seen unfold for the last 8 years with George W. Bush. And we are still dealing with the damage. And so will the next President.

In Barack Obama the same characteristics that caused so much damage during the Bush years are readily apparent. And just to be clear, when I use the term stupidity, I’m making a distinction between being smart and being educated. No one questions that Obama is well educated. He went to Harvard. No one questions that Bush is well educated. He went to Yale. The Bush administration, like all administrations is populated with nothing but well educated people. Well educated people who made some of the dumbest and most catastrophic decisions of any administration in American History.

Obama's arrogance has been on display for quite some time. After he lost the biggest states in the country by landslide margins on Super Tuesday he declared that essentially it didn't matter because he said he could win those states in a general election. It never occurred to him that the voters of those states, in overwhelming numbers made it clear they didn't want him to win those states in November they wanted Hillary Clinton, which is why they voted for her in landslide numbers. It seems that when Obama talked about rejecting the politics of the past he was including something called elections.

His arrogance was also on display in a statement he made which, while not having the tragic ramifications as Bush's most famous misstatement, ranks right up there in arrogance and stupidity with"Mission Accomplished" . It was back in February when he said "I'm confident I can get all her( Clinton) voters but it’s not clear that she can get any of mine". The reality is, Clinton voters on a state by state basis varying from 30%-80%, are saying they will never vote for him and 30% saying they will stay home if Obama was the nominee. This is the candidate Nancy Pelosi says has the judgment of the President. Which is how you get a 9% job approval rating.

More arrogance and stupidity were on display when he unveiled his fake presidential seal.And that was supposed to do what exactly? Make people think he is presidential? Make him look presidential? Was he assuming people are so gullible they see Presidential greatness in something that looked like it was made by a store that makes bowling trophies? Based on his successes in the primaries maybe he thought it would extend beyond his own supporters. He obviously thought wrong.

But in one simple trite trivial act, that ridiculous seal reveals the workings of a trite mind that thinks small thoughts not big ones, a mind consumed with his own personal ambition and more interested in trappings and his own success, than real ideas. A mind that doesn't think big but tries to fool big, which is why he talks about hope and change but has never been able to say hope or change for what. He doesn't say because he doesn't know. And, as his day in and day reneging on promises and pledges, reversing positions, and double dealing show, he doesnt care.

What he knows is when he thinks something sounds good and assumes that will be enough and that people will swallow it. And many did. But those number are declining fast as people start to wake up and realize it is they've been drinking.

Bush's arrogance came in the form of thinking he knew better than anyone else even when the facts contradicted him. He followed his own judgments which resulted in making catastrophic mistakes and then refusing to admit them. This led to more catastrophic mistakes. And all the while he had a subservient press letting him get away with it refusing to criticize or to see the emperor had no clothes.

Obama has much the same problem as Bush. His arrogance and that of his supporters makes it impossible for him or them to see his own flaws or to want to endure the embarrassment of admitting them. The stupidity of his statements and positions are never questioned by people who dont want to admit they've been had and never saw it coming when so many other people did. Obama also has a mindless and subservient press, the so called cynical, adversarial political press writing for newspapers that cover garden shows with a more critical eye than they did covering Obama. And let's not forget the fiasco involving his own children, when, sounding like an approriately protective father he vowed never to bring in children into the limelight. That event can speak for itself. And so can his explanations following it.

The more you listen to Obama the more you realize that Obama and his supporters believe an Obama Presidency is all about him. That's why people talk about Obama supporters drinking the Kool-Aid. What Obama and his supporters dont understand and maybe never will, is that being President is all about everybody but him.

It takes a lot of arrogance to tell people you are going to run a presidential campaign using public funds and then as soon as it matters, reverse your decision. It takes a lot of arrogance to tell people you’re going to filibuster the FISA bill if it contains retroactive immunity and then when you don’t need those people anymore not only reneg on the filibuster but vote for the bill in hopes that the telecom companies will remember in the form of big contributions. It also takes a lot of stupidity to think people wont notice. Or that they wont care.

It takes stupidity to make public pronouncements over such volatile issues as Jerusalem because you want votes from a Jewish audience only to have to retract them 24 hours later when the Palestinians go ballistic and then arrogantly and stupidly try to suggest that it wasn't you, people just misunderstood what you meant by an undivided Jerusalem. The explanation was just as stupid, claiming that he meant a Jerusalem with no barbed wire. Given the fact that Jerusalem hasn’t seen barbed wire since 1948, the next thing he'll tell us is that he's already delivered on his promise.

What just might save the Democrats are their own rules and an open honest convention since neither Obama nor Clinton won enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi have been trying to sell the dog and pony show that Obama is the nominee for a month and it’s not working especially among Clinton voters and donors. And it's wearing thin on some Obama supporters and Congressional Democrats too.

Democratic rules say there is no nominee and Clinton is still a candidate. Suspending her campaign is not the same as ending her candidacy. She has not released any of her delegates. And no declaration by super delegates like those coerced by Dean and Pelosi after the last primary, count for anything until they are cast at the convention where, according to party procedures and rules, they can cast their votes for any candidate whose name is nomination.

As long as Clinton's name is formally placed in nomination which is her right as a candidate, super delegates will have that choice.

But Dean, Pelosi, Donna Brazile and Obama himself are trying to do what they can to try and prevent Clinton from putting her name in nomination though its getting to the point where its going to be close to impossible to do without causing a wholesale rebellion in the Democratic Party which would not only sink Obama but the Democratic majority in Congress as well. Which shows that when it comes to arrogance and stupidity, you'll fnd enough at the DNC right now to fill a Bush Administration.

Thursday, July 10, 2008


On July 4th the New York Times wrote an editorial criticizing Senator Obama and expressing what might be called dismay over the fact that he's reneged on every promise he's ever made and changed or reversed his position on every issue of importance to the people who supported him during the primary. The most recent betrayal was his vote on the FISA legislation which at one time he promised to filibuster, giving the telecoms immunity for breaking the law on behalf of the Bush Administration and violating their customers 4th amendment rights. And it's easy to know why. Having opted out of public campaign financing, (another broken pledge,) it was for campaign contributions from the telecoms. And he was more than willing to sell out the 4th Amendment to get it.

All this seems to have taken the New York Times completely by surprise. Which doesn't say much for the New York Times and their powers of journalistic observation given the fact that these things have been obvious to at least 18 million people for anywhere from 7 months to 5 years including the people who know him from Chicago, And it doesn't say much for the judgement of Gail Collins, the editorial page editor of the New York Times who either wrote or approved the editorial.

But what was most startling about this editorial was it's referral to Obama's lies, deceptions,pandering, and reneging on pledges as "The New Obama".

To Collins this "New Obama" was confounding. She found Obama's dishonesty and the fact that he was talking out of both sides of his mouth and reversing himself on every position he took during the primary "perplexing". And she is "distressed" to learn that Obama does not keep his word and panders to whomever he happens to be talking to at the moment to try and get what he wants.

Calling him "The New Obama" , the Times never makes the obvious connection to what 40 years ago was called "The New Nixon". This was the term Nixon used to forge his political comeback. Everyone saw through it and it was a joke because everyone knew it was the same old Nixon trying to repackage himself just as it is the same old Obama, who conned the people he needed to gain his primary advantage and is now trying to sell his snake oil to evangelicals and conservatives but telling them it contains a completely different set of ingredients than the snake oil he sold to Keith Olbermann, Arianna Huffington, Bill Richardson, Newsweek, and everyone else who bought it and drank it. And that's the difference.

While the old media never bought "the New Nixon" and saw through it, obviously this collection of journalists who seem to have the powers of observation of a drunken sailor on a Saturday night on Bali, led by Collins and the New York Times, has never been able to see through Obama. They think that what they're seeing now is something "new", instead of the same Obama so many millions saw through right from the beginning, though Bob Herbert a Times columnist and Obama supporter seems to be the first at the newspaper to actually start saying "wait a minute..".

The analogy of Obama to Nixon is valid from many different points of view since a case can be made that Obama is the most underhanded and dishonest politician since Nixon. Obama even has his own Helen Gahagan Douglas, the political opponent Nixon falsely smeared as a communist to win his first election, in Alice Palmer.Obama, using money and oppressive legal tactics challenging every name on Palmer's petition strong armed Palmer off the ballot in Chicago to win his first election. There is a similar attempt going on now in a more subtle way to try and keep Senator Clinton from putting her name in nomination at the convention which is not only her right but which democratic process demands given that as of this moment, there is in fact no official nominee of the Democratic Party since neither won enough delegates to secure the nomination. And there wont be any nominee until super delegates vote at the convention where, as the rules provide, they can cast their vote for whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish and are not bound by any previous declarations.

The comparison between "The New Obama" and "The New Nixon" were obviously lost on Gail Collins and The New York Times. She didn't even seem to know there was a comparison to make and that the term had been used 40 years ago to describe Nixon. That there is an editorial page editor writing about politics for the NY Times that is this ignorant of fairly recent political history is a reflection of what passes for journalism today and how weak it is.

Maybe turning Obama into "The New Obama" is what Collins and the NY Times need to do in order to save face rather than admit they were taken in by a snake oil salesman and fooled. This is what con artists traditionally count on -- that people who get conned are so embarrassed they were taken in, that, rather than admit it, they keep their mouths shut or pretend it didn't happen to avoid having to face that they were stupid enough to be conned in the first place. This is how con artists get away with it, when they do.

How far the press has to go before they'll admit they were conned no one knows. And what super delegates will do and whether they can admit they were conned no one knows. It will come down to whether or not they regard saving the party more important than saving their face.

According to the most recent poll, 54% of Clinton's primary voters said they will never vote for Obama if he is the nominee ( yes if), and if 54% are saying it, 75% are thinking it and possibly more will act on it. And even if it were only 50%, that still makes it impossible for Obama to win a single state and if a third stay home as they are saying they would, he will take the Democratically controlled congress down with him.So, to quote Jeremiah Wright the chickens could be coming home to roost.

With Clinton having her name placed in nomination the Democratic Party has an out. Whether super delegates will take it no one can know.But this makes it more important than ever for the Democrats to have Clinton's name placed in nomination and to have an honest roll call vote in spite of Obama's machinations to try and stop it. Because what we do know is that the New Obama, like the New Nixon will always be up to the same old tricks. And the New York Times, who closed their negative Obama editorial by actually quoting Obama's campaign slogan of "change we can believe in", cant seem to learn new ones.

Monday, July 7, 2008


A friend of mine who knew I was working on the Florida and Michigan fiasco on behalf of getting the delegates seated used to send me links to bookmakers around the world, most of them in London who were taking bets on who would be the Democratic nominee. Obama was always the heavy favorite. He was 1-5 to win. But so was Big Brown 1-5 to win the Belmont and the triple crown.

Before the race he was considered a cinch In fact it wasn't going to be a race it was going to be a coronation, the first Triple Crown winner in 30 years. Nothing could beat him. He was undefeated. Except that once the race was run it didn't happen and he finished last proving once again that the only sure thing is that there is no such thing.

No one knows this better than Obama. When asked at a meeting of Clinton donors if he supported Senator Clinton's name on the ballot and her name in nomination his answer was something along the lines of " I'm not here to negotiate the convention". Obviously Senator Obama knows the best way to insure he doesn't lose is to do what he did to Alice Palmer in Chicago when he first ran for office -- try to force her off the ballot and keep her name from being placed in nomination..He and a few sycophants like Bill Richardson tried to do a little rough riding during the primaries and tried to force her out of race. So did the press and people like Jonathan Alter and Eleanor Clift and bloggers like Ben Smith at Politico. It's hard to lose a race when you can keep the other horse from showing up.

Its obvious that Obama knows what the press doesn't and the last thing he wants is Clinton's name placed in nomination as is her right since she is still a candidate. And she is entitled to a roll call vote and the opportunity for superdelegates to vote for whom they want at the time -- at the convention which is the only place it counts. If there is enough pressure on the DNC, if they realize they are heading for a disaster in the fall not just in the Presidential election but congressional elections if Democrats refuse to support the party, he wont have a choice.

As of right now, Senator Obama, the DNC, Howard Dean, and a lot of other people know that Senator Obama has far from clinched the nomination, He hasnt. And if you want any more proof, dont ask Obama, or the Disassociated Press, don't ask Howard Dean or Keith Olbermann or Nancy Pelosi or anyone in the media. Ask the person who knows and whose knowledge you can rely on. Ask a bookmaker. Ask any of them if they're paid off a nickle on all the bets made on Obama to be the nominee. They will say no and will tell you they don't pay off until the race is over. And they will tell you to come back in August. If you win.

Everyone knows the saying that its not over until the fat lady sings. Add to that, "and when the bookmakers pay off".

Saturday, July 5, 2008


Anyone who has been married or lived with a significant other or had a domestic partnership has at one time or another heard the words "Honey will you take out the garbage"? And more times than not you begrudgingly answered "okay", dragged yourself off the sofa or away from what you were doing and took out the garbage. And with the July 4th celebration just yesterday and a lot of outdoor barbecues producing left over food and paper plates and cups, there was a lot of garbage to get rid of so there was a lot of "Honey, will you take out the garbage?" going on today across the country.

The other day Bill Clinton issued a one line statement from his office regarding Obama in which he said he would do what he was asked to help Senator Obama's campaign. It was Bill Clinton agreeing to take out the garbage.

Dishonest news outlets like The Disassociated Press, Bloomberg News, The LA Times and others who have had a history of making fools out of themselves by distorting the news in favor of Obama tried to portray this tepid statement as though Obama now had Bill Clinton's unbridled, enthusiastic backing and support and this was proof that the party was uniting behind Obama.

The headline from the article in Bloomberg News was "Bill Clinton Commits to Obama". I'm not kidding. They used the word "commit".

I sent an email to the reporter who wrote the story, Kristin Jensen, and pointed out ("pointed out" is putting it nicely), the dishonesty, bias and absurdity of her article and how obviously it was slanted and agenda driven and didn't even remotely reflect Clinton's statement which sounded like anything but a commitment when it was in fact nothing more than a man agreeing to take out the garbage.

It's hard to know if my email had anything to do with it but the next day the article was changed and the "commit" headline gone and the entire tone of the article was more honest and reflective and surprisingly, (or not surprisingly) attributed many of the original statements in the article to an Obama spokesman whereas the other day they were printed without attribution as if they were fact.

What was actually lost in the Bloomberg article and ignored either out of ineptitude or willful neglect was that Bill Clinton's statement said a lot about his lack of support for Obama, especially if you look at it in its entirety.

First, its obvious Clinton didn't want to make the statement himself in front of cameras and so he didn't. Had he wanted to, he could have held a news conference and commanded first position on the evening news with an enthusiastic backing of Obama. He also didn't want the statement to sound like it was coming out of his own mouth so it was issued from his office which brings us to the second point. He didn't even want an actual human being, any human being, not just himself, to be seen in front of a news camera with this statement emanating from someones actual mouth. So instead his office ( for all we know we can attribute it to the Xerox machine) issued a statement that consisted of one line that said he would do what he was asked to do to help Obama. It was Bill Clinton lying on the sofa saying he'd take out the garbage.

And the press screamed "unity".

After watching Obama the last few weeks and how he has been double crossing all his gullible snake oil drinking enthusiasts, even backing off his promises of withdrawing troops from Iraq and making fools out of Arianna Huffington, Keith Olbermann Jonathan Alter, Newsweek, Ben Smith, Politico, Michael Moore, Andrew Sullivan, The Nation, Daily Kos, the New York Times, John Kerry, Jesse Jackson Jr, Joe Klein, Eleanor Clift, ( I love naming names) and just about everyone else who cast a vote for Obama for what they thought was a rational reason, there are a lot of people who seem to be getting ready to replace Obama's bus with a garbage truck and take Obama to the nearest dump.

He'll have a lot of company ( and have a lot of reading material) with the LA Times, Bloomberg News, the Disassociated Press and any number of other news organizations who will be right there with him for their biased,dishonest irrational, dangerous, and inept reporting. Journalists who refused to see Obama for who and what he was from the very beginning when so many millions of others did.

But with the way things are going, it's starting to look like Bill Clinton might get to stay on the couch after all. It looks like others are starting to pick up after themselves and will soon take out the garbage for him.

Tuesday, July 1, 2008


In the Obama campaign's most recent bizarre moment, Barack Obama, exercising the judgement he has become famous for, decided it was a good idea to send Wesley Clark onto the Sunday talk show circuit to criticize John McCain's war record and military service saying it was not sufficient for him to be commander-in-chief. This is something like a colander accusing a pot of having holes. It is also crosses the line into incompetence considering that Ret.Major General Barack Obama's war record consists entirely of a successful attack on Alice Palmer to get his start in Chicago politics.

Now we can add another Obama "what were they thinking moment" to go along with his other famous moments including his recent seal of disapproval which doesn't just call his judgement into question, it shows he simply doesn't have any. And while being a Navy fighter pilot and a POW for 4 years certainly doesn't qualify someone to be Commander-in- Chief, being mentored for 17 years by Jeremiah Wright doesn't exactly move you to the top of the list either.

Nancy Pelosi said not too long ago that she supported Obama because he has the judgment to be President. This is of course, like a homeless person giving advice on how to fix the housing crisis. We've been seeing Obama's judgement on display for the past two weeks and it hasn't been pretty. Breaking his pledge on public campaign financing, embracing the telecom immunity bill, reversing himself on Jerusalem within 24 hours which managed to unite both Israelis and Palestinians in their contempt for him, the Johnson episode before that, flip flopping on the recent Supreme Court gun decision while trying to pretend his reversal was because of "inartful" phrasing a year ago, and that obnoxious seal. And now an attack on McCain's military service as being insufficient to be Commander-in-chief in support of a Presidental candidate that doesn't have any of his own.

This is another extension of the judgment Obama showed in his 17 year relationship with Wright and his insufficient and evasive explanations about it during the primary.

After being caught in a series of lies about what he actually knew and heard, he finally admitted what he knew and heard said he disagreed with every inflammatory anti-American statement Wright ever made and found them all reprehensible and despicable. But he never gave a credible explanation as to why it took him 17 years to leave the room.

He has shown a propensity for saying anything to anyone at anytime to get what he wants right at the moment or to try and make a favorable impression and worry about the consequences later and he's been able to get away with it with the terminally gullible.Especially the journalists covering his campaign. But that's how you get reversals and broken pledges and flip flops on Supreme Court decisions and Jerusalem and how the person who claimed he had the judgement to be Commander-in-Chief from day one didn't leave Wright and his church until day 6,205.

Chicago journalists speculate he stayed at Trinity Church for 17 years for political reasons because it was in the district he represented and he did it to continue to get re-elected. Whatever Obama's reasons 17 years is a long time. And his actions and what he had to say about its says everything there needs to be said about his judgement and his credibility and who and what he is as a politician. How he could even think that attacking McCain's military service and war record as making him unfit to be the Commander-in-Chief could have any credibility in boosting his own standing to be Commander-in-Chief should be enough for the super delegates who declared for him on June 5 to undo the damage when they get to the convention and cast their votes when it really counts.

I used to be in advertising. I did print ads and TV commercials and ad campaigns for a living. I won a lot of awards doing it. Everything I did was successful. Everything. I worked for some of the top agencies in the business. And I'm still good at it

It took me less than 5 minutes to write a commercial for John McCain using this one issue, that he could run against Barack Obama from now until election day and John McCain could go fishing from now until November and win an election that would make Reagan - Mondale look like a squeaker.

I'm not bragging. I'm just trying to make a point. I didn't do the commercial as a gift to John McCain. I did it as a gift to the Democratic Party and any superdelegates who still wants to win in November. They have seven weeks to take it. I hope they do.


VO: For 4 years John McCain stood up for America as a POW in a North Vietnamese prison camp refusing under torture to make anti- American statements to be used as propaganda, never knowing when any given day might be his last.


V.O: For 17 years Barack Obama wouldn't stand up for America against the anti-American statements made by his own pastor in his church on the south side of Chicago until his political ambitions made it neccessary.


V.O.: Years before asking anyone for a single vote each made a choice. On November 4th it will be time to make yours.


SUPER: John McCain For President.

SFX: Wright(V.O):"On September 11th the chickens came home to roost.."

See you in Denver.