OBAMA'S NEW SONG: STOP IN THE NAME OF ROE, BEFORE YOU BREAK MY HEART.

As soon as he was given the opportunity in last night's debate Obama did what one would expect of Obama - he lied, exaggerated, pandered and tried to demagogue the issue of Roe v Wade hoping that if all else fails, fear will convince Clinton voters concerned about Roe that he is their only salvation and so they had better vote for him. His biggest lie was his typically self-centered self-serving over the top statement that "Roe v Wade hangs in the balance" with regards to his getting elected. Yes and so does the sun rising in the east.

Roe v Wade doesn't hang in the balance but Leave It To Obama, the Eddie Haskell of American politics, to make that absurdly exaggerated claim and try and use it to get wayward Clinton voters to get with the program. It isn't the first time Obama has been willing to say anything to get people to vote for him. He's been doing it since he started running. The question is how many will believe him now?

The answer, given his track record and his willing assault on common sense is that no one should believe him. And as is always the case with Obama, there are nothing but good reasons not to. But he is counting on millions of voters, most of whom were Clinton voters, to shudder in fear at his statement that in this election "Roe hangs in the balance",  and flock to him as the guardian of their reproductive rights. And he will say anything to scare them into believing it. And as usual, he won't let facts stand in his way.

McCain was clear that he feels Roe was wrongly decided. But so did Bush. And so did Reagan. And Roe is still standing. So having a President who feels Roe was wrongly decided means absolutely nothing. And what exactly does "wrongly decided" mean anyway? It means to those who argue the Constitutional validity of the decision, that the underpinning of the decision, the legal reasoning and Constitutional interpretation behind the opinion was wrong. But that doesn't mean the outcome was wrong ( legally or Constitutionally). And it doesn't mean that it would be overturned even on that basis.

There is also the point to be made that even if the virtually impossible happened, and that hypothetically there was somehow an entity that had the legal standing to challenge Roe ( something that everyone should realize has never happened) and it was appealed all the way to the Supreme Court ( a process that could take years in itself) and the case had enough unique ( and improbable) characteristics to allow the Court to even agree to hear the case, and, contrary to court history and inclination with regards to precedents, the Court struck down Roe, even that wouldn't make abortion illegal.

The entire Constitutional question over Roe is whether it was a federal issue or a states rights issue, meaning that hypothetically even if the virtually impossible happened and a case challenging Roe actually made it to the Supreme Court and Roe was struck down, it would only mean that each individual state would then have the right to construct its own laws regarding abortion. Kansas tried to pass a law not too long ago that would challenge Roe and many in Kansas considered it a laughing stock..And it didn't get very far.

Obama's fear mongering about Roe and his intellectually dishonest statement that in this election "Roe hangs in the balance" is Obama saying whatever nonsense he feels he has to say to get elected. This is Obama not caring about women's health but his own political health.

There is another point with regards to Roe and why its virtually impossible that it would get overturned which doesn't get a lot of mention. And that is the 14th Amendment and the equal protection clause. Those who argue that Roe was wrongly decided point to the majority opinion basing the decision on an "implicit right to privacy" in the Constitution which on the face of it, can't be found in the actual words of the Constitution. This is their basis for Roe being "wrongly decided". But the outcome of Roe still wouldn't change even if you could argue that the reasoning used in the opinion was faulty because an equally strong case can be made that laws banning abortion especially in the first trimester,violate the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. The amendment is clear that the laws must be applied equally. and there can be no doubt that any wholesale law banning abortion discriminates against women and their right to make these decisions for themselves and so violates the equal protection clause. Why Roe wasn't decided on those grounds I don't know but accepting a "right to privacy" isn't necessary to uphold Roe no matter how many conservative judges are on the court.

And with regards to judges, another one of Obama's fear mongering tactics is this idea of appointing a Supreme Court judge that would protect Roe ( as demonstrated, based on the 14th amendment you don't have to accept the "right to privacy" argument to uphold Roe). But there would be no way to know if the next President will have the opportunity to nominate another judge in the first place, so on that point as well, Obama's statement that "Roe hangs in the balance" is absurd. Besides, if McCain were elected its unlikely that a Democratically controlled congress would confirm a judge that has a paper trail that would indicate he or she is sympathetic to overturning Roe(based on the "right to privacy" opinion cited). And even Scalia has stated he is not inclined to overturn court precedent unless there is a compelling reason. Given that the outcome of Roe would be the same based on an equal protection argument ,its not likely the Court, any court, would even hear a challenge to Roe in the improbable event that someone could mount one.
The most important thing to keep in mind about Obama's attempt to demagogue Roe with his statement that "it hangs in the balance" is this -- all the legal arguments and the history of the decision prove otherwise. We have had a conservative court for the last 8 years. We had a conservative leaning court even before Roberts and Alito, were confirmed. And the simple proof of that is the 5-4 decision in 2000 that gave Bush the Presidency,which many people thought was an abortion in and of itself.

Given a conservative leaning majority on the court for the last 8 years, if there hasn't been a challenge to Roe during the Bush presidency, it is not going to "hang in the balance" now. No matter how hard Obama tries to fear monger otherwise. What hangs in the balance is Obama's candidacy, not Roe.And that is all he cares about. And that is the song he is singing.

NEW COMMERCIAL ATTACKS OBAMA ON HIS ECONOMIC JUDGEMENT

This new 30 second commerical from Democrats For Principle Before Party shows just how irresponsible, reckless and out of touch with the real world, Obama really is and especially when it comes to the economy, economic responsibility and how his narcissim always comes first. The commercial is going to air for the first time next week in Pittsburgh and continue to run there and in other battleground states but how often depends on the amount of contributions received to air it.

There was a report yesterday that pointed out that only a few short weeks ago, before the economic meltdown then most financial observers are now calling a full stock market crash, Obama said in a speech that he thought it was a "good idea" to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford them -- which as everyone knows is the single act that caused this meltdown.

As usual, the New Nixon is now reversing himself once again, as if he has multiple personality disorder, pretending that isn't what he said or meant. Except the speech is there for everyone to see.

Long before the events of the last few days, but as the country was already in deep economic trouble and sliding into and even bigger crisis, Obama showed his judgement and what his priorities are really are as this commercial points out.

To contribute to its airing click the button below.

HOW DEMOCRATS CAN DEFEAT OBAMA, SEE McCAIN WIN, STILL GET EVERYTHING THEY WANT AND RESPECT THEMSELVES IN THE MORNING.

Politics makes strange bedfellows. But one fellow most Democrats know they don't want to be in bed with is Barack Obama. The other choice, John McCain, doesn't sound too appealing to many Democrats either. The third choice is, as Sarah Palin would no doubt support, is abstinence. But the argument some make is that abstinence is the same as voting for John McCain. And it is.

Many Democrats seem to be going through a period of conflict over this election. They see Obama for what he is, a dishonest, snake oil salesman, unfit and unqualified to be President, throwing out one sweet talking lie after another at the political Mr. Goodbar, trying to pick up as many votes as he can get. And while most reject him, they also are recoiling over the idea of having a one night stand with a Republican, any Republican, though the guilty pleasure of having Obama lose and cheating on the cheater is too good to resist.But what they worry about the most is , how will they feel in the morning?

Many of these are Clinton supporters who very much wanted to see Hillary Clinton get the nomination for a variety of reasons, including the historic ones. And while many supported Clinton for the breakthroughs she represented to women, the real reason Clinton was the superior candidate had nothing to do with gender. She was simply the superior and more qualified candidate. And Obama clearly unqualified and from a character point of view, unfit.

And so what would make a Clinton supporter who viewed Obama as the clearly inferior candidate even consider voting for him now for President? the only reason seems to be either guilt over voting for a Republican, or a sense of not cheating on the Democratic Party, a party that this year cheated on them and violated every rule, procedure and principle of democracy in order to have to a nominee that the majority of the party voted against.

There is also the ongoing belief that a Democrat, any Democrat, would be better than a Republican in the White House. And in most cases that would be true. But not this year.

The truth is, there are more good reasons to defeat Obama and the Obamacrats than to elect him, even for the staunchest of Democrats.

For those who actually think Barack Obama is qualified to be President,no amount of truth, logic or reason is going to change their minds. To do so means having to admit they were taken in and made fools of, and as any cop will tell you, most con men get away with their con because their marks are so embarrassed to admit they were taken they just keep quiet.

Obama is simply unfit to be President in any way. Whether it was his serial lying about his relationship with Jeremiah Wright and what he knew and when he knew it, and the fact that he was more than willing to tolerate Wright's views of 911, and his views on race and never felt offended enough to walk out, to his lying to the people of Ohio about NAFTA and his other reversals and broken pledges on everything from public financing of campaigns to FISA, he is simply not someone you want to take home to the White House.

Aside from his dishonesty, clinical narcissism and almost pathological lack of conscience,.he has no ability to do the job he is seeking and has never in his life ever exhibited even the smallest evidence that he could do it. On the basis of integrity, there is nothing to consider. Obama has no integrity and as far as we can see from his past, never did..

McCain on the other hand, though one can disagree with some of his policies, has in fact demonstrated that he is willing to stand up for what he believes, and more importantly, stand up to Republicans which, based on some of Obama's policy statements makes Obama sound more Republican than McCain.

Yes McCain has agreed with Bush on a lot of things but Obama has actually agreed with Bush on more and based on his public pronouncements, its Obama that sounds more like a Bush 3rd term than McCain.. Obama has endorsed Bush's faith based initiatives which are clearly unconstitutional, endorsed Bush's position on Iraq ( let the commanders on the ground decide), now says he supported the surge, reversed himself on off shore drilling so his position is now more Republican, reversed himself on the DC gun ban, and has said that the Republican Party is the party of ideas.

So for those Democrats are have been reluctant to vote for a Republican or see a Republican win on ideological grounds, what is it that they think they are getting with Obama?.

McCain on the other hand has broken with Republicans when his conscience told him too, incurred the wrath of Rush Limbaugh and conservatives over his position on illegal immigration, daring to take a more humane approach, and before that, incurred the wrath of many in his party with the McCain Feingold bill in which McCain joined forces with one of the Senates most liberal Democrats to pass campaign finance reform. And sticking to that philosophy is campaigning using public financing, while Obama who pledged to use public financing reneged on it as soon as he became the nominee leaving MoveOn, Maureen Dowd, and editors across the country feeling used and with tears on their pillows.

Like it or not, the record shows McCain is the real reformer and the real deal, while Obama is what most of the 18 million Democrats who voted against him know him to be -- a snake oil salesman who has managed to bamboozle a lot of dumb, and impressionable people hanging out and the Democratic Mr. Goodbar, especially the dumb media blonds like Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and almost everyone at Newsweek, the NY times and CNN who he has eating out of hand.

The other thing to keep in mind about McCain is that he is rated last by conservative groups in supporting conservative legislation. His voting record is ranked 49th among Republican Senators by conservative watch dog groups which is why a lot of conservatives cant stand him. In other words, disaffected liberal Democrats who cant possibly in good conscience vote for Obama could do a lot worse than bringing McCain home to mother.

How absurd is the idea of Obama as President? Think about Obama being put in charge of the country's nuclear codes. I know. It almost makes you laugh out loud. Do I think that Obama would actually do something stupid with those codes? No. I bring it up to point out the true absurdity of Obama being elected President, and to put a fine point on the realities of and the enormity of the job and its responsibilities and how woefully and laughably inadequate Barack Obama is to those responsibilities.

The final argument people try to use on Democrats who don't support Obama is Roe v.Wade and that a McCain presidency would put that in danger. That is utter nonsense and fear mongering and the people trying to use it to scare people know it.

First, regardless of McCain's personal opinions there is no indication that overturning Roe is in any way a priority or even a desire for him. Secondly, no President has been more outspoken against Roe and has made his preferences more clearly known than Bush and even with two conservative Supreme Court appointees it didn't happen, has never come close to happening, and wouldn't happen under McCain. And for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that even Scalia has expressed a great reluctance to overturn long standing precedent,especially that which would cause great social upheaval unless there were great, immediate and pressing concerns.And then there is always the issue of who would have standing to bring a direct challenge to Roe and the answer is practically no one or it would have happened already.

Roe is no concern in a McCain presidency.

Aside from Obama's unfitness for the job ( which is reason enough) the other compelling reason for an Obama defeat is to reform and fumigate the Democratic Party which Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Chuck Schumer and others has turned into the Obamacratic Party which becomes more and more of an embarrassment every day as Pelosi's disastrous performance with the bailout bill proved.

Obama is the nominee because of a dishonest primary in which these same people, along with the press did everything possible to sell Obama as the nominee and do it dishonestly as they knew how including rigging the roll call vote violating every Democratic Party rule and procedure in the process.

Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and every member of the DNC who engineered and went along with fixing the process needs to go. Those who wont resign ( though I think many will after an Obama defeat) need to have their power and their base removed, so the that the Democratic Party can air itself out. And the only way that can happen is with an Obama loss. And the bigger the better.

And with McCain promising that he will only serve one term, that becomes even more attractive. In 2012 there will be two new candidates running even if McCain wins

Twenty-five years ago the Republican Party got through Watergate. This year the Democratic Party has to go through Fumigate and it can start with a big Obama loss. And on the morning of November 5th, with a McCain victory, the majority of Democrats can wake up, open the windows and let in the fresh air. And they can feel good about the night before and McCain winning. Even if its only a one night stand.

NOTE: Democrats For Principle Before Party has one commercial finished and two more in the works opposing Obama to be run in battleground states like Pa, Ohio, Florida and Michigan. The first one can be seen directly under this post. You can contribute to the airing of these commercials by clicking on the "donate" button below.

A NEW ANTI-OBAMA COMMERCIAL FROM DEMOCRATS FOR PRINCIPLE BEFORE PARTY.

This is the first commercial opposing Obama from Democrats For Principle Before Party.With enough contributions it will be run, along with others in battleground states. Click on the button below to contribute to the running of the commercial. To what extent and how often the commercial will run will depend, as always, on contributions.

The "Democrats For Principle Before Party" button will take you to the web site.

CONFESSIONS OF A COMPETENTIST.

Although I have voted Democratic almost exclusively, this year I will not be voting for the Democratic candidate for President. And I fully expect the accusations to fly as to why. So I have decided to preempt the attacks that are surely coming by openly making the admission. I am a competentist.

It's hard to admit these days but Im sure to be outed anyway so I might as well do it myself. I am a competentist. I believe in the superiority of competence above all else. I know this is going to get me in a world of trouble. I know its going to anger a lot of people. I know Keith Olbermann is liable to make me the worst person in the world. But what can I do?

I realize that in this electoral climate to admit you are for competence is really asking for it. Incompetents everywhere are going to be screaming for my head. They are going to accuse me of prejudice. they are going to accuse me of intolerance.They are even going to accuse me of not wanting to be in the same room with incompetents. And they are going to be right.

Incompetents have made great strides in the last ten or 15 years and now occupy positions of power in politics, the mass media and news as they never have before. And I already know that incompetents everywhere are going to want to string me up.They are going to accuse me of wanting to turn back the clock to a time when incompetents could not occupy the same positions of responsibility that competent people did. They are going to accuse me of being divisive. And I suppose to some extent it's true.

I know that in some quarters even making the distinction between competent and incompetent people will upset a lot of people. But I want to be clear -- I'm not trying to take away their rights. I'm not trying to get them fired from customer service and tech support jobs, or working for John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, or anything else,although I have to admit it would be nice. It's simply because I think competent people are better than incompetents. Not necessarily better people.

I have to admit I've always been a competentist. Some will say its a choice I made and that its my own doing and to borrow a phrase from a Presidential candidate, I can change if I want to. People will say it;s not something I can blame on my background or upbringing, though evangelicals will disagree and say I was born that way. Personally I just don't know. All I do know is competence is just too ingrained in me. In fact I cant think of a day when I wasn't competent.

Growing up, competence was all around me. I had competent parents. I had competent teachers. Everywhere I looked there was competence.. Although many will find this hard to believe, I didn't know incompetence even existed when I was growing up. It was a foreign idea. I led a sheltered life. Every once in awhile I'd run into an incompetent person and use the "J" word and say things like, "boy what a jerk", but it was rare.

I started my work life in the advertising business and everyone I knew was competent.The partners in the ad agency where I started were extremely competent. Competence was a way of life. We even had meetings at night, after everyone else had gone home where we discussed how to be more competent.

Maybe that added to my intolerance. Incompetents made me angry. I didn't want to be around them. II didn't want to work with them. I just wouldn't have anything to do with them. But is just the way it was and, I admit, how it still is.

For much of my adult life in terms of friends and co-workers, competence was the norm.We were all competent. It just became a part of day to day life. Incompetents look back on those days as the bad old days. And its true. If you were incompetent back then you had very a hard time .It must have seemed like the whole world was against them and they didn't have a chance. Incompetents felt they were shut out of things.They wanted the same opportunities as competents. They wanted to be doctors. They wanted to be lawyers. They wanted to be air traffic controllers. They even wanted to grow up to be Vice President. But society said no.

But times have changed.Incompetents have taken their place in the world, most prominently in the area of journalism. Some say its progress. I don't know.

Today incompetent have the right to vote and to vote for whomever they please, And as we saw during the primary season they have done exactly that. we've also seen incompetents rise to positions of authority in the Democratic National Committee. One is the Chairman of the committee. One has become Speaker of the House. And one is running for President.Yes, we live in historic times.

And I believe they should be allowed the same rights as competent people. But I admit I just don't like being around them. They make me nervous.

Yes Its been a historic time. In June super delegates in the Democratic Party were asked to use their best judgement in determining the strongest candidate for President of the United States. They looked at the results of a 6 month primary season and saw that one candidate landslided the other in the 13 biggest states in the country. And they chose the loser. They picked the candidate who lost by a landslide in every big state in the northeast, the industrial midwest, Florida, Michigan, Ohio, the entire southwest from Oklahoma to Nevada and the state of California.

Incompentents everywhere and in the news media were inspired by a candidate who spoke of change and hope but who could never say change to what or hope for what.Just change and hope. They were inspired by a candidate who said he couldn't disown his controversial pastor of 17 years anymore than he could disown a member of his own family until he disowned him and called him despicable. The press called him another Lincoln.

He went to Berlin and drew huge crowds by offering free food and a free rock concert and the press called him anther JFK. Actually they called him another JFK before that but after he broke his pledge to use public financing, reneged on voting against the FISA bill, reversed his stance on gun control and off shore drilling and said he would continue Bush's policies on faith based initiatives that many think violate the Constitution.

But right from the beginning incompetents in the Democratic Party found hope in a Democratic candidate who said Republicans were the party of ideas.

I know I am asking for trouble. We live in a different age and a different time. We are supposed to be more tolerant. We live in a time where Nancy Pelois the Speaker of the House and Harry Reid, the Senate Majority leader have managed to achieve through hard work, a lower job approval rating than George W. Bush. This gives heart to people everywhere who have a 9% job approval rating. With this accomplishment on the record they made their choice for nominee known and many in the Democratic Party followed.It was Pelosi who said her choice for President had the judgement to be President. And many Democrats followed.
Those who didn't have been called divisive.

Incompetents of all ages, races, and gender have made great strides in the Democratic Party this year and have sent out a candidate that represents their hopes for even greater power. But, I just cant go along. I know the Democratic Party made history this year. For the first time in political history the candidate with most votes lost. It was a historic moment. And incompetents everywhere rejoiced.

Incompetents at Stanford University and the Associated Press conducted a poll last week. They put out the story that, according to the poll the Democratic candidate for President could lose based on race because, they say the poll shows that 40% of Democrats have reservations about voting for a black man and that race could impact negatively on his candidacy. Of course, being incompetents, they never did bother to explain how a black man became the nominee of the Democratic Party in the first place if that were true.One assumes they are still scratching their heads over that one. On second thought, maybe they're not.

For those who want to strike a blow against incompetence click the donate button and make a contribution to Democrats For Principle Before Party, an offshoot of the Denver Group who will be running ads and commercials in battleground states to defeat Obama and return competence to the DNC and Democratic Party.

HOW A MASSIVE OBAMA DEFEAT BECOMES A MASSIVE DEMOCRATIC VICTORY.

The best thing that can happen for the country and the Democratic Party this November is a massive defeat of Barack Obama.

While Obama is arguably the most unfit, unqualified, dishonest,dishonorable, deceitful and underhanded candidate ever to run for the Presidency on the Democratic ticket, a snake oil salesman who talks out of both sides of his mouth and will lie to anyone about anything, its also no secret that he wouldn't even be the candidate had the Democratic Party leadership not corrupted, devalued, and rigged the system in order to produce him.

Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Donna Brazile and all those in the DNC and the Democratic Party who went along with this fiasco corrupted the party during the primaries in ways that hadn't been seen since the days of Boss Tweed. And they topped it off with a brazenly rigged roll call vote that violated every rule and procedure in the Democratic Party, throwing away 18 million votes, disenfranchising almost 1700 delegates, and disregarding the 800 super delegates who Democratic rules said were supposed to decide the nominee. And they did all this to produce a candidate that is the most unfit the party has ever put forward. This is why this is election will be studied in the years to come, not by political scientists, but by psychiatrists.

Not only is Obama completely unqualified to be President and on that basis alone should be defeated, but for those Democrats who have never wanted to see a Republican elected over a Democrat, they should be reminded that it was Obama who said earlier this year that the Republicans were the party of ideas. He has reversed himself on so many positions that now are aligned with Republican positions so he can pander to Republican voters in the general election ( FISA, gun control, off shore drilling) that John McCain is actually more at odds with the Republican Party than Obama. Another tid bit psychiatrists will find fascinating to study in the year to come.

A massive defeat of Obama, one of Reagan - Mondale like proportions will not only keep an unqualified and untrustworthy, and certainly undeserving candidate out of the White House, it would have the secondary, longer lasting, and immediate benefit of ridding the party of those who corrupted it in the first place and produced the coming fiasco.

It would not only be a huge defeat for Obama, but the entire Obama wing of the party, starting with Howard Dean and the wicked witches of the west and east, Nancy Pelosi,and Donna Brazile, and all the Munchkins in the Democratic Party who went along and supported this fiasco, from elected Democratic officials to the super delegates of the Lollipop League whose worthless declarations in June helped short circuit the process.

As for Dean, Pelosi, Fowler, Brazile and those in the DNC who sanctioned this dishonest and corrupt exercise in Democratic Party futility, their resignations should be and will be demanded and they will have no choice but to resign after engineering a humiliating defeat in a year the Democrats should have won in a cake walk. That will take the Democratic Party out of the hands of the dishonest brokers and back into the hands of those who respect its principles and processes.

To this end the Denver Group has created an off-shoot effort called Democrats For Principle Before Party, a group aiming at a two pronged attack -- one, running ads in the congressional media holding Dean, Pelosi and the rest of the leadership accountable and demanding their resignations in the face of a Democratic defeat, and secondly, running ads and commercials in battleground states aimed defeating Obama, and bringing about the change that's really needed -- keeping an unqualified candidate out of the White House and reforming the Democratic Party. After 8 years of an incompetent Republican the last thing we need is four years of an incompetent Democrat.

And now with the news yesterday that it will be Obama who will choose the next Chairman of the DNC ( in the best traditions of Boss Tweed and Mao) a massive Obama defeat at the polls is really the only way the Democratic Party can be reformed. Not a close defeat. A massive one.

For those who want to contribute to that end, and who believe a massive Obama defeat is not only necessary but what is best for the country and the party, you can do two things -- withhold your vote for Obama (vote for another candidate or don't vote the Presidential line at all) while voting for down ticket Democrats you feel deserve your vote and secondly, you can contribute to the Denver Group's new off-shoot, Democrats For Principle Before Party by clicking on the "donate" button at the end of this post.

There is really no amount too small. A $5 contribution from a thousand people buys as much advertising as $5,000 from one person and there are a lot more people with $5 to donate than there are with $5,000. Coming from Democrats these ads and commercials will have a lot more credibility and have more of an effect than attack ads coming from the sources you would expect. Secondly, the group will also be targeting Democrats in congress and the DNC to demand resignations and reform after an Obama defeat.

Any amount can help achieve those goals of a massive Obama defeat and restoring the Democratic Party to the kind of institution its supposed to be, run by people who understand what its supposed to be and who will protect its rules,procedures and democratic values. This is how a massive Democratic defeat will turn into a lasting Democratic victory.

OBAMA:THE LATEST PUNCH LINE TO THE JOKE "HOW ARE THE DEMOCRATS GOING TO BLOW IT THIS TIME"?

In 2000 Al Gore ran for President on the coattails of the best 8 year record any President had since FDR. The country went from record deficits to a zero deficit, a balanced budget, the greatest economic expansion in history, the lowest unemployment in 40 years, two wars in Bosnia and Kosovo overthrowing a brutal dictator while keeping two ethnic factions with hatreds going back centuries apart, and did it without one single US combat casualty. And on top of all that the Clinton Administration left the country with a $5  1/2 trillion budget surplus.

With the politically astute Donna Brazile as his campaign manager, Al Gore, with had a record like that to run on, decided to run a campaign designed to distance himself from the White House. And he succeeded. Permanently. With Donna Brazile running his campaign, a funny thing happened on the way to the election --  he did what most thought politically impossible. With an 8 Clinton Administration record of landmark accomplishment to run on against a one term governor of a state where the legislature meets only twice he year, he lost to George W.Bush, a candidate who didn't know the name of the President of Pakistan.  That year Gore and Donna Brazile and her astute campaign management were the punch line to the joke "How are the Democrats going to blow it this year"?

In 2004 George Bush was up for re-election having gone through the worst 4 years of any President in history. It started with the 911 attacks which the record showed could have and should have been prevented but for Bush's gross negligence. Then there was the debacle in Iraq, which, like 911 resulted in Bush's ignoring warnings from people who actually knew what they were doing,( a pattern which repeated itself for the 3rd time with Katrina), the economy going into near recession, the blowing of the $5 1/2 trillion surplus, destroying a balanced budget and  the country descending into record deficits.

John Kerry decided to ignore all this and ran the second dumbest campaign in the history of Presidential politics, like Gore four years earlier showing a degree of political incompetence that staggered the mind. 

Kerry's decision to go skiing on the day Richard Clarke testified under oath at the 911 Commission Hearings giving evidence of the Bush Administration's gross negligence with regards to ignoring warnings of an impending Al-Qaeda attack against the United States, didn't help( the evidence of Bushs gross negligence as well as the irrefutable evidence that 911 could have and should have been prevented but for Bush's negligence and incompetence will be the subject of a future post). What we do know is Kerry thought he did pretty well finishing second and making it close.

Now after 8 years of Bush, the collective political wisdom of John Kerry, Donna Brazile, Mr. Yee Haw himself, Howard Dean, and Nancy Pelosi, someone with a lower job approval rating than George Bush and the rest of the DNC that went along, have produced another comedy act.

These geniuses of Presidential politics decided it was a good idea to corrupt Democratic Party rules and procedures and substitute their own brilliant political judgment for the votes of 18 million people, 800 super delegates and the rules and procedures of the Democratic Party by rigging the nominating process to produce Mr. Lipstick On a Pig himself,  a snake oil salesman  who during the primary was caught lying more times than Nixon during Watergate.

This was a year when 70% of the country was united in their displeasure of Bush. It was a year when 70% of the country was united in feeling the country was on the wrong track. It was a year when 70% of the country was united in feeling Iraq was a mistake. So naturally the leadership of the DNC decided to field a candidate whose campaign was based on how divided the country was.

But that was only the DNC playing straight man. The best was yet to come. Their candidate of choice first lied about, then tried to do damage control over his 17 year relationship with his spiritual mentor who said America got what it deserved on 911. Not a good thing for someone who wants to be President. But that didn't faze the geniuses in the news media or the DNC. They still wanted that punch line. So after repeatedly lying about his relationship with Wright, he was caught lying to the people of Ohio about getting rid of NAFTA after a memo was leaked where  his emissary told the Canadian government to ignore everything he was saying publicly, that it was just politics. Maybe the first time Obama told the truth to anyone about anything. 

You would have thought after that the DNC and the news media would have started to get a sense of humor about their candidate, but they just sat there deadpan.

As everyone knows Obama ran a campaign with the theme of change though he could never say what kind of change he was talking about.He said he was a new politician rejecting the politics of the past, accusing Clinton of taking corporate money and being in the pocket of lobbyists, then violated his pledge to use public campaign financing and started taking money from corporations and lobbyists. But the media and the DNC kept a straight face. 

He said he was going to reform the old ways of Washington then chose someone almost as old as the Washington Monument to be his VP. Pretty funny stuff .Really.

And the fact that he doesn't have a shred of accomplishment or a single original idea to show he was qualified to have the most important job in the world was pretty funny too, though it left the media and the DNC still not getting the joke.

Obama then played the race card in South Carolina accusing Clinton of diminishing Martin Luther Kings legacy when she said it took LBJ's experience and political arm twisting to get the Civil Rights Act through Congress. But the DNC and the media, playing straight man to Obama accused Clinton of playing the race card by even bringing up civil rights. They obviously have no sense of humor.

And despite running a campaign that featured speeches about how every vote must count and voices must be heard, Obama did everything in his power to stifle the voices of 2 million voters in Florida and Michigan for one very important reason -- because they overwhelmingly voted against him. All you heard during that period of time was the line about how all he was doing was following "the rules" and how important "the rules" were. Which didn't stop him from corrupting every rule and procedure the Democratic Party has when the roll call vote was rigged so he would win.

With material like this, Obama is really the funniest candidate to ever run for the Presidency. All you need is to add a laugh track to his speeches to appreciate just how funny he is. And I may do a video that does just that and post it here adding a laugh track to Obama's more humorous speeches. 

But what is almost the funniest thing of all is that this is the candidate the DNC rigged the nominating process to produce thanks to the Three Stooges of Democratic politics -- Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Donna Brazile.

The latest polls, which Democrats don't think are very funny, show McCain taking the lead against Obama in a year when a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican by 10 points. The gap is wider among registered voters.And party identification is now just about even when during the primary season the Democrats led by 10.

Given not just the utter stupidity of Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, Fowler and most of the DNC who followed them off the cliff and how are now probably beating each other with rubber chickens, but the utter dishonesty and corruption with which they conducted the primary campaign and convention to produce this slapstick farce, no honest person can say they don't deserve to lose and lose big.

Obama doesn't deserve to be President and the numbers now show he will probably lose maybe even by landslide numbers. Which, when you think about it, is also pretty funny. Though the humor will probably go over the heads of Obama and his supporters. But hopefully in four years, with the DNC having learned its lesson and Dean, Pelosi and Brazile and the Obama wing of the Democratic Party long gone and doing their act somewhere else, the Democrats will nominate someone who will know how to tell a joke. Instead of being one.

NOTE: In his ongoing efforts to continue doing all he can to avoid being a joke, Obama announced that he is canceling his appearance tonight ( Sept.13) on Saturday Night Live.