Clinton's Pennsylvania Victory Speech

Breaking News Concerning MSNBC Anchors

Besides the fact that I personally will never watch MSNBC for election coverage again, considering Olbermann's constant whining and bad mouthing of Hillary Clinton, her supporters, anyone who offers even semi-positive analysis of her campaign, or anyone who utters one thing that could be construed as a tiny bit critical of Obama, Taylor Marsh, over at her blog, is breaking some news concerning Olbermann and the MSNBC crew:

____________________________________________________________

Keith Olbermann just broke down in tears.

Russert went running from the building.

Chris Matthews can't feel his legs.

UPDATE: Breaking... Keith just stopped crying, and Russert just ran back into the building. They're now tag teaming on numbers and every time a new number comes up Keith pleads this is the number that will push Hillary out. Uh-oh... What's this? Keith just fled from the set screaming... Russert is now talking to Matthews. Stay tuned... ...

Clinton Wins PA; Race Rolls On

Here's food for thought: What does it say when you out spend your opponent 3 to 1... and still lose?  What does it say when the media has already anointed you the nominee and has counted out your opponent for over two months now...and you still lose?  What does it say when you've been given numerous opportunities to put your opponent away (New Hampshire, Nevada, California, Ohio, Texas, and now Pennsylvania)...and you lose every time?  

Does anyone ever stop and ask themselves the above questions?  Seriously, Obama had everything going for him --- money, time, the media --- and he still can't put Hillary Clinton away.  Regardless of the final margin of victory for Clinton in Pennsylvania, the fact that she still won, despite all the odds, is a real testament to her strength as a candidate (or is it Obama's lack of strength).

And now the race moves on to Indiana and North Carolina.  Obama will win North Carolina, and he should do so extremely conformably.  The true battle ground is now Indiana.  Again, Obama has all the advantages---money, time, media, and he's from a neighboring state.  Harold Ford Jr., a high ranking Democratic Party official, really had a great take on the Indiana primary on MSNBC just a few minutes ago.  He pointed out that Obama needs to win it --- not because he needs the delegates or the popular votes, but rather as a matter to show that he can still win in states that are not his "base" states.  North Carolina is an Obama base state, as is Oregon.  The same can be said about Kentucky and West Virginia for Clinton.  But, as Ford alluded to, Indiana is, more or less, neutral territory.  The question will be answered, based on the Indiana results, if Obama is limited to his base states.  If he can't win Indiana, Ford analyzed that it is a bad sign for Obama in the eyes of the undecided superdelegates, and I agree.  Exactly how much time, money, and states does Obama need to put Clinton away?  If he can't do it in Indiana, he can't do it --- period.  

So, in conclusion, I would like to congratulate Sen. Clinton on her hard fought victory in Pennsylvania.  Tomorrow, it's on to Indiana, and then on May 6, this all begins again.

(P.S.: Clinton agreed to debate in North Carolina; Obama rejected.  Is he scared?  Obviously so.)

Is Senator Clinton's Negative Rating Really 63% As The Polls Say?

I doubt it very much and the voters surely tell a different story.  However,  journalists and pundits have been talking about it for over two weeks and treat it as gospel.

 

As of 4/17/08, Real Clear Politics reports that the popular vote in the Democratic primaries (including Florida and Michigan) as follows:  Senator Obama 13,932,423 million or 47.6%;  Senator Clinton 13,837,418 million or 47.2%, a difference of only 94,005 votes or four-tenths of 1%.  Those voters do not agree with Senator Clinton's negative poll numbers.  They also don't show up in national polls vs. Obama or McCain.

 

Journalists and pundits have shown those negative numbers and then indicate to their audiences that Clinton can't win with those kinds of numbers.  The voters have proven other wise.  Senator Clinton has won New York, California, New Jersey, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Texas, Florida, and Michigan.  All of those states have a very diverse population.  That speaks well to her candidacy. Today, it is time for Pennsylvania to vote and we will see how that turns out in just a few hours.  To those who think the votes of the people in Michigan and Florida should not count, you should remember those elections were legal and set up by each state with each and every candidate having the option to put their name on the ballot.  The DNC said they would not seat those states delegates at the convention and they have a right to do that, but they do not have the right to not count the popular vote of the people in a legal election held under state law.

 

Polling has misled the people on so many issues that it has become a tool unbecoming of a democracy.  Questions people are asked are not in tune with what is taking place in America and/or what the candidates really stand for or what they would do if elected President.  All polls are designed to do is influence people's vote and to create news that is not really there.  Voters can do themselves and their country a great favor by not letting anything in the polls influence their vote.  They should also remember that people in the news media always try to influence one's vote with their biased, one-sided coverage.  That is why they come on air after the debates and try and tell you what you just heard in the debates. And worst of all, they use people in the post debates that have no creditability to start off with.  In short, think independently and let election day results, not polls, show you the true feelings of the public.  

The Morning Dose---4/22

This morning, just hours before the polls close in the keystone state, the Morning Dose comes from the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, urging Pennsylvanians to vote for Clinton in today's primary:

_____________________________________________________________

(...)If Barack Obama does well here or pulls an upset, the Democrats' leader in states, delegates and popular votes could be propelled to de facto victory.

If Hillary Clinton wins as expected, she should be able to fight on to the convention -- and a double-digit victory might give her momentum to seize the nomination.

For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton.

Mr. Obama's appeal with many Democrats is undeniable. He is the "rock star" of this election year; some supporters at his rallies have fallen into a swoon.

Those who have endorsed Obama have rhetorically swooned, too, designating him the future of American politics, while denigrating Clinton as a relic of politics past.

How ironic, since Obama owes no small part of his success to the grooming and support of Chicago's old-line Daley political machine.

In policy terms, relatively little may separate these two. Obama ranks as one of the most liberal U.S. senators, but Clinton is no conservative. Determining how they differ is difficult, though, because Obama is long on soaring rhetoric yet painfully short on record.

He has spent just three years in the U.S. Senate. Before that, he spent just eight years as one of 177 state legislators in Illinois. Before that, he was a university lecturer, a community organizer, a civil-rights lawyer.

Quite simply, this is no portfolio for a president, the world's most powerful leader. The presidency is no place for on-the-job training in the best of times -- and certainly not when the nation is at war, the economy is struggling, and federal governance in general is adrift.

More disturbing is what seems to be Obama's private view of America.

Start with the "God damn America" diatribes of his one-time pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. (Obama claims he didn't know of these, even though he sat in Wright's church for 20 years.) Add his wife Michelle's remark about being proud of America for the first time in her life only because of her husband's campaign.

Now we hear Obama himself disdaining small-town, Middle-America attitudes and values -- a "clinging" to God, guns and bigotry -- as a legacy of bitterness.

Everyone utters stupidities now and then. Yet taken together and uttered repeatedly, they sound like a pattern of thought in the Obama household. It's a pattern the nation can't afford in the White House.

In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government -- as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right.

She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.

Many of her views on domestic issues are too liberal for us, but on others she seems to have moderated. She told the Trib she opposes raising the cap on Social Security taxes, and she is less eager to raise income taxes than Obama.

More important, she is extremely knowledgeable on crucial foreign issues. Meeting with Trib editors last month, she ticked off an impressive list of international challenges and the solutions. (In Wednesday's Philadelphia debate, Obama praised George H.W. Bush's foreign policy -- apparently not realizing that one of its architects was then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney, a man he regularly excoriates.)

As we noted at the time of that meeting, Clinton's decision to sit down with the Trib was courageous, given our longstanding criticism of her. That is no small matter: Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not.

She has a real record. He doesn't.

She has experience of value to a president. He doesn't.(...)

A Regenerated al Qaeda

I and many others have written about how Mr. Bush mismanaged the War on Terror with the unnecessary invasion and occupation of Iraq.  And now we have a report, via the Washington Post, by The Government Accountability Office that  (1) The Bush administration has no comprehensive plan for dealing with the threat posed by Pakistan's lawless tribal areas where bin Laden is believed to be hiding.  (2)  The U.S. has not met its national security goals to destroy terrorist threats and close the safe haven despite having spent more than $10 billion for Pakistani military operations in the border region.  (3)   That al Qaeda had regenerated its ability to attack the United States.  (4)   The report also supports an argument by congressional Democrats that the war in Iraq and administration bungling have helped create new danger in an area largely out of the control of any sovereign state. 

 

The Bottom line: The failure to seal the borders after invading Afghanistan allowed bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban to escape to the tribal areas of Pakistan.  After that failure came the most reckless failure of all: the invasion and occupation of Iraq over WMD that did not exist.  The fight on the real war against terror was dead.  The people will do well to remember Bush's failure as President and Commander-in-Chief and the fact that Senator McCain will continue the same policy if elected President.  The latest poll shows Bush's approval rating at 28%.  That is a tragic statement about an American President, but the worst part is that he has truly earned it---that says it all.

Former President Carter: A Rational Mind On The Middle East

Former President Carter met this past week with two leading members of Hamas who won the election after Arafat passed away.  The United States and Israel disapproved of Carter's visit, but he was not impressed.  In fact he said "I consider myself immune from such restrictions."

 

Mr. Carter is the most knowledgeable person on the Israeli-Palestinian problem and is the one person who could broker an agreement between them.  Bush and Israeli leaders have their nose out of joint because Carter has accused Israel of reneging on the U.N. resolutions that they agreed to concerning land and the building of settlements in the West Bank on Palestinian land. 

 

I wrote a post on Jan 27 concerning Hamas, saying that they would have to be a part of the process in any peace deal.  Unfortunately, however, Israel and the U.S. won't talk with them.  The fact is that they will have to be a part of the process regardless of what Israel and the U.S. thinks.  It is best to include them sooner rather than latter and put an end to the blood spilled on both sides.

 

It is to be noted Carter did not represent the U.S. when he met with Hamas.  The purpose was to agree on a dialog to get some things going.  He had two request of Hamas.  (1)  Hamas halt its rocket attacks against Israel.  (2)  That it agree to a meeting with Israel Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai to discuss a prisoner exchange.  Hamas claimed they would respond to Carter's requests. 

 

Bush and Israeli leaders could learn something from Carter if they were really serious about trying to bring peace to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  The so called "road map" has failed so far and the road to peace will get bumpier as long as the attitude is hands off.  President Carter has the right ideas; President Bush and the Israelis need to follow his example.  

Obama's Faulty Memory

While campaigning in Pennsylvania this week, Senator Obama, on more than one occasion, said that the economy under President Clinton was one reason why the people of Pennsylvania have come under hard economic times.  It is obvious Obama was trying to get to Senator Clinton through her husband, but that doesn't change that what Sen. Obama said was factually inaccurate.

 

The fact is that people in all walks of life and pay groups did better on President Clinton's watch and under his economic program than any other administration that Obama can even remember.  The Department of Labor can attest to that.  There is no other administration that can match the economic progress achieved on Clinton's watch.  The people of Pennsylvania, who Obama was talking to, were certainly not better off on George W. Bush or the Reagan-Bush watch that started back 28 years ago.

 

In fact, the economy under President Clinton did so well for people across the pay scale, there is not another economy you can compare it to.  What other administration created over 22 million jobs in 8 years; had an unemployment rate of 4.2%, the lowest in 30 years; the lowest crime rate in 30 years; balanced budgets with record surpluses while paying down over 400 billion dollars on the national debt?  I challenge Obama to come up with an administration that performed better for the people.

 

It is one thing to be in a political campaign when some people think they can say anything that is not factual, but that is a reflection on their character and a disservice to a President who worked so hard on the economy to reverse the 12 straight years of the Reagan-Bush era, where the American people lost ground economically. 

 

Obama may have the right to wallow in his hatred for President Clinton and his wife, but he does not have a right to knowingly misrepresent the truth and the facts.

Politics Pop Quiz: Who Said What?

Think you know who said what this campaign season?  Can you match the Republican talking points with the person who said them?  Take the Republican Attack Quiz by clicking here. 

The Morning Dose---4/17

The Morning Dose comes to us today from Taylor Marsh, reviewing the debate last night, in a blog post titled, Just How Soft Obama's Coverage Been?:

_________________________________________________________

Down pillow soft.

Baby's bottom soft.

So no one should be surprised that Obama had a nightmare night. He finally got real questions for which he should have had ready answers. Over the last year Barack Obama has gotten a complete pass on his record, his life and everything associated to his political rise. In fact, if Senator Obama had been subjected to the scrutiny that Hillary Clinton has been subjected to he would have turned to ash by now.

So forgive me if all the blogospheric bellyaching permeating Democratic circles is not impressing me much. In fact, it's a laugh out loud moment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm more than willing to blame the traditional media for piling on a Democrat, which they do often. But do these progressives now crying fowl really believe they could protect Mr. Obama, as his Democratic challengers did all last year, throughout the rest of this campaign? Asking a question about Rev. Wright? A question about William Ayers? The horror! Seriously, is Senator Obama so frail that he shouldn't be subjected to questioning that should have come a long time ago and will inevitably come in the general election? If nothing else and at the very least, everyone in the Democratic party should want to know how he's going to handle this stuff if he's our nominee. Because there can be no doubt that the wingnuts will lock and load Barack's greatest hits, then share them with the electorate in a cascade of negative gifts.

Mind you, this is questioning I've been doing for a year and getting excoriated for it. So I feel Charlie and George's pain. Going for substance isn't easy amidst the Political Idol crowd.

The facts are that the progressive community and Obama supporters have done their candidate no favors by the kid glove treatment they've applied to all things having to do with him and his record, including his associations. What happened last night is a result of one year of people ignoring reality. That's right, reality. Because the closer Obama got to the nomination and the general election, the curtain would eventually be pulled back on every event in his life, good, bad and horror show, which includes Rev. Wright.

This is the reason we lose elections.

What, did Obama's adoring fans think they could hermetically seal him and protect him from the meanies out there, then simply deliver him to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue because "he's the one?" Good grief.

If Obama would have been put through his paces last fall, he might have been past this by now. If his own campaign had faced up to his associations long ago, head on, he wouldn't be dealing with this now.

Again, I'd blame Gibson and Stephanopoulos, but it's not their fault that someone, anyone finally asked questions that have been out there for months and months. It's not tabloid to ask about Ayers any more than it was tabloid to question Bill Clinton about his past. Hillary's been asked about everything more than once, as they reload to ask it all over again.

Oh, and as for Keith He's No Edward R. Murrow Olbermann, don't send a sportscaster to do a political analyst's job. Talking to Howard Wolfson, with Olbermann whining about the questions about Ayers, isn't doing us any favors either. He's just giving Obama fans a false sense of security. It's as if the only people dealing with reality and preparing for the Republican attack machine is the Clinton campaign. Olbermann is on planet Zen if he thinks that Ayers won't be part of the dialogue come September. (You know, because you never roll out a new campaign in August.)

We need a nominee that can walk through fire. Whoever we offer up should be able to withstand anything, and I do mean anything. Because that's what always comes at Democrats, with the traditional press inevitably having a thing for the guy on the other side. Considering that guy will be John McCain, the hero worship will be out in force.

No Democratic politician in the last 20 years has gotten a softer introduction onto the national stage than Barack Obama. Nobody has gotten an easier ride to the top step of presidential politics either. He paid for it last night.

The Morning Dose---4/14

The Morning Dose today comes from a guest post by Scan over at Taylor Marsh, titled, What It's All About:

_______________________________________________________________

I think we need to take a step back from this contentious primary season and remember what is really important.

All the debates, all this inter-party strife, all the "hit diaries" on behalf of both candidates, all the controversy about race and gender issues, and everything else we've been talking about for the past year...all of it will not matter a year from now. The only thing of true significance is what happens on November 4th, 2008. The only thing that matters is whether or not we will have a conservative Republican running the country for the next 4-8 years, or a progressive Democrat there instead. I don't need to list all the reasons why, but it's the difference between:

*No end in sight for our involvement in Iraq, or a swift withdrawal
*A Supreme Court full of Alitos and Scalias, or one full of Ginsburgs and Breyers.
*A continuation of Bush economics, or digging ourselves out from it
*Environmental issues on the back burner, or front-and-center
*The status quo indefinitely, or universal health care for all Americans

I had a conversation with a pro-Obama coworker just before the New Hampshire primary. At that time, I was for Hillary but Barack was my second choice, and I was prepared to back him strongly if it became clear it was over for Clinton. But I told my coworker that there was one clear, strong reason why I was so solidly pro-Hillary: My brain and my gut were telling me that she could definitely beat the Republicans in November, and I simply could not say the same thing about Obama. There was just too much we didn't know about him, and the stakes were too high for me to take that risk. That, and the Clintons don't know how to lose.

I see echoes of 2004 in our current election season. Back then, I saw one candidate that could have easily beaten Bush. That candidate was Wes Clark. When it became clear that John Kerry was on his way to the nomination, I saw him as a strong but beatable candidate, and all I could say to the Democrats of Iowa and New Hampshire was "Umm, guys...I hope you know what you're doing here." And sure enough, our hearts were eventually broken. I still firmly believe that if Clark was our nominee back then, he would be our president right now and perhaps coasting his way to reelection. There's no way to prove it, it's just what I think.

The point I am getting to is this: It has become clear to me that Obama will not be elected president. If he goes against McCain, he will lose. I've been leaning towards this line of thinking for about about a month now, but the controversy surrounding Rev. Wright has sealed the deal. I'm not sure that everyone appreciates just how deadly this sort of stuff is. His ties to him are deep, profound, influential, and probably unbreakable. To have such inflammatory and offensive rhetoric as "God Damn America!" and "U.S. of KKK A." coming from Obama's spiritual adviser and mentor is deeply troubling to the average American voter and should not be dismissed.

I had an interesting talk with my mom about this a couple of nights ago. She lives in Anson Texas, a small conservative town just north of Abilene (where I grew up). She is deeply religious and conservative (very common for Anson) but is not dizzy with love for McCain, either. As soon as I mentioned something about politics, she immediately wanted to talk about Obama and his pastor. She was completely outraged about it. Despite living in a small town in Texas and not being an avid viewer of cable news, she knew quite a lot about the situation. For instance, she knew that Obama had listened to Rev. Wright's tapes even in his youth at Harvard. Somewhat compassionately, I thought, she said she attempted to look at this in an understanding way but simply could not. I got the feeling that this was definitely the political talk of the town, and if Anson Texas is at all representative of small-town America, this is a big deal and big trouble for Obama. This may be tough for some to hear, but the truth is he might as well be Farrakhan to a great many people at this point. And the more people talk about this, the worse it will get, I believe. So I asked her, as a Republican, who she would choose if the options were only Clinton and Obama. "Hillary, in a heartbeat" she said. This coming from a woman who has HATED Clintons unabated since 1992.

I take no joy in the downfall of Obama. I will never forget where I was when he delivered his '04 Convention speech. It brought me to my feet and brought tears to my eyes. It was the best political speech of my adult life(...)

(...)These were the words of a future president, I thought. But it is clear that his campaign has not lived up to these words. As soon as I saw his co-chair on national television the day after New Hampshire questioning why Hillary did not cry for Katrina victims, but did cry over her physical appearance, I knew that his convention speech was just words...just a speech. And as soon as the information regarding Rev. Wright and Rezko came to light, I knew he did not have the judgment to be elected by the American people, or even to be the kind of president we need him to be.

But the good news is that we have another Democratic candidate in this race that can and will win in November.

That person is Mike Gravel.

....just kidding. It's Hillary.

If a progressive Democrat as president from 2009-2017 sounds like a good idea to you, I believe the time may be arriving to unite behind a candidate that can win and save our beloved country from the brink of disaster.

Madame President?

Clinton Further Responds to Obama's Remarks

Watch:

Fiscal Responsibility: A Necessity For A Sustained Economy

Balancing the federal budget, reducing spending, and paying down government debt has never been a priority or policy for Republican Presidents in the last 50 years.  That is the main reason the economy has never been on an even keel or sustained itself on the Republicans' watch.  Their ideology is to bankrupt the federal government so that social security, medicare, and other federal programs that work will have to be dismantled.  That is just one of the reasons that George W. Bush wanted to remake social security into private accounts. 

 

Contrary to what the American people have been led to believe, the federal government can afford needed programs if the budget is balanced and debt creation is eliminated.  Tax increases are not necessary to pay for needed programs when our house is fiscally sound.

 

Senator Clinton is the only presidential candidate, Democrat or Republican, who is campaigning on fiscal discipline and a balanced budget.  She recognizes that without both, the economy will never be sustained and action after the fact will have to be taken, such as what is happening now with the fiscal disaster that Bush has laid on our country and its people.  It only takes common sense to realize how well off our country would be today had Bush not recklessly spent the $5.6 trillion surplus and had he followed the path of balanced budgets and fiscal responsibility the previous administration left him.  But instead, he embarked upon a record deficit and debt spree never seen before in American history.

 

Senator Clinton understands the big picture of the benefits to the nation and its people and the rewards of being fiscally responsible.  The mess we are now in with the mortgage and financial industry would never have happened if Bush had the federal government's fiscal house in order.  During the campaign, the Republicans will once again try to accuse the Democrats of wanting to raise taxes.  The voters need to catch on to something: it has been the Republicans who are getting into their pockets in so many different ways.  $3.25 gallon gasoline is only one of the many examples.

 

Senator Clinton is in a position, with her experience, to bring back fiscal sanity and a balanced budget, to not only have a sustained and growing economy that creates new jobs, but to have the resources to do what is necessary to move our country forward and service the people's needs.  

The Morning Dose---4/12

Today's Morning Dose comes from Christy Macy of the Baltimore Sun, titled, "Clinton Offers a Bold Vision for American Foreign Policy":

_____________________________________________________________

While she clearly erred in her recent description of what happened at an airport in Bosnia years ago, the incident has been blown out of proportion. As one who has worked closely with her, I can say that Senator Clinton's experience and work overseas point to something far more significant: a new direction in American foreign policy, which is in desperate need of change.

When I was on her staff, Mrs. Clinton pursued a daunting schedule of foreign trips. She addressed the annual meeting of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, exhorting the world's business and governmental leaders on the importance of international development as a foundation for civil society. She understood that peace in Northern Ireland depended on the engagement of citizens at the grass roots, especially women - a point she stressed in the Millennium Lecture at the University of Ireland in Galway. And she stood on the stage at the Palermo Opera House in Sicily, speaking passionately about the critical role of citizens' movements in the quest to defeat organized crime and reclaim communities.

For me, the depth of her commitment to these issues was evident not only during her moments in the spotlight. It also emerged behind the scenes, as she pushed us off the beaten track to consult people about their everyday lives and struggles. Over the years, in nearly 80 countries, these personal experiences and conversations deeply shaped her policy agenda and explain why she believes we must invest our prestige, power and dollars in human development.

One such occasion remains vivid: Mrs. Clinton's visit - up five flights of stairs - to a small women's legal clinic in Beijing. It was hot and stuffy, but the room was packed with women eager to meet with the first lady of the U.S. In a totalitarian country, where women's rights were still marginal at best, these women lawyers worked tirelessly to help others claim their rights on such issues as divorce and housing - often at some risk to themselves. They were stunned at Mrs. Clinton's knowledge of the issues they faced. After a lively discussion, one woman stood up. "You have no idea," she said, "what it means that you are here today with all of us. We will never forget this." And she began to weep.

A long drive to an isolated school in rural Morocco offered another example of Mrs. Clinton's immersion in grass-roots issues around the world. She believes that no nation can fully advance with half its population left behind.(...)

(...)What struck me about these numerous visits and conversations was Mrs. Clinton's unwavering commitment to identify and promote strategies with positive effects on people's lives. Wherever she went, she searched for concrete solutions to lift people out of poverty, create stronger communities, and bolster democratic institutions worldwide.

Mrs. Clinton has the interest, experience and credentials to reverse the incalculable damage that the Bush administration has inflicted on America's standing in the international community. We need a commander in chief who understands that American leadership depends on balancing military strength with our nation's heritage as a beacon of freedom and hope.

With Hillary, I think we get that balance - and more.

UPDATE: Clinton and McCain Camps Respond to Obama's Rural Pennsylvanians Comment

Sen. Hillary Clinton responded this way:

“I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience.

As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

Sen. McCain's campaign spokesperson responded, saying:

"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking.  It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

THIS JUST IN: Rural Pennsylvanians Are Radical Religious Gun-Carrying Xenophobes

Well, that's according to Barack Obama, at least.  It was at a fundraiser in San Francisco where Obama had this to say:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them.(...)

(...)So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

This is a real and growing problem for Barack Obama.  First, his wife says that for the first time in her adult life she is really proud of her country.  Then we find out that Barack Obama has been friends with Jeremiah Wright, a racist and anti-American pastor, for over 20 years.  Then he stereotypes white people in his "typical white person" comment about his grandmothers's racist attitudes.  

Now, let me be clear, I'm not claiming to know what Barack Obama believes in his heart, but I am increasingly troubled by what I hear --- if not for the pure anger it arises in me personally, for the harm it does Obama in the general election should he be the nominee.  

This latest comment is particularly disturbing.  In it, Obama sounds elitist and snobby.  He plays up the stereotype that liberals are big city guys who don't care about small town America.  Kerry was painted that way in '04...and Democrats lost.  In '92, Clinton was able to connect with rural voters, and look what happened --- he won.  

I'm also not sure what exactly Obama meant by what he said.  Sure, it's clearly condescending, but how does losing your job make you more likely to "cling to guns", making it sound like rural people are gun-obsessed gangsters?  How exactly does it make people racist and bigoted to people who are different from the them? 

I don't get it.  Obama's campaign is supposed to be about uniting the country.  Instead, he's dividing us.  Not just by race, but now by big city vs. small town.   Comments like this are just plain not helpful --- not just to Obama, but the entire party.  They're surely not helping us win the White House.  

Why The Democratic Race Should Continue...To The Convention

The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination that is playing out is a healthy sign of Democracy at work and at its best.  The American people have two final candidates who are in a close race (despite what the news media says) and the voters are taking their time in their assessment of the two.

 

Those who want Senator Clinton to drop out the race appear to be afraid to let the people vote in the final primaries and are dead wrong.  Those are the same people who say they do not want a brokered convention, but are clamoring for that in the primaries.  The primaries need to play out and the people need whatever time it takes to make sure that the best candidate is selected, not just as a nominee, but as a potential President.  That process will not hurt the Democrats chance to win in the general election in November; if anything, putting the best candidate forward will help the Democrats to win.    

 

The delegates who end up casting their votes should not rush to judgment before the voting process is completed.  There seems to be a movement for change, but who between the two candidates has actually articulated what they would change; how they intend to do it and carry it out.  George W. Bush ran on change in 2000---to change the tone in Washington.  He did not define it nor how he would accomplish it, but we all know that the change under his administration has been a disaster for our country.

 

The voters have to look beyond mere slogans of change, and instead focus on the issues and who can best handle those issues with a plan and deeds.  Experience at the federal and national level does matter; that is what the President has to manage and deal with.  Which of the two candidates has actually accomplished more for the people since they have been in Congress? That is a good indication of who would do better as President.

 

The larger problem that the voters face in the upcoming primaries is the news media having already made up their minds and pushing the candidate of their choice, failing to fairly and accurately report on this race.  I would hope that the voters exercise their own thoughts, listen to what the candidates actually propose to do, disregard what they hear in the news media, and then make their own judgement.  That would be the democratic way to choose the Democratic nominee for President.  

The Iraq-Iran Alliance

I have mentioned in several past commentaries that when it is all said and done ,and no matter how the war in Iraq ends, Iran and Iraq will be united allies.  They will enjoy the fruits of the billions of American dollars used to rebuild Iraq. Iraq and Iran as well as other countries in the Middle East, will also have even a greater advantage in the control and price of oil for years to come.---All of this because of Bush's reckless policy in Iraq over WMD that did not exist.

 

Just this past week, Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's troops were locked in combat in Shiite controlled-Basra against Iraqi forces.  At the same time, al-Sadr's Mahdi Army was making trouble all over Baghdad.  Iraqi officials have now reported that over 500 Iraqi solders, police, and civilians were killed in the Basra and Baghdad fighting, with hundreds more wounded.

 

Iraqi Prime Minister al-Maliki, who vowed to see the Basra campaign through to a military victory, instead came to an agreement with al-Sadr to end the fighting and agreed to al-Sadr's nine demands.  Once again, al-Sadr told his army to stand down.  That can be deemed success---for now...

 

But the fighting in Basra and Baghdad this week has exposed the weakness of the American troop surge.  Al-Sadr and his army can and do turn the heat and violence up any time they want to.  The surge did not have an affect on this operation.  It should be noted, however, that the Iraqi representatives who handled the cease fire with the Shiite in Basra and Baghdad also had to send representatives to Iran to deal with al-Sadr to help negotiate the cease fire.  In other words, al-Sadr is operating from Iran.  The American people should and need to understand just what is taking place here.

 

All the while, our troops are still dying in a country made unstable by the President's invasion.  It should also be noted to the American people that the fight in Basra and Baghdad was between al-Sadr's army and the government and not al-qaeda.  Al-Sadr does not like the way the government is handling the Shiite-Sunni problem, and he has no problem raising hell to get what he wants.

 

In other words, the civil war is still going on in Iraq and Americans are dying because of forces that our military can not control.  If Bush or McCain or any other  neoconservative Republican thinks that America is waving the white flag of surrender by bringing out troops home, then they are the ones who care nothing about our men and women in uniform.  If all our troops came home tomorrow, they will all come home just like they served, with the highest honor. 

 

If any one thinks that America, the greatest military power in the world, has to occupy a foreign country in order to keep our country safe, then our children's future is really in jeopardy.  Indeed, this country's future is in jeopardy if that is the case. Think about that.

The Morning Dose---4/8

Anne Kornblut of the Washington Post is today's source for the Morning Dose. In her latest article, Anne highlights the facts concerning Clinton and her hospital story, which despite what many in the Obama-loving media would have you believe, was true:

_____________________________________________________________

The aunt of a young pregnant woman who died after a hospital told her she needed to pay $100 up front for care said in an interview on Monday that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has been telling the story accurately on the campaign trail -- following claims by a different Ohio hospital that it did not turn the patient away.

For weeks, Clinton repeated an anecdote she heard in Ohio on Feb. 28 involving a young woman who lost her baby and later died because she lacked health insurance and did not have $100 to gain access to a nearby hospital.

But over the weekend, Clinton came under fire when officials at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, after reading about her remarks, demanded that she stop recounting it because the patient, Trina Bechtel, was admitted there and did have insurance.

That part, it turns out, is true. But so is Clinton's claim that Bechtel did not get care at another hospital that wanted a $100 pre-payment before seeing her, according to the young woman's aunt, Lisa Casto. "It's a true story," said Casto, 53.(...)

(...)Casto said her niece, who suffered from preeclampsia during her pregnancy, did not seek care at the first hospital she when she fell ill because she knew she did not have the $100 out-of-pocket she believed she would need to be seen. Instead, she went to O'Bleness Memorial Hospital, where her baby was stillborn. Bechtel was later flown to Columbus and died there. She was 35. 

Casto said she has been stunned by the amount of negative attention her niece's story generated, and that she was sorry it had hurt the Clinton campaign. She was, and is, she said, a supporter. "Did I vote for Hillary?" she said. "You'd better bet I did."

Anne's article, important to note, also clarified the issue on the patient's insurance situation. The woman did not have insurance originally, as Clinton correctly noted.  At the time of her death, however, she was insured, but, "the damage", so to say, was already done to her health from not being able to be treated originally.  

Clinton's Latest "Lie"; The Video Says It All

Ooops, you mean those in the Clinton-hating media were the actual ones lying when they reported that Clinton lied about a woman not receiving medical attention because she couldn't afford it.  As ABC News reports, "the hospital that denied Bachtel the coverage was not O'Bleness Memorial."  Read the entire article, proving the story Clinton told TRUE, here.  

I'm wondering if the New York Times, Keith Olbermann, and others who promoted this story will apologize to Sen. Clinton for tarnishing her record without the proper research and reporting to back it up.  Sadly, I doubt Obama lovers in the media will ever admit their flaws in their Clinton hating, biased ways. 

The Morning Dose---4/7

Today's Morning Dose comes from New Jersey Governor and Democratic superdelegate, Jon Corzine.  In a article that Corzine wrote for the Huffington Post, Corzine argues why listening to the will of the people in Michigan and Florida is not just an issue of process, but an issue of Democracy:

________________________________________________________

There have been some who have tried to read my comments last week on CNBC's SquawkBox as stepping back from my support of Senator Clinton. Nothing could be further from the truth.(...)

(...)I truly believe Senator Clinton is the most qualified and prepared to be our next president. I unequivocally support her candidacy.

My point on SquawkBox was and remains that superdelegates should consider a number of factors in their final decision, particularly after the primaries and caucuses have run their course.

Clearly, the cumulative delegate totals must be considered. Absolutely, the cumulative popular vote is important. And, a practical analysis of electability and the electoral map must be weighed.

For me, the most important of those factors is the popular vote since Democrats have rightfully and passionately long argued that every vote should be counted. Practically, that popular vote should include participation of the fourth and eighth largest states in the nation. Most Democrats agree that ignoring the voices of Florida and Michigan is a mistake and threatens to impact the outcome of the fall elections.

Like many, I fear that not considering the wishes of millions of Democratic voters in those states will taint the attitude of voters everywhere about our ultimate nominee. Early polling in Florida has already indicated as much.

Without a "do over" for those states, the short-term gain could well come with long-term pain for our nominee, the party and the nation.

The party should be responsible and raise funds for a primary "do-over" in a way that doesn't give the competitive edge to one candidate over the other.

I believe, as I think most Democrats do, that the popular vote is the most democratic way to select a candidate. In fact, I recently signed legislation in New Jersey that joins the state in a compact to choose a president by direct popular vote.

When we listen to all (emphasis added by me) of the people in our party, we end up choosing the person the entire party can support.  

Obama's America:

Credit to Taylor Marsh for the photo; It speaks for itself.