Fallen Angel

Barack is no longer an angel sent from God. Going forward, he will have to campaign for President in the same manner as other candidates, standing on planet earth:

Fifty-one percent of Democratic voters say they expect Mr. Obama to win their party’s nomination, down from 69 percent a month ago. Forty-eight percent of Democrats say Mr. Obama is the candidate with the best chance of beating Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, down from 56 percent a month ago.

So says the new CBS/New York Times poll.

And in another piece of evidence that campaign story lines change as suddenly as the rate of global warming, only 56% of democrats say their party is united, while:

60 percent of Republicans see their party as unified, a striking turnaround from the Republican turmoil at the start of the primary season.

Ain't it amazing what some honest reporting can do to a presidential race.

Hillary, meanwhile, is closing fast in North Carolina, having pulled to within 10 points in one study:

PPP (Public Policy Polling) numbers illustrate that, over the course of six polls the organization conducted among North Carolina voters, Obama's lead shrank from 18-25 points in the previous five polls to just 12 points in the most recent poll, released April 28. In this most recent PPP poll, Obama leads Clinton 51% to 39%. In fact, the previous PPP poll, taken on April 19-20, showed Obama 25 points ahead of Clinton, 57% to 32%.

An ARG poll from March 29-March 30, 2008 showed Obama up over Clinton 51% to 38%. ARG now (April 26-27) shows Clinton only 10 points behind Obama, 42% to 52%.

In Indiana, polls showed the democrats tied before the vote in Pennsylvania last week:

But recent polls conducted within the last 4-5 days show Clinton in a statistically significant lead although the margin is small. Data from American Research Group shows Clinton ahead by 5% points. SurveyUSA is the only poll that has Clinton leading by 9% points. Only Research 2000 shows an even race between the candidates even in recent polls.

Ethics Issues for Barack?

The LA Times ran a story on Sunday about Barack pushing for a grant on behalf of client who had been paying him $8,000 a month as a retainer when he was a broke state senator who had just lost a bid for Congress.

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

But it gets worse:

The day after Obama wrote his letter urging the awarding of the state funds, Obama's U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.

Obama's presidential campaign rejects any suggestion that there was a connection between the legal work, the campaign contribution and the help with the grant.

Of course.

Hope, it seems, is expensive.

Barack's Chickens are Coming Home to Roost

Barack Obama made a deal with the devil when he joined the church of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He got a political career in exchange for turning a blind eye to the devil behind the pulpit.

When Wright's opinions became front page news in mid-March, Barack did his best to distance himself from the comments without distancing himself from the devil. He was keeping his part of the deal.

But with his re-emergence over the weekend, the devil went too far. Wright confirmed for the world that Barack had covered-up for him when he reiterated the comments that had supposedly been taken out of context. The funny thing about Reverend Wright is, the more context he's given, the worse he looks.

On Monday, Wright essentially called Barack a liar:

“Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls,” Wright said to the National Press Club.

Barack hadn't distanced himself for real, said Wright, he had just pretended to for political reasons. That was not something that Barack could allow to stand, nor was he inclined to. Barack's co-conspirator had turned on him. Barack's chickens were coming home to roost.

Now we know, despite both men's attempts to mislead us, that Pastor Wright believes what he believes. Barack was forced to do what he should have done in mid-March, but lacked the leadership skills to do - to stand up and say this guy is a nut, and I severe all ties. "I don't know how I missed it for all these years," he should have said back then, "but I did, I missed it, and I'm embarrassed."

Instead, he said:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

That paragraph reeked at the time - but the stench it leaves now is unshakable.

Watch out black community. What out grandma.

The reason yesterday's press conference can't put this story to rest is that in terms of Reverend Wright's comments, there was nothing new yesterday other than a political imperative. All of the comments that Barack listed as being problematic from Wright's weekend media foray were repeats, blasts from the past, his greatest hits.

So when Wright said Barack was being politically expedient in what he said about him before, he's been proven correct. The whole race speech in Philadelphia was a ruse, a distraction, to take America's eye off the ball.

The trick failed, and Barack was forced to do yesterday, for political reasons, what he didn't have the backbone to do 6 weeks ago.

"I actually did vote for Pastor Wright before I voted against him."

Here we go again.

No Eloquence Today

Throwing his grandmother under the bus didn't do the trick. Today Barack threw his favorite Pastor under the bus. He should have let his grandmother be and gone after Reverend Wright in the first place.

In an early afternoon press conference, Barack said he was outraged by Reverend Wright's comments yesterday. What took him so long? There was nothing new during Wright's talk yesterday. Rational Americans have been outraged by Wright from the first time they heard his voice:

Obama said, "I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened by the spectacle that we saw yesterday."

But a man with leadership instincts would have walked away from Wright years ago, and certainly wouldn't have stumbled around looking for excuses for the angry Preacher, finally settling on deflecting the focus with a race speech on March 18 instead of dealing with Reverend Wright head-on.

Barack looks more pathetic everyday... more like John Kerry all the time.

Will this be the Wright Speech?

Last time Reverend Wright threatened to destabilize the Obama campaign, he changed the subject to one of race.

Now, the Reverend is back, proving that Barack was deflecting - this is about how radical and contemptuous of this country Barack is that he sat around for 20 years listening to a guy who hates America.

Politico.com is reporting in a rather incoherent posting, and Drudge is linking, that Barack said at a campaign event that he's going to give another Wright speech.

A 'big press conference' on Wright

Obama is asked about Wright by a woman in Winston-Salem who tells the audience to watch his PBS interview, which will quell their concerns.

"I’m going to be having a big press conference afterward to talk about this Obama says, then refers back to a story the woman told about a mother having to borrow month to get to work.

"This is diverting attention from the first story that you told," Obama says.

Barack Can't Hide

The New York Times goes front page today with an attempt by TV reporter Alessandra Stanley to minimize the effect of Jeremiah Wright by turning him into Billy Carter. President Carter's brother happily played the family's black sheep when he realized he could turn his red neck status into money via exploits like Billy Beer.

Mr. Wright revealed himself to be the compelling but slightly wacky uncle who unsettles strangers but really just craves attention.

He's just a silly, endearing old guy who you have to chuckle at, isn't he? This attempt to gloss over the impact and importance of Reverend Wright is cynical and completely off the mark.

Wright is important for two reasons - first, for the reason he claims - he is our conduit to the "black church" in America, and now that the door has been opened, the nation gets to see the racism and contempt for the country that is routine behind those doors.

Second, Wright is important because he provides a vivid opportunity to see the core discomfort with this country that is foundational for liberals. Many of the Wright views, outrageous to most, elicit only shoulder shrugs from the liberal establishment. Move-on.org has no problem with his statements, as his name doesn't even appear on the site's front page today. The dailykos.com angle is "Still bashing Obama on Fox."

Yup. Its all the Fox News Channel's fault.

The outrageous portrayal of Wright that Barack and Wright have both claimed was the result of poor context has now been shown to be entirely accurate, not the result of a sound bite war against him.

Wright gave context to those sound bites yesterday when speaking to the National Press Club yesterday in Washington:

But for the third time in four days, Mr. Wright made a high-profile public appearance to discuss and repeat some of his more controversial statements, this time at the National Press Club in Washington. Mr. Wright suggested that the attacks of Sept. 11 were at least in part a response by terrorists to terrorism practiced by the United States abroad. “You cannot do terrorism on other people and expect it never to come back on you,” he said.

He stood by his suggestion that the United States might have invented H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS. He defended the Rev. Louis Farrakhan — whom he referred to at times just by his first name — noting his large appeal among African-Americans.

In his appearance Friday with Bill Moyers (what a poor excuse for a journalist this guy is), Reverend Wright was presented in context from the same sermons that were so upsetting out of context. Moyers was apparently biased enough to think that showing a longer segment would make things better, but my blood was boiling watching this:

As for context, Bill Moyers played a long clip from the post-9/11 "America's chickens are coming home to roost" sermon. Wright said that America had taken its land by terror from the Indians; had enslaved Africans; had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki (weren't we in a death struggle with Japan, which had attacked Pearl Harbor?); had bombed Iraq, Sudan and Panama; and had backed state-supported terrorism against the Palestinians.

Remember Barack's first, half-back statement rejecting Wright's comments when the clips hit the news cycle in mid-March? These are from the Keith Olbermann interview:

But these particular statements that had been gathered* are ones that I strongly objected to and strongly condemned. Had I heard them in church, I would have expressed that concern directly to Reverend Wright. So, I didn't familiar with these until recently.

But I have to say that the comments that have been played are ones that are contrary to what I believe,** what I think of this country, the love that I have for this country and, you know, are ones that anger and distress me.

But Wright cannot be pushed into the closet as a familial embarrassment. While the news stories of recent days try to make this look like bad news for Obama because Wright is stealing the news cycle, its much worse than that. It demonstrates clearly, as does Barack's friendship with William Ayer, that Obama is quite comfortable traveling in the circles that these guys travel in, and we can rightly infer that he's quite comfortable with their disdain for this country.

This is Barack's problem with Reverend Wright. The record is clear - there's no where to hide.

* "that had been gathered" - This phrase kills me - it shows Barack trying to confuse with odd tenses as well as putting himself into the position of being victimized by those who did the gathering, rather than being a victim of his own poor judgement.

** "the comments that have been played are ones that are contrary to what I believe." Again, some tricky use of the language to make it appear, quite falsely we now know, that these clips are anomolous outrages rather than the standard Wright radicalism.

Jive Talkin'

Trying to move toward putting the issue to rest, Barack put more mileage between himself and Reverend Wright on Monday:

"He does not speak for me," Obama said. "He does not speak for the campaign, and so he may make statements in the future that don’t reflect my values or concerns," the senator told reporters who strained to hear him on the loud tarmac.

Okay. We know who we're not supposed to see as a reflection of what Obama thinks. At the same time, the Boston Globe points out that Barack doesn't speak that well for himself. How's this for a Barackian title:

"On affirmative action, Obama intriguing but vague"

This is Barack in a nutshell, and this is why the Harvard crowd finds him so appealing. He knows you can impress left wing loons at places like the Globe by saying nothing, but doing it in a lovely manner. Being articulate, for them, is an end unto itself, rather than a tool one can use to say something!

So when ABC's George Stephanopoulos, in the waning minutes of the Pennsylvania debate, asked Obama for his views about affirmative action, Obama's answer was a microcosm of the strengths - and some of the recently apparent weaknesses - of his campaign: The Illinois senator's reply was intriguing but fuzzy, responsive to voters' underlying concerns but not really specific in policy terms.

The Globe feels obliged to call Barack's response to the question "A fine answer." Judge for yourself:

Obama began, "Well, I think that the basic principle that should guide discussions not just of affirmative action, but how we are admitting young people to college generally, is how do we make sure that we're providing ladders of opportunity for people? How do we make sure that every child in America has a decent shot in pursuing their dreams?"

Acknowledging that "race is still a factor in society," Obama nonetheless suggested that his own daughters, who've had "a pretty good deal," might not be deserving of special treatment.

But he added: "I still believe in affirmative action as a means of overcoming both historic and potentially current discrimination, but I think that it can't be a quota system and it can't be something that is simply applied without looking at the whole person, whether that person is black, or white, or Hispanic, male or female. What we want to do is make sure that people who've been locked out of opportunity are going to be able to walk through those doors of opportunity in the future."

Very fine, eh? Really grabbing the issue by the you know what's and carrying it away from the hazards of the old kind of politics to the safety of hope. The Globe isn't being critical, really - it provides cover by saying that Ronald Reagan had the same ability and used it often. Instead, it offers a warning for Barack, pointing out that some 'bitter' voters might actually want to know something about what he has in mind for the country:

But as Hillary Clinton seems to have discovered, Obama's references to values and principles may be elevating, but to some voters - particularly skeptical blue-collar types - they can also be distancing. In Pennsylvania, Clinton took to reciting various specific programs, from special education to veterans' benefits, to point up the contrast between her groundedness and his high-mindedness.

Can you believe they called the bitter class skeptical blue-collar types. Are they coining a new phrase? Is this like calling immigrant farm workers wet-backs?

This is the tripe that the intelligentsia offers up on a candidate with no experience and no record of leadership when he won't outline specific policy ideas in a debate, then refuses to do any more debating. Imagine what they'd say about a republican who did this.

Barack Backing In

Dan Balz of the Washington Post makes a good argument that runs counter to mine, below, suggesting that there's no way that the return of Wright was coordinated with the Obama campaign:

Wright's speaking tour was clearly not authorized, sanctioned or prepped by the Obama campaign. Wright is speaking for himself, not for Obama, defending the traditions of the black church, which he sees as totally misunderstood by white America, and his own reputation. He has been dismissive of Obama -- describing him pejoratively as a politician who distanced himself from his pastor merely for political reasons.

Barack, he points out, can't afford to put it in neutral and coast to the nomination.

The last thing Obama should want is to back into the nomination. He can do that by winning those states where the demographics favor him -- North Carolina and Oregon, for example -- and by playing the numbers game in the other states by assuming a respectable showing will prevent Hillary Clinton from overtaking him in the battle for pledged delegates.

Good point. Barack wants to go into the convention in August with a good head of steam and his wheels on the track. Reverend Wright isn't helping.

However, Wright had to reemerge eventually, and its much better for Barack to go through this now than in October.

Barack Opens the Wright Door

Yup. It sure looks like the return of Reverend Wright is something orchestrated by the Obama campaign. Barack used the weekend of his Pastor's reemergence as an opportunity to end his ducking of Fox News Sunday. In a lengthy interview with Chris Wallace, Barack gave his approval to those who question his relationship with Wright:

"The fact he's my former pastor I think makes it a legitimate political issue," Obama said. "So I understand that."

McCain accepted the permission granted by Barack and immediately started voicing his concerns about Wright - in contrast to his objection to the controversial Wright ad being run in North Carolina:

...McCain took a different approach when he criticized Wright for, as the senator paraphrased him, "comparing the United States Marine Corps with Roman legionnaires who were responsible for the death of our savior, I mean being involved in that," and for "saying that al-Qaida and the American flag were the same flags."

McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, said he did not believe Obama shared those views and he was still against the ad in North Carolina. But he suggested the Democrat from Illinois had made the subject fair play.

In a sign of the sort of excitement to come once Barack gets the nomination, his campaign forgot all about its promise of a new kind of politics:

The Obama campaign said McCain had crossed the line of propriety he drew himself.

"By sinking to a level that he specifically said he'd avoid, John McCain has broken his word to the American people and rendered hollow his promise of a respectful campaign," spokesman Hari Sevugan said.

What morons.

The Return of Jeremiah

People have been wondering over the past few days why Jeremiah Wright chose this period of time to return to the limelight. Its not the right time, we've been saying, to do this to Barack.

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the embattled pastor of presidential candidate Barack Obama, gave a 45-minute sermon on Sunday that included a reference to his "public crucifixion" for past comments from the pulpit.

Wright received a standing ovation from the 4,000 worshippers at Friendship-West Baptist Church, the Dallas Morning News reported.

But when would be a better time for the spotlights to swing back on Wright? Barring some new drama, like the media suddenly focusing on the shady land deal with the Rezkos, Barack is assured of the nomination, and it could be his wish to have Jeremiah perform his encore during a period of time when he can afford to take the hit.

DETROIT (AP) — The outspoken former pastor of Barack Obama told an audience of 10,000 at an NAACP dinner on Sunday that despite what his critics say, he is descriptive, not divisive, when he speaks about racial injustices.

"I describe the conditions in this country," the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. said during the 53rd annual Fight for Freedom Fund Dinner held by the Detroit chapter of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.

In the fall, Barack would like to be able to say, "Haven't we heard enough about Reverend Wright? Can't we focus on the issues that the American people care about?" when George and Charlie ask him about it during a debate with McCain. Perhaps the extra exposure the Reverend is receiving now will earn Barack the prerogative to do just that a few months from now.

The Rev. Wendell Anthony, president of the Detroit NAACP, said at a news conference before the dinner that he was excited to invite the "hottest brother in America right now."

Come fall, I suppose Barack would like to reclaim the title of "hottest brother," as long as no one calls him that. For now, it's in his best interest to share the moniker with Wright.

Barack's Flag Pin Lies

Barack sees the picture that he has painted of himself.

You combine tape of Reverend Wright with the tape of Barack not saluting the flag with a clip of Michelle Obama saying she's never really been proud of this country with a clip of Barack laying out his reason for ceasing his practice of wearing a lapel flag, and the result is powerful:

Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security, I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest.

Wow. "I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest."

Perhaps the Obama campaign has made their own version of the ads that will play over and over this fall, that will be circulated far and wide over the internet, and they understand that your heart drops when you see the cumulative evidence that Barack is a different man than he portrays himself to be. That he doesn't feel that great about this country. That the angry rantings of Pastor Wright, if they haven't filled Barack's heart, apparently have permeated the heart of his wife and had some kind of influence on him.

Maybe that's why Barack now feels that he has to lie about the lapel pin and revise the remarks he made in October:

"Then I was asked about this in Iowa," Obama said. "And somebody said 'Why don't you wear a flag pin?' I said, well, sometimes I do, sometimes I don't. I said, although I will say that sometimes I notice that they're people who wear flag pins but they don't always act patriotic. And I was specifically referring to politicians, not individuals who wear flag pins, but politicians who you see wearing flag pins and then vote against funding for veterans, saying we can't afford it."

Then, to give his lie more credibility, Barack goes so far as to accuse those who accurately report his prior comments of being liars!

Obama continued, saying "so I make this comment. suddenly a bunch of these, you know, TV commentators and bloggers (say) 'Obama is disrespecting people who wear flag pins.' Well, that's just not true. Also, another way of saying it is, it's a lie."

I understand that Barack is scared. He can look back now and see that there was a time during this campaign when he could say whatever he wanted, and the more unusual it was for a candidate to say, the more that fed his story as the outsider looking to change the way Washington does business.

He thought he could get away with calling people who respect the flag unpatriotic. When you're a niche candidate catching fire, you have a lot more leeway than when people are suddenly looking at you as the leading candidate - you have no experience to justify the lofty heights you've reached, and folks start scrutinizing every detail available that provides insight into who you are and what you truly believe.

But because of the sales pitch he used to get where he is, it's extremely deflating when Barack lies like any other presidential candidate. We all expect better of him, even those of us who may have felt the emotional tug of his pitch but are grounded enough not to fall for it.

Barack is where he is because he argued that America should be held to a higher standard. It is by this higher standard that he will be judged.

Like a magician whose tricks inspire awe only when seen from the proper angle, Barack's magic dissipates once the viewer's angle is adjusted.

One on One

Hillary is keeping the pressure on over Barack's refusal to debate.

Clinton took the debate dispute to a new level, challenging Obama to face off with her in a debate without a moderator, Lincoln-Douglas style.

"Just the two of us, going for 90 minutes, asking and answering questions, we'll set whatever rules seem fair," Clinton said while campaigning in South Bend.

Her campaign made the offer formal with a letter to the Obama campaign.

Obama aides said he had already debated Clinton 21 times, "the most in primary history."

Considering that his refusal to debate follows his worst debate performance yet, wouldn't he be better off to do another?

And considering that this looks like the politics of old from Barack (don't debate when you've got the lead - why risk blowing it?), isn't this a violation of his brand?

And finally, considering that Hillary will haunt him with requests like this that make her look good, why is it worth it to take the heat?

Because in Barack's mind, and in reality, he's already won. It's time to play a conservative game, and fantasize about remodeling the white house.

On the other hand, Barack's refusal to debate Hillary gives him time to finally make good on his commitment to Chris Wallace to appear on Fox News Sunday.

Barack's Sharpton Problem

The timing is unfortunate for Barack. A man sounding alot like Reverend Wright is threatening to shut down New York City in retaliation for a court decision he doesn't like.

NEW YORK (AP) - Hundreds of angry people marched through Harlem on Saturday after the Rev. Al Sharpton promised to "close this city down" to protest the acquittals of three police detectives in the 50-shot barrage that killed a groom on his wedding day and wounded two friends.

Another black preacher stirring up racial divide is not good for Barack right now, which likely adds to Al Sharpton's delight at being handed the Sean Bell verdict while primary season is still in full swing for the dems. Ah, the limelight!

All this is especially pleasing as some speculate that the reason dems can't get them selves to commit to Barack is due to race.

The composition of Clinton's support – or looked at another way, the makeup of those voters who have proved reluctant to embrace Obama – has Democrats wondering, if not worrying, about what role race may be playing.

Pardon me if I've used this clip in a previous post, but the idea that dems are now concerned about their own racist tendencies is just too funny.

The Old Race Card

They're back at it again, those democrats, staying in their comfort zone, trying to keep talk of race front and center in the presidential campaign.

Bill Clinton chided for race comments

The highest-ranking African-American in Congress became the latest black leader to scold former president Bill Clinton over his comments and conduct during the campaign.

James Clyburn of South Carolina, the House majority whip, said in yesterday's New York Times that "black people are incensed" over Clinton's "bizarre" behavior. While blacks stood by the former president during his impeachment, Clinton's conduct might have caused an irreparable estrangement, Clyburn said.

Clinton was pilloried for comparing Barack Obama's sweeping victory in the South Carolina primary to Jesse Jackson's win there in 1988, a comparison that many black leaders saw as a dismissal of Obama's historic candidacy. On Monday Clinton told a Philadelphia radio station that the Obama campaign had played the "race card" against him, then later seemed to deny he had said it, even though it was on tape.

Asked about Clyburn's comments, Obama said yesterday that he does not believe in "irreparable breaches. "I am a big believer in reconciliation and redemption," he told reporters in Indiana.

While it might help mobilize their base, isn't this the same base that's already mobilized? And doesn't the strategy of talking about race all the time risk turning Barack into someone who the rest of the country views as unsettling? With 90% of the black vote already going to him, do they really want Barack's very image to remind regular folks of forced busing and affirmative action?

The blurb is from today's NY Times.

Republicans are getting excited!

The New York Times announces today a major turning point in the presidential election year. The GOP, which had faced this season with some level of depression, now are buoyed by the idea that they'll be running against a classic liberal who wears his disdain for working folk, and the country, on his sleeve.

In a sign that the racial, class and values issues simmering in the presidential campaign could spread into the larger political arena, Republican groups are turning recent bumps in Mr. Obama’s road — notably his comment that small-town Americans “cling” to guns and religion out of bitterness and a fiery speech by his former minister in which he condemned the United States — into attacks against Democrats down the ticket.

That's when you know that a candidate has come to symbolize something that a good chunk of the country considers to be bad - when the candidate or one of his liabilities is used to create guilt by association in lower level campaigns - as we're seeing in the controversial North Carolina ad, where Reverend Wright is being used to taint democrats running for governor.

The growing Republican emphasis on Mr. Obama could also help Mrs. Clinton plead her case that she is more electable, bolstering her argument to superdelegates that Republicans are poised to pounce on her relatively untested opponent.

While the Times manages to blame Obama's problems on race in the beginning of the story's second sentence, quoted above, the topic isn't mentioned elsewhere in the story, It's a throwaway line, apparently, meant to sooth the psyches of hardcore Barackies and cover up the reality of just how flawed a candidate he is.

A lot of nothing

I'm not a big PBS guy, so the Reverend Wright interview with Bill Moyers was a nice chance for a refresher course on why tax dollars support PBS.

Moyers makes one thing clear. He has a unique ability to take the biggest "get" for an interview and turn it into something that's tough to sit through. One of the most tedious interviews I've watched in years. A love-fest, yes, but one in which Moyers fails to mine anything from his guest that is of interest to Americans. We are pleased to know, of course, that Moyers and Wright have a history together - one that goes back to Moyers' career as the spokesman for President Johnson.

Almost over. Praise the Lord.

What's Wrong with the Ad?

For days, everyone I talk to has been asking, "what's wrong with the Pastor Wright ad in North Carolina? And why is McCain saying that it should be taken off the air?

Regarding the first part of the question - there's nothing wrong with the ad unless you believe that blacks in North Carolina are such an oppressed group, and are so damaged by that oppression, that special standards must apply to them in political discourse, and that failure to treat them with kid gloves, even in conversations that are non-racial in nature, equates to racism. In their perpetual undermining of minorities, this is the strategy that democrats cling to.

Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News, doesn't call the ad racist, just misleading:

"For 20 years, Barack Obama sat in his pew, listening to his pastor," an announcer says as the ad opens. That controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright, then appears onscreen, saying, "No, no, no. Not God Bless America. God Damn America!" (The ad, which you can watch here, has been called "misleading," since, according to Obama, he was not sitting in his pew when this particular sermon was delivered.)

It is Obama, of course, who is being misleading when he claims not having been in the pew for any particular comment clears him of an awareness that this is how Wright speaks. Obama deliberately muddied these waters, first saying he wasn't aware of such comments, then saying he'd become aware of them only recently, and claiming that he'd been there for outrageous comments but not these in particular. That leaves him without credibility on the issue - why should anyone believe him when he says he wasn't there for any particular Wright comment?

Regarding John McCain and North Carolina, why does he jump on board and give credibility to a claim of racism when the ad addresses a non-racial issue of Barack's judgment? Here are the possible explanations I've come up with.

1) He wants to increase his share of minority votes by appearing to be properly cowed by the PC movement.
2) He wants to reinforce his reputation as a maverick by showing that he does his own thinking, and isn't trapped in a traditional, insensitive, republican box.
3) He wants to show that he is the real Obama - that while Barack talks about working together, Barack's never actually done any work, while McCain has been reaching across the isle and bonding on policy with democrats for decades.
4) He gets to be nice on race on the surface while doing his best to keep Pastor Wright's name in the headlines. McCain wins both ways.

The possible pitfall for McCain is that he puts himself in the middle of an escalating fight with himself on the wrong side.

This may look bad on the surface, but remember that it's the same thing he did on immigration. While immigration almost killed McCain's candidacy, it now puts him in the strongest position a republican candidate for president could be in this year to hang onto some of the large hispanic tally garnered by George W. And remember, W wouldn't be president without the support he received from hispanics.

McCain has been quietly and cleverly positioning himself as friendly to the have-nots with his recent Edwardsian tour of the 'forgotten America.' This feeds a natural symmetry that benefits McCain, as the Clintons become the race demons of America, a role that would normally fall automatically upon the republican nominee.

Hillary is the woman who seeks to kill the chance for the first black man to make it to the White House, an opportunity that black Americans didn't believe possible just a few months ago. And her husband is the man who is blamed with brazenly injecting race into the conversation after Barack had done such a good job of being a post-racial candidate.

This makes the Clintons serious dream killers, a dream that applies not just to the hope that Barack represents at this moment, but a dream that reaches back to the archetypal dream speech of Martin Luther King.

This reality renders the standard pundit back and forth over "Is Hillary helping John McCain?" to the silly level.

The real assistance that Hillary is providing to McCain is beyond measure. In this unconscious dance they're doing, Hillary is taking the masculine role that traditionally goes to the republican, being distasteful on race. McCain, following, gets to show his feminine side. While Hillary plays the lead role, campaigning visibly and aggressively in primary states with the media in tow, McCain quietly courts favor with minorities as he tours their scuffed up dance halls. The choreography is beautiful.

By the time Barack collects the nomination in August, America will realize that he is a fringe candidate with no chance of winning. And, ironically, it won't be John McCain's fault, nor will it be the fault of the evil GOP. It will be the Clintons, fellow democrats, who have beaten down the hopes and dreams of black America. This is not a new role for democrats, but being blamed for it will be new.

He's Baaaacckkkkkkk.

How kind of Reverand Wright to reemerge at this critical moment in the presidential campaign season. Just as his protege is trying to rekindle the magic in his image, Wright decides to come out of hiding in a big way with an interview on PBS with Bill Moyers that will air today followed by a speech Sunday in front of an expected crowd of 10,000 for the Detroit NAACP's annual fundraiser. Then, on Monday, he'll speak at the National Press Club. How Sweet It Is!!!!!!!!!!

But the clips are looking good from today's interview with Moyers:

"He's a politician, I'm a pastor. We speak to two different audiences. And he says what he has to say as a politician. I say what I have to say as a pastor. But they're two different worlds," said Wright, who recently retired from Trinity United Church of Christ on the south side of Chicago, where Obama has attended services for 20 years.

What a true statement about Barack. He says what he has to say as a politician.

And the liberal media says what it has to say. This is from the Detroit Free Press today. Check out the remarkable phrase here:

Wright, a retired United Church of Christ pastor, has been under fire because sound bites of past sermons -- containing language some consider divisive and inflammatory -- have surfaced in recent months.

Some consider divisive and inflammatory? Could we have a show of hands of anyone who isn't quite sure if this is divisive and inflammatory?

Wright delivered his most notorious sermon the Sunday after Sept. 11, 2001, when he suggested that the U.S. had brought on the attacks by committing its own acts of terrorism. "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he said in the Sept. 16 service.

A 2003 sermon became another flashpoint. "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people," Wright told the Trinity congregation. "God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Perhaps Pastor Wright feels he's done enough for Barack and its time to start rebuilding his own reputation, but the timing couldn't be worse for the Obama campaign.

In excerpts available in pre-release, Reverend Wright blames the usuals suspect - context - for the misunderstanding.

Wright defended his sermons, telling Moyers, "the persons who have heard the entire sermon understand the communication perfectly ... those who are doing that are communicating exactly what they want to do, which is to paint me as some sort of fanatic."

He said his critics' motives are clear: to undermine Obama. "I think they wanted to communicate that I am unpatriotic, that I am un-American, that I am filled with hate speech, that I have a cult at Trinity United Church of Christ. And by the way, guess who goes to his church, hint, hint, hint?"

Its reassuring that Wright is intelligent enough to understand that our goal is to properly link Barack to the people he's chosen to partner with in his personal life and his career. But I've watched many of Wright's sermons in full, and while viewing more provides a fuller understanding of the man behind the sermons, greater context doesn't mitigate the dramatic shock that is the inevitable response to Wright's rage.

Lord knows why he's coming back now, but it is certainly a public service for a nation that thought it was love at first sight when it picked Barack up at the bar but is having a different sensation now that the sun is coming up.

Thanks to Pastor Wright for shining more light on the truth about Barack. It is a preacher's job, after all, to shed light.

NPR

My new nickname for Barack is NPR.

Why?

Take a look at the results of NPR's listener survey. Who listens to National Peoples' Radio? The same folk who are driving Barack's campaign - the ones who are driving all those Volvos. Check it out:

NPR News listeners are 84% white.

They are 78% more likely to categorize themselves as "liberal" and 2.27 times more likely to categorize themselves as "very liberal."

They are 97% more likely to belong to a country club.

They are 8.86 times more likely to read The Atlantic Monthly, and 5.66 times more likely to read The New Yorker. They are 73% less likely to read The Source.

They prefer Leno to Letterman and Conan to Kilborn or Kimmel, but they do like Letterman 17% better than the rest of America.

They're about 2.5 times more likely to visit Europe.

They are 58% more likely than the average American to play Frisbee, and 3.72 times more likely to go cross-country skiing. They are 2.22 times more likely to do Yoga. They are also 30% less likely to watch Pro Wrestling on TV.

In their leisure time, they are 79% more likely to birdwatch, 67% more likely to play chess, and 42% more likely to collect electric trains.

They are 92 percent more likely to shop at Nordstrom.

They are 41% less likely to buy a rap CD, and 93% more likely to buy a New Age CD.

They are 81% more likely to own an espresso maker.

They are three times more likely to own a Volvo, three times more likely to own a Subaru, and 3.9 times more likely to own a Saab.

They are 68% more likely to buy soy milk, and 67% more likely to buy veggie burgers.

They are 56% more likely to have a housekeeper.

This is who supports Barack, which is why they didn't mind things like Pastor Wright and William Ayers and why they fell for the whole diversity story line.

This is why the better known Barack gets the tougher it is for him to win a primary.

Check out my friend Rick Moran's analysis of the Pennsylvania results at Right Wing Nuthouse:

And yes friends, it was a blow out. When you lose 62% of the white vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 70% of the Catholic vote, that is a blowout. When you lose 57% of the Jewish vote, that’s a blowout. When you lose 58% of churchgoers, that is a blowout. When you lose 54% of workers making less than $50,000 a year (and win only those making less than $15,000 and more than $150,000), that’s a blowout. When you lose 63% of seniors, that’s a blowout. When you outspend your opponent by 3-1 and still lose by 10 points, that’s a blowout.

Notice that none of these blocks of voters are ones you'd expect to listen to NPR. That's why they won't vote for NPR.

The Real Storyline

The piece of Barack Obama that America hasn't figured out yet, but surely will, is that he has a screw loose.

He thinks there's nothing wrong with hanging around with guys who haven't blown up buildings since "I was 8 years old." He thinks there's nothing wrong with a major university hiring a guy like this to teach. He thinks there's nothing wrong with accepting the support of a guy like this to launch his political career. How is this possible? He's sympathetic. He's a liberal.

Barack thinks there's nothing wrong with building a close personal and political bond with a man who is filled with contempt for America. He thinks there's nothing wrong with sitting in that man's church as he spews racially divisive venom like "Goddam the U.S.A." How is this possible? He understands. He's a liberal.

Obama wants a political career. That takes money. Does it matter if that money comes from the sleaziest of sources? Is it a problem to buy a fancy house in a cozy deal in which the wife of said sleazy source buys the adjacent land and does a land swap, using money of questionable origins. Nah. He needs his comfort. He's a liberal.

Here's the story that America doesn't know about Barack Obama. He's not black. He didn't grow up poor. He's not building any bridges between cultures. Barack grew up rich in the most important way - rich in the love and support of his white suburban family. He grew up intellectually rich, attending the finest schools in the nation. He wasn't fathered by some random hip hop street-kid, his father was so bright he was brought to this country to study.

Barack as a member of America's intellectual elite is the real story line, and its the one that Pennsylvanians started to pick up on, and the rest of the country is sure to follow. It's a slow process, but once one picks up on this reality, the illusion of Barack as the Messiah fizzles.

Surprise Skin Color Variations Vex Seniors

The New York Times is racing to inject race into the presidential race. Liberals just aren't happy if race isn't an issue, and if its not, they just pretend.

This is the case with Barack's loss in Pennsylvania. Since older voters support Hillary, it must because of race:

The composition of Mrs. Clinton’s support — or, looked at another way, the makeup of voters who have proved reluctant to embrace Mr. Obama — has Democrats wondering, if not worrying, about what role race may be playing.

You'll never guess which democrats the Times found who are worrying that race interfered with the good judgment of older voters!

“I’m sure there is some of that,” said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior political adviser, as he considered how race was playing among voters in late primary states... “Here’s a guy named Barack Obama, an African-American guy, relatively new. That’s a lot of change.”

Those poor old people. Its not that they're bigots, they just don't cope well with surprise skin color variations.

The Times struggles to pin Obama's problems on racial bias, and is frustrated that there's no evidence to support such a theory:

It is also hard to discount that Mr. Obama has arrived at this place in his candidacy after winning big victories in very white states. The crowds at his rallies are as white as any at a Clinton rally...

The story then goes on to list all the mistakes the campaign has made, from Michelle's anti-Americanism to Pastor Wright and on to Bitter-Gate. Its just too hard to separate these problems from the race card.

Ironically, the paper fails to mention that Barack wouldn't be a contender for the nomination were it not for the party's, and the country's, excitement over his race.

Last week, B.E.T. founder and Clinton supporter Bob Johnson backed up Geraldine Ferraro's feeling that Barack wouldn't be where he is were he not black:

"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not... "

And, of course, were he not getting 90 percent of the black vote, that also would put Barack out of the race - and that's the only discernable way that race is affecting this election.

But don't try to tell that to the New York Times.

The NPR Nominee

Hillary has an enhanced argument for her candidacy today.

Taking Pennsylvania by 10% points means she picked up 216,000 votes more in the cumulative popular vote battle against Barack.

Throw in the currently excluded tallies from Florida and Michigan, and Hillary leads in popular vote. Now, this isn't fair, as Barack's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, but it adds some moral weight to Clinton's argument that she should stay in the race 'til the bitter end.

As Bob Novak writes today:

A margin of 10 percentage points demonstrates that she is more than just a survivor. She is the candidate of the traditional Democratic base whose support is essential for winning the presidential election.

Considering that Hillary and Barack have nearly identical voting records in their brief legislative careers (a combined decade in the U.S. Senate), what is it about Barack that makes him less attractive to the traditional democratic base?

We've got to conclude that Barack's "bitter" controversy represents a vital turning point in his candidacy - private remarks in front of elite supporters in the nation's most wacko liberal city demonstrating a large gulf in his understanding of and connection to regular Americans.

Barack's Pennsylvania campaign, which was quickly erasing Hillary's once 20 point lead 10 days ago, was stopped dead in its tracks.

In his concession speech last night, Barack congratulated Hillary for her tide-turning victory, but attacked the nature of how she obtained it, saying its not about winning at any cost - but for democrats, it should also be about how you win:

''We can be a party that thinks the only way to look tough on national security is to talk, and act, and vote like George Bush and John McCain. We can use fear as a tactic, and the threat of terrorism to scare up votes.

We can be a party that says and does whatever it takes to win the next election. We can calculate and poll-test our positions and tell everyone exactly what they want to hear..."

This argument, which on the one hand looks smart because it pulls voters back to the themes that made him the hot candidate in the first place - the promise of a different kind of politics - is a mistake now, in my opinion, as it serves to solidify his status as the intellectual/suburban (read liberal) candidate, not the man of the people.

Bill Clinton represented a "new" democratic approach - be liberal, but be normal and reasonable. A contradiction in terms, but one that made him electable. In the Hillary/Barack matchup, we're seeing a faceoff now between these two images - the electable candidate versus the NPR candidate.

NPR can get the nomination. He can't win the presidency. That's the lesson of Pennsylvania.

Whether Barack gets the nomination isn't the question - it will take a minor miracle for him to lose it. The question is, "how screwed are the democrats with Barack Obama as the nominee?"

The answer? Very screwed.

Whose Story?

It appears that Hillary will win Pennsylvania with a 7-10 point margin (16% of the vote is tallied as I write), and the question is - does Hillary's story line start to take hold? Outspent 3-1, can her argument that Barack is a flawed candidate become an accepted fact amongst democrats?

The backbone of the party must know that they can't win with Barack as the nominee. The problem is, how do they dump him without causing disastrous pain to the party? And how badly do they want to considering their disdain for the Clintons?

While Hillary's argument is dead on, democrats can't walk away from the fact that Barack is leading in vote totals and delegates without betraying those things they pretend to believe in - democracy, minorities, liberalism and change.

They're stuck with the flawed candidate.

But the festivities continue. And Hillary continues to tear Barack up for John McCain - at least for two more weeks.

What fun!

Hillary up ten

Zogby's tracking poll released today shows Hillary opening up a ten point lead going into today's voting, up from six points in the previous two day cycle. This confirms the trend indicated by the Suffolk University poll yesterday and leaks in Drudge that said Hillary's internal polling gives her an eleven point lead.

She now leads Obama, 51% to 41%, having gained three points over the past 24 hours as Obama lost one point, pushing her beyond the poll's margin of error to create a statistically significant lead for the first time in the Pennsylvania daily tracking poll.

Could this be the result of the Michael Moore endorsement?

Another Bad Endorsement

Just what Barack needs - another endorsement from the radical wing of their political hemisphere. Following up on the burden of winning the public support of Robert Reich last week, Barack is hit with another blow - the endorsement of Michael Moore. Moore's comments, written on his website and shared with the world by AP, offers some insights into the burdens democrats carry into this election year with Barack as the nominee:

Moore writes that Obama's experience and voting record aren't as important as his "basic decency" and ability to inspire. "What we are witnessing is not just a candidate but a profound, massive public movement for change," Moore writes. "My endorsement is more for Obama The Movement than it is for Obama the candidate."

But the Movement that Moore endorses is the double edged sword of the Obama candidacy. Barack has found the trigger to release the pent-up demand for "change," making him the Magic Man of 2008. He's got the magic, but he doesn't have the goods, he doesn't have the experience to be president, as Michael Moore so aptly points out.

"I, like the majority of Americans, have been pummeled senseless for eight long years," he writes. "That's why I will join millions of citizens and stagger into the voting booth come November, like a boxer in the 12th round, all bloodied and bruised with one eye swollen shut, looking for the only thing that matters — that big 'D' on the ballot."

To switch metaphors on Moore, let's consider that the pummeling that Americans have suffered is not that of a boxer, but rather, that of a scorned lover. Choices shouldn't be made when the decision making apparatus is still under the influence of real-time hurt. The mistakes made by a lover on the rebound are the stuff of legend.

This is what democrats are doing by allowing themselves to be seduced by Barack. They are so desperate to regain their footing that they are moving forward blind to their new lover's obvious liabilities. This is the energy that drives the Obama movement. This is the danger it represents.

Moore says he is disappointed with the Democratic Party, too, for failing to end the war despite public outcry and for "do(ing) the bidding of the corporate elite in this country. Any endorsement of a Democrat must be done with this acknowledgment ..."

Let's recap Moore's endorsement then. Democrats are a failure, Barack isn't a great candidate, but since he's articulated the frustration that a big chunk of the electorate feels about the present, he's the guy to vote for.

This is the trap that democrats are in. They sense it even if they don't see it, which is why they've kept Hillary around so long. But it is the template for a losing campaign.

Barack's Brand

A good title, but there's little analysis on the premise in a Chicago Tribune story today entitled, "Obama 'brand' has taken a hit."

"They made a very serious choice that will have long-standing consequences - to put their brand at stake in order to try to deliver this knockout blow, that they've been campaigning about this -- you know, with this notion of politics of hope. I don't think that that's how they've behaved," said Clinton strategist Geoff Garin.

There's no doubt that Barack is willing to cross over to the dark side when circumstances require. As he described yesterday, after you take a few elbows to the ribs, you have to respond. While this has brought him down into the ring that he sought to float above, the question is - does the brand remain strong even as he mixes it up like any old street fighter?

For the sake of primary season, I suspect that the Obama calculation is correct - his brand as the good guy will remain strong enough as Hillary solidifies her brand as the 'do anything to win' candidate - that he can afford to do the dance he's doing. Democrats know the game that the Clintons are playing, and most of them don't like it.

The damage that's done is, of course, long term. It will be harder for Barack to act like the Messiah during the general election. He and McCain will mix it up on equal terms - one party nominee against the other - and Barack will be forced to answer for his thin resume and shaky associations, as John McCain will have to answer for his long history in public life.

This is the gift that Hillary has given the nation.

Let Them Eat Waffles

No waffling today from Barack.

At an Obama visit to a diner in Scranton, there was some tension with the media. Asked about his inability to attract support from working class white voters, Barack put Aunt Jemima down and said, "Let them eat waffles."

Am I remembering that correctly?

Better watch the video.

Barack's Dummies

Visit RezkoWatch for the background on today's editorial in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review attacking the Obama campaign and its odd response to Barack's Hamas support.

Hillary's Internals

Drudge is reporting that the internal, private polls of the Clinton campaign are showing her lead up to 11%.

A move this dramatic is outside the norm of what over polls are showing, except for a Suffolk University poll that gives Hillary a 10 point margin. See below for more numbers.

Barack Stalls

Hillary has a 7 point lead in Pennsylvania according to today's Quinnipiac poll, a 1 point improvement for Clinton from a week ago. We can now see the effects of Barack's bitterness - his slow march toward catching Hillary has been stopped cold by the week-long controversy, with the vote being held tomorrow.

"Pennsylvania voters apparently made up their minds a couple of weeks ago and nothing has happened since to change them. An extraordinary turnout effort by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign could snatch this victory from Sen. Hillary Clinton, but that does not appear likely," said Clay F. Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

A Suffolk University poll also released today shows Hillary with a ten point lead, and more ominous trends for democrats, as 40% of voters are conflicted over what they'll do if their candidate doesn't get the nomination:

In addition to the 20% of disgruntled Democratic voters defecting to McCain, another 4% would vote for independent Ralph Nader, and 20% were undecided about what they would ultimately do in November.

Zogby's tracking poll shows Hillary up 6 points in Pennsylvania, making the Suffolk numbers at the extreme end of the spectrum.

McCain leads Hillary and McCain both by 5 points in national head to head tracking polls by Rasmussen.

Barack leads Hillary by the same 5 points in their national poll. Gallup shows the democrats divided by just two points with Barack in the lead.

Thoughtful vs. Pugnacious

Is it just me, or do you find the stories about McCain's unmanaged anger the perfect antidote to the PC era?

It is unclear precisely what issue set off McCain that day. But at some point, he mocked Grassley to his face and used a profanity to describe him. Grassley stood and, according to two participants at the meeting, told McCain, "I don't have to take this. I think you should apologize."

McCain refused and stood to face Grassley. "There was some shouting and shoving between them, but no punches," recalls a spectator, who said that Nebraska Democrat Bob Kerrey helped break up the altercation.

In the battle for the heartland, it seems to me that the throwback quality of John McCain - good old fashioned American-style masculinity, including a bit of pig-headed belligerence - is just what the doctor ordered to go up against the Kerry-esque Obama.

Why Barack?

Robert Creamer gives the case for Obama over Hillary, in case the Super D's might get any ideas about Barack being the inferior candidate, in the Huffington Post. Its the usual babiddybabo, but its a good refresher course:

Obama's ability to inspire enables him to reach out to independent voters that otherwise find McCain very attractive. It also gives him the ability to mobilize millions of young and African American voters that will change the electorate.

Most importantly, Obama's proven ability to mobilize at the grass roots gives him the credibility to convince voters that he can accomplish what they want most -- that he can lead a movement to change the way things are done in Washington.

The narrative that over incredible odds, a young African American Senator has challenged the conventional wisdom, won the Democratic nomination for president, and found 1.3 million grass roots donors to finance his candidacy gives him enormous credibility to argue that he can take on the special interests and force members of Congress to guarantee health care for everyone. It gives him credibility that he can lead a movement to remake our economy to benefit everyone and not just the wealthiest among us.

And, of course, Obama's judgment in opposing the War in Iraq from the first day, contrasts sharply with McCain's commitment to four more years of Bush foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's early support for that War does not.

Which one bothers you the most? For me its the final one.

If you play out the scenarios of Barack as president, having been elected as the guy who will end the war, who owes that to the electorate, who has guaranteed that he will pull troops out without regard for what's happening on the ground in Iraq, you have to figure it will take him into a second term to start winding things down, don't you? The LBJ of Iraq. The guy who actually turns Iraq into Vietnam.

Compare that to a President whose election is a mandate to win the war.

The latter is obviously the one with the better chance of ending the war quickly, and to suggest that a guy who has positioned himself as the anti-war candidate but has done nothing in terms of anti-war activism in the Senate is the best guy to end it strikes me as, sorry, dumb.

Barack's Testiness

I think everyone knows, even if you didn't want the debate, that Barack got a little testy in the most-watched debate the other night. How testy?

In watching campaign debates dating to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often (at least eight occasions). "Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie," said Obama, after Gibson interrupted him following a 126-word answer.

That's from Bob Novak's column today, What's the Matter with Obama.

Novak says that, until recently, Barack's campaign had been attracting "Obama Republicans," crossover voters who, in their lust for hope, would ignore his liberalism in such large numbers that he might have won in a landslide.

...they have leaned toward him as an exceptional candidate in the mold of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, a post-partisan leader and a welcome contrast to George W. Bush's failed presidency. That impression is threatened by Obama's performance the past 10 days, climaxing in Wednesday night's debate with Clinton.

What Novak doesn't address is the inevitability of this moment. Its a long presidential campaign, and at some point someone was going to pierce the bubble and Barack would float to earth.

Thank God for Hillary! She stuck around to do pierce the bubble so a rational examination of the candidate can get started early enough for folks to do some reality-based voting come November.

Barack's Friends

Barack's disingenuous attempt to shrug off his friendship with domestic terrorists is nicely challenged in an op-ed today by Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board.

Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.

Bill Ayers and his wife once fought a war against the United States. Their opinions of the country haven't changed, and they don't repudiate their actions.

Dohrn has likewise rationalized the explosions, claiming that "our acts of resistance were tiny and symbolic." She even went to prison for refusing to testify about an armored-car robbery involving her confederates. That crime was not tiny or symbolic to the two police officers or the security guard who were shot to death in the process.

And, of course, there's the old double standard.

It's hard to imagine (Barack) would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately.

Well, there you go. That's why Barack can't win the presidency.

Hillary on Top

Gallup shows Hillary leading by a point nationally for the first time in a month, a sign of some impact on democrats from the 'bitter' uproar. Rasmussen has Barack hanging on to a two point lead.

More significant is the matter of negatives. Hillary's been drawing much media attention over recent days for the impact on her unfavorable ratings caused by chasing Barack on his San Francisco remarks. But the Rasmussen numbers suggest that her strategy has been working - while her bad numbers have shot up, so have Barack's, and they're viewed with pretty similar levels of disdain.

Obama’s ratings are 47% favorable and 51% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 53% unfavorable (see recent daily favorable ratings).

Knocking Barack off his cloud has been a tough one, but the Clintons have finally done it. Compare the way the two democrats are viewed by the country to the perception of John McCain:

McCain is viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 40%.

While McCain benefits from his relative anonymity - he's really not part of the campaign right now - and these numbers are obviously fluid, this does show that the Clintons aren't as dumb as they look to some.

Remember, Hillary's goal is that Barack Obama not become president. When viewed through this lense, everything she's doing makes good sense.

Init to Winnit

Analysts keep misunderstanding what Hillary is up to. They talk like she doesn't know that the nomination belongs to Barack. Hillary isn't dumb, as she reminded us the other night, but she thinks everyone else is, and she's been proven correct thusfar.

How could Hillary be counting on a strategy of winning over the Super Delegates when they keep swinging toward Barack? The Super D's have no interest in her - the party can't stand the Clintons - and a big part of the irrational exuberance over Barack comes from their glee over the notion that it might be possible to win a national election without the involvement of Bill and Hill.

Meanwhile, an AP analysis shows Barack likely to get within 100 delegates of the 2025 needed for the nomination with pledged delegates, making it all the more ridiculous to expect the Super D's to force things against Barack. But AP headlines with a dramatic "Time, Delegate math working against Clinton."

In an LA Times article today on the Robert Reich endorsement of Barack, Mark Barabak writes about how democrats are getting turned off by Hillary's aggressiveness:

The more aggressive her tack, polls suggest, the higher she drives her own negative standing with voters.

"She's in a box," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who has stayed neutral since his candidate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, quit the race. "The more she does the thing she has to do, the more people don't like her.

But Hillary doesn't care about that box. She's worried about Barack winning the presidency, which would effectively box her out of running for the next 12 years (two terms of Obama and one run for his VP), at which time, she'd be as old as... John McCain!

So when people like Robert Reich jump off the fence and commit to Barack, its their way of telling her they don't like the game she's playing.

Which is sorta funny, because endorsements from the Robert Reich crowd don't help Barack, they hurt him. What does he need with more radicals lining up behind him? Barack's problem is that he is one of them, and he doesn't need anyone making that easier to prove.

But Hillary isn't much concerned over how high the hateometer. She wants to make sure that Barack is weakened for the general election so McCain can win, and the Init to Winnit, 40 year effort to become president can keep going for another 4 years.

Understanding the Bitterness

The shock that liberal moonbats are suffering this week continues to grow.

"The way Charlie and George spoke to the Messiah Wednesday night was just over the top," is the sort of lament I've been hearing.

Predictably, the Boston Globe editorialized that the real elitists are the ABC News crowd, which kidnapped the event for their own nefarious purposes when they should have been talking policy:

Instead, Obama was forced once again to explain his remark that some voters in small-town America are so embittered with their circumstances that they cling to divisive wedge issues. Obama's answer was a weak and rather artless attempt to slide from characterizing voters from "bitter" to "frustrated." But the ABC anchors made it clear they weren't there for the voters or the issues or even the candidates, but only for themselves and their hunger to make news. Talk about elitism.

The shock that the moonbats feel over how Barack "Fell to Earth" as David Brooks puts it in today's New York Times is delightful. They keep fantasizing that somewhere there is a devout liberal who is electable to national office, and they still think that Barack's the guy who can pull it off.

This is irrational, of course. And hard for those who haven't fallen head over heels in love with Obama to understand. One of our readers, who is a psychologist, offers some clarification as to why the moonbats are reacting so emotionally to some truth being told about The Chosen One:

It was so clear from the very beginning that a vast swath of America had what we refer to in the business as an idealizing transference. When a patient in therapy starts to revere you a little too much, you know it's time to fasten your seatbelt because their disillusionment and the flip side of the idealization, repressed rage, is just around the corner. So I've said all along that there will eventually be hell to pay here.

Repressed rage. Wow. That's what leads folks from the Boston Globe down to your average university professor to feel so betrayed over Barack facing some tough questions at a debate.

As Barack whines over how he was treated - he was clearly upset to the point of haughtiness Wednesday - it makes me wonder if its possible that he is so in love with himself that he feels the same sort of repressed rage over reporters not realizing that he is above questions that can offer some evidence to voters regarding who he is and what he believes.

Barack and the Bad Guys

Barack said at the debate Wednesday night that its not appropriate to make him responsible for the words or actions of people who happen to support him. That sounds reasonable on the surface. But in the Rev Wright situation, Americans ask themselves, "Would I have stayed in that environment for 20 years and listened to anti-American rants?"

In the case of the former terrorist William Ayers, there's a similar question. "Would I let the guy hold a fundraiser for me?"

The LA Times today argues that Barack's ties to the bad guys are thin, but writes:

Obama and Ayers moved in some of the same political and social circles in the leafy liberal enclave of Hyde Park, where they lived several blocks apart. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, Ayers introduced Obama during a political event at his home, according to Obama's aides. Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, later contributed $200 to Obama's state campaign.

What? Does a normal person accept donations and fundraisers from people who say they're proud of having blown up buildings during the Vietnam protest era? Does a normal American agree to serve on a charitable board with the same guy? Is that a thin connection?

And does Barack's attempt to distance himself from Ayers ring true?

He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that . . . knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense.

Disingenuous at best.

All this is more evidence of why Barack can't win the presidency, which will lead to guilt by association attacks like this popular YouTube video:

Barack Was Wrong

An interesting sidebar to the debate over Barack's Bitterness is the very question of whether Barack is right or not. Dan Schnur blogged in the New York Times on Wednesday that:

By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?

Interesting question. But is the premise true - are working class voters actually "values voters?" Paul Krugman, the liberal economist who is a Times columnist pulls together the conversation on this question over the past few days. He lays out the argument that Barack has his stereotypes wrong about the bitter middle class voting on religion:

It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.

In an op-ed yesterday, Larry Bartels, again from the Times, crunches the numbers and announces:

Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.

So not only did Barack choose his words poorly, he was making a point that is part of the false premise that the dems operate under - that they run the party that cares about regular folk. (see the numbers in the next post that prove this point.) Somehow, through all the disinformation, working people have figured out that the GOP has a vision for the country, and a belief in it, that matches theirs.

Somehow middle class America has discerned that all the plans that democrats have for building huge bureaucracies to reallocate wealth and build a political base don't actually help people... that people need to help themselves. Which is why they believe in America in a way that people like Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama, and yes, it seems, Barack, don't.

Which has those lapel pins looking a lot more appealing to Barack these days.