My blog has moved!

You should be automatically redirected in 6 seconds. If not, visit
http://madamab.wordpress.com
and update your bookmarks.

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama, wright. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query obama, wright. Sort by date Show all posts

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Barack Obama Meets America: A Play In One Sad Act.

THE SCENE: Senator Barack Obama and America are seated in a large auditorium. Obama is sitting on the stage in a folding chair. A door in the back is marked "THIS WAY TO HILLARY CLINTON'S PLACE." Another door reads "VOTE FOR JOHN MCCAIN."]

AMERICA: Welcome, Senator Obama! We are soooooo ready to elect a Democrat this year, and we loved, loved, LOVED your speech at the Democratic National Convention in 2004. You are such an eloquent and intelligent guy...and your charisma is amazing! We are looking so forward to getting to know you better!

OBAMA (smiling): That was a wonderful welcome! Thank you, America!

AMERICA: No, thank YOU. We have some great candidates this year, and you're one of them! So, tell us. Why should we elect you President of the United States?

OBAMA (standing up and pacing): Aren't you tired of the same old Washington politics? Well, so am I. I'm not really a politician - I'm something new and different! I will unify all Americans so that we can work together to make our country a better place. We will finally get out of this partisan gridlock that has been preventing us from moving forward. Just believe in me and we can make it happen together! Yes, we can!

AMERICA: Oooh! That was really inspirational! [Iowa faints and Obama throws her a water bottle he just happens to have with him.] Okay, so tell us: How are you going to accomplish this?

OBAMA (smiling): Hey, don't worry about that. All my policy proposals are on my website. You can tell I'm smart, right? I was the editor of the Harvard Law Review! Trust me, I know what I'm doing. I was right about Iraq, wasn't I? And remember that Hillary voted for the AUMF. The Iraq war wouldn't have happened without her!

[OBAMA'S CHAIR TURNS INTO A THRONE.]

[AMERICA mutters a bit. New Hampshire gets up and walks toward the CLINTON door.]

OBAMA: Hey, New Hampshire, where are you going?

NH: [at the door] Sorry, Senator - we like Hillary better. We prefer experience to soaring rhetoric. Plus, she seems like she really understands what we need and has a plan to make it happen.

OBAMA: I understand what you need! You need ME! I am a post-racial, post-partisan, unifying guy! How can you go for the same old politics? [NH IS GONE.] Uh, wait! Did you know that Bill and Hillary are racists?

AMERICA: [gasps] That's awful! [90% of AA America stands up, chanting "Yes we can!"]

OBAMA: Ah, that's better. [Florida, Michigan, New York, California and New Jersey get up and leave, shaking their heads.] Where are you guys going?

THE STATES [at the CLINTON door]: We like Hillary and we know her. You are new and inspiring, but you're not giving us any reason to vote for you instead. We blame the war on Bush, not Hillary, and it's not like you've done anything differently than she has since you've been in the Senate. Bye - good luck in the rest of the states!

OBAMA: [to the remaining states] Hey, folks, don't let them bother you. They get down, periodically, and their claws come out. I'll get her voters, but I'm not sure she'll get mine. They'll all vote for me in November. Yes, we can!

REVEREND WRIGHT COMES ON STAGE.

WRIGHT: Hi, America! I've been Barack Obama's pastor, mentor and friend for 20 years. I baptized his children, I married him and Michelle, and he named his bestselling book after one of my sermons!

OBAMA: Uh-oh. [GETS UP, CROSSES TO REV. WRIGHT, TRIES TO DRAG HIM OFF THE STAGE. WRIGHT IS IMMOBILE AND CONTINUES TO SPEAK.]

WRIGHT: Yes, we are close close close! By the way, did I tell you that my church preaches Black Liberation Theology? And that I made fun of and insulted Bill and Hillary Clinton from the pulpit? And that I said "God Damn America" just a few days after the attacks of September 11th? And that I think the government gave black people AIDS? And that I think Louis Farrakhan is a great guy? And that Italians are garlic noses? Believe it or not, there's even video of me saying these things!

OBAMA: Who is this man? I am shocked, shocked to hear him talk this way! Well, I admit I've heard some controversial stuff from him, but wow - this is really too much! I'm not disowning him but I'm disowning what he said. And by the way, my grandma was a racist! Oh, I mean...not a racist, but a typical white person! Come on, stop bothering me about this stuff. Can't I just eat my waffle?

OH, TX and PA: Oh, HELL NO. [they get up and start walking towards the CLINTON door]

OBAMA: But wait! I'm the one running for President, not my pastor! [WRIGHT BEGINS EDGING OFF THE STAGE.]

OH, TX and PA [at the door]: Come on, Senator. You've got to believe some of what he says, or else why would you be such a devoted follower of this man for 20 years? You don't share our values, and we know that Hillary does. We're voting for her.

OBAMA: Ahhhh, who needs you. You're just bitter, bible-thumping, gun-slinging, xenophobic racists. [TX, OH and PA gasp, then stomp out the door.]

[WRIGHT COMES BACK ONSTAGE AND STEPS IN FRONT OF OBAMA.]

WRIGHT: Hey now! Barack is just saying what he's saying because he's a politican. We know this, right, America? Of course he can't disown me. By the way, isn't it great when I say how white people have no rhythm, make fun of how they talk, and expound on my theories that they are left-brained and black people are right-brained?

[OBAMA PUSHES WRIGHT OFF STAGE.]

OBAMA: That does it! This man is not who I thought he was. I disown him completely! And by the way, I'm still NOT a politician!

[WEST VIRGINIA gets up, shakes its head, and walks towards the CLINTON door.]

OBAMA: Hey! Where are YOU going?

WV: You've gotta be kidding with this Wright guy. And by the way - we are not bitter, ignorant or racist; it's just obvious you have no idea who we are or what we want from a President. Buh-bye now!

OBAMA: [looking at the auditorium, which is a lot emptier than it was before] Uh, what about the rest of you? You're with me, right? Hey, Kentucky - look who's backing me! John Edwards! Did you know, he was the son of a mill worker?

KY: But why should we vote for YOU? John Edwards is not running for President any more.

OBAMA: Because you need change! You need hope! You need faith! See, look - my new flyer says it all!

KY: No, we need jobs. We need solutions. We get hope and faith from ourselves, not from our President. We want Hillary! [KY GETS UP AND WALKS OUT THE CLINTON DOOR.]

OBAMA: [to himself] Well, hell. This is a lot harder than I thought. Maybe I can't win this thing after all?

[HOWARD DEAN and DONNA BRAZILE step forward. As they do, all the states that left enter through the Clinton door and stand in the back of the auditorium.]

DEAN: Don't worry, Barack. We've got this thing all planned out. You WILL be the nominee no matter what happens. After all, we've got the convention scheduled on the same day as Martin Luther King's "I Have a Dream" speech! Do you think that's a coincidence?

BRAZILE: Yeah, don't worry about a thing. I made sure that MI and FL didn't count so that you could look like a front-runner, instead of following the DNC rules that stated the penalty was a 50% cut in delegates. You've got it in the bag!

AMERICA [all together]: WHAT? Are you Democratic Party Leaders saying you don't care what the voters think - that Obama is your guy no matter what? That's not democracy at all! What the hell is wrong with you? [ALL THE STATES GET UP AND WALK OUT THE JOHN MCCAIN DOOR. THE AUDITORIUM IS EMPTY.]

[DEAN, BRAZILE and OBAMA look at each other in shocked disbelief.]

OBAMA: What the hell happened? Why didn't those idiots vote for me? John McCain is just the same as Bush! We Democrats were favored by a huge margin nationally! What is wrong with them - are they racists or something?

[HILLARY CLINTON enters through her door, shaking her head in disgust. BILL CLINTON is with her. They hold hands.]

HRC: Perhaps we can explain it to you.

BILL: You see, the American people don't like to be talked down to. They like to be asked for their votes, not taken for granted.

HRC: Women didn't appreciate all the sexism you and your surrogates directed at me. And to call the "first Black President" racist was unforgivable to many.

BILL AND HRC TOGETHER: You never asked them what they wanted or needed. You never listened to them.

BILL: We thought you'd learned the lessons of my Presidency by now. But you're just as elitist as the Republicans. You threw me and Hillary under the bus, and now you're paying the electoral price.

[THEY WALK OUT THE CLINTON DOOR.]

DEAN: Well, there's always 2012, Barack. Hey, how about you and John Kerry?

[LIGHTS OUT.]

Tuesday, June 10, 2008

From the Department of No Shit Department...

comes this article on how Barack Obama may have trouble winning over Hillary's voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio. (Ya think?) I'm not a big fan of "some dude on the street says" journalism, but I believe this particular article is interesting because of what it does and doesn't say.

For example, Pennsylvanians are racists, don'tcha know.

Joyce Susick is the type of voter who might carry Barack Obama to the White House - or keep him out. A registered Democrat in a highly competitive state, she is eager to replace George W. Bush, whom she ranks among the worst presidents ever.

There's just one problem.

"I don't think our country is ready for a black president," Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. "A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania."

Susick said her personal objection to Obama is his inexperience, not his color. "It has nothing to do with race," she said.

If Susick is right about Pennsylvania voters, it presents a major hurdle for the presumed Democratic nominee. Democrats have carried Pennsylvania in the last four presidential contests, and Obama would have to offset a loss of its 21 electoral votes by taking Republican-leaning states from John McCain.


Although the writer admits that gauging voter sentiment on race is "notoriously difficult," he has no problem entitling the piece "Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama," now, does he?

The Obama camp agrees, of course, that people who would vote for Clinton, but not him, are racists. Why not? It's the option that allows Obama to take the least responsibility for his own alienating actions and radical associations.

"He just doesn't appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely," she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.

Such comments are all too familiar to Richard Akers, who phoned dozens of prospective Pennsylvania voters as an Obama campaign volunteer in April. Democrats often explained their opposition to Obama with "excuses that were not rational or valid, as I saw it," said the retired bank director from Johnstown, another hotbed of Clinton support.

"To me, it was almost a code," Akers said. "'He doesn't wear a flag pin.' It seemed like code for 'He's not one of us.'"

Uh, Mr. Akers? It's not code.

What it is, is the repetition of a narrative: Barack Obama is anti-American.

As I noted a long time ago, this narrative has been partially crafted by the right-wing scream machine (remember the viral email from the RNC about how Obama was a secret Muslim?), but unfortunately, it has been reinforced quite strongly by the actions of Obama himself. He doesn't wear a flag pin, and, instead of saying "Oops! I forgot it today, thanks for reminding me!", made up some ridiculous holier-than-thou excuse for not wearing it. The Jeremiah Wright mess, as I also predicted a long time ago, made a big impression on white working-class people.

But even some likely voters who are largely sympathetic to him are troubled by his ties, now broken, to a former pastor who cursed the United States and accused the government of possible conspiracies against blacks.

Kate Tanning, a Pittsburgh antiques dealer who was lunching with friends in Bedford, rejected Obama's claim that he did not know of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's most bombastic statements even though Obama attended Wright's Chicago church for 20 years.

"That's the one thing about him I can't believe," she said.

No kidding! That's because it's not credible. Not even bitter racist hillbillies like Pennsylvania voters are fooled by Obama's myriad flip-flops on Reverend Wright.

Unfortunately for Senator Obama, the challenges he faces winning over voters like these - I call them Clinton Dems - are great, and getting larger every day. As the GaffeTastic Express careens through the summer, I predict that the gloves will come off the McCainStream Media, and that more and more unflattering stories about Obama, and his chances in the General Election, will come out.

Is it too little, too late?

We'll see. August is a long way away, and as we know, Obama and Hillary are separated by only 125 pledged delegates at this point. No one is the official nominee until AFTER the Convention. If you are a Clinton supporter and don't think Obama can beat McCain, you can sign my petition (which I am sending to Howard Dean every week until the Convention), or check out the other activism opportunities over at The Confluence.

Fasten your seat belts - it's going to be a bumpy ride.

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Hillary Clinton: Wright Again.

Despite the personally insulting nature of the Reverend Jeremiah Wright's recently-publicized sermon, it took Senator Hillary Clinton about a week to say anything even remotely critical about Obama's 20-year mentor, pastor and friend. (Wow, she sure is evil and diabolical and would do "anything to win!") She kept her mouth shut until she was asked directly about what she would have done had she been in Obama's place. Her comments were that you can't choose your relatives, but you can choose your church, and that she would not have chosen that church. When pressed to say more, condemning Wright the way that Obama himself has done on numerous occasions (including in the Greatest Speech Evah), she would not do so, calling religion a "personal choice," and that everyone would have to evaluate what Obama had done for themselves and make their own decisions.

Well, duh.

There is so much bullshit and apologia going around about Obama's spectacularly poor judgment in choosing this church that it absolutely astonishes me. My favorite one is this:

"You can't pigeonhole the message of this church with a few soundbites!"

Oh, really? Then why did the church create that video and put it on the TUCC website for sale? Weren't TUCC and Wright the ones creating the soundbites and promoting them as representative of the church's message?

Look. If Hillary really were the caricature the haters make her out to be, then she would certainly have been hammering away at Obama over this the second it came out. Obama would be done for in about five milliseconds. Instead, it was Obama who took the low road (as usual), by putting out a photo of Bill Clinton shaking Wright's hand ten years ago. How pathetic. Obama did the same thing with a photo of Hillary, as First Lady, shaking Reszko's hand. Yes, public pictures are the exact same thing as close 17-year and 20-year relationships!

Who is Obama trying to "bamboozle" with this ridiculous false-equivalency crap? Why, his own followers, many of whom are already going from the assumption that Hillary and Bill are genuinely horrible people. (Never mind why they think this, they JUST KNOW IT!!!11J!!!!) Don't you love a "unity" candidate who repeatedly and constantly smears his opponent while pretending to be a pure and holy person? Remind you of anyone else who said he was a "uniter, not a divider?"

Let me tell you who is REALLY destroying the Democratic Party. It's the folks that insist that one candidate is a saint, and the other is a monster. It's the folks whose candidate repeatedly said he would not support Senator Clinton if she were the nominee and has only recently changed his tune. It's the folks whose candidate has been negative from the very beginning of the campaign. It's the haters, the irrational, the ones who make their decisions on emotions, not facts.

As I've said before, Senator Obama's Hatin' Hillary supporters don't seem to understand who the enemy really is. But true-blue Democrats know: it's Senator John "More Wars, My Friends" McCain.

The sad thing is, they won't even get it once Obama is being pummeled by McCaca and the right-wing scream machine after his nomination. They'll cling to their delusions of Obama's electability even then.

And then, when we inaugurate President McCaca in 2009, whose fault will it be?

Why, Hillary Clinton's, of course.

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Now That I've Calmed Down a Bit...

let's do West Virginia by the numbers. Here we go!

67% to 26%.

41 points was the final margin of Hillary Clinton's blowout victory in West Virginia. John Edwards got 7% despite no longer being in the race...so if we split those voters equally between Obama and Clinton (for lack of a more informed way of doing it), Clinton gets 70.5% to Obama's 29.5%.

At this point in the campaign, for the "underdog" to beat the "presumptive nominee" by 41 points is absolutely unheard of. I hope this puts an end to Obama's insulting and outrageous plan to proclaim himself the nominee on May 20th. (I doubt it will, though; Obama will proceed, in his usual tone-deaf manner, to ignore and dismiss that portion of the electorate which did not vote for him.) No one is the nominee until August. Even John McCain hasn't declared HIMSELF the nominee, and he's more than 1100 delegates ahead of Mike Huckabee!

2,209.

That's the real "magic number" of delegates each candidate must win to be declared the nominee. This number includes the delegates of Michigan and Florida, which should be seated at the convention as is, at this point.

Let's be very clear on this issue. The DNC changed the rules to strip all of Florida and Michigan's delegates AND ignore the popular vote. (The original rule was simply to strip 50% of the delegates.) This was purely on the insistence of Donna Brazile, an Obama superdelegate who holds a prominent position on the DNC Rules Committee. There was absolutely no reason to do this except to game the system to promote Senator Obama. There was also no reason for anyone to remove his or her name from the MI ballot except to make the inevitable winner, Senator Clinton, appear illegitimate. Edwards and Obama removed their names for exactly that reason.

After months of Obama blocking every effort to count the delegates or allocate them in any sort of fair way, it's time to just give up and seat them as they are. As Howard Wolfson stated last night, it's the right thing to do to count the votes of 2.5 million Democrats. And, it's the smart thing to do. You don't tell two key swing states that you don't need their votes. They might just take you at their word in November.

75% of HRC supporters won't vote for Obama, 62% of Obama supporters won't vote for Clinton in West Virginia.

The response from the Obama campaign? An attempt to steal her spotlight with an Obama stump speech from Missouri. (Translation: I AM teh Nominee! Pay no attention to those low-information, bitter, clinging folks in West Virginia! I am campaigning for teh General Election! Bow before teh great Obama!) A claim from Bob Casey, Obama superdelegate, last night on CNN: "They'll get over it." A congratulatory message from Obama on Hillary's cell phone.

La la la la la, I can't HEAR YOU!

The response from the Clinton campaign? A great victory speech that complimented Obama, credited him with values he has not demonstrated, and focused on their united goals for the Democratic Party.

Need we really say who is focusing on dividing the Party and winning at any cost? Who is determined to ignore the voters and cheat his way to the nomination? Who is truly unable to reach out to people he does not agree with and find common cause with them?

Zero.

That's the amount of influence the corporate media has on the American voters at this point. I keep saying this, but people don't believe me. No one watches cable news. No one trusts the TeeVee to tell them what's going on any more. People look at the candidates and read the papers and make their own decisions.

It's a good thing in my opinion. Maybe, seeing the results from West Virginia, we can somehow get the new President and Congress to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine and revive the Sherman Anti-Trust Act to break up media ownership into smaller pieces again. (Bob Somerby at the Daily Howler must be typing his brains out today trying to document the media atrocities from last night.)

75%.

That's the amount of West Virginians who believe that Obama shares the views
of Reverend Wright to some degree. I told you that Wright makes Obama unelectable..and I believe the Wright factor accounts for the most frightening number of all:

100%.

That's the number of West Virginia counties Obama lost last night.

One.

Hundred.

Percent.

May I remind you that it's been 92 years since a Democrat won the White House without winning West Virginia in the General Election? What would you say the odds are of Obama winning West Virginia in November are at this point?

I may like to play the slots, but even I know that's a sucker bet.

The Democratic Party ignores these numbers at their peril. Do we really love the beautiful loser so much that we will select him as the nominee? Or do we love our country enough to choose the one person who can lift us out of the Bush Reign of Error, despite the fact that she has a scary, scary vagina, and is named Clinton?

Tune in again soon for...As the Democrats Turn!

Wednesday, March 19, 2008

My (YMMV) Take On Obama's Speech

I am stunned, but not surprised, by the orgasmic reaction of Obamans to the Senator's speech yesterday. Do they really think it helped?

I have read the text of the speech, and I actually do think that a lot of it needed to be said. But why did he not say it before now?

For example, he stated:

This is where we are right now. It's a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.
Like so many of Obama's statements, this one floored me. How many times over the course of this campaign have I heard the words "Obama," "transcend" and "race" in the same sentence? Let's do a Google Search, shall we?

110,000 results.

No one transcends race, Senator. And you know it. You knew it when, all the while pretending that race had no part in your campaign, your operatives plotted to smear Hillary and Bill as racists, despite their years of service to the black community at home and abroad. (I recently was pointed to this incredible speech given by Bill Clinton in 1995 on the occasion of the Million Man March, which reminded me why he was called the "first black President.") The only way past racism, especially when it is institutionalized as it is in America, is through action and education: a fact which President Bill Clinton was not afraid to address and to act upon during and after his Presidency.

Where has your courage been during this race, Barack Obama?

The Senator's speech was troubling for other reasons. It shows that he believes that Americans are too dumb or distracted to remember how many times he has flip-flopped on the subject of his church.

Obama had never heard Reverend Wright say those words and didn't know he harbored those thoughts.

The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.
But once the statements were "brought to Obama's attention," he decided they were controversial...at the beginning of his presidential campaign.

When these statements first came to my attention, it was at the beginning of my presidential campaign. I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments. But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to leave the church.
Despite thinking of leaving the church because of the pastor's sentiments which he had just noticed after 20 years, he still claimed on the campaign trail that his church wasn't controversial.

Then, in his speech yesterday, he admitted he had indeed heard Reverend Wright preach in this manner.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy. For some, nagging questions remain. Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course. Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.
Come now, Senator, who are you trying to bamboozle here?

I know that my reaction to this speech, and many of my thoughts about Obama in general, could be viewed as trying to smear the Senator from Illinois. I've made it pretty clear that I don't like a lot of what he does, and that he is my least favorite candidate for President. I am very upset that he has made it this far by running one of the most market-driven and savvy, but soulless and disingenuous, campaigns of all time.

I am not saying these things to try to destroy Obama. But we must remind ourselves that if we do not acknowledge the flaws in our candidates, then we will be ambushed by the Republics once we pick a nominee. The Obamans seem to be so focused on the Senator's sanctity and "obvious" moral superiority to Hillary that they are ignoring the reality of what he will face in the General Election.

I do have problems with Hillary. When she voted for Kyl-Lieberman, she was Dead To Me. That was why I had first wanted Gore, then eventually had chosen Edwards as my candidate. Hillary's hawkishness in general is a turnoff for me.

Unfortunately, I do not Obama as superior to Hillary on that level. (Truth be told, Edwards wasn't either, but I preferred his focus on domestic issues.) If you look at legislation to help end the war, Obama is actually WORSE than Hillary is. She was the one who prevented Bush from pursuing his "Iraq 4-EVAH" plan. She was the one (with Robert Byrd) who wanted to sunset the AUMF in October of 2007. She was the one who took on Robert Gates and demanded that he provide her with an exit strategy for Iraq. And as for Iraq policy after the Presidency, Samantha Power, Obama's most senior foreign policy advisor, may have been not "resigned" from the campaign not for the "monster" remarks, but because she stated that Obama's promises of Iraq withdrawal were a "best-case scenario." Hillary's plan has been to gather experts on safe withdrawal methods and to begin bringing troops home in 60 days. No wonder the man who gave the Dems their backbone on Iraq, Representative Jack Murtha, has just endorsed Hillary for President.

I do plan on voting for any Democrat in November, as I have said repeatedly. However, the choice has not been made yet, and I want to add my voice to those who believe that Hillary would be a much better choice than Obama against McCaca.

Let's see what happens in Pennsylvania. If the margin of Hillary's victory is as high as I think it will be, I don't see how Obama can counter her "I win all the important states" argument. And I don't see how the superdelegates can avoid the conclusion that she is the best hope for the Democrats in November.

Of course, I've been wrong before, so...YMMV.

Friday, May 30, 2008

Momentum

How many more tons of bricks must we drop on the Democratic Party's heads in order for them to realize that Barack Obama's momentum has stopped, and in fact, has reversed itself?

How about this?

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign on Thursday was forced to again apologize for the remarks of a Chicago pastor and friend backing his candidacy who spoke from the pulpit of Obama's longtime South Side church.

In an Internet video recorded Sunday, Rev. Michael Pfleger, an outspoken activist Catholic priest, is seen mocking Sen. Hillary Clinton from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago.

"When Hillary was crying, and people said that was put on, I really don't believe it was put on," Pfleger said. "I really believe that she just always thought this is mine. I'm Bill's wife, I'm white and this is mine. I just gotta get up and step into the plate and then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama,' and she said, 'Oh, damn. Where did you come from? I'm white. I'm entitled. There's a black man stealing my show.' "

"As I have traveled this country, I've been impressed not by what divides us, but by all that unites us," Obama said in a statement. "That is why I am deeply disappointed in Father Pfleger's divisive, backward-looking rhetoric."

Speaking as a guest at Trinity on Sunday, Pfleger mocked the tears Clinton displayed shortly before the New Hampshire primary in January.

"She wasn't the only one crying," Pfleger said. "There was a whole lot of white people crying."

Then, Pfleger, who is white, seemed to indicate that he might be going too far. "I'm sorry. I don't want to get you in any more trouble," he said, as the church's organ began to play to signal his exit from the pulpit.


While Pfleger did apologize for his racist comments about Senator Clinton, did you notice that Obama's statement (it certainly wasn't an explanation or an apology) didn't mention Hillary at all?

The Clinton campaign did.

"Divisive and hateful language like that is totally counter-productive in our efforts to bring our party together and have no place at the pulpit or in our politics," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement. "We are disappointed that Sen. Obama didn't specifically reject Father Pfleger's despicable comments about Sen. Clinton, and assume he will do so."


An underreported fact about the Wright scandal was that Wright also insulted Bill and Hillary Clinton during his inflammatory sermons. Yet Obama didn't apologize for that either.

The Clinton camp's statement reads like a "Shape up or fuck you" moment, doesn't it? I also sense that this, along with the Obama campaign's manufactured hysteria about Hillary's mention of RFK, is a very, very good excuse for the long-overdue death of the Unity Pony. No, the joint ticket is nagahapin, thank Jeebus. There is no way that Hillary should associate herself with Obama. I mean, the man practically accused her of wanting him dead. How can she go out and defend that in a General Election campaign? That stab wound in her back is getting a little too deep to be ignored.

The story goes on to mention the fact that Pfleger is/was (who knows any more) a member of the campaign's Catholic Advisory Council.

Think about that for a second.

This was a person that Obama thought would help him reach out to Catholics. What awesome "judgment!"

Oh, but we're not done yet. There are also financial ties between Obama and Pfleger. And earmarks, Chicago-style.

Earmarks to St. Sabina
In a Tribune story a year ago, Obama defended special budget earmarks for his district while he was a state legislator, including ones that went to programs associated with Pfleger's church.

Pfleger gave Obama's campaigns $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced at least $100,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.

In that story, Pfleger said he made those donations personally, not on behalf of the church or to win grants.


When is it finally enough?

When do we stop making excuses and pretending this doesn't matter? When do we admit that yes, this is exactly how Obama thinks and feels? How many more people who are long-time friends and advisers have to stand up and say things like this before we admit that the duck is walking and quacking? When do we just give up and say that this guy Obama is simply not a viable candidate for the Presidency of the United States?

The voters - and many politicians who should have known better - have been hoodwinked and bamboozled, and many of them are feeling buyer's remorse. The latest primary results in West Virginia and Kentucky show Obama's glaring problems in Applachia, which he has consistently lost to Clinton during this election cycle. The Senator from Illinois' support has been going down dramatically - in fact, although this report barely mentions Clinton at all, it does show that his and her "favorable" ratings have become almost the same; she is at 47% favorable, whereas he is at 51% favorable. Hillary has picked up that support in the all-important "bitter white person" category - exactly where Obama does so poorly against McCain.

Of course, the number of HRC's voters who think the party will unify in November is now down to about 46%. Sure, he'll win the General Election with numbers like that. Would you like a cookie with that Kool-Aid?

I am sick, disgusted and ready to cry like Hillary. I cannot believe that the Party is putting Democrats in a position like this. Either vote for this man, who in my opinion has no commitment whatsoever to Democratic values, or suffer through four more years of Bush? What the fuck kind of choice is that? No wonder so many of us are opting out or voting for the dreaded McCaca. Personally, I would vote for John Kerry or Al Gore 400 times before considering voting for Obama. And Kerry and Gore both got tons of Democratic votes, but lost anyway - because they lost the working-class vote to Bush! Hellloooooooooooo!!!

I have no faith that the DNC will seat the delegates of MI and FL tomorrow, or count the popular vote. Of course they could surprise me (which I would welcome so happily!), but since they are bound and determined to pretend Obama is ahead and the choice of the people, they will most likely do whatever benefits Obama now. Never mind pissing off voters in states that should go blue in November - IAAO (It's All About Obama)!!!

My beloved Party is heading off a cliff and smugly congratulating itself as it falls to its destruction, all the while ignoring the parachutes that Hillary and Bill are trying to throw them.

I wish I had happier news, since it's Friday. But today, I'm in mourning for the Democratic Party I used to love so dearly.

As Scarlett O'Hara would say, "Tomorrow is another day." Let's all hope that the weekend brings better news.

Wednesday, May 21, 2008

Another Big Primary Night....

and just three to go before the American people have all cast their votes (in VERY high numbers!) for either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama.

It was a split decision: a giant victory in Kentucky for Hillary, and a large victory in Oregon for Obama. Let's do a little number crunching, shall we?

35 percentage points.

That's the number by which Obama lost to Hillary in Kentucky.

Now, we can do the simplistic thing and assume that Kentucky (and West Virginia, where she crushed Obama by 41) are both full of banjo-twanging, dentally-challenged racist rednecks; or, we can look a little deeper into the exit polling.

The Wright Factor: Still In Play.

78%.

That's the amount of respondents who felt that Obama shares the views of his pastor, mentor and friend of 20 years, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, to some degree.

22%.

That's the percentage of people who responded "Not at all" to the question of whether or not Obama shared Wright's values. NOT surprisingly, they voted overwhelmingly (65%) for Senator Obama.

What's the Matter with Bitter, Clinging Working-Class Voters?

67%.

That's the amount of respondents who stated that the economy was the most important issue. Hillary Clinton's voters made up 69% of that number.

So no, all you people who think Barack Obama made some kind of profound statement with his BitterCling remarks. Those voters are NOT voting because of religion, love of guns, fear of immigrants or racism. They are voting their pocketbooks, and they like the cut of Hillary's jib on that issue. Who wouldn't? The economy was her husband's strongest issue, after all.

Now, let's get to the numbers that should be giving the Democratic Party agita if they actually want to win in November.

33%.

That's the percentage of Hillary's voters that would be "satisfied" if Barack Obama was the nominee. Yowch.

28%.

That's the percentage of Kentucky voters who would be "satisfied" with either candidate. (A bit of decent news here: 48% of Hillary's voters said either candidate was fine...and 48% of Barack Obama's voters said the same thing.)

74%.

That's the total amount of Kentucky voters who would be satisfied with Hillary Clinton as the nominee. In contrast, 42% would be satisfied with Barack Obama as the nominee.

Look, we can be like the rabid Obamans at Daily Kos who moan about what ignorant fools they be in Appalachia, or we can take a good hard look at these numbers and figure out how to actually beat McCaca in November. (I just had a terrible thought - what if McCaca picks Colin Powell as his VP? Holy crap!)

I feel that Hillary Clinton must be the nominee, or we will lose our opportunity to expand the electoral map in a truly amazing way. (I even saw a head-to-head poll matchup against McCaca in North Carolina where McCaca beats Obama, but LOSES TO HILLARY. My Jeebus!)

Whether Obama is her VP or not is an open question - Kentucky voters say no, but only by 8% - but it seems to me that the voters we need are speaking in very loud tones.

We would be idiots to ignore them.

I know that John McCain will not.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Kiss the Dream Ticket Good-Bye.

Okay, I'm off the fence. Not only is Barack Obama unelectable, but he will make Hillary Clinton unelectable if he joins her on a dream ticket. He is a dead man walking, and he still doesn't understand why.

Nor do his followers. I meandered over to Eschaton yesterday, and I saw many commenters opining on how the Reverend was not so bad; in fact, he was intelligent, thoughtful and misunderstood. Besides which, IACF (It's All Clinton's Fault) because she is fueling the flames of the controversy and because she is busy painting Obama as an uppity n***er.

I shit you not.

I have often wondered why, if Senator Clinton is as powerful as Obamans appear to believe, she would even bother to run for President. Surely, she controls the universe already! Wouldn't this be a demotion for her, of sorts?

I mean, forget the fact that the right-wing scream machine has been using her, her husband and her daughter as punching bags for the past umpteen years. She wouldn't bother using her Super-Powers for something so prosaic as preventing the media from accusing her of murder, or clamoring for the impeachment of her husband because of his infidelity, or publishing ever-more-hysterical accusations about her love life. Why should she bother with such trivialities?

She's much more inclined to use her Queen of the Universe Powers to control every aspect of Barack Obama's life. It's true! For example, did you know that Hillary was hovering, protoplasmically, over Senator Obama's head for 20 years whilst he sat in the Trinity United Church of Christ, listening to Wright's rantings and ravings? I mean, Obama couldn't have gotten up and walked away when he heard things he disagreed with. Senator Clinton kept pushing his butt back down in that seat!

You know what else she controls? The Reverend Wright himself. Late at night, when he is asleep, Hillary uses her mind control to hypnotically suggest that he go on national television and make a complete and total ass of himself by mocking the way white people clap, making fun of the accents of white people of all stripes (including JFK and LBJ), and proclaiming the great historical importance of the lunatic hatemonger Louis Farrakhan.

I am personally in awe at how well Hillary has torpedoed Barack Obama's campaign. She is like Tonya Harding with Super-Powers ZOMG!!!111111

Or maybe, just maybe, no one forced Obama to associate with Wright (or Reszko or Ayers). Maybe everything that's happened to him is the direct result of his own actions. Maybe the DNC, which has aided and abetted him at every turn, should have dealt better with the FL/MI mess, instead of blindly, stubbornly insisting that millions of votes did not count and proclaiming that Barack Obama is the front-runner in an essentially tied race. Maybe the bigwigs of the Democratic Party should have considered Hillary Clinton's decades of service to this country and to her party before jumping on Obama's bandwagon o'cash.

In fact, maybe IACF really doesn't apply here. Maybe Senator Obama and the Democratic Party have no one to blame...but themselves.

I do know one thing. If the Party chooses to nominate Obama despite his obvious flaws as a candidate for President, he will certainly lose against John McCain, and take the Democratic Party with him.

Good riddance, if the Party leadership is that incredibly stupid. This die-hard Democrat will become an Independent, and I won't be the only one.

Are you listening, Super-Delegates?

Tuesday, May 13, 2008

Why Democrats Vote

We Democrats don't seem to understand ourselves very well, in my never-humble opinion. Certainly our elected representatives, for the most part, appear to believe that Democrats will vote straight party-line no matter which candidate they nominate for the presidency.

Ah, such dangerous naivete.

You see, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean et al., party unity doesn't just HAPPEN for Democrats. We are truly a big tent. We've got super-lefties, disaffected conservatives, social and economic libertarians, die-hard Party loyalists, left- and right-leaning Independents, and everything in between. The Republic Party, by contrast, has narrowed itself into a very specific right-wing mentality. You're either with them or against them, in the immortal authoritarian words of their Dear Leader, George W. Bush. They vote for the R, even when they hate the nominee.

We Democrats vote for the person whom we trust, and whom we think represents our values. Why else is Barack Obama getting up to 93% of the AA vote, whereas Hillary Clinton is connecting with about 60% of the white vote in every state?

No, it's not Democratic racism on Senator Clinton's side (although if it were, that would still represent a rather large problem for Obama, wouldn't it?). It's that we Hillary voters don't think that Obama would be a good President for many reasons. We don't trust his judgment after the revelations that he sat in Wright's church for 20 years and listened to that ignorant, hate-filled ranting week after week. We don't think he understands our needs, and the BitterCling remarks (and so much more) seem to legitimize that feeling. We don't like his policy proposals on the environment (let's focus on renewables, not nuclear power, coal and ethanol), the economy (too many punitive taxes on the middle class) and health care (don't start from a weak point when you know you will have to compromise). Finally, we do not trust him to carry out his promises, ever since his foreign policy adviser, Samantha Power, said that his Iraq withdrawal plan was just a "best-case scenario."

So, as Hillary Clinton rides to a humongous victory today in West Virginia, O Democratic leaders, please don't call it racism; and please understand that we are voting for her, not against Obama. And please understand that many of us simply will not vote for Obama in the GE, for all the reasons given above. Why should we? The stronger candidate in the GE is clearly Senator Clinton. There is no reasonable electoral map that shows otherwise. Why should we settle for second best? Because she is a woman and should take one for the team?

According to yesterday's ABC News/Washington Post poll, 64% of Democrats want Hillary to finish out her run. Another interesting finding: A whopping 59% of AA's think HRC should be on a ticket with Obama. Guess a lot of AA's don't think she's so racist after all.

I would also sincerely ask that folks should stop trying to sell us on a Unity Ticket with Obama at the top. You think you can just apply Clinton as a coverup of all Obama's flaws, and they will magically disappear? Do you think the Republics will not start pounding on Wright, Ayers and Rezko as soon as Obama is chosen at the convention? Perhaps Jesus could help Obama stand against that tsunami, but I don't think HRC's supernatural powers are quite that strong. Obama is simply NOT ELECTABLE. I would prefer him not to be anywhere near the Presidency, but if we must have him, the VP spot is the only acceptable one for him now. For Jeebus' sake, he's 46 years old and has two years in the Senate. Further, he has leveraged his 93% AA vote and gamed the system (trying to get FL and MI counted out) in order to gain his front-runner status. It's disgusting the way he has cheated and slimed Hillary and Bill Clinton in the process. VP is an amazing gift for him, and guess what? He gets to be President in 2016. Sorry, Michelle Obama, this is the only possible combined ticket scenario. Grow up and get over yourself.

Let me just add one more thing. The next few months are key. Should the Deciderer bomb Iran, or should another terrorist attack happen on American soil, who do you think Americans will vote for? A guy who has no national security credentials whatsoever, who never held one meeting of the subcommittee on European Affairs he chaired in the Senate, and who was against the war before he was for it? Or a Moderate Maverick War Hero?

Duh.

And yes, I believe HRC would do much better against McCain in this arena, mainly because she actually has experience and did vote for the AUMF. Believe it or not, that makes her more electable against McCaca, not less.

Should the Democratic Party be blind and stupid enough to nominate Barack Obama despite all of this, I hope they are not surprised when many of HRC's supporters in the Big Tent either switch to McCain, stay home entirely or vote down-ticket only. (Some are vowing to write in Hillary's name.) After all, exit polls in state after state have been showing that more than 50% of us are saying "NO!" to Obama.

Sadly, I think our Democratic leaders will be absolutely shocked, shocked, when McCain wipes the floor with Obama in November.

They just don't know why Democrats vote.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Finding His Religion (and Using it for Votes)

If you were Barack Obama, and you had close, long-time and (to put it kindly) problematic associations with fringe religious figures like Wright, Meeks and Pfleger, wouldn't you kinda sorta downplay your religiosity?

Apparently not.

A spokesperson said the meeting of some 30 people will include leaders from several denominations including Evangelical, Catholic and Protestant members of the faith community. Among those taking part are Bishop Phillip Cousin, the Rev. Stephen Thurston and Dr. T. Dewitt Smith.

"Reaching out to the faith community is a priority for Barack Obama and will be a priority under an Obama Administration. This is one of several meetings he will have over the coming months with religious leaders," Jen Psaki told reporters on the campaign plane.

"He's done it before. He'll do it again. Some of those in attendance are supporters," Psaki said. "It's a combination of people who are from Chicago and from outside Chicago."


Heh heh. I love the myopic view of the United States from Psaki. "From Chicago and from outside Chicago." (Reminds me of those jokes about how New Yorkers see America.) And notice how there are no Jewish or Muslim leaders included? Yeah, me too.

It appears that Obama's General Election strategy is to try to peel off some of the evangelical and Christian Conservative votes from McCain. Senator McCain will have trouble with them, since he is not a born-again Christian like George Bush, and I believe at one point in his life he actually believed women should be able to control their own bodies. (GASP!) The Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody is so excited about this, he gushes like a tween meeting Hannah Montana:

As we first reported on The Brody File, Obama is meeting with influential mega-pastor TD Jakes and pro-life Catholic constitutional law professor Doug Kmiec... That's a big deal. A really big deal. The fact that these two conservative men are meeting with Obama may be a signal that Obama's campaign is ready to break down the traditional wall of separation between conservatives and liberals when it comes to religious talk.

[snip]

Folks, this is an important development. It shows that the game has changed. Old rules don't apply. We're in uncharted territory. John McCain's religious outreach team has to now step to the plate and work hard for faith voters. It's not automatic.


Oh, whatever. So Senator Obama is pandering to the evangelicals a little. The wall between church and state will be built back up under Obama. Nothing to worry about. Right?

The Brody File has learned that in the next two weeks Barack Obama's campaign will unveil a major new program to attract younger Evangelicals and Catholics to their campaign.

It's called the "Joshua Generation Project." The name is based on the biblical story of how Joshua's generation led the Israelites into the Promised Land.

A source close to the Obama campaign tells The Brody File the following:

"The Joshua Generation project will be the Obama campaign's outreach to young people of faith. There's unprecedented energy and excitement for Obama among young evangelicals and Catholics. The Joshua Generation project will tap into that excitement and provide young people of faith opportunities to stand up for their values and move the campaign forward."


I am getting very, very worried. Every single thing about Obama's campaign is a parallel of George W. Bush's campaign! Obama has cheated and used sexism and race-baiting in order to become the presumptive nominee. (In 2000, Bush's campaign used a push poll in South Carolina to knock out McCain by asking the voters if they "knew" McCain had a black baby out of wedlock.) He uses religion as a recruiting tool. He speaks in slogans and code and has a cult-like following. He campaigns as a "compassionate conservative," throwing away millions of core Democratic voters with both hands, while fervently reaching out to core Republican voters like evangelical conservative Christians.

I would like for someone, anyone, to explain to me what Democratic value Barack Obama actually stands for. And "just words" won't do. I'm talking about something on which he has actually taken a stand and affirmed with his vote.

[cricket cricket cricket]

So, as it stands right now, I've got a choice between two conservative wannabes in November. McCain is trying to convince evangelicals that he's a real right-winger...and so is Obama.

France is looking better and better all the time.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Obama and Pastor Wright: Live By the Cross...

And it couldn't happen to a nicer guy.

Senator, this is what happens when you campaign on your Christianity and you're a Democrat. McCaca's wacky religious affiliations are being suppressed, of course - IOKIYJM (It's OK If You're John McCain) - but we must admit, in fairness, that these are endorsements by, not 20-year close personal relationships with, controversial figures.

Here is one of Obama's campaign flyers, via Talking Points Memo.

Barack Obama, Committed Christian

In what universe would it not be okay to report on Obama's church after he has campaigned like this? Add this to the already virulent anti-Democratic bias in the mainstream media, and there was absolutely no chance that Pastor Wright's inflammatory views would not come out. Earth to the Senator from Illinois: When you are running for President on how incredibly holy and Christian you are, you had better be a boring old Methodist, Presbyterian or Catholic.

Let me be clear. I am a lefty-left Democrat, and I don't see too much wrong with a lot of what Pastor Wright said. Haven't all of us super-liberal folks wanted to scream "God Damn America" when our government does something particularly horrific? But the vast majority of Americans are not lefty-left Democrats. They don't want to hear that 9/11 was blowback from our crappy Middle Eastern foreign policy, even though it was. They don't want to hear that blacks are treated unfairly in America, even though they absolutely are. Americans are raised and nurtured on the idea that our country is the "shining city on the hill." What about this is difficult to understand?

I have said for the past week that there is now, in my mind, absolutely no chance that Obama will beat McCain in the general election. He is toast. I personally don't think there is anything he can do to erase those 20 years of extremely close association with the pastor.

Will the Obamans finally get a clue and stop shoving this man down our throats? He has won mostly caucuses and states that will not go Democratic in the fall if he is the nominee. (Sorry, Utah and Kansas are not going to vote for Barack Hussein Obama. Get real.) Their movement is much smaller than they think it is in their Internet echo chambers. We have to think strategically and not pine wistfully for the candidate who we think is more inspirational.

Hillary is the only answer for November. If we nominate Obama, I very much fear that the twin narratives of "scary black Muslim" (Wright) and "corrupt politician" (Reszko) will torpedo his chances.

And then prepare for the worst: Say hello to President McCaca, and "more wars, my friends."

Thursday, May 8, 2008

Why Is My World Upside-Down?

Why are conservatives the only ones telling the truth about this primary?

It breaks my heart to agree so strongly with Ed Koch. But truth is truth, dammit, no matter who speaks it.

In an interview with The Huffington Post, Koch warned that despite Obama's lead in every single primary election metric [if you don't count Florida and Michigan, of course!], the Illinois Democrat simply would not be able to best John McCain come November. As such, he urged Clinton to stay in the race even as some in the party call for her drop out now, even before Obama has officially secured the nomination.

Were the majority of states and voters who had gone to Obama - and the superdelegates who could very well affirm their decisions - making a grievous political mistake?

"Mistake is not exactly the word," replied Koch. "It is the wrong judgment. The reason that the superdelegates are there is to select that person who is most likely to prevail. And...even though he does not win on his own merits in terms of racking up sufficient delegates, in all probability the superdelegates will be afraid to exercise their own judgment. And we will simply go along with the count of the delegates that were chosen in the polls."

Koch's argued that Obama showed a complete lack of conviction and leadership in handling the controversy surrounding his former pastor. The theme is a constant feature in the former mayor's syndicated columns, several of which have directly questioned the credibility of Obama's attempts to distance himself from Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

"...If you are running for president, you can't be like some other poor guy in the pews who is afraid to stand up or even say something privately to the minister. You're the guy who wants to lead the country and you have to have courage to stand up and lead your own pastor. He did not exhibit that. But the fact that the Democratic constituency doesn't seem to care is a shock to me, but I'm certain that the overall constituency voting in November will care and that it will make the difference in the adverse way to his candidacy."

Um.

YEAH.

Here's the real kicker:

Saying he would support Clinton and "hope she ultimately prevails," Koch wasn't worried that Democratic infighting could hurt the party's chances in the fall. It was Obama's candidacy, he repeated, that would be the death knell.

"I believe that when the voting is over that the vast majority, not all, on both sides, will vote for the [Democratic] candidate," said Koch. "But that applies only to the Democrats who have been participating. I believe that the vast majority of voters will look at all of these allegations, which nobody disputes, as related to Wright and his comments, and that they will have an enormous impact on the vote and on those Independents and others who will make a decision in the general election. I just think he is a loser because of that." [emphasis added]

Don't you Obamans get it?

You can call for unity all you want, after you have smeared, defamed and dismissed Hillary and Bill Clinton. Many of us - in fact, the majority - will listen, because we really, really do not want McCaca as president.

But it won't matter.

In order to win the General Election, the Democrat or Republic has to get Independents to vote for him or her. It's a numbers game. On average, we've got about 30% unaffiliated (or Independent) voters in America. We have about an equal number of Democrats and Republics - around 34% Republics and 36% Democrats in January 2008. Democrats also traditionally have lower voter turnout than Republics (although if we follow the primary numbers, this could change in November.) So, we need those issues-based voters very badly.

I absolutely know that Obama will not get those voters in November. And so does Ed Koch. Wright is not the only reason; there's also experience and national security credentials, which Obama lacks but McCaca has (and so does HRC, which makes her the stronger candidate against McCaca).

I'm so sorry to say this, but we are looking at President McCaca if the superdelegates don't make the right decision, and there's nothing we can do about it.

And THAT is why many of us HRC supporters have resolved that, should HRC not be the nominee, we will not vote for Obama no matter what, and that we will change our party affiliation to Independent.

Any political party that would promote a sure loser over a sure winner doesn't deserve my money, time or support.

The Democratic Party still has time to save itself. Will it? Or will it go down in flames just when it should be most triumphant?

Tune in next time for another episode of..."As the Democrats Turn!"

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

The Silent Majority

On this day of the Pennsylvania primary, a possible game-changer for the Democratic Presidential race, I would like to answer some of the questions that many Obama supporters seem to be constantly asking us Hillary supporters. From my travels across neutral and pro-Hillary blogs, I am confident that I am speaking for many and not just for myself. Here goes!

Q. Why does Hillary's experience matter to you? She's just part of the old style of politics.

A. Hillary's experience matters for two reasons:

1) She has been around long enough to know how Washington works. This will be a plus when attempting to get her agenda passed through Congress. We know she is adept at charming her opponents into working with her, as she recently charmed the capo di tutti capi, Richard Mellon Scaife. She also has the best grasp of how to deal with foreign leaders, having traveled to 80 countries as First Lady and been a strong support in negotiating for peace in Northern Ireland. Barack Obama's recent claim that his foreign policy experience was equal to (or surpassing) hers was nothing short of laughable.

2) She knows how to deal with, and defeat, the right-wing scream machine. Many people don't realize this, but her Senate run in 2000 was very, very far from a sure thing.

Her first opponent was - of all people - New York's Nosferatu, Rudy Giuliani. He pulled out in May due to prostate cancer, but if truth be told, Hillary had pulled about even with him before that decision. Then came Republic Rick Lazio, who, up until the very last minute, gave Hillary a real run for her money. She won due to her stellar performance in a one-on-one debate with Lazio, all the while defying the punditry who were constantly, desperately, predicting her demise. It never happened, because our girl never gives up. In 2006, she was re-elected with 67% of the vote.

Q. Why doesn't the math bother you? Barack Obama is leading in the popular vote and pledged delegates. His lead is insurmountable, so she might as well quit.

A. Barack Obama's math does not take Florida and Michigan into account. That is unrealistic and ill-advised. Those votes will at least be counted, even if the delegates are not seated. If you actually give Hillary all the votes she won, the gap narrows to a very surmountable one of 80,000 votes - and that count is from a pro-Obama diarist!

As for pledged delegates, neither candidate can reach the magic number without superdelegates. According to Democratic Party rules, the superdelegates are the only ones that matter at this point, and they can - and will - make their decisions based on any factors they think are important, such as...popular vote totals and electability.

Q. Okay, fine. Let's talk about electability. Don't you think that Barack Obama is more electable? After all, he's bringing in so much new blood and so much excitement to the process. Plus, he's converting a lot of Independents and Republics. Won't he be the best person to go up against John McCain?

A. In a word, no. Here is Hillary's Electoral College Theory of Electability in a nutshell.
At the start of this seemingly interminable Presidential campaign, Democrats saw a very favorable Electoral College map. With Hillary Clinton as the likely nominee, Democrats believed they could turn many states from red to blue, including Ohio (20), Florida (27), Iowa (7), New Mexico (5), Nevada (5), Colorado (9), and possibly Arizona (11), Virginia (13), West Virginia (5), and Missouri (11). But Clinton is unlikely to get the nomination.

Barack Obama is a far weaker candidate in many of these targeted states, but in particular in Ohio, Florida., Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia. McCain takes Arizona off the table against either nominee. Obama is polling better than Clinton in the competitive southwestern states and Iowa, as well as in Oregon, but trails badly in Virginia, which has elected a string of Democrats in recent years to statewide office. Some Democratic Party officials have written off Florida if Obama is the nominee (in some surveys he trails in the state by 10% or more, though he only trails by 4% in the Rasmussen survey). The Rasmussen survey shows McCain with a 7% lead over Obama in Ohio. Obama lost badly in that state's Democratic primary (by 10% to Clinton) winning only 5 of 88 counties. Now having insulted rural voters for their attachment to guns and God, the state has become even less friendly turf for him.

The Electoral math looks this way: if Florida and Ohio are safe for McCain, and Virginia and Missouri are too, as they now all appear to be, then McCain has a base of 260 Electoral College votes of the 270 he needs to win. He would need to only win 10 from among the states Bush won last time that are in play this year: Colorado (currently tied), New Mexico (3 point Obama lead), Iowa (4 point Obama lead) and Nevada (4 point Obama lead), and several tempting blue states in which McCain is currently competitive: Michigan (18), Pennsylvania (21), New Jersey (15) Wisconsin (10), Minnesota (10), Oregon (7), and New Hampshire (4), among them.

McCain currently is narrowly ahead of Obama in New Hampshire, New Jersey, Wisconsin and Michigan, and behind in the others. A Marist survey last week shocked many by showing McCain ahead of Obama by 2% in New York State (an 18% Kerry win in 2004). If McCain is within 10% of winning in New York in November, he will not need the state to win the election, for he likely will have won most or all of the blue states on his target list above.
Note that this analysis was done before the full effects of BitterCling were felt, before Obama's horrible performance in last Wednesday's debate, before he wriggled out of the upcoming North Carolina debate (his only suggested date was Passover, which was unacceptable - then he refused to reschedule), before he whined about eating his waffles...I bring these things up because they are Part Deux of the Clinton Theory of Electability. Obama's personal associations with Wright, Ayers, Rezko; his inability to electorally connect with or understand white working-class voters; his squirreliness about facing hostile questions; all these things do not a good candidate, or President, make. In short, he is not ready for prime time, and while Democrats desperate for any Democrat in the White House don't care as much, McCain will beat him like a drum in the General Election.

Q. Fine, so Obama isn't the greatest in debates or off-the-cuff. Don't tell me Hillary is so great either! What about Tuzla?

A. Hillary's misspeaking on Tuzla was definitely blown into a huge story, and it hurt her for a while. However, she apologized for it several times, most recently in the debate, and I think it is defused as a General Election issue.

Q. Well, what about her vote for the AUMF? Doesn't that bother you? If she hadn't voted for it, we wouldn't be in Iraq now. And how will she contrast herself with McCain on Iraq?

A. First of all, I've read about Bush's first few days in office. ("The Price of Loyalty" was a real eye-opener.) That man was going into Iraq. Nothing, including every Democrat voting against the AUMF, would have stopped him. This assertion is borne out by the fact that the AUMF did not authorize Bush to invade unless certain conditions were met; yet, despite the fact that those conditions were not met, Bush invaded anyway.

Barack Obama's supposed anti-war stance is a joke to me. He made a speech, then voted exactly the same as Hillary once he became a Senator. You want a real anti-war Senator, look at Russ Feingold's record. So to me, there is no difference between them on Iraq, except that I prefer her withdrawal plan to his.

As for Hillary's AUMF vote, I don't agree with it, and I was one of the people who marched against the war in 2003. However, I truly believe that this vote will allow her to credibly counter McCain's "I'm stronger on National Security!" argument. One of the things people always worry about with Democrats is, are they too peace-loving to fight when the chips are down? Well, Hillary has already shown her willingness to fight. So yes, she is too hawkish for me, but she's right where most Americans are - she initially supported the war, but now is insistent that our troops be brought home. Of course, McCain wants to stay there for 100 years. Not too hard to draw distinctions, now, is it?

Q. You Hillary supporters sure are long-winded! My last point is, what about the Movement? Don't you want to be part of the New Democratic Party, a party that throws off the shackles of partisanship and petty politics and moves forward with unity into a bright new, hopeful future?

A. I hate to put a bridle on your Unity Pony, but we Hillary supporters don't see you Obamans the way you see yourselves. We see you as thugs who bully and vilify and ban anyone who doesn't fully believe that Obama is the Messiah of the New Democratic Party. This does not speak of unity, lack of pettiness or new politics. It speaks of McCarthyism. You scare the hell out of us, frankly.

No, we see ourselves as the Silent Majority. We are the true Democrats, the ones who believe that parties exist for a reason, that the fights of the 60's are not over, that the nation is in a hell of a mess and that only a return to core Democratic principles - a New New Deal -can bring us forward into the 21st century.

And tonight, Pennsylvania voters will show us that we are right, as Hillary wins big despite being outspent 4-1 by Senator Obama. Barack Obama's movement is a house of cards that is just waiting for a breath of fresh air to blow it over.

Rise, Hillary, Rise!

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

By The Numbers: Montana and South Dakota

Well, folks, they're finally over! Hillary won South Dakota by 10%, and Obama won Montana by 16%.

Now what?

Because the main number from last night was:

2118.

Senator Barack Obama has finally reached, and passed, that "magic number" delegate threshhold, which under normal circumstances, would allow him to claim the presumptive nominee status.

So why did Hillary Clinton not concede last night, much to the consternation and amazement of the clueless pundits who had been loudly proclaiming she would do so all day - and much to the elation of her loyal supporters (like ME!!)? What does she know that the CNN/MSNObama bots don't [pretend not to] know? And why did Barack Obama say, "I will be the nominee," instead of "I am the nominee" in his speech last night?

Well, here's the thing: SuperDelegates can change their minds right up until the Convention. (For that matter, so can pledged delegates - but the SuperDelegates are the ones that we're looking at right now.)

If either candidate had enough pledged and elected delegates to get to that magic number, the nomination contest would be over. However, Obama's total, like Hillary's, is made up of both pledged AND SuperDelegates. If you count his pledged/elected delegate total (by CNN's count), he only has 1762; Hillary has 1637.

That's right - Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton in pledged delegates by only 125.

What's even crazier is this: Remember the Texas pri-caucus? Hillary won the primary, but not the caucus, and Texas allots its delegates according to both the primary and caucus results? Well, the Texas delegate count is still not final. So, if you take into account the terrible decision from Saturday, which hobbled Clinton while giving Obama an extra push, Obama's lead is even more questionable.

The closeness of this election gives Hillary extra leverage. She could do many things at this point - she could concede at the end of the week, if it looks like the SuperDelegates are all abandoning ship; she could suspend her campaign, which allows her to take some time off and let Obama and McCain take the spotlight; or, she could check with supporters and SuperDelegates and see if her case is making any headway with them, and if it is, take it to the Convention.

I personally am hoping she does whatever feels best for her - but I tend to think she should suspend. Let McCain and Obama duke it out for a few months, and then we'll see if Obama has what it takes to beat McCaca. If not, a deal could be reached at the Convention and the SuperDelegates could nominate Hillary.

Of course, she could take it to the Convention just on MI and FL alone, and she has been hinting that she would do so since January. So who knows?

For those who think Obama will offer Hillary the VP slot, I think you should all put down the Kool-Aid. The entire point of the Obama "movement" is to throw the Clintons out of power. Why would he, and the Party Leaders who are backing him, agree to keep her and Bill in the spotlight?

Besides, the Obamas have made it quite clear they have no intentions of doing so. They simply hate Hillary and Bill - they're racist monsters, you know. Their laughable statement from yesterday:

CNN is reporting Hillary has told New York lawmakers that she is open to the VP slot.

Now here's the funny part: Suzanne Malveaux reports that the Obama campaign says she is on the "short list" but is concerned that the Clintons haven't been fully vetted.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Let me see, the guy with Wright, Ayers, Rezko, Meeks, Farrakhan and Pfleger (and who knows who and what else) hovering over him, the guy with just a year in the public spotlight, the guy who has been doing oppo research on the Clintons for that entire same year...THAT GUY is saying that the Clintons aren't vetted?

What a colossal, overweening, arrogant schmuck. Am I excited yet that the Democrats are pushing him down our throats?

No, I'm not.

I'm choking.

Bless you, Senator Clinton, and thank you for your historic efforts. Do as you like, but I'm not giving up until you do. You speak for me and everyone who believes in the FDR version of the Democratic Party.

Whatever happens now, I know that you will always be there, fighting for the working class. Sometimes we don't deserve you, but we've got you.

Wednesday, May 7, 2008

Su-Su-SUSA, GoodBye!

Wow! What a nailbiter in Indiana last night, but a sweet ending nonetheless for Senator Clinton! And a big victory, although not as big as previously projected, for Senator Obama in NC.

I still maintain that demographics are destiny. But apparently SUSA, my former fave, underestimated the AA turnout in both states by about 15%. Also, I believe they parallelled Indiana's demographics to Pennsylvania, when in fact, they are closer to Missouri. Hence, the incredibly inaccurate predictions for both states.

What's amazing, despite the fact that the corporate media and Obama's supporters will certainly resume their cries for Hillary to drop out, is that nothing much has changed. Senator Clinton held her constituency, and Senator Obama held his - but not as strongly. In fact, Obama's showed signs of weakness. Demographically speaking, a 20-25 point Obama blowout was expected in North Carolina, and not so long ago, Senator Obama himself was referring to Indiana as a potential tiebreaker between Clinton's victory in PA and his in NC. Moreover, hundreds of thousands of early voters (40% African American) cast their ballots in North Carolina, many before Wright did his damage.

The results from last night, frankly, are not encouraging for either candidate. I believe that Hillary Clinton is by far the strongest in the General Election against McCain, but I do not trust the Democratic Party at this point to realize that Obama cannot get enough Clinton Dems, Independents and Republicans to win in November. (He only got 40% of the white vote in Indiana, for example.) I feel that they are doing everything in their power to hand the nomination to him on a silver platter, including pretending that Florida and Michigan do not exist in order to give Obama a larger lead.

In addition, I resent in the strongest manner the way Obama has gamed the system. His strategy of race-baiting was a two-fer: He smeared the Clintons as racists not only to weaken Hillary's reputation, but to take his AA support to impossible levels. He knew that the corporate media, always and forever suffering from Clinton Derangement Syndrome, would enable his efforts.

Obama used that firewall of 90% AA support to create those 11 victories in a row, and to make it seem like he is the inevitable winner. It was a disgusting tactic, and it worked in the primaries.

But it will not work in the General Election, because Obama's coalition will not hold against McCain. What will Obama do then, once he can no longer blame absolutely everything on Hillary Clinton (IACF)?

This fight should go to the convention, as so many close races have done before, and Hillary should be allowed to show her strength in must-win Democratic states. Then, the superdelegates will decide.

I hope they make the right choice, but I must say, I'm not optimistic. (Maybe it's the allergy medicine talking.)

Tune in May 20th (the Oregon and West Virgina primarie) for another episode of..."As the Democrats Turn!"

Monday, March 24, 2008

The Will of the People?

Since neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton can be the Democratic nominee without the SuperDelegates (unless one of them drops out, of course), there has been a lot of talk about what those SuperDelegates should do at the convention. Should they represent the so-called Will of the People (heard most often from Obamans, but also from Hillary partisans and neutrals)? Or should they do what they think is best for the nation?

It's a tough question, but I think the answer is clear. They must do what they were put there to do - use their own judgment when selecting the nominee.

This "will of the people" meme sounds very democratic, does it not? But the problem is, the will of the people is unclear. Senators Clinton and Obama are practically tied in delegates and popular vote, especially if you stop ignoring the voters in Michigan and Florida simply because the DNC may not seat their delegates. (Big mistake. Huge mistake. Do something please, Howard! Do a re-vote or seat the delegates as they are...or feel the wrath of millions of disenfranchised Democratic voters in November.)

Why would the SuperDelegates want to duplicate a tie?

Yes, I do want Hillary to be the nominee now and someone other than Obama to be her VP, after the Reverend Wright business with Obama has made it impossible for him to win the General Election. (No, America will not elect a man whose preacher gives Louis Farrakhan an award and screams "God Damn America!" from the pulpit. Na ga hapin.) But think about it - if the SuperDelegates vote the way their states voted, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy and Bill Richardson will all have to vote for Hillary, when they are pledged to Obama! That doesn't seem right, does it?

In my opinion, this race will come down to the wire. If I were Hillary, I'd hang in there until Pennsylvania, at least. We will see what the long-term effects of the Wright scandal will be in the primary, but I don't doubt for one minute that if Obama is the nominee, we will see a lot more videos like these (courtesy of the "OMG! I totally didn't realize we were putting out this ad - let's play it again 70 more times on CNN!" McCaca campaign.)

And isn't it interesting that even though Hillary ZOMG!!!1!!!ksoiu5! will Do Anything To Win, she has stayed quiet and classy about this possibly fatal wound to Obama, while Obama has returned to his customary slimy assaults on Clinton's character and judgment?

Friday, July 18, 2008

A Bittersweet Experience

As some of my regular readers know, I am a professional singer as well as a politics-obsessed bloggista. Last night, I was privileged to sing in a Concert for Life, sponsored by the Project People Foundation. The experience left an indelible impression on me.

My part in the concert was small: I was there as a "backup" for the Cantor at the temple where I sing. (That temple has long been a partner in PPF's efforts). The rest of the time, I was able to sit, snack, and enjoy the other performers. And what a show it was!

Project People Foundation is dedicated to improving the lives of impoverished and AIDs-scourged South Africans. To highlight this focus, PPF opened the concert with performances from South Africans who are part of the cast of The Lion King. They danced and sang with amazing energy, skill and passion. Then, an absolutely phenomenal gospel group sang several pieces that were so inspiring, they almost convinced me to convert. (Oy!) In the middle of all of this was a celebration of Nelson Mandela's 90th birthday, complete with a gorgeous cake.

Finally, the gospel choir closed with a knockout performance of "We Shall Overcome," with the first verse sung in Hebrew to honor the Temple's participation. The entire room stood up and held hands spontaneously. It was incredibly moving to touch strangers and colleagues in such a comfortable way, and sing along with that ultimate anthem of faith and resolve.

That was the sweet, and how sweet it was.

And now, for the bitter.

The performance took place at a large, prominent, mostly African-American church. Barack Obama's name was mentioned twice by various speakers, both times in the context of how inspiring it was as an example to children and adults that an African-American could be nominated as a Presidential candidate. (He hasn't clinched the nomination yet, but I knew where they were coming from.) The folks in the room seemed to agree (I saw a few nods and heard a quiet "Yes!" or two), but there was no applause or loud affirmation of these statements. (And believe me, this crowd was not shy - if you've ever been to a service in a black church, you know what I'm talking about.)

In fact, both of these statements were made by men, and I saw some female faces around the room freeze a little, as mine did. I wondered if the two thoughts that went through my head were running through theirs:

1) Women of color could have been inspired by Hillary as well as Obama; and

2) Why isn't he better?

Let's address #1 first.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright mentioned Hillary Clinton in his controversial "God Damn America" sermon, and his remarks were instructive. He asserted that Hillary hadn't had to work twice as hard as a white man to get the same job. It was a laughable and hugely ironic statement in the context of this primary, considering that Hillary has now all but lost the nomination to a man, although she was the winner of the popular vote and has a resume that, by any objective measure, dwarfs Obama's.

Clearly, gender equality is not a part of Reverend Wright's awareness. As every woman in his congregation could have told him, women do have to work twice as hard as a man in order to get the same job. Of course, even if they are fortunate enough to get such a job, they are paid, on average, 77 cents to the man's dollar.

Is there any reason to assume that Hillary Clinton would not continue her work to gain gender equality as President? No. The only way to beat Hillary was to smear her with false accusations of racism and race-baiting, and that is exactly what his campaign did. Out of an understandable sense of community, only a brave few African-Americans stood up for her or Bill Clinton in the face of Obama's divisive tactics, and those who did were intimidated with primary challenges or, in some cases, death threats from the Obama camp.

As frustrating as #1 is to me, #2 is what really hurt. Why is he The One, as Oprah famously dubbed him? What has he ever done for the black community? What has he promised to do for the black community? Why does he talk down to the NAACP and perpetuate white stereotypes about his own people?

Why doesn't he appreciate how much his community needs a figure of great stature, a person who aspires to be a fighter for social justice for all Americans, a person who strives for peace and an end to institutionalized racism and bigotry of all kinds - yes, even unto sexism and homophobia? Why isn't he humbled a bit by what the unqualified support of the black community means?

It breaks my heart that Senator Obama was not asked these questions by the Party Leaders before they decided to elevate him to national status. Fair or not, an African-American candidate will bear the burdens of his long-suffering community on his shoulders, just as Hillary would be expected to bear the burdens of long-suffering women on hers. And as I looked at all the faces around me last night, holding hands with a beautiful stranger and pledging to overcome, I could only think: African-Americans deserve better. They deserve so much better than vague platitudes about hope and change. They deserve a deep understanding of their plight and a lifelong commitment of time and resources, of heart and soul, towards mitigating that plight.

For all of our sakes, I hope they get what they deserve from America and, should he prevail, Barack Obama. As we all know, it's been a long time coming.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Two Big Primaries Today...

and the polls are all over the place. Who knows what will happen in the latest installation of "How the Democrats Turn?" [cue soupy music]

Well, possibly Survey USA, the only pollster that has gotten consistently close in this crazy season. (Remember how Obama was going to win California and Pennsylvania?) Here are SUSA's predictions for Indiana and North Carolina:

Indiana - Clinton by 12 points, 54-42, 4% undecided
North Carolina - Obama by 5 points, 50-45, 5% undecided

As Big Tent Democrat always says over at TalkLeft, demographics have been destiny in this primary season. Obviously, I'm quite happy about the Indiana prediction, but considering the demographics are very similar to Pennsylvania, it would not be shocking if she won by this margin. But North Carolina? WOW. Considering that undecideds have tended to break for Hillary about 60%-40%, Obama could win North Carolina by only 2%; or, perhaps, even lose the state.

That is absolutely stunning.

In North Carolina, there is an unusually high percentage of African-American voters and other voters that have favored Obama in the past (such as younger voters, urban voters, wealthier voters and college-educated voters). Early estimates showed that Senator Obama was expected to win comfortably by 20-25 points.

Now, as we've seen in Pennsylvania, where Hillary was initially favored by 20 points, these very large leads do tend to tighten as the campaigns come to each state. However, the only way that Senator Obama was able to come within 10 points of Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania was to outspend her by 3-1, to register more than 200,000 new voters, and to get an outstandingly high turnout in Philadelphia and other urban areas.

Hillary Clinton has done none of those things in North Carolina. And according to Survey USA, she is still in a position to come much closer to Barack Obama than he did to her in Pennsylvania. Clearly, thanks to a combination of Reverend Wright and PennsylMentum, she is making inroads into his coalition of voters that he cannot match with inroads into hers. (Perhaps their tolerance for being called racist, ignorant, old, bitter, Republican bible-thumpers has been reached.)

Is Obama's candidacy, inflated, in my opinion, by nefarious DNC tactics in Florida and Michigan and small caucus wins in red states, finally showing its weakness?

I believe the answer is yes. But the voters will have the final say tonight.

I'll be having a shot and a beer in honor of Hillary.