• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Presidential election may be up for grabs

Edward,

I agree with your analysis, but would like to add that both Obama and Clinton have a lot of negatives, some of which they share, while others are unique to the individual. Their positives are not as great assets as we tend to assume here.

Some of this is race based (and the hispanic voters may be more likely than anglos not to vote for Obama), some is gender based, but a lot of that is more dislike of Hillary than sexism. The Democrats have managed to divide their house in a way that will cause the urban coastal liberal voter an outbreak of angst. The key to power does not lie with that demographic, and both candidates, both for reasons of persona and ideology, are non-starters with many Americans in the "great unwashed middle."

The Democratic convention will be very interesting, and given the Democrats' propensity to self-destruct, whoever wins may well face a house divided. The Clintons are poor losers and may well sabotage the convention and campaign to deny the White House to Obama. Whether this would enhance her chances in 2012 is another matter. In this scenario the campaign is McCain's to lose, except for the economy.  Like Waterloo, the election will be a near run thing.
 
 
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/25/opinion/25krugman.html?hp=&pagewanted=print
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW YORK TIMES

April 25, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist
Self-Inflicted Confusion
By PAUL KRUGMAN
After Barack Obama’s defeat in Pennsylvania, David Axelrod, his campaign manager, brushed it off: “Nothing has changed tonight in the basic physics of this race.”

He may well be right — but what a comedown. A few months ago the Obama campaign was talking about transcendence. Now it’s talking about math. “Yes we can” has become “No she can’t.”

This wasn’t the way things were supposed to play out.

Mr. Obama was supposed to be a transformational figure, with an almost magical ability to transcend partisan differences and unify the nation. Once voters got to know him — and once he had eliminated Hillary Clinton’s initial financial and organizational advantage — he was supposed to sweep easily to the nomination, then march on to a huge victory in November.

Well, now he has an overwhelming money advantage and the support of much of the Democratic establishment — yet he still can’t seem to win over large blocs of Democratic voters, especially among the white working class.

As a result, he keeps losing big states. And general election polls suggest that he might well lose to John McCain.

What’s gone wrong?

According to many Obama supporters, it’s all Hillary’s fault. If she hadn’t launched all those vile, negative attacks on their hero — if she had just gone away — his aura would be intact, and his mission of unifying America still on track.

But how negative has the Clinton campaign been, really? Yes, it ran an ad that included Osama bin Laden in a montage of crisis images that also included the Great Depression and Hurricane Katrina. To listen to some pundits, you’d think that ad was practically the same as the famous G.O.P. ad accusing Max Cleland of being weak on national security.

It wasn’t. The attacks from the Clinton campaign have been badminton compared with the hardball Republicans will play this fall. If the relatively mild rough and tumble of the Democratic fight has been enough to knock Mr. Obama off his pedestal, what hope did he ever have of staying on it through the general election?

Let me offer an alternative suggestion: maybe his transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for.

From the beginning, I wondered what Mr. Obama’s soaring rhetoric, his talk of a new politics and declarations that “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for” (waiting for to do what, exactly?) would mean to families troubled by lagging wages, insecure jobs and fear of losing health coverage. The answer, from Ohio and Pennsylvania, seems pretty clear: not much. Mrs. Clinton has been able to stay in the race, against heavy odds, largely because her no-nonsense style, her obvious interest in the wonkish details of policy, resonate with many voters in a way that Mr. Obama’s eloquence does not.

Yes, I know that there are lots of policy proposals on the Obama campaign’s Web site. But addressing the real concerns of working Americans isn’t the campaign’s central theme.

Tellingly, the Obama campaign has put far more energy into attacking Mrs. Clinton’s health care proposals than it has into promoting the idea of universal coverage.

During the closing days of the Pennsylvania primary fight, the Obama campaign ran a TV ad repeating the dishonest charge that the Clinton plan would force people to buy health insurance they can’t afford. It was as negative as any ad that Mrs. Clinton has run — but perhaps more important, it was fear-mongering aimed at people who don’t think they need insurance, rather than reassurance for families who are trying to get coverage or are afraid of losing it.

No wonder, then, that older Democrats continue to favor Mrs. Clinton.

The question Democrats, both inside and outside the Obama campaign, should be asking themselves is this: now that the magic has dissipated, what is the campaign about? More generally, what are the Democrats for in this election?

That should be an easy question to answer. Democrats can justly portray themselves as the party of economic security, the party that created Social Security and Medicare and defended those programs against Republican attacks — and the party that can bring assured health coverage to all Americans.

They can also portray themselves as the party of prosperity: the contrast between the Clinton economy and the Bush economy is the best free advertisement that Democrats have had since Herbert Hoover.

But the message that Democrats are ready to continue and build on a grand tradition doesn’t mesh well with claims to be bringing a “new politics” and rhetoric that places blame for our current state equally on both parties.

And unless Democrats can get past this self-inflicted state of confusion, there’s a very good chance that they’ll snatch defeat from the jaws of victory this fall.




 
 
And also FYI:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

General Election: McCain vs. Obama
Poll Date McCain (R) Obama (D) Und Spread


RCP Average 04/07 to 04/24 44.5% 46.1% 6.0% Obama +1.6%

Rasmussen 04/21 - 04/24 45% 45% 10% Tie
Gallup Tracking 04/19 - 04/23 45% 45% 4% Tie
USA Today/Gallup 04/18 - 04/20 44% 47% --% Obama +3.0%
Cook/RT Strategies 04/17 - 04/20 44% 45% 9% Obama +1.0%
Newsweek 04/16 - 04/17 44% 48% 8% Obama +4.0%
ABC/Wash Post 04/10 - 04/13 44% 49% 2% Obama +5.0%
Reuters/Zogby 04/10 - 04/13 45% 45% --% Tie
AP-Ipsos 04/07 - 04/09 45% 45% 3% Tie

Edit: for copy error
 
It seems to me as if the Democrates have maneavered themselves
into a lose lose situation.The way I understand it no matter who
wins whats left of the remaining states, neither of the candidates
can win enough delegates to have the required majority.This will
lead to the special delegates having to pick the Presidential
candidate,this will lead to the supporters of one or the other
candidate being very unhappy with the outcome and either not
voting in the election or in the worstcase scenario voting for the
Republicans.At least that the way I hope it goes.
                                          Regards
 
From the Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lanny-davis/the-top-ten-list-of-undis_b_98280.html

Lanny Davis

The Top Ten List of Undisputed Facts Showing Barack Obama's Weakness in the General Election Against John McCain

Posted April 23, 2008 | 04:15 PM (EST)

Let's forget about the spin on all sides and not use any adjectives to modify the following 10 Facts that should not be in dispute:

1. Hillary Clinton won by 10%, 220,000 votes, despite after most of the polls in the last several weeks on RealClearPolitics, including its RCP all-poll average, showed her ahead by single digits and dropping. The exit polls showed her winning by +5. (It's easy to forget that she won if you listen to the Obama spinners last night and today. Believe it or not, Pennsylvania's Rep. Murphy, a freshman congressman who supported Barack Obama, actually said last night on Larry King that Senator Obama did so well in losing to Senator Clinton yesterday that he has a "wind at his back." I am not kidding.

2. Senator Obama tried hard to win the state, campaigned intensely throughout the state for most of the last six weeks -- and was trying to win, not just lose a narrow margin.

3. He spent $11 million on media -- about three times more than Senator Clinton.

4. Most of his ads were personal negative attack ads against Senator Clinton, meaning attacks on her character and integrity.

5. There were no personal attack ads run by Hillary Clinton in Pennsylvania.

6. Barack Obama hasn't won a single major industrial state that historically constitute the key "battleground" states for both parties, i.e., the states in the last three or four presidential elections have switched back and forth between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates.

7. The reason that he lost can be found in the demographic data: He lost -- and Senator Clinton won -- by substantial margins blue collar and middle class white voters earning under $50,000 a year, senior citizens, rural voters, Hispanic voters, and women voters -- all core constituencies in the Democratic base that must be won if a Democrat is to win the White House. For example, yesterday in Pennsylvania she won Roman Catholics by 32 percent (66034), union households by 18 percent (59-41), and those most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42). Only 60 percent of Democratic Catholic voters said they would vote for Mr. Obama in a general election.

8. Barack Obama has lost these same demographic groups in Massachusetts, Ohio, Texas, California and New Jersey and other major states that Senator Clinton won. There is a factual pattern of his weakness among these demographic groups in virtually every primary state that cannot be disputed.

9. Barack Obama is currently in a dead heat with John McCain, according to a recent respected poll, in Massachusetts (actually, the results were McCain 46% and Clinton 44%), while Senator Clinton leads in Massachusetts by 15%. The last time a Democrat did not win Massachusetts by a substantial margin was 1980, when Ronald Reagan defeated Jimmy Carter. Even in the historic landslide election of Richard Nixon in 1972, when he won 49 states, only Massachusetts supported Senator McGovern. Senator Obama currently runs considerably behind Senator McCain in Florida and Ohio, while Senator Clinton is ahead in both of those key battleground states.

10. Current polls show Senator Clinton runs ahead of John McCain nationally or dead even -- and Senator Obama runs only dead even. For example, in the most recent USA Today national general election poll, Senator Clinton leads Senator McCain by +6; Senator Obama leads by less than the margin of error, +2.

Those are the facts. To all Super Delegates: you decide who is riskier as a general election candidate. The candidate whose negatives, driven by the right-wing hate machine in the 1990s in particular, are all out there and already taken into account. Or a candidate who is still virtually unknown to most of the electorate, with Republicans clearly looking forward to filling in the blanks with the facts about his record of which many general election voters still are not aware.
 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is an interview by Margaret Wente of American political insider David Gergen:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080426.GERGEN26/TPStory/?query=David+Gergen
INTERVIEW: DAVID GERGEN, EDITOR, BESTSELLING AUTHOR AND ADVISER TO PRESIDENTS
In the U.S., 'ordinary leadership will not be sufficient'

MARGARET WENTE

April 26, 2008

As an adviser to four presidents, David Gergen is uniquely positioned to size up the men and woman who would be president. He is also an expert on leadership, and has written and lectured widely on the qualities a leader needs to navigate through perilous times. Next Thursday, he will be appearing in Toronto as the last speaker in this season's Grano series.

Mr. Gergen is currently a professor of public service at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government and director of its Center for Public Leadership.

He is also editor-at-large for U.S. News & World Report and a senior political analyst for CNN.

In earlier years, he served as a White House adviser to presidents Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton.

He spoke with me this week about what he calls the most topsy-turvy race he can remember, and told her why he believes that the next president will face the toughest challenges since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933.

The upshot of the Pennsylvania primary was two weakened candidates who are locked in a fight to the death. How damaging is this to the Democratic Party?

The party is getting deeply worried now about the prospects for the fall. We have a very unusual situation: The campaign landscape favours the Democrats more strongly than at any time in 30 or 40 years. Bush's negatives are the highest of any president in 70 years. He's fighting an unpopular war and the economy is deteriorating. People are hurting and they're angry. ... In ordinary circumstances, the Democrats would win the White House by five or 10 points - but here we are in a very close race.

Who has been beat up more: Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton?

The growing negativity of the campaign has diminished both of them.

Obama was a very captivating figure during the early months. He energized people in ways we have not seen since the Kennedys and he also gave us a sense for the first time that a black candidate could actually win. ...

He ran on the promise that he would offer a different kind of politics. But when he was attacked in the traditional way, he had a hard time responding. He compounded his problems with his own inartful expressions that seem condescending. Now, he looks weaker. The magic was always going to dissipate, but people expected it would happen much later. He is still the likely nominee - but he is a wounded candidate.

In the process of bringing Obama down (some would say down to earth), Hillary has been hurt too. Many Obama fans are bitter at her for being so negative and robbing them of the lightning they thought they had in a bottle.

Beyond that, by going negative she has raised doubts about her own likeability and trustworthiness. Her unfavourable rating has gone over 50 per cent. That's a remarkable number.

But didn't John McCain inherit a broken party too?

McCain has done a remarkably good job in reaching out to various elements in his party and putting the coalition back together.
He is also showing some class. In North Carolina, the Republican Party is planning to run a racially tinged ad on Obama's pastor. He's against it. He's saying, "I don't want to run this kind of campaign." McCain is emerging as the classiest of the three - so far. But again, it's early, and he has not been subject to scrutiny.

What are his vulnerabilities?

People want out of this war. They want out of Bush's economic policies. McCain is going to be painted not as a maverick but as someone who will extend the war indefinitely. There will be questions about his vitality and health.

Can he survive the hazing process? He could survive incredibly well. And he is also a very likeable man. But you've got to remember that this is a topsy-turvy race and what's true today may be untrue tomorrow.

You've said the next president will face the toughest job since FDR in 1933. Please elaborate.

We're no longer living in ordinary times. We're going through a period of great turbulence, change and challenge.

On the one hand, there's going to be the mess in foreign policy - Iraq, Iran, Pakistan. How do you extricate yourself from Iraq safely, how do you defuse the nuclear threat in Iran? Then you are going to inherit an economic mess that's much bigger than it looks. We don't know where the economy's going, but the deficits are going to be huge.

You won't have any money. In the second year of your term, the Bush tax cuts will expire, and you'll be in a big fight over tax cuts. In year three, the baby boomers start to retire en masse, and there will be enormous pressure on entitlement programs. In year four, Kyoto expires and you'll have to find a way to deal seriously with energy policy and climate change. All those issues will land on the desk of the next pres. That's why ordinary leadership will not be sufficient.

Yikes. Can any of these three possibly measure up?

There are three basic pillars for any leader, whether it's a presidency or a corporation: inner drive, judgment and character. They are all essential. All three of the candidates possess those in pretty solid ways. They would all be excellent presidents in ordinary times.

But you just said these aren't ordinary times.

In addition to the three pillars, it's very important to have at least three additional qualities. And, in those, the candidates do vary. They have to have adaptability - because the world will be both turbulent and changing.

They'll have to apply old principles in new ways. In a way, I think Hillary is the most adaptable. She certainly has the best grasp of policy. McCain, given his age, may have the greatest challenges.

The second quality is personal courage. McCain has it in abundance. He stands out above the other two. The question is whether Obama has it. People don't know. He's not tested. There's a growing sense that perhaps there's some inner weakness. That's what we'll all be looking at.

Third, it will be critically important for the next president to be a consensus builder - someone who can build large majorities at home and also large majorities of nations and people internationally to move beyond the unilateralism that we have seen in recent years. No question Barack comes out on top. Hillary is seen as the most divisive. Her approach to leadership is you build your coalition and beat up the other side to win. So you pay your money and take your choice.

In Canada, most people think America has lost its way. We're seriously worried whether you are capable of finding it again.

Don't count out America. We are very resilient people. We haven't been very good when we have termites in the basement, but when we have a wolf at the door, we're terrific. And we've got a lot of wolves at the door.

I'm not sure whether I feel reassured or not. So let's finish with the money question. For five cents, who wins the White House in November?

You'd have to say the Democrats are slightly favoured to win. But I wouldn't bet the farm.

Margaret Wente is a columnist with The Globe and Mail.

There, is, for me at least, some food for thought there, especially re: the challenges facing the next president.

 
Did Obama do this-denounce Rev. Wright- too little, too late?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080429/ap_on_el_pr/obama_pastor

Obama says he's outraged by former pastor's comments
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
52 minutes ago

Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.

Obama is trying to tamp down the uproar over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright at a tough time in his campaign. The Illinois senator is coming off a loss in Pennsylvania to rival Hillary Rodham Clinton and trying to win over white working-class voters in Indiana and North Carolina in next Tuesday's primaries.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

His strong words come just six weeks after Obama delivered a sweeping speech on race in which he sharply condemned Wright's remarks but did not leave the church or repudiate the minister himself, who he said was like a family member. After weeks of staying out of the public eye while critics lambasted his sermons, the former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago made three public appearances in four days to defend himself.

On Monday, Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. "Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything," he said.

And perhaps even worse for Obama, Wright suggested that the church congregant secretly concurs.

"If Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected," Wright said. "Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls."

Obama stated flatly that he doesn't share the views of the man who officiated at his wedding, baptized his two daughters and been his pastor for 20 years. The title of Obama's second book, "The Audacity of Hope," came from a Wright sermon.

"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

Although Obama leads in pledged delegates, no Democrat can win the nomination without the support of the superdelegates, the elected officials and party leaders who can vote their preference. The Wright furor forces those Democrats to wonder about Obama's electability in November.

Facing that reality, Obama sought to distance himself further from Wright.

"I have been a member of Trinity United Church of Christ since 1992, and have known Reverend Wright for 20 years," Obama said. "The person I saw yesterday was not the person that I met 20 years ago."

The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

"Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed," Obama said. "I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."

Obama said he heard that Wright had given "a performance" and when he watched news accounts, he realized that it more than just a case of the former pastor defending himself.

"His comments were not only divisive and destructive, I believe they end up giving comfort to those who prey on hate," Obama said. "I'll be honest with you, I hadn't seen it" when reacting initially on Monday, he said.

Wright had asserted that criticism of his fiery sermons was an attack on the black church. Obama rejected that notion.

"He has done great damage, I do not see that relationship being the same," said Obama.

Wright recently retired from the church. He became an issue in Obama's presidential bid when videos circulated of Wright condemning the U.S. government for allegedly racist and genocidal acts. In the videos, some several years old, Wright called on God to "damn America." He also said the government created the AIDS virus to destroy "people of color."

Obama said he didn't vet his pastor before deciding to seek the presidency. He said he was particularly distressed that the furor has been a distraction to the purpose of a campaign.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

While Obama said he remains a member of the church "obviously this has put a strain on that relationship.

"There wasn't anything constructive out of yesterday," said Obama. "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

At one point, Obama said he understood the pressures Wright faced but wouldn't excuse his comments.

"I think he felt vilified and attacked and I understand him wanting to defend himself," Obama said. "That may account for the change but the insensitivity and the outrageousness of the statements shocked me and surprised me."

 
The only thing I could suggest to Hillary.... get Bill to keep his mouth shut!
Barak and his friends are doing enough to screw things up on their own.
 
I agree we can't count out the Clintons until they're carried out, but a week is a long time in politics.......

http://www.damianpenny.com/archived/011274.html

It's Obama?
After North Carolina and Indiana, pretty much everyone says it's all over for Hillary. Allahpundit:

...as of this moment, even if Florida and Michigan are counted RCP gives her a popular vote lead of just 3,000+ votes — a margin of less than one-tenth of one percent. And that’s assuming that the popular vote totals from the caucuses in Iowa, Washington, Maine, and Nevada (which weren’t reported) aren’t counted at all. If you estimate for those states, he ends up with a lead of more than 100,000. Which means she has nothing left to commend her to the supers except an electabilty argument unsupported by a single key metric or even circumstantial evidence that Pastorgate has done Obama grievous damage at the polls. Are they going to take the nomination from the first serious black candidate for president without any compelling data to hang their decision on? Not a chance. It’s over. Let’s move on.

And Sullivan:

There is no calculation that currently gives the Clintons a majority of the popular vote. There is now no mathematical possibility of them getting more delegates. Obama has won by far the most states. He has raised far more money; he has 1.5 million donors, mainly small sums. He has crushed her among new voters and young voters; and as a black politician, his support spans all races and classes. And recall: he is a freshman senator with a very funny name against the biggest brand name in American politics and a worldwide celebrity whose chief campaigner was a former two-term president of the United States.
[...]

The Clintons will have to realize some day that their time is over. I cannot pretend to know how they think or how much more damage to themselves, to their legacy and to their party they want to inflict. But I do know who has won this nomination, whether they try to steal it from him or not.

I won't count out a Clinton until she officially drops out. But it's looking very, very dim for her right now.
 
More fun for you all at Obama and Clinton's expense:  :rofl:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008...sults.aspx?GT1=38001

Obama Doomsday Scenario Contest Results!
Yesterday, Trailhead invited readers to imagine what would have to happen for Barack Obama to lose the Democratic nomination. And boy did you respond. You, dear readers, are a motley assortment of creative and disturbed geniuses.

Scenarios tended to fall into a few categories: embarrassing revelations, major screw-ups, Clinton ex machinas, and unfortunate occurrences. Others involved Obama turning out to be someone—or something—other than himself, such as the Rev. Jeremiah Wright (“note that you never see the Rev. & Obama in the same place!”), “the smoke monster from Lost,” Dennis Kucinich in disguise, and John McCain’s illegitimate black child. Several other scenarios involved zombie attacks and alien invasions. Yet another described a heinous Aristocrats-like stage performance by the Obama family.

We can’t possibly share them all, but here’s a sampling organized by category. Winners are at the bottom.

Embarrassing revelations:
Obama is actually 34 years old, too young to be president.—Marc Sylvestre

Video surfaces of Obama at that Rev. Wright “God Damn America” sermon that he claims he didn't attend, especially if the video shows him applauding that statement.—Brian Weber

Obama photographed raising pinky while sipping latte!—Benjamin Clark

Customs agents find one of Natalee Holloway's “Carlos ’n Charlie's Aruba” T-shirts in his luggage.—Tom Grayman

Obama’s opening his mail while being interviewed by Bill O’Reilly. He drops a Hallmark card. O’Reilly helpfully picks it up for him and reads the inscription: “Barack: Thanks for the visa! See you soon! Your BFF, Nadhmi.”—Boyd Reed

Pictures of an 8-year-old Obama in his local neighborhood bomb-making class with William Ayers and other Weather Undergrounders.—Jen Geiger

The Drudge Report uncovers shocking photographic evidence that Barack Obama and Osama Bin Laden were actually college roommates. … They depict Bin Laden doing keg stands while Obama stands to the side holding his turban and counting in Arabic.—Rudy Santelises

He shot Alexander Hamilton. And there's video.—Andrew Rice

Reader Mark Schondorf submits a whole list of shocking twists, including: “Hillary summons a Kraken”; “Obama was a ghost THE WHOLE TIME!!!”; “Hillary goes back in time to kill Obama’s mother”; “Hillary wins because, as it turns out, she's Keyser Söze”; and “Unbelievably, the aliens are afraid of water.”

Major screw-ups:
Obama confesses that the blackout “ending” of the series finale of The Sopranos was his idea.—Scott Schiefelbein

The only way that Obama could possibly lose the nomination is if video of him punching a baby surfaced.—Nick Wilhelmy

There is only one unforgivable crime in America … dogfighting.—Tom Bianchi

The reason he doesn't believe the government created AIDS is because he did.—Shane Mehling

Clinton ex machina:

The best scenario for Hillary is to run as John McCain’s running mate. And for McCain to die.—Dea Henrich [So Obama would still be the nominee, but we had to include.—Ed.]

The Clinton campaign digs up records in the National Archives proving that Hawaii was not a state at the time of Obama's birth, thereby making him ineligible.—Pamela Belyn

Bill Clinton starts campaigning on his behalf before June 3.—Eric Samuels

Hillary sheds two tears.—Jon Cowan

Unfortunate occurrences:

Obama will need to be photographed windsurfing … and then get eaten by a shark.—Stephen Defibaugh

Obama, trying to fit in with the Oregon locals, goes on a white-water rafting tour arranged by Lanny Davis Excursions.—Boyd Reed

Hillary invites Barack to her home in Chappaqua to talk about ending the race. The visit eerily resembles the movie Misery.—Boyd Reed

The winners: The best submissions managed to make a concise joke, summarize all of Obama’s vulnerabilities at once, or vividly capture the mind-bending paucity of Clinton’s odds of survival. Here are three that did the job:

3rd place: Hillary appeals to the Supreme Court, which, based upon a 2000 ruling, decides that the candidate with fewer votes wins the election.—John Kirkbride

2nd place: Hillary Clinton must parachute into Pakistan while under heavy sniper fire, infiltrate al-Qaida using a fake beard, putty nose, and duct tape, and capture Osama Bin Laden, whilst singing the “Star Spangled Banner” with one hand over her heart and an American flag lapel pin prominently shown on her outfit. She must film all of this in HD and create a montage scored to Lee Greenwood's “God Bless the U.S.A.” Meanwhile, Barack Obama must publicly convert to Islam and change his name to Osama Hafez al-Mohammed Hussein Ayatollah Obama, while burning an American flag in the Crystal Cathedral as he replaces the crucifix with a do-it-yourself Piss Christ, while performing an abortion on the exhumed body of Terri Schiavo. He should also be naked. It should then rain frogs. That ought to do it.—Jason in San Diego

1st place: One of the lesser-known consequences of quantum physics is an event called “quantum tunneling.” Here's how it happens: At a campaign stop in West Virginia, completely out of the blue, the aggregate wave functions of all the particles in Barack Obama's body end up instantaneously transporting him through the entire Earth and leaving him treading water somewhere in the Indian Ocean, or leaving his various particles scattered inside the mantle. The odds of this occurring are such that any macroscopic object tunneling through any barrier is highly unlikely in the lifespan of the universe, but it could occur!—Michael Blessington

Thank you for the submissions. You heard them here first!
 
Gas prices continue to go up and voters tend to vote pocket book issues.Congress has resisted efforts to expand domestic exploration for not ready for prime time alternative energy.Obama,Clinton and McCain are all against domestic drilling,nuclear power and more refineries which is the only path to lowering gas prices.Coal liquification would be an alternative to drilling but they dont want to do that either.Pressure on Congress to create more oil supply will drive this election and may sweep the dem's out of power if they dont bend to the will of the voters. A windfall profits tax on the oil companies was tried and ended up reducing oil supplies and was eventually abandoned.
 
- Counting their ecological 'No Drilling" zones and the capacity of modern extraction methods applied to old wells, the USA has a lot of 'strategic' oil left.

- Then, there is oil shale: Of the estimated 2.6 trillion bbls of oil shale on earth, 2 trillion bbls is in the US of A.

- Conclusion: What oil shortage?
 
The real problem is that Middle Eastern oil can be pumped from the ground for about $5/bbl, so alternative sources of oil will never be competitive until that source dries up. Even if there was an infinite source of sweet crude in space, there would be no economic incentive to tap it since the Saudis etc. could always undercut your production.

If political or economic factors take that source of oil out of play, then these alternative sources will become economical to exploit. (Not the physical oil might still be there, it just has to become inaccessible.
 
- Right.  This is all smoke and mirrors to use up everybody else's cheap oil FIRST.  Then the USA (and probably us as well) become the worlds blue-eyed sheikhs.
 
The Nader factor returns in the form of this guy: Bob Barr?  ::)

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/trailhead/archive/2008...who-is-bob-barr.aspx

Who Is Bob Barr?

Former Georgia congressman and Clinton impeacher-in-chief Bob Barr announced today that he will be seeking the presidency as a candidate of the Libertarian Party. The first name that pops to mind is Ralph Nader. Republicans fear a repeat of 2000, with Barr siphoning votes from John McCain (although it’s also possible he’d sabotage Obama). Others wonder how Barr’s candidacy will play with Ron Paul supporters.

The Texas Republican, who has slowed his candidacy to a crawl in recent months—but hasn’t dropped out!—has come under pressure to make a third-party run for the presidency. Barr’s announcement appears to have closed the door on a Paul run, at least on the Libertarian ticket.

So what does Ron Paul think of Barr’s announcement? "Our thoughts are that Bob and Ron are friends and remain friends," said Paul spokesman Jesse Benton. You can see why. Some of Barr’s words today sounded as if they could have come out of Paul’s mouth: He accused both parties of "running a charity called the United States of America" and slammed Hillary Clinton for saying she’d "obliterate Iran" if they attacked Israel.

But whatever their similarities, Benton says Paul has no plans to endorse anyone—including Barr. "Ron Paul is a Republican and he’s going to be a part of the Republican party," he says.

Paul is still campaigning in upcoming primaries, including West Virginia and Kentucky. "He’s not going to be the nominee," Benton says. But the congressman maintains a "strong following" of 6 to 8 percent in most states and plans to continue running, he says.

And Ron Paul is just living in denial!!!!  :rofl:
 
Obama is the most liberal Senator in the Senate and his statements seem to confirm his love affair with socialism and perhaps communism.In a recent interview he expresses admiration for the kibbutz for its community lifestyle.As the campaign progresses Obama will have to reveal more of his views which should turn off older voters,but wont affect his black support and youth support as they are voting on identity rather than substance.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05...ionism_and_hamas.php
 
Just a couple of updates: Former presidential candidate and Senator John Edwards endorses Barack Obama, which I think may lead to him to eventually become Obama's VP candidate if Clinton does not throw her lot with Obama if she loses the nomination at the convention. However, Clinton won West Virginia with a wide margin, so she is still in the race.

May 14, 2008
Edwards to endorse Obama
Posted: 05:08 PM ET
(CNN) — CNN's Mike Roselli and Suzanne Malveaux have confirmed that former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards will endorse Barack Obama at a Michigan campaign event about an hour from now.

Obama will come on stage in Grand Rapids and say he has a special guest to introduce, followed by the appearance of Edwards himself.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

McCain, Obama offer Clinton congratulations
Posted: 09:50 PM ET
(CNN) — A senior McCain adviser tells CNN's Dana Bash the presumptive Republican nominee called Hillary Clinton to congratulate her on her primary win in West Virginia.

McCain has not called either Democratic candidate after the past few contests — but he has made clear in the past that he admires Clinton's tenacity. The two have long had a cordial relationship in the Senate.

The Obama campaign says the Illinois senator also called Clinton to offer his congratulations, reports CNN's Chris Welch, but was unable to reach her, and left a voicemail.
 
Byrd, former member of KKK, endorses Obama for president


If wikipedia is to be believe, it's different from his point of view of 1945 :

"Byrd commented on the 1945 controversy about racially integrating the military. Byrd, when he was 28 years old, wrote to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo, of Mississippi, vowing never to serve in such a military:

    Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.[5]

He had earlier written "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side".[6][7]"

 
If the Republicans want to maintain the Administration and make any gains (or at least hold the line) in the Congress, they need to do more than hope the Democrats self destruct in the nomination race. VDH has some ideas:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/the-problem-is-not-conservatism-but-conservatives-who-arent-conservative/

May 16th, 2008 4:01 pm

The Problem is not conservatism, but conservatives who aren’t conservative

A Simple Conservative Message

There is a lot of anguish among Republicans as they look at the dismal polls and the even more depressing performance of their candidates in various preliminary House races. New books and prophets forecast an end to conservatism, and a need to formulate a new sort of muscular liberalism to meet new challenges. Expect more such nostrums if Barack Obama wins in the fall.

What mystifies is the paralysis of Republicans and their impotent protestations that “Bush did it”. The truth is that Congressional Republicans, responsible for turning principles into governance, deserve to lose—unless they craft clear positions that won’t be compromised and then offer them as alternative choices to the voters this fall. Here are some examples:

Spending: a balanced budget, no exceptions. Voters are tired of hearing that this or that projection assures a balanced budget in 2, 3, or 5 years. Revenues continue to soar after the tax cuts, so the problem is too much going out, not too little coming in. Surpluses are preferable to deficits, since we want to retire, not add to out foreign debt. Just say no—or better yet “Please pay for it” — the next time a new entitlement is introduced.

The War: Afghanistan and Iraq have radically improved. Anti-war hype and slurs are a year out of date. We are finally on the edge of having done the impossible: removed the most odious regimes in the Middle East and fostered constitutional governments in their places. Spending on general defense and the war still run at only 4% of GDP, not high by historical levels. The reforming Petraeus army is stronger and wiser, despite the toll of war, for our ordeals in the Middle East. As troops slowly begin to come home next year, let everyone take credit for it.

Energy: Drill, explore, conserve. The answer does not lie in any one area, but in the willingness to produce more energy in all of them. We must ensure more oil, coal, and nuclear power, conserve more energy as we produce more—to prevent going broke while we transition to next-generation fuels.

Why should others abroad, who are far less careful, extract oil for us in areas of the world more fragile than our own? We must end the notion that ANWR only yields a million barrels a day, or the coasts only 2 million, or tar sands or shale only a million, or nuclear power and coal only so many megawatts of power. To paraphrase, Sen. Dirksen—‘a million barrels a day here, a million there, pretty soon it adds up to real production.’

Economy: We are in a natural down cycle, not the Great Depression—interest rates, unemployment, economic growth, and stock prices do not reflect a recession. Use this downturn as a warning not to spend what we don’t have when things rebound.

Immigration: Close the border, and then, and only then, argue over what’s next. Stop illegal entries, while we promote assimilation, the English language, integration, and education in American civics. Do that and most of our seemingly insurmountable problems will shrink as we endlessly bicker over amnesty, guest workers, and legal quotas.

Trade: free and supervised trade creates more jobs, makes us more competitive, and fosters alliances. Protectionism does the opposite. Americans like to compete and usually win—when they know the rules of the contest are fair and clearly explained to them.

Foreign Policy: Neither provoke nor talk to our enemies in the Middle East, Asia, or South America. Instead, cultivate our allies, build our defenses—and be ready for anything.

Homeland Security: the framework is in place. Let the Democrats try to repeal it. Let them make the argument that the Patriot Act and Guantanamo haven’t made us safer.

Ethics: Warn Republicans that in matters of sex, influence peddling, and graft, the Party of family values suffers the additional wage of hypocrisy. So the tolerance level for these sins is zero.

If Republicans could adopt such a simple message, stick to it, and find the most articulate spokespeople, they could still win.

The Alternative

Why? Because for all the charisma, Barack Obama advocates antitheses that most in most years would not otherwise choose—higher taxes, more government spending; pie-in-the-sky promises of wind and solar while gas hits $5 a gallon; more government intrusion into the economy that leaves us with more obstacles after the economy improves on its own; more illegal aliens as we talk in lofty terms of “comprehensive immigration reform,” a de facto euphemism for open borders; a protectionism that only antagonizes friends, drives prices higher, and insulates us from reality; and a multilateralist foreign policy, patterned after UN leadership, in which we deny rather than confront challenges.

In short, the Republicans’ problem? They forgot who they were and can’t explain what they might be. They need to go back to basics, adopt conservative principles to confront new challenges, and then find the most effective spokesmen they can to explain their positions—hourly.
 
Obama is really a loose cannon when it comes to foreign policy; this guy's definitely out of his league.

<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203016_pf.html">Link To Washington Post Article</a>

Quote from article:

"Before the Democratic debate of July 23, Barack Obama had never expounded upon the wisdom of meeting, without precondition, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong Il or the Castro brothers. But in that debate, he was asked about doing exactly that. Unprepared, he said sure -- then got fancy, declaring the Bush administration's refusal to do so not just "ridiculous" but "a disgrace."

After that, there was no going back. So he doubled down. What started as a gaffe became policy. By now, it has become doctrine. Yet it remains today what it was on the day he blurted it out: an absurdity.

Should the president ever meet with enemies?"
 
Back
Top