Saturday, May 31, 2008

Finally, he quits

Barack has finally resigned from the church of bigotry, divisiveness and hatred that has been his spiritual home for the past 16 years:
Barack Obama announced Saturday that he and his wife had resigned as members of their Chicago church in the wake of controversial remarks from its pulpit that have become a serious distraction to his presidential campaign.
Why'd he do it?
...he quit his Chicago church in the aftermath of inflammatory sermons that could become a lightning rod in the November election.
Could become a lightening rod? How about "that will make him unelectable this fall."
"This is not a decision I come to lightly and frankly it's one I make with some sadness," Obama told reporters during a stop in South Dakota. "Trinity was where I found Jesus Christ, where we were married, where our children were baptized."
Obviously a difficult decision for Barack. But any sane human being would have been out of there, say, 16 years ago!
"It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles," Obama said.
Ah, so Barack thinks he should be viewed as the victim here. But didn't his donation last year of $26,270 help make those guest pastors possible?

Barack and Radicalism

Barack's close ties to radicalism are an area of his life that some 527 (Swift Boat style group) must be eagerly researching in preparation for the general election.
In April 2004, Barack Obama told a reporter from the Chicago Sun-Times that he had three spiritual mentors or counselors: Jeremiah Wright, James Meeks, and Father Michael Pfleger.
In a deflection of the seriousness of Barack's partnership with Jeremiah Wright, many have cited the Pastor John Hagee endorsement of John McCain. Obviously, John McCain seeking and receiving political support from a questionable preacher can't be compared with Barack's 20 year mentoring from and familial ties to Wright. But, for those who aren't focused enough to see this, Michael Pfleger comes along to illuminate things. One of the best parts of the Pfleger situation is this:

In September 2007 in Iowa, Plfeger participated in forums on the role of spirituality in politics, which the Obama campaign had organized. The Obama campaign welcomed Pfleger's endorsement, listing him as one of about a dozen prominent ministers who supported Obama.

Yup. Pfleger is not just another of Barack's divisive, race-baiting mentors. He also endorsed Barack! And worked on his campaign! On the role of consulting on spirituality in politics. The disingenuous attempt by the left to fluff off Wright as the exception, and to cancel him out with Hagee, are blown out of the water.
Pfleger was a prominent early endorser of Obama's successful 2004 Senate campaign, as well as his unsuccessful 2000 challenge to U.S. Rep. Bobby Rush.

In 2001, Pfleger appeared at a press conference to support state legislator Obama's bill requiring the police to keep statistics on the race of motorists who were stopped by the police, to deter racial profiling. Pfleger also appeared at a press conference announcing State Senator Obama's proposal to outlaw the sale of high-nicotine hand-rolled cigarettes.

Pfleger brings back to the forefront an image problem for the Obama campaign - Barack as a poser. His light skin, intellectual demeanor and elite educational background make him play as someone who isn't part of the Sharpton wing of the Democratic Party. As his ties to the racists unfold, this link will become unmistakable. Combine that with his ties to radicalism, and an ugly brew is simmering.

Wright, Ayers, Pfleger, Rezko, Dohrn. It's tough to imagine that Barack's mafia won't destroy his credibility with the American people.

made prominent this week

Pfleger Doesn't Pfly with Cardinal

The wings of outrageous Catholic Priest Michael Pfleger, well known in Chicago for his radical diatribes and his support of Louis Farrakhan and Barack Obama, have been clipped by a Cardinal.
"To avoid months of turmoil in the church, Father Pfleger has promised me that he will not enter into campaigning," (Cardinal Francis) George said in a statement. "[He] will not publicly mention any candidate by name and will abide by the discipline common to all Catholic priests."
George said Pfleger's remarks were off course:
"Racial issues are both political and moral and are also highly charged," George said. "Words can be differently interpreted, but Father Pfleger's remarks about Senator Clinton are both partisan and amount to a personal attack. I regret that deeply."
How does Pfleger survive in the Catholic Church? He's good for business.

His rebellious style has set him apart from Chicago's Roman Catholic clergy as far back as Pfleger's seminary days, when he protested the Vietnam War and befriended Black Panthers on the city's West Side.

But it also helped the priest, who is white, turn the once-dwindling congregation at St. Sabina into a thriving, predominantly African-American parish. More than 2,100 parishioners call St. Sabina, at the corner of South Racine Avenue and West 78th Place, their spiritual home.

Pfleger/Wright TV Commercial

Everyone remembers the Swift Boat ads of 4 years ago and the huge impact made by that campaign to undermine John Kerry. That sort of attack during a presidential race, paid for by independent organizations not connected to the candidates or the parties, will likely play a big role this year as well.

I love imagining the TV ads that will be run against Barack Obama. All the polling and speculation right now seems meaningless, because the underbelly of Barack, while partially exposed, has not yet been exploited.

Consider this one, which I call the "Character" ad.
Announcer: There's an old saying that you can judge a man's character by the company he keeps.

Clip of Pastor Wright: "It's not God Bless America, it's God Damn America!"

Announcer: "Last year, Barack Obama gave $26,270 to Reverend Wright's Trinity Church."

Clip of Pastor Wright: "Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run."

Announcer: "And the year before, Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, gave $22,500 to Pastor Wright."

Clip of Michelle: "And let me tell you something. For the first time in my adult life, I'm really proud of my country."

Announcer: "Barack Obama spent 20 years attending Reverend Wright's sermons each week."

Clip of Barack: "Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

Announcer: "Barack Obama wants to be President of the United States."

Clip of Pastor Wright: “Barack knows what it means living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich, white people. ”

Announcer: "But do we really know him well enough to trust him with the most important job in the world?"
I know that every force in the country is aligned in such a way that Republican defeat should be unavoidable in this fall's presidential election. But I still can't imagine how Barack doesn't get crushed by McCain.

Hillary Outsmarted

How did Barack manage to snatch the nomination away from Hillary? Was it just inspirational rhetoric? Nope.
Obama's campaign mastered some of the most arcane rules in politics, and then used them to foil a front-runner who seemed to have every advantage—money, fame and a husband who had essentially run the Democratic Party for eight years as president.
The overconfident Clinton just figured she was going to win, and left the door open for Barack's people to outmaneuver her.
Obama used the Democrats' system of awarding delegates to limit his losses in states won by Clinton while maximizing gains in states he carried. Clinton, meanwhile, conserved her resources by essentially conceding states that favored Obama, including many states that held caucuses instead of primaries.
When her shock and awe campaign failed, the groundwork hadn't been done to give her the ability to win in hand to hand combat.

The system enables strong second-place candidates to stay competitive and extend the race—as long as they don't run out of campaign money.

"For people who want a campaign to end quickly, proportional allocation is a bad system," Devine said. "For people who want a system that is fair and reflective of the voters, it's a much better system."

One of the systemic quirks that worked to Barack's favor is the idea that congressional districts that usually vote for democrats over republicans get more delegates than ones that vote republican.

"Black districts always have a large number of delegates because they are the highest performers for the Democratic Party," said Elaine Kamarck, a Harvard University professor who is writing a book about the Democratic nominating process.

"Once you had a black candidate you knew that he would be winning large numbers of delegates because of this phenomenon," said Kamarck, who is also a superdelegate supporting Clinton.

So, the smart folks running Hillary's campaign were so brimming with confidence that they didn't think it was necessary to do the legwork necessary to fill the cracks in the system that made them vulnerable. Or, they just didn't see the vulnerability.

Friday, May 30, 2008

If Barack Doesn't Win, I'm Moving To...

Here we go again with the Hollywood promises to leave the country if the democrat doesn't win. Remember Alec Baldwin's commitment to move overseas if Al Gore didn't win in 2000. You just can't trust an actor - Bush beat Gore, and Baldwin stayed.

But if you're looking for motivation to let go of your reservations and vote for McCain, here's a good one:
SUSAN SARANDON, who appeared in three films last year and won kudos for her TV movie "Bernard and Doris," is still not a contented soul. She says if John McCain gets elected, she will move to Italy or Canada. She adds, "It's a critical time, but I have faith in the American people."
I find the choices to be curious. Italy - the land of great restaurants and great romance, where the true religion is extracting as much pleasure as possible, or Canada. It wouldn't be a tough decision for me.

I don't like the idea of Sarandon only exiling herself to Canada. It's too close, and they make too many films there. Go for the pasta, Sue.

Why isn't she for Hillary?
"I thought the whole point of feminism is that you're not supposed to be defined by gender."
Explain your logic please, Susan, to black voters who've been going 90% for Barack.

It's the Hatred, Stupid

It's a cliche now, I know, and I hate to make use of it.

But that line on the economy that James Carville had hanging over his desk in Clinton campaign headquarters in 1992 was there because he knew it was the issue that would decide the election.

For John McCain, the sign in HQ should read, "It's the Hatred, Stupid."

The great, untapped gift to John McCain from Barack's past is not Reverend Wright. It's what Reverend Wright represents. It's hatred of white people and of American society, and the premise for victim hood that allows the black underclass to be held in place in perpetuity. That's what Barack was part of for 20 years. That's what Michelle has been indoctrinated with that made it possible to calmly mention in a speech that she's never been proud of this country before, and then use the line again in another speech, without thinking that this might be a sentiment that the country could have some trouble relating to.

Let's welcome Rev. Michael Pfleger to Trinity Baptist Church. Thanks to Pfleger,
the hatred is back.
Barack Obama moved to distance himself from another preacher at Trinity United Church of Christ on Thursday after controversial comments by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Catholic Church in Chicago, were circulated online.
Apparently, Pfleger didn't get the memo - no more hate speech until we get Barack elected president. Or maybe he got the memo, but didn't think Reverend Wright should get all the glory.
"Don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did, but you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did," Pfleger said from the pulpit of Trinity on Sunday. ". . . Unless you are willing to give up the benefits, you must be responsible for what was done in your ancestors' generation. We must be honest enough to expose white entitlement and supremacy wherever it raises his head. "


There it is - in one shot - the rationale for blaming any white person walking around today for everything that's happened to blacks in this country, including slavery.
"When Hillary was crying, people said that was put on. I really don't believe it was put on. I really believe she just always thought this is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white, and this is mine! I just got to get up and step up to the plate. Then, out of nowhere, came Barack Obama! And she said oh, damn, where did you come from. "
While Barack is likely not a hater himself, he must be comfortable with the premise upon which the hate is built. Otherwise, what was he doing there all those years?
"I'm white, I'm entitled, there's a black man stealing my show," he continued, feigning tears. "She wasn't the only one crying -- there were a whole lot of white people crying. . . I'm sorry, I don't want to get you in any more trouble."
Now that we're hearing it from a second source at Barack's church, exposing the fact that this is Barack's world has been made easier. It will be harder now for the "zero tolerance" crowd to blame the problem on Pastor Wright. The fact is, this attitude is a movement, and as Barack points out in his impotent response, a tradition in the black community.
"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us. That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric, which doesn't reflect the country I see or the desire of people across America to come together in common cause," Obama's statement said.
Truer words have never been spoken. Regular Americans have no interest in this crap. Fortunately for John McCain and the country, Barack Obama sat there and listened to it for 20 years. Last year, Barack and Michelle gave $26,270 to Trinity to help spread the hate.

No wonder democrats go nuts when you correctly link Barack to these people and their beliefs. "Stop the personal attacks," they cry. "Talk about issues!" There is no bigger issue than what is at the core of a leader's heart. And you know a man's heart by looking at who he gives his $26,270 to.

It's the hatred.

Stupid.

Thursday, May 29, 2008

What McClellan Says

Have watched some interviews of Scott promoting the book, but haven't read it yet. He is bending over backwards to be nice to President Bush. Assuming the book is no more hard hitting than the interviews, this is not a collection of BLOCKBUSTER revelations, despite the frantic coverage over the past couple of days.

His argument boils down to this - President Bush and the staff went to Washington with a goal of changing the way business was done. Instead of succeeding, they got dragged into the permanent election cycle that was the way business was done in the Clinton White House. This Scott finds disappointing.

On Iraq, there was no lying he says, but the administration, again being swept away by the need to win the game of politics, played up the news that was good and ignored the news that was bad. President Bush was sincere in his desire to change the middle east by spreading freedom, and that was the primary goal for going in.

Over all, pretty tame stuff. The fact that he vouches for Bush's sincerity in wanting to help the middle east flies in the face of the standard democratic hate speech about the President - just there to steal oil and such - is good news for the White House.

McClellan is clearly mad at Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, both of whom set him up, he thinks, by telling him that they weren't involved in the Valerie Plame thing when it was later revealed they were. Again, he doesn't blame the President - he thinks they lied to him too.

McClellan - Where's the Beef?

Ah, let's see. Where to start.

Scott McClellan is a shit. How better to describe someone who writes a book blasting the guy he used to work for when that guy is still in office? Memoirs should wait until after the president has left office, thank you very much.

But if Scott had some insights and news into the Bush White House that was so vital and urgent that it couldn't wait another 7 months, then he should have told us about it upon leaving his job, not after holding it all this time while he wrote a book. By writing the book, he reveals he's willing to put America second in order to maximize his sales. Which means he can't be trusted to do the right thing. Which means there's no reason for us to believe that he wouldn't bend the truth to create market excitement over his memoirs. The little shit.

On the specifics, though, there is nothing much in the excerpts to support the mad media frenzy:
In a broad indictment of the culture of Washington and national politics, McClellan said deception "permeates our national political discourse" and has "become an accepted way of winning the partisan wars for public opinion."
A problem that McClellan is looking to exacerbate, it seems.
He wrote that he had placed "great hope" in Bush to change that culture: "He chose not to do so. . . . Instead, his own White House became embroiled in political maneuvering that was equally unsavory, if not worse" than that of the Clinton White House.
It is sad to think of the Bush administration being as ruthless as Clinton's, but it's hardly an earth shattering accusation.
"The president had promised himself that he would accomplish what his father had failed to do by winning a second term. . . . And that meant operating continually in campaign mode: never explaining, never apologizing, never retreating. Unfortunately, that strategy also had less justifiable repercussions: never reflecting, never reconsidering, never compromising. Especially not where Iraq was concerned."
Well, so what? He doesn't like to look back. Scott says he was mislead by Libby and Rove, but so was the president. The administration used propaganda to launch the war - what President hasn't? He says that Bush is a decent man who, knowing what he knows now,
"...would never have made the decision to invade, despite what he might say or feel he has to say publicly today."
Which makes this whole frenzy much ado about nothing.

Lobbyist Games

Does Barack hire lobbyists to work on his campaign? Nope. They're too insidious to have around! They could corrupt the campaign!
The co-director of Barack Obama's presidential campaign in Puerto Rico is a Washington-based federal lobbyist for the government of Puerto Rico. Ethics watchdogs said that the high-profile role of Francisco J. Pavía appears to contradict the Obama campaign's ethics guidelines, which forbid federal lobbyists from working on staff.
Well, then. That's simple enough. Just let the New Kinda Politics People know about the mistake and it will be remedied.
But Obama spokesman Bill Burton said Pavía is an "active volunteer" -- not a paid staffer -- and can hold the job without running afoul of the campaign's rules.
Huh? You mean Mister Clean isn't sincere in his desire to keep lobbyists away from his organization? It's just a campaign ploy? It seems if you're a lobbyist, all you have to do to circumvent the ban is work for the campaign for free while collecting your lobbying paycheck, or take a leave of absence from your job while getting paid by the campaign.

Pavía is not on leave from his law firm, Winston & Strawn, according to the managing partner of its Washington office, Thomas L. Mills.

But he has been an important part of the Obama campaign in Puerto Rico, which holds its Democratic primary Sunday. Obama wrote to Puerto Rico's State Elections Commission in March to designate Pavía and Andres Lopez as "our local representatives" to the commission. In May, Pavía and Lopez signed a posting on Obama's campaign Web site that identified them as co-directors of the Puerto Rico effort and solicited volunteers.

Pavía has been a registered lobbyist for various arms of the Puerto Rican government since 2001, according to disclosure reports filed with the U.S. Senate. His firm's total compensation for lobbying for the commonwealth over that period was more than $3 million.

On the other hand...

Moses Mercado, a lobbyist for Ogilvy Government Relations in Washington, said in an interview that he was told by the Obama campaign that he must take an unpaid leave from his firm before working as a get-out-the-vote volunteer earlier this year.

"It was pretty clear," Mercado said. "It was so clear that I made sure I wrote a letter to our office manager saying that on these days I'm taking a leave of absence."

Later, after he said he received a call from Burton, Mercado said he had not been asked to take a leave.

Is the man from Hope not on the up and up?
"It sounds like a conflict with Obama's policy," said Melanie Sloan of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "They need to provide an explanation."
Ya think?
Burton said that Pavía's role with the campaign was permissible but that the rules were not airtight. "This is not a perfect solution to the influence of special interests in Washington," he said. "But it is a symbol of the effort that Senator Obama is going to make to decrease the influence that the special interests do have."
So Barack's whole lobbyist thing is confessed campaign fraud. He can't be held to any particular standard because the system is too corrupt, but he gets to hold McCain to an arbitrary standard that he creates - one that he says is only symbolic. Nice.

871 Days

The Republican National Committee is highlighting Barack's failure to visit Iraq in nearly two and a half years as more evidence of his lack of readiness to handle foreign policy, joining an argument that McCain stumbled on a few days ago. Chairman Mike Duncan writes on the GOP website:
Barack Obama has only visited Iraq once – and that was 871 days ago. Despite lacking the experience and leadership to be Commander-in-Chief, Obama has done shockingly little to educate himself firsthand about the war in Iraq. Instead, he displays an arrogant certainty gained on the campaign trail.
That's the sort of factoid that arguments are built around in campaigns. This guy is the big anti-war candidate, why does he ignore the positive changes since the surge? Is it because he has preconceived notions that are impenetrable by reality? Is he naive?
Why does Obama readily agree to one-on-one negotiations with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but decline one-on-one briefings in Baghdad with our military leaders? Obama’s failure to visit Iraq, listen and learn firsthand, and witness the surge’s progress demonstrates weak leadership that disqualifies him from being Commander in Chief.
McCain's invitation that they travel together to Iraq so that he could educate Barack was turned down by the democrat, but his campaign says it is considering a trip there this summer:
Sen. Barack Obama is considering a visit to Iraq this summer, his first since becoming a presidential candidate.

Republican rival John McCain has criticized him for failing to visit Iraq since 2006. Obama also declined McCain's invitation for a joint trip, saying he didn't want "to be involved in a political stunt," according to a report Wednesday on The New York Times Web site.

While Obama is right to respond, his response proves the resonance of the issue, and it puts him perpetually on the defensive. Whenever the trip is covered, it will include a mention that it was done in response to the McCain taunting.
McCain, who campaigned Wednesday in Nevada, has been criticizing him for not returning, and the Republican Party joined the attack Wednesday by launching an online clock to count the days since Obama last visited.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Hillary's Advantage

Gallup did a little research to see if Hillary is right. In the 20 states that she won this primary season, she beats John McCain 50% to 43%.
In those same states, Barack Obama is about tied with McCain among national registered voters, 45% to 46%.
On the other hand, Clinton does just as well against McCain in the states that Barack beat her:
...in the 28 states and the District of Columbia where Obama has won a higher share of the popular vote against Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primaries and caucuses, there is essentially no difference in how Obama and Clinton each fare against McCain. Both Democrats are statistically tied with him for the fall election.
Who would you nominate. And if you're Barack, who would you select as your VP?

Another Big EnDorsment for Barack!

It's unclear if this is a coordinated effort - yesterday, Fidel Castro endorsed Barack, and today comes a similar vote of confidence from Chuck D!
Speaking to NME.COM, Chuck D said: "I think Barack Obama is the right man for the job, but maybe in the wrong country right about now that will be able to treat it right and give him the pressures that will not allow him to do the job."
It's hard to know for sure, but we think that means he's supporting Barack but he thinks that because he's black, the country won't cooperate with him and his leadership will be a failure.
He also explained his doubts about Obama's rival, Hillary Clinton, saying: "I did originally think they were going to be a dream team together but Hillary has put so much foot in her mouth it makes that a rather difficult thing to look at."
Whatever. It's still another democratic leader jumping on the the Barack bandwagon.

McCain Can Win

Even thought this is not a year for Republicans, McCain can win this election. That's the report from GOP strategists, who envision the GOP losing congressional elections but holding the presidency:
They believe that concerns among small town and rural voters about Mr Obama's ethnic background and lack of experience would result in a decisive amount of "split ticket" voting in November's general election.
But McCain's made some mistakes.

Karl Rove, Mr Bush's former right-hand man, told Fox News: "John McCain needs a clear image of what he is going to do over the next four years ... he doesn't have that yet."

Other senior Republicans expressed fears that he had failed to exploit the drawn out contest for the Democratic nomination between Mr Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton.

The effect of Barack's big black vote is overplayed, as even John Kerry received 88% of the black vote:
Chip Felkel, a Republican consultant in South Carolina, which Mr Obama won by a landslide with the help of the black vote, said: "The African American vote makes more states interesting but doesn't really bring them into play. That's probably true for my state, North Carolina and Georgia."
Democrats figure Barack can use his money advantage to hold McCain off.
Privately, Democratic strategists concede the validity of the scenario, but stress that Mr Obama has time to overcome voters' doubts, and will be vastly better funded than Mr McCain.

New Politics

Under Barack's new politics, McCain gets attacked for holding a fundraiser that is closed to the press:
On Tuesday, likely Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama slammed GOP rival Sen. John McCain for holding a fund-raiser with President Bush with "no reporters'' around.
It's true, John McCain wants the money the President can help raise, but doesn't want to pay the political price of being seen with him. It's outrageous, this lack of transparency, and would never happen under the rules of the "new politics" that Barack represents.
Today, Michelle Obama is headlining a fund-raiser in California for Hollywood elites that the campaign did not announce.
Wait. California? Wasn't it in California where Barack was secretly recorded by a supporter, with no media around, telling a group of elite donors about how the little people cling to their gun and religion?

The comments came to light as a result of the Huffington Post's groundbreaking experiment in citizen journalism, Off The Bus. The website runs a network of about 1,800 unpaid researchers, interviewers and writers.

One of those writers, Mayhill Fowler, broke the story, despite being a paid-up supporter of Obama. She attended a fundraising event in San Francisco on April 6 and recorded Obama's speech.

Fowler sat on the material for days, conflicted about what to do with it. She only published the comments last Friday.

"She had some real reservations about the story as an Obama supporter," Amanda Michel, the director of Off The Bus, told the Guardian. "But she thought as a citizen journalist she had a duty to report the event, despite her support for Barack Obama."

Sure is funny how sometimes the new politics looks so much like the old, isn't it?

Small Mistake?

It looks like a small blunder:
WASHINGTON - Sen. Barack Obama misspoke when he told a group of veterans that his uncle was among the troops who liberated the Auschwitz concentration camp, aides to the Democratic presidential candidate said Tuesday.

In fact, Obama's great-uncle took part in the liberation of one of the concentration camps at Buchenwald, spokesman Bill Burton said.

Obama "mistakenly referred to Auschwitz instead of Buchenwald in telling of his personal experience of a soldier in his family who served heroically," Burton said.
So what's the big deal? He misspoke. But with Barack struggling to make Jewish voters comfortable with him, it can't help.
Critics were quick to seize on the mistake.

"It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there's no way Obama's statement yesterday can be true," said Republican National Committee spokesman Alex Conant.

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

As Fidel Goes, So Goes the Nation

Obama continues to amaze with the folks he can convince to jump on his bandwagon. What a great TV commercial for McCain this will make - the list of thinkers, and organizations, who are on Barack's side is absolutely mind numbing:

Consider Robert Reich, Ted Kennedy, Tom Hanks, NARAL, John Edwards, Jane Fonda, The Teamsters and Steel Workers unions, Moveon.org, John Kerry, Michael Moore, Oprah Winfrey, George Clooney, Reggae Singer Cocoa Tea, and Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef, just to name a few of the most prominent of Barack's base.

But now, Barack's philosophical bona fides have been confirmed beyond reproach. Some have been so bold as to doubt Barack's commitment to the radicalism of Reverend Wright, and others have dared to question his commitment to the radicalism of Bill Ayers. But who can deny Barack his true stature now that he's received the quiet support of none other than Communist Leader Emeritus Fidel Castro? How Sweet it Is!!!!!!!!!!!! In response to Barack's Communist Cuba Manifesto, delivered last week, Castro wrote:
I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debating skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.
Castro even went so far as to hint that he was only offering some negative feedback on Barack in order to protect him:
I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.
Once again, Barack shows his ability to win the support of those who hate American power at a rate that folks like John Kerry and Al Gore could only dream of.

The Land of Liberalism

I thought I'd share with you an email exchange I've just had with my mother having to do with my political philosophy. So that you're fully informed, I should tell you that I was born and raised and have lived virtually all of my adult life in the Boston area. I grew up in a neighborhood, town and state disproportionately filled with liberal intellectuals, in a state that has more than its share of universities and the doctrinaire liberalism that resides there.

My mother is a retired college professor who, while on the liberal side of things, has also been somewhat surprised, and perhaps bothered, by how far some have taken ideas which seemed like a good idea at the start but which have now spun out of control. I respect her balanced view, but she struggles nevertheless with my conservative views, and words that I speak with great meaning and subtlety intended often hit her brain as two dimensional and trite because she lives on the other side of the perspective fence.

Anyway, she had dinner with friends last night and sent this note:
I had dinner with Carol and John last night and they besseiged me about you and your political views. I said to them, "why don't you discuss it all with Todd? He's good about sharing. I can't represent his views accurately." You should think about it; you might enjoy it and they think so very diffferently from you that it might be fun for you both.
I wrote back asking why they were so concerned about my views and got this response:
I think because your views are so different from those of the people whom they associate you with and because John has listenied to you on the radio and is intrigued by your point of view and it confuses him. I think it is born of genuine fascination.....and the minute John sees me it awakens hiis thnking about the situation. But they are not the only ones who respond thaat way......he is just very up front about it........
This aggravated me, as it gets tiring living in a world in which it is so hard to find someone who isn't shocked by intellectual diversity - It feels like I'm a gun control advocate in hunting country sometimes. So here's what I wrote back:
The subtext of the question is that there's something odd about my views that compels investigation. But my views are, in fact, mainstream ones, found as most people's are - they are derived from a mix or personal psychology, environment and critical thinking. While it may seem odd that I am able to think things thru enough to draw my own conclusions, I find it odd that those who hold a political perspective that has never been accepted by the country think that theirs is the only viable one because they happen to live in a geographical pocket that holds that perspective.

So, let's check off the categories for them. First - Osmosis. My views are based less on osmosis than are most people's, as mine go counter to my environment. That's a point in my favor, I'd say. Second - Psychology. My personal psychology is one of independence and self-suffiency, so I'm inclined toward governmental models that allow and encourage those attributes (which are, by the way, at the heart of the premise of the American experiment). But I would argue that mine are less influenced by personal psychology than are most people's because critical thinking plays a larger role in my analysis - I read, debate and think about these things all the time, and actually know a little about the issues that I have opinions about rather than just being a political mirror, so I do my best to mitigate personal inclinations. Even more important, I discuss and debate the issues with those who are highly educated and hold differing views, so I have a full pallet of ideas to sort through. There is no template one can point to and say - "ah ha, that's where Todd came up with it!" I have drawn my own conclusions.

More in need of investigation, I think, are people whose strongly held views reflect verbatim the perspectives spoon fed them by the media, their community and their peers, an indication that they are little more than "well educated," intelligent people who live a life of cocooned privelege which they don't venture beyond intellectually. Carefully couched in an environment where they never hear differing views, they are shocked and dismissive when they confront someone who shares the political perspective of the majority of Americans, not to mention those of the country's founding fathers.

Rather than inquire about where I got such views, they'd be better served, I think, by questioning why they are so content to be part of a closed feeding loop - parrots who read it in the Times, hear it on NPR, repeat it at cocktail parties with friends of identical cultural and educational identities, and are absolutely baffled by anyone who doesn't share their smug point of view. While they may celebrate diversity with their donations, they are utterly confounded when they confront it in their environment.

Now, aren't you glad you asked?
I thought you'd enjoy the exchange. The names were changed to protect privacy.

More Assasination Talk

It's hard for regular folk to understand, all this talk of assassination. Normal people just expect Barack to lose, that's all. No one wants a return to the 1960's, and given that those horrible events were forty years ago, few people are thinking that way.

Except for those who long for the sixties - people who came of age and were politically awakened by the anti-war movement, whose identities were formed around it. Barack Obama excites passions in them that they haven't felt since the assassination decade, so they project all their Kennedy feelings onto Barack.

So when Hillary Clinton made some innocent remarks about Bobby Kennedy's assassination last week, it touched a nerve. For the irrational exuberance crowd, Barack and Bobby are merged into a single, archetypal symbol - you attack one, you attack them both. And the symbol is so highly idealized that by using Bobby's slaying as an historical reference point Hillary was soiling sacred turf.

Thus, the atmosphere is charged, and it probably wasn't such a good idea when Fox News Pundit Liz Trotta stepped into the Huckabee zone on Sunday:

Fox contributor Liz Trotta, a former Washington Times editor, was being interviewed by host Eric Shawn for Fox News on Sunday when she said: " And now we have what some are reading as a suggestion that somebody knock off Osama, uh Obama. Well, both, if we could."
Trotta's apology might have made things worse when she used carefully coded language (isn't that what the wackos will think?) to bring race into the conversation:
"It is a very colorful political season, and many of us are making mistakes and saying things we wish we had not said," added Trotta.
Be gentle with liberals you encounter today - even though this isn't happening in the real world, in their worlds this is as real as the mud at Woodstock. Bobby is back, and they're sure they're going to have to live through his assassination again.

On the Road Again

One of the thing that Barack does very well is sticking with a position even when it looks like he's losing the argument. It makes him look strong, very much the unKerry, and sometimes he's able to ride his position into the winner's circle as circumstances shift.

McCain is following a similar strategy on Iraq, which Barack hasn't visited since 2006 - taking a perceived weakness and trying to turn it to Barack's disadvantage. On Monday, he used Iraq to emphasize his argument that Barack is inexperienced and naive as he offered to accompany the democrat on a field trip into the war zone.

"Look at what happened in the last two years since Senator Obama visited and declared the war lost," Senator McCain has told the Associated Press. "He really has no experience or knowledge or judgment about the issue of Iraq and he has wanted to surrender for a long time."

"If there was any other issue before the American people, and you hadn't had anything to do with it in a couple of years, I think the American people would judge that very harshly."

This is a very strong tactic. Despite his early opposition to the war, before he held a position that was relevant to war policy, Barack has shown no leadership on ending the war since arriving in the senate. When people start to look closely at what McCain is saying, there's something for everyone to get mad at Barack about - why hasn't he taken any political risk to oppose the war since coming to Washington, why hasn't he kept himself informed with a return visit to the region, who is he to put down the effort when he hasn't made his own effort to keep up to speed on progress? What if things are going well and he doesn't even know it?

Senator McCain has said Senator Obama has not been to Iraq in more than two years, since before the so-called troops surge announced by President George W. Bush at the start of 2007.

He has said the country has been transformed since then and Senator Obama cannot have a credible policy on Iraq unless he returns there to see the improvements in security.

Age is always portrayed as a problem for McCain in this race, but it too can easily be turned around. Barack's youth should be more of an issue than McCain's senior status, and McCain is working to move the conversation to where he wants it:

A supporter of Senator McCain floated the idea of a joint visit over the weekend. On cue, Senator McCain said he was supportive of the idea.

"I would also seize that opportunity to educate Senator Obama along the way," he said.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Sorry Mahmoud, No Meeting

Barack continues to move his promise to meet with leaders of countries like Iran and Cuba during his first year in office into more responsible territory.
Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama underscored his willingness to talk to leaders of countries like Iran that are considered U.S. adversaries but said that does not necessarily mean an audience with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
While he sounds lame in his word parsing, and he proves Hillary and McCain right in going after him for the foolhardy commitment, Barack can start to present a more credible, pro-dialogue, position.

Obama, an Illinois senator, said Iranian presidential elections in 2009 would be a factor in considering the timing of any meetings, as would considerations of who wields the power.

"There's no reason why we would necessarily meet with Ahmadinejad before we know that he was actually in power. He's not the most powerful person in Iran," Obama told reporters while campaigning in New Mexico.

Sure. That was all true, of course, before you said you'd meet with Ahmadinejad in your first year in office. As McCain has said,

....sitting down with someone like Ahmadinejad would give the Iranian president a spotlight and send the wrong signal to U.S. allies such as Israel.

Iran does not recognize Israel's existence and Ahmadinejad has called the country a "stinking corpse."

Which is why Obama spent a chunk of last week trying to convince Jewish voters in Florida that he wouldn't abandon Israel and could be trusted on Iran.

It Must Be Hillary

Over the past couple months, when everyone in the democratic party had decided that Barack Obama had to be the nominee - Hillary Clinton has been dug in, telling anyone who would listen that Barack is a mistake, that he will have a tough time winning a general election.
A growing concern for Democrats is the fact that, during her primary defeats as well as victories, Hillary Clinton has soundly defeated Obama among working-class whites, rural voters, and older women.
And she was right. Barack is a damaged candidate who will have to convince the country that he isn't Muslim (which 11% believe), that he doesn't share the views of Reverend Wright, Black Liberation Theology and Louis Farrakhan, while also making a compelling argument that it's not a problem electing someone with virtually no experience to the toughest job in the world. It is only because this is such a bad year to be a republican that Barack is even viable, especially since he draws poorly from mainstream working class white voters.
And, since presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has also polled well with these groups, Obama will have to figure out a way to connect with them if he hopes to become America's first black president in November.
Now, Hillary's argument shifts to the VP position. With her on the ticket, the fear of McCain's ability to attract the center leading to the GOP holding onto the presidency goes out the window. How does Barack say no?
"He needs to worry about those voting areas," said (former Connecticut Congressman Bruce) Morrison, who's now a Capital Hill lobbyist."He certainly needs to worry about Irish-America, Italian-America, and Polish-America, and other communities like that. And they're very concentrated in particularly important states, like Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan."

"He can win them. But he'll win them easier if they put Hillary on the ticket."

While the Washington punditry sees Hillary as having killed off her chances at the VP spot with last week's innocent comments about Bobby Kennedy, it's hard to imagine that Barack doesn't take very seriously the opportunity that Clinton presents.

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Hillary's Slender Hope

Barack is complaining about Hillary trying to drive a wedge between his candidacy and the voters of Michigan and Florida:
"Let's not sort of pretend that we don't know what's going on. This is, from their perspective, their last slender hope to make arguments about how they can win."
On the other hand, he's being very generous over Hillary's Bobby Kennedy remark, using the opportunity to buy himself some insurance for his own future blunders:
"I have learned that when you are campaigning for as many months as Senator Clinton and I have been campaigning, sometimes you get careless in terms of the statements that you make, and I think that is what happened here," he said in an interview with Radio ISLA. "Senator Clinton says that she did not intend any offense by it, and I will take her at her word on that."
Also unshaken by Hillary's rather innocent use of Bobby's memory is his son, Robert Jr.
“I’ve heard her make that argument before,” Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. “It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign.”

Mr. Kennedy said he has been traveling and had not seen the video or read Mrs. Clinton’s comments, but said his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered.

Why Michelle is Fair Game

A nice piece from the Boston Globe's Jeff Jacoby, the paper's token conservative, on why despite protests from Barack, Michelle Obama is fair game for attack in this campaign. You'll recall that early last week, on Good Morning America, Barack played the tough guy and told folks to leave Michelle alone.


Jacoby takes the opportunity to reiterate just how down on America Michelle is:

Here she is, for instance, in Wisconsin:

"Life for regular folks has gotten worse over the course of my lifetime, through Republican and Democratic administrations. It hasn't gotten much better."

And in South Carolina:

America is "just downright mean" and "guided by fear . . . We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day."

Michelle has made herself a sharp-spoken part of the campaign, and Jacoby is right to defend the rights of others to object to her characterizations:

There is also her creepily authoritarian vision of life under an Obama administration. From a speech in California:

"Barack Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zone . . . Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual - uninvolved, uninformed."

Here are two clips of Michelle and her original "For the first time in my adult life," comments. In case you haven't seen them yet.

Saturday, May 24, 2008

By Comparison

He's black, Harvard educated, went to a wonderful prep school, is an inspiring speaker, and got elected by appealing to a sense of hope for a better political process. His campaign rallied supporters under a banner of change with slogans like Yes We Can and Together We Can!

18 months later, the people of Massachusetts are trying to figure out how they could have been so dumb to have elected a guy governor with so little political experience.

Even liberals, clinging to Hillary, point to Deval Patrick as evidence of what could go wrong with Barack. Deval's latest bad news is, surprise, a huge increase in spending - in his own office!

The state Senate is cracking down on skyrocketing office spending by Gov. Deval Patrick by demanding that he explain the purpose of cushy-sounding staff positions that have fueled charges of overspending in the Corner Office.

During budget deliberations this week, the Senate unanimously passed a GOP-backed measure that requires the governor to post an online organization chart by July 31 to explain the rationale for his hiring decisions.

What is causing the state Senate to crack down?
The governor has padded his staff with exotic new positions such as “director of grassroots governance” and “director of new media and online strategy,” part of a hiring push that raised eyebrows among senators battling with tight financial margins next year.
Even though the Governor's office says a big chunk of the 80% increase is due to Commonwealth Corps, a new volunteer effort launched by Patrick, faith in him has dropped so low that the democratic legislature doesn't want to leave this issue alone.
Patrick has increased staffing to 76 full-time positions after former Gov. Mitt Romney trimmed the number to about 65.

And the governor has also reopened an administrative office in Springfield and increased funding by at least $150,000 for a branch office in Washington, D.C.

Read this post, and this one, for background on Deval.

California Dreamin'

Is California up for grabs? Only in the wildest dreams of the GOP. But that doesn't mean new numbers from an LA Times poll, showing Barack with a 7 point lead in the state, should be cause for gloating:
Less than four months after losing the California primary, Democrat Barack Obama leads Republican John McCain in projected November general election matchups, a new Los Angeles Times/KTLA Poll has found.
How good are the numbers for dems?
Obama, the Illinois senator who has inched close to his party's nomination, would defeat McCain by seven points if the election were held today. New York Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose fortunes have faltered since her Feb. 5 drubbing of Obama in California, would eke out only a three-point victory, the poll found.
Considering that Gore took the state by 12% and Kerry by 9%, one could view Barack's 7 point lead as a sign of weakness. But democrats are living in fear, which this poll serves to relieve, that Hillary voters might refuse to swing over to Barack:
Signs that Democratic loyalty had survived the primary surfaced repeatedly in the survey. To take one measure, Clinton won 76% of Democrats against McCain; Obama won 75%, a statistically insignificant difference. In any case, Obama more than made up for it by winning more independents and Republicans than Clinton would.
So, instead of a headline reading, "Barack weaker than Gore or Kerry in California," it was a happy one: "Obama would take California in November."

Bobby = Barack

Hillary took some flack Friday, and apologized, for having dared to speak of the assassination of Bobby Kennedy. It doesn't matter that the reference to his killing wasn't about his killing, it's just that in the twisted psyches of 60's era liberals, Barack is Bobby all over again, so they fear for his safety. Hillary was questioning why, when nomination fights have gone on a long time in recent memory, she's been pressured so to get out of the race:
"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California," she said.
The reaction was swift:
"Senator Clinton's statement before the Argus Leader editorial board was unfortunate and has no place in this campaign," said Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton.
Liberals have been waiting for forty years to feel one more time like Bobby made them feel, which explains the irrational exuberance for Barack. Mentioning the assassination in defense of her candidacy was more than they could handle from Hillary.
Clinton told reporters later, "I regret if my referencing of that moment of trauma for our entire country and particularly the Kennedy family was in any way offensive. I had no intention of that whatsoever."
Feeling the love that they do for Barack brings liberals back to 1968, and they assign to him all qualities that Bobby had, including the risk of assassination.
There have been concerns about the safety of Obama, an Illinois senator who would be the first black U.S. president. He began receiving Secret Service protection 18 months before the November election -- earlier than any other candidate has received increased security.
It's unclear where he thinks the money will come from - surely Hillary isn't in any position to be shaken down - but Al Sharpton is smelling racial blood:
The Rev. Al Sharpton, who has already expressed anger toward Clinton during the race, planned to spend his rally today at his Harlem-based National Action Network addressing "a sense of outrage and dismay at statements made by" the New York senator, according to his office.

Friday, May 23, 2008

Vee Pee Talks

CNN is reporting that Campaign Clinton is talking to Campaign Hope about business as usual - making Hillary the VP nominee. Oh, how happy the women of America would be!
I've just closed my eyes again
Climbed aboard the dream weaver train
Driver take away my worries of today
And leave tomorrow behind
"The two Democratic campaigns are talking about ways for Clinton, from New York, to drop her bid for president that may include joining the Illinois senator's ticket, CNN reported."
Fly me high through the starry skies
Maybe to an astral plane
Cross the highways of fantasy
Help me to forget todays pain
"Talks are in a ``very preliminary'' stage and are described as ``difficult,'' the network said."
Though the dawn may be coming soon
There still may be some time
Fly me away to the bright side of the moon
And meet me on the other side
CNN didn't identify any sources for the story.
Ooh dream weaver
I believe you can get me through the night
Ooh dream weaver
I believe we can reach the morning light

A New Campaign

Given the level of hardball that's being played in the presidential campaign right now, I don't see the cute stuff that's worked up to this point as being productive anymore for Barack.

Senator Obama is honored to speak on behalf of United States Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who was previously scheduled to deliver the address.

“Ted and I talked about me filling in for him at Wesleyan University earlier this week. Considering what he's done for me and for our country, there's nothing I wouldn't do for him. So I'm looking forward to standing in his place on Sunday even though I know I won't be able to fill his shoes," Senator Obama said.

Honestly, who gives a flying flip over the fact that Barack and Ted have a crush on each other and are making out in the back of the bus? If he needs this sort of legitimacy by association with the convention a couple of months away, it seems to me as a reminder of just how wet behind the ears Barack is.
On Sunday, May 25, 2008, United States Senator Barack Obama will deliver the Commencement Address at the 176th Commencement Ceremony at Wesleyan University in Middletown, Connecticut.
If Barack comes away from the event speaking with a Brahman accent, then it will really be time to get nervous.

Wham!

Barack got a little too cute for McCain's taste today in trying to make an issue over their respective positions on the new GI bill proposed by Senator Jim Webb. After making his standard "I respect his service" qualifiers, Barack said:
"But I can't understand why he would line up behind the president in opposition to this GI Bill. I can't believe why he believes it is too generous to our veterans. I could not disagree with him and the president more on this issue. There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them."
McCain hit Barack upside the head with a brick in response, saying he:
"...will not accept from Senator Obama, who did not feel it was his responsibility to serve our country in uniform, any lectures on my regard for those who did. It is typical, but no less offensive that Senator Obama uses the Senate floor to take cheap shots at an opponent and easy advantage of an issue he has less than zero understanding of," McCain said.
Clearly locked and loaded on this issue, McCain went on, hoping to put Barack in enough pain that he'll be reluctant to expose himself to a similar beating in the future:
"Let me say first in response to Senator Obama, running for President is different than serving as President. The office comes with responsibilities so serious that the occupant can't always take the politically easy route without hurting the country he is sworn to defend. Unlike Senator Obama, my admiration, respect and deep gratitude for America's veterans is something more than a convenient campaign pledge. I think I have earned the right to make that claim."
The "running vs serving" theme is a nice one, a not so subtle reminder that Barack's experience holding a job of import is 3 years in the U.S. Senate, less two years taken off to run for president.

Pastor Problem

Are all pastor problems created equal? Methinks not.
Senator John McCain on Thursday rejected the endorsement of the Rev. John C. Hagee, a televangelist, after a watchdog group released a recording of a sermon in which Mr. Hagee said Hitler and the Holocaust had been part of God’s plan to chase the Jews from Europe and drive them to Palestine.
Barack is wagging his tail like a hound on the hunt over this, as if McCain's Pastor Problem equals Barack's Pastor Problem. McCain begs to differ:
“I have said I do not believe Senator Obama shares Reverend Wright’s extreme views,” Mr. McCain said in his statement. “But let me also be clear, Reverend Hagee was not and is not my pastor or spiritual adviser, and I did not attend his church for 20 years.”
Big difference. Also different is McCain's ability to speak frankly about the matter and make a definitive sort of statement that folks can relate to without having to call for any national day of reflection on religion:

"Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Reverend Hagee's endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well," he said.

Later, in Stockton, he told reporters: "I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable."

No great soul searching required. What a relief. So while Barack thinks McCain's Pastor provides cover for him, it just may be that McCain's minor pastor issues allow him to keep people thinking and talking about Reverend Wright.

I'm just saying...

Thursday, May 22, 2008

Could Barack Hurt Race Relations?

Could it be that the candidacy of Barack Obama, rather than carrying us into a new, post-racial era, is instead turning the clock back, exacerbating wounds that have been festering out of sight? Perhaps unconscious fault lines are being stepped on by Barack, and a campaign marked by tension and strife is ahead:
Police are mobilizing a massive presence in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn in the wake of increased tension between African American and Jewish communities.
Just because blacks and Jews are largely democrats doesn't mean the communities get along:
Since 1991, when riots broke out after a 7-year-old black boy was killed by a Hassidic driver, Crown Heights has been hurt off-and-on by periodic tension. In the past month, 20-year-old Andrew Charles, who is black, was beaten up, and the suspect is Jewish.
A reminder of tensions between the communities is not what Barack needs as he tries to convince Jewish voters that they should feel comfortable with his attitude toward Israel, or for mainstream voters starting to perceive him as a big bag of trouble coming down the road.

The Jewish Thing

The New York Times can't figure out which prejudice it is that will sink Obama with Florida's Jewish community. Is it that they don't trust him on Israel?

“The people here, liberal people, will not vote for Obama because of his attitude towards Israel,” Ms. Weitz, 83, said, lingering over brunch.

“They’re going to vote for McCain,” she said.

Or is it cultural disconnect cooked in a recipe made of Pastor Wright, Michelle and race?

Ms. Grossman, 80, agreed with her friend’s conclusion, but not her reasoning.

“They’ll pick on the minister thing, they’ll pick on the wife, but the major issue is color,” she said, quietly fingering a coffee cup. Ms. Grossman said she was thinking of voting for Mr. Obama, who is leading in the delegate count for the nomination, as was Ms. Weitz.

But Ms. Grossman does not tell the neighbors. “I keep my mouth shut,” she said.

As long as they can blame it on race, you've got to figure the Times is happy. At least the conversation has moved into the paper's comfort zone.
American Jews hold two competing views of Mr. Obama, said Rabbi David Saperstein of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism in Washington. First, there is Obama the scholar, the social justice advocate, the defender of Israel with a close feel for Jewish concerns garnered through decades of intimate friendships. In this version, Mr. Obama’s race is an asset, Rabbi Saperstein said.
Then there's the other side of the story:
At brunch in Boynton Beach, Bob Welstein, who said he was in his 80s, said so bluntly. “Am I semi-racist? Yes,” he said.

Decades earlier, on the west side of Chicago, his mother was mugged and beaten by a black assailant, he said. It was “a beautiful Jewish neighborhood” — until black residents moved in, he said.

And they found another one!

Jack Stern, 85, sitting alone at an outdoor café in Aventura on Sunday, said he was no racist. When he was liberated from a concentration camp in 1945, black American soldiers were kinder than white ones, handing out food to the emaciated Jews, he said.

Years later, after he opened a bakery in Brooklyn, “I got disgusted, because they killed Jews,” he said, citing neighborhood crimes committed by African-Americans. “I shouldn’t say it, but it is what it is,” said Mr. Stern, who vowed not to vote for Mr. Obama.

The piece does give a nod to concerns over Israels future from people who've been paying attention:
Several interviewees said they had reservations about Mr. Obama’s stated willingness to negotiate with Iran — whose nuclear ambitions and Holocaust-denying president trigger even starker fears among Jews than intifada uprisings and suicide bombings.
This was the real power of what President Bush said last week in Israel - it reinforced this point for pro-Israel voters here.

American Jews are by no means uniformly opposed to negotiations with Iran, the leaders of several Jewish groups said, but there is no consensus, and everyone fears that the wrong choice could lead to calamity.

Israelis fear Iran “could be the first suicide nation, a nation that would destroy itself to destroy the Jewish nation,” Mr. Dershowitz said.

Some voters even see parallels between Mr. Obama’s foreign policy positions and his choice of pastor — in both cases, a tendency to venture too close to questionable characters.

Despite reassurances from democrats that the gulf will be closed once Barack finally has the nomination, the Times is not so optimistic, even after having been assured by Congressman Wexler:

“They are not going to vote for Senator John McCain,” he added.

Still, Mr. Wexler admits, he has not yet been able to persuade his in-laws to vote for Mr. Obama.

Race is a critical theme for democrats. The party is one that can't attract mainstream American voters - its voters come either from those who are 1) fed up with Republicans, or 2) were raised to vote for democrats and view voting for anyone other than a democrat as akin to going to a different church, and 3) from niches that the party panders to.

Their biggest niche is minority voters who actually believe the party helps them by giving them horrible public schools so they can never get ahead while offering government programs to keep their state of permanent dependency comfortable.

The Times, as a subsidiary of the democratic party (or perhaps it's the other way around?) and the leader of the liberal mainstream media, seeks to stoke the flames of racial divide at all turns. But the racism they describe in articles like this one are no different from concerns over Guiliani's Italianess or Romney's Mormonism or Hillary's womanhood or Gore's dorkiness or Kerry's brahminism.

Candidates have to play well - that's why Hillary talks like a black preacher sometimes in the south and why Barack talks like a California elitist when talking to a group of wealthy supporters in San Francisco.
I'm sick of the race card that liberals love so much.

Give poor folk a damn education instead of doing the business of the teachers unions, and we can make some progress on poverty in this country.

The Liberal Media?

Are the Clinton's upset about the liberal media? You know the one that republicans complain about on a regular basis? The same one that democrats insist doesn't exist? Bill Clinton seems to take it pretty seriously:
"I think most of the press people are in Obama's demographic. ... There have been times when I thought I was literally lost in a fun house."

And how much of the media is biased against Hillary according to Terry McAulliffe?
"Oh, 90 percent," quoth the Macker. "I mean, from day one. It is what it is -- we're not complaining, we have to deal with the hand we're dealt with...''

Can it really be that after all these years of denying it, the dems are insisting on its existence?
"You know what - every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they have ever seen in a presidential campaign. Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it. I have said this - Fox has been one of the most responsible in this presidential campaign -- I have said that all along.''

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Girl Trouble

White women just don't like Barack.
A new Gallup Poll analysis of Daily tracking data collected between May 1 and May 17 shows that Clinton's edge among white voters is not, as some have hypothesized, based on Obama's problems among blue-collar white men, but reflects more the fact of Clinton's strength among white women.
Is it a gender thing?
In general, Obama and Clinton perform exactly the same among non-Hispanic white men when pitted against presumptive Republican nominee John McCain. Both Obama and Clinton lose to McCain among this group by 21-point margins, 36% to 57%.
While Obama loses to McCain by a nine-point margin among white women, Clinton wins by a three-point margin.

This difference persists when white women are segmented... by education.

Coal Pander

The Washington Post election blog The Trail is asking if Barack made a good decision in pandering on coal in an attempt to improve his lot in Kentucky:
Over the past two weeks, Obama's campaign has run an ad in Kentucky depicting Obama as a strong friend of the coal industry, recounting his efforts on behalf of coal miners in southern Illinois and touting his success in securing $200 million in the federal budget last year for "clean coal" technologies.
A couple of years ago Barack reached across the aisle to push a huge subsidy measure to develop liquefied coal for transportation use:
...environmentalists are dead set against it, saying it would produce even more climate change-causing greenhouse gas emissions than using petroleum in cars. Liquefied coal's proponents say the emissions could be reduced by capturing and storing carbon dioxide, but that technology is years away from being realized and would add greatly to the cost of the fuel.
So the man from Hope caved:

Under fire from environmentalists, Obama a year ago backed away from his alliance with Bunning, voting against a large package of subsidies for the technology and for a more limited package that was opposed by the coal industry; in the end, neither passed.

A clever move that left his old friends mad at him, and his old friends confused:
The episode left many in the coal industry upset with Obama, and, while environmentalists were pleased with his change of heart, they were puzzled over his flirtation with an idea they scorn.
Even though he betrayed the coal industry, he used his brief friendship in the ad:
Obama "helped lead the fight for clean coal to protect our environment and save good-paying American jobs," the ad's narrator said, in language similar to a mailing that the campaign sent out in the state.
This new kind of politics is so much cooler than the old, smarmy kind, isn't it?
"He's always tried to walk a line by saying, 'I want a cleaner environment but I sure don't want to hurt the coal industry,'" said Frank O'Donnell of Clean Air Watch. "That's a very delicate line to walk."

Barack Lead

A new Zogby poll has Barack up 8 against McCain:

Obama led McCain among independents, 47 percent to 35 percent, and led among some groups of voters who have backed Clinton during their Democratic primary battle, including Catholics, Jews, union households and voters making less than $35,000 a year.

McCain led among whites, NASCAR fans, and elderly voters. McCain led with voters who believed the United States was on the right track, and Obama led with the much higher percentage of voters who believed it was on the wrong track.

That's the biggest lead for Obama. Rasmussen and Gallup have him up 3 points.

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Hillary Was Right!

Hillary is right. The world, and the democratic party, is wrong.

We've had a couple of months now of requests and demands that Hillary get out of the race. It's over, we've been told many times. The explanation - Hillary can't catch up in pledged delegates.
....former Sen. Tom Daschle, a key Obama adviser, said now is the time for Democrats to coalesce behind Obama in order to defeat Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain.
Who is he to say? Hillary supporters aren't buying it, and why should they?
In a full page ad in The New York Times, Clinton’s female supporters demanded she stay in the race despite overwhelming odds.
What if Hillary had won Oregon to go along with her Kentucky victory. What would people be saying then? The angst would be palpable - Super D's far and wide would be on the phone, comparing notes, wondering how to save the party from the obvious disaster of a Barack nomination. And they would find a way out.

That's not how the story played out, as it turns out, but consider how easily it could have. Which means that Hillary was right to keep going.

And, it means she's got a good point that democrats can't ignore - they've got a problem with the Barack candidacy. If all it would have taken would have been a few point swing in Oregon for the party to be suffering palpitations, then certainly they should be very concerned even with Barack winning Oregon.

How many nominees can you recall who got beat so regularly long after everyone knew that the race was over?

Barack's Oil Profits

A nice post from Kevin Whalen at Pundit Review today on Barack and his proposed windfall profits tax. By some measures, it seems, Big Oil hasn't been going particularly hard on us:
The price of the commodity that “Big Oil” relies on has risen nearly 7X since 2002, yet the price of the product they deliver to the consumer is only up 3X. Seems to me they must be very well run businesses to pull that off. After all, it is not as though “Big Oil” is making consumers pay so they can have massive profit margins...
Kevin quotes CNN's Paul Lamonica, who points out that Google's net profits are running 3 times higher than the S&P 500's energy sector. "Should we have an online advertising windfall profit tax?" Lamonica asks?

VP Thoughts

A column in the liberal blog DailyKos suggests Al Gore as the perfect running mate for Barack. How revealing! Why do they suggest Al?

Gore's stature in America and the world would... lend Obama's new administration instant credibility. It would also tell people, especially in Washington, that Obama was supremely confident, that he was unafraid of being overshadowed by the last Democratic winner of a presidential election, a two-term vice president, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize.

It's hard to imagine that Gore would do such a thing - he's got money, popularity and power, so a return to the second fiddle position seems extremely unlikely. But here's what I find interesting about this suggestion: It's a great one.

Al Gore makes strategic sense for Barack because:
  1. His experience would compensate for Barack's lack thereof.
  2. His maturity corrects for Barack being too young for the job.
What's significant about this suggestion, coming from a blog that's totally devoted to getting Barack elected, is that it reveals an uneasiness over Barack - it suggests an understanding that he's not ready to be president. With Al Gore as his Siamese twin, the democratic ticket would be credible in a way that Barack the candidate is not.

Does John McCain need someone to give him
"instant credibility." Nope. He's credible all by himself. Would Hillary Clinton? Nope. Would anyone be worried about demonstrations of confidence from the new president if he were McCain or Hillary? Or course not.

If you need a vice president to make your top of the ticket credible, you've got the wrong man at the top of the ticket.

Monday, May 19, 2008

Cheap Trick

Barack is trying to play the tough, protective Harry Truman type, telling republicans that it's not appropriate to go after Michelle:
The Illinois senator was responding to an online ad run by the Tennessee GOP that, during a four-minute video, replays six times Michelle Obama's comment that "for the first time in my adult life, I am really proud of my country."
But Michelle has been a busy, outspoken proponent of Barack's candidacy and his philosophy. She's not Rose Kennedy having teas:
Obama said that if he wins the nomination, Republicans "can say whatever they want to say about me, my track record. But, he added, "if they think that they're going to try to make Michelle an issue in this campaign, they should be careful, because I find unacceptable the notion that you start attacking my wife or my family."
It's a good performance, but one that's misplaced. A candidate's wife is going to take some heat when she's cooking in this kind of kitchen:
“We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know, people sitting at different tables — you all living in different dorms. I was there.

“You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That’s America. So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?”

The man from hope can bob and weave with the best of them. Here's the video: