So...This Is How Obama Wins...

Having some extra time on my hands, and still outraged at the Obama campaign's refusal to cooperate with revotes in Florida and Michigan, I began running the numbers to see just how Sen. Clinton would fair if Michigan and Florida were counted as per the January results.  What I found was pretty interesting:

Okay, by counting Florida and Michigan, you also count their superdelegates.  I estimate that Sen. Clinton would get a 40-50 superdelegate bounce by counting those two states.  Then you look at the pledged delegates.  I have to estimate she would get a net of about 50.  All together that would bring Sen. Clinton within about 20 delegates of Sen. Obama heading into the convention, just as things stand now.  Considering big enough wins in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana, and West Virginia, and Clinton could potentially overtake Obama even in pledged delegates.

The problem still stands though.  That problem is Barack Obama.  I love how he claims that the people should decide, while at the same time having his lawyers stand in the way of millions of Americans voting.  Same thing with Pelosi.  She said, just today, that the will of the American people must be honored.  Well, how about applying that standard to Florida and Michigan.  They are, after all, people and Americans, aren't they?  So is this how Obama wins?  By silencing millions of voters?  Is this democracy?  Cause let's face the current outlook: the only way Obama ends with more popular votes, and potentially delegates, is if Florida and Michigan don't vote.  Sad, really, really sad.  

Interesting Tidbit for All You Hill-Haters

I'm all to well aware of those Obama supporters, both in the media (who are we kidding, everyone in the media loves Obama) and in the blogosphere who are calling for Sen. Hillary Clinton to drop out this instant.  Well, unfortunately for those who share this close-minded view, most Democrats don't agree.

In the latest Rasmussen poll, just 22% of Democrats feel Clinton should drop out.  That may seem like a high number...that is until you look at the number of Democrats who want Obama to drop out: 22%.  That's right---it's a tie.  So, before everyone goes on another crusade, signing petitions and the such telling Clinton to get out, maybe I should do the same for Obama. After all, Democrats want him to drop out just as much as they do Clinton.  But you know what?  I'm not going to do that and no one should.  Let's let the Democratic voters decide.  There are still 10 contests left and the issue with Florida and Michigan to be resolved.  

A second interesting tidbit comes to us from Gallup and it is the number of Democrats who wouldn't vote for the other candidate should theirs not get the nomination.  Remember when Obama claimed he would get Clinton supporters, but she couldn't get his.  Not so says the voters.  An astounding 28% of Clinton supporters say they would not support Obama.  Even more disturbing, they say that instead of just staying home, which is damaging enough, they would vote for McCain.  To compare, just 19% (still a lot, I know) would not support Clinton.

The point of this post: let's throw conventional wisdom out the window.  The media and Obama supporters want to push Clinton out the race and silence the voters in the upcoming states as well as Florida and Michigan.  They want the clouds to open up, angels to sing, and a voice from above to anoint Obama the nominee.  The voters think differently, however.  So let me ask everyone out there: who should decide our next President----the voters, or Obama supporters and the media?  I would hope the answer is clear.  If not, we have a bigger problem then just a prolonged nominating campaign; we have the destruction of democracy itself.  

Just (Embellished) Words

Many want to point blame at Sen. Clinton for misspeaking.  Well, let's be fair and balanced.  I haven't called out Sen. Obama for his misstatements.  Why?  Because they're just that...misstatements.  But since the Obama campaign and its supporters want to personally attack Sen. Clinton for misspeaking, I think it's only fair game to recognize Sen. Obama's own misstatements. The following is a press release from the Clinton campaign addressing these misstatements:

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I’ve passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama’s comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "…Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.'"White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions… After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times,12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen – who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to.” [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care…And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. […] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama…seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform."ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser’ to ‘Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

Journalists and Their Traps: The Charges and the Facts

Journalists have already bated the trap for the voters during this primary season.  It is especially true concerning the Democratic candidates.  There are some signs that voters are willing to play the game.  The charges go something like this:

 

THE CHARGE:  The prolonged Democratic race is bringing out negatives that will hurt the Democratic party during the general election in November.  

THE FACT:  This campaign is no more negative than any past Democratic campaign and in fact has had many civil debates and moments by both candidates.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton should drop out for the sake of party unity.   

THE FACT:  Neither candidate should drop out because neither has won the popular vote nor the necessary 2024 delegates to be the nominee.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton is playing the race card.  

THE FACT:  It is the news journalists who are playing the race card with their one sided reporting, tilted towards Obama.  

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama is getting the independent vote and the Republican crossover vote and therefore will be a stronger candidate than Clinton in the general election.  

THE FACT:  Those voters will vote Republican in the general election if Obama is the Democratic nominee, especially now after the Wright story.  Many Republicans also want the weakest Democrat to face in November.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton has too many negatives.      

THE FACT:  Clinton has won more large states with more diverse populations than Obama.    The "negative" seed journalists try to plant won't wash.

 

THE CHARGE:  Clinton voted to go to war with Iraq.  

THE FACT:  The vote and resolution passed by Congress did not tell Bush that he had to go to war with Iraq.  The resolution gave the president authority to use that option if war was necessary, but everyone knows that war was not necessary and the president hyped the intelligence.  It was Bush's decision to go to war and we also know that he made that decision before the vote by Congress was actually taken.  Bush was going to war regardless, that is why he bypassed the U.N. after telling Congress and the people that he would go through it.

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama would not have voted for the resolution.  

THE FACT:  Obama was not in Congress at the time, so no one knows how he would have voted, including (according to what he said in '04) Obama himself.  We do know, however, that since he has been in Congress, he has voted to continue the war, which is an indication on how he would have voted had he been a Senator at the time. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Journalists are fair and balanced in their reporting on the campaign.  

THE FACT:  John McCain is getting a free ride with his negative comments and his ignorance, flip flops, and false statements concerning the war in Iraq and Al Qaeda being trained in Iran.  Ditto on his voting record in Congress.  A sure sign of their support.  Obama is also getting the majority of positive coverage.  Journalists excuse him for anything negative his campaign says while holding Clinton to a different standard. 

 

THE CHARGE:  Obama can bring unity to the Democratic party; Clinton can not.  

THE FACT:  Two words: "Reagan-Democrats".  They're the crucial swing voters in Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, etc.  Clinton has won them overwhelmingly; Obama hasn't.  

 

Journalists are trying any trick they can think of to influence the vote of the people for the candidate they themselves support.  They did it during the run up to war with Iraq over WMD that did not exist by not seeking the truth from Bush and by promoting the war on their own.  They are really a sad bunch.  They have no shame or respect for their own profession and certainly do not care about our Democratic process with its checks and balances.  They are part of the problem to our political system---a far cry from what our founding fathers had envisioned.  Hopefully enough people can think for themselves; that would make all the difference.  

"How Dare She!"---Give Me a Break

"How dare Hillary Clinton bring up Rev. Wright!"  "How dare Hillary Clinton compare him to Don Imus!"  "How dare Hillary Clinton say that she wouldn't have Wright as her pastor!"  "How dare Hillary Clinton say that she would leave the church had she been a part of it!"  

Those are the kinds of statements I'm hearing all around the blogosphere and in the main-stream media.  Give me a break! Hillary was asked a question and she answered it honestly.  What would you people want her to do?  Lie?  Nod in agreement with Obama's positions?  I think not.

Kudos to Sen. Clinton for finally saying what millions of Americans feel concerning the Obama-Wright issue.  Many don't realize just how many relate to what she said.  The "latte-liberals" and the inside D.C. crowd just can't fathom how anyone can disagree with Obama and his pastor. Well I have news for them: "main street" cares; the Reagan-Democrats care; and they agree with what Hillary Clinton said today. It still amazes me how outraged and amazed so many are with Hillary's statements. What do we want from our candidates?  To shut up and never express their feelings?  I, for one, want to hear their opinions. And, I'd be willing to bet, millions of Democrats agree with her opinion.  

Republican Presidents = Disaster for Taxpayers

Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush lacked/lack a real economic and fiscal policy and brought/bring financial disaster to our country and its people.  Under Reagan, the Savings and Loan Industry collapsed and the federal government had to bail them out to the tune of $100 billion, which was, of course, paid for by the taxpayers.

 

Now under George W. Bush, the mortgage and financial industry has collapsed.  The housing market has been devastated and foreclosure is at an all time high.  And now one of the largest firms on Wall Street, Bear Stearns, has been taken over by J.P. Morgan that was engineered by the federal government with a $30 billion loan.  The concern, we are told, was a possible meltdown in the financial market and a run on Bear Stearns trading commitments. 

 

Make no mistake about these two huge problems under Reagan and Bush.  They are the direct result of the conservative ideology that corporate America will police itself and that no oversight is needed.  It's also the result of corporate America being in bed with conservative Republicans.  They know if a problem arises, these so called conservatives will bail them out with taxpayers' money.

 

All of this and a economy that is going south, declining jobs, and the price of oil continuing to rise at record levels.  The stock market is going south and guess who has the money to buy up stocks when they go down. Yea, you are right, the people who control wealth.

 

In my three part series, The U.S. Economy: Which Party Performs Best, it was pointed out how Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43 had/have no economic policy and how their reckless deficit spending has put our country at risk. These three Presidents have put the country and its people in so much debt, we may not be able to recover.  The U.S. is now in a financial meltdown.  Greed and Conservatism go hand and hand.

 

George W. Bush spoke before the New York Economic Club last week concerning the state of the economy.  He showed his ignorance concerning the economy and what is taking place in America today.  This nation and its people must elect a Democratic President in November.  If our fiscal house is not put in order soon, we may witness something more than a depression.  That will not be pretty. 

 

Don't expect any conservative Republican to reverse the policies of these three presidents.  Has anyone heard any Republican talk about the massive debt? They are silent.  The only candidate I have heard talk about going back to fiscal responsibility is Senator Clinton.  Journalists are so full of hype and caught up in the primaries, they fail to talk about the real issues that face and affect the taxpayers.  Lou Dobbs is supposed to be an economic genius, but when is the last time any one heard him talk about deficit spending and debt created by the last three republican presidents?  So much for the people who are supposed to be looking out for America. The American people need to start looking out for themselves by electing leaders who know how to solve this mess.  

Click here for Part I of The U.S. Economy: Which Parties Performs Best

Click here for Part II of The U.S. Economy: Which Parties Performs Best

Click here for Part III of The U.S. Economy: Which Parties Performs Best

John McCain: An Uninformed United States Senator

Senator John McCain, in his recent visits to Iraq and the Middle East in order to show that he is Presidential, continues to show how uninformed he really is.  Like Bush, he is in denial about why we went to war in Iraq and what is really taking place there.  He speaks of victory, but still can not define it for our men and women in uniform or the American people who have sacrificed so much.  He says the surge is working, but it has yet to accomplish the mission of the surge over a year later. 

 

Now McCain has said several times that Iran is training Al Qaeda and sending them back across the border into Iraq.  He, with the help of Joe Lieberman, had to correct his statement as being factually wrong.  Is it beyond any Republican to tell the truth concerning this war in Iraq?  And McCain wants to be the next Commander in Chief? The so called straight talker can not be trusted any more that George Bush.  He has the same problem when he talks about Iran, Syria, and other countries sending troops into Iraq.  Those countries, and even our allies, laugh at that statement because the United States sent 180,000 troops into Iraq and have been occupying Iraq for 5 years now.  Bush has put our country in the position of not being able to speak from the position of moral authority when he talks about the actions of others.  And of course McCain follows that line.

 

George Bush, the Republicans in Congress who have rubber stamped his reckless action, and Sen. McCain believe in a democracy that is foreign to our founding fathers' actions and commitments.  Democracy to Bush is a one way street of his neoconservative ideology.  He is right and every one else is wrong.  Sadly, Senator McCain's neocon ideology follows that same path.  That does not bode well for the country's future should he become President.  America can't handle four more years of Bush.  

The State of the '08 Democratic Race

Does Obama really have the Democratic nomination locked up like many pundits and journalists are saying?  Is Clinton really too far behind in delegates and the popular vote to catch up as many pundits and journalists are saying?  

 

There are so many people trying to influence the outcome of this race that it is hard to understand where they are coming from.  They are also the same people who say let the people decide, a real whopper of contradiction.

 

The only sure thing as of this writing is that Obama is leading in delegates and the popular vote.  Can Clinton catch Obama and pass him in the delegate and popular vote count?  Of course she can.  It is an uphill battle, but she is still in the game.

 

There has been much talk of what role the Super Delegates should play.  The Obama supporters say they should go with the candidate with the most delegates.  However, that is not the role of the Super Delegates.  If it were, it would be in the DNC rules and they would not be called "Super" Delegates.  They are called Super Delegates because they are free to take into consideration many other factors that go along with selecting the best person to represent the Democratic party, and ultimately be President.  This is nothing new, even to those who disagree.  The candidate, pundits, and journalists knew the rules before this contest even started.  

 

Journalists who support Obama, and most of them do, fail to inform the people of the real role of the Super Delegates.  Rather, they just push the idea that they should act like regular delegates.  What the public needs is a pro-Clinton journalist to push the idea that maybe a regular delegate should act like a Super Delegate.  Get the idea, "fair and balanced."

 

Then we have those pundits and journalists who want to rush to judgement and openly urge Clinton to withdraw.  They camouflage that with the statement, "for the good of the party".  The Democrats are having the best race in my life time and are showing the people what democracy is all about, and that is what's "good for the party", even if it goes to the convention.

 

The people of Florida and Michigan who went to the poles and cast their votes in the Democratic primary should have their voices heard.  It is obvious that would help Clinton, but the people did vote that way.  They should not have to pay for the mistakes of their state and the DNC.  That is the only legitimate answer.  The voters in both states casts their votes for the candidates on the ballot and/or on the uncommitted slate.  That is the way they should be divided.  The voters could have cast their votes for all uncommitted if they wanted to, but a majority choose Clinton.  That was the voter's business and choice and it should be honored.  The Obama campaign does not even want the Florida-Michigan vote to count in the popular vote.  Are these people really Democrats?  What will they dream up next?  Just treat the people's votes as if it never happened?  What kind of democracy is that?

 

In my judgement, what I see happening tells me this race is far from over.  We are getting down to the final primaries and the American people will now have to make up their minds on who can best lead this nation to deal with the many serious challenges Bush will leave behind.  I don't expect journalists to get serious because they have too many axes to grind.  I do, however, expect the voting public to take a good, hard look at the remaining primaries.  The Democratic process may have a surprise ending.   

Doctrines of Obama's Church

The following are excerpts from an article written by Margaret Talev for McClatchy Newspapers:

Jesus is black. Merging Marxism with Christian Gospel may show the way to a better tomorrow. The white church in America is the Antichrist because it supported slavery and segregation.

Those are some of the more provocative doctrines that animate the theology at the core of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Barack Obama's church....

But in repudiating and putting in context Wright's inflammatory lines about whites and U.S. foreign policy, the Democratic presidential front-runner didn't address other potentially controversial facts about his church and its ties.

Wright has said that a basis for Trinity's philosophies is the work of James Cone, who founded the modern black liberation theology movement out of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. Particularly influential was Cone's seminal 1969 book, "Black Theology & Black Power."

Cone wrote that the United States was a white racist nation and the white church was the Antichrist for having supported slavery and segregation....

In an interview, Cone said that when he was asked which church most embodied his message, "I would point to that church (Trinity) first." Cone also said he thought that Wright's successor, the Rev. Otis Moss III, would continue the tradition.

Obama, 46, who's biracial, joined Trinity in his late twenties when he worked as a community organizer. He says he'll continue to worship there...

It isn't clear where Obama's beliefs and the church's diverge. Through aides, Obama declined requests for an interview or to respond to written questions about his thoughts on Jesus, Cone or liberation theology... 

(For the full article, click here. )

Did Obama attend the church knowing some of these radical doctrines that the church is founded on?  Thats a question that needs to be answered.  

McCain's Secret Weapon...

Obama has Obama Girl.  Hillary has "Hot 4 Hill" Girl.  John McCain has...the McCain Girls.  Take a look if you need a quick laugh: