• 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

New York Times editorial reply to Bush's five years in Iraq:


March 20, 2008
Editorial
Mission Still Not Accomplished
It has been five years since the United States invaded Iraq and the world watched in horror as what seemed like a swift victory by modern soldiers and 21st-century weapons became a nightmare of spiraling violence, sectarian warfare, insurgency, roadside bombings and ghastly executions. Iraq’s economy was destroyed, and America’s reputation was shredded in the torture rooms of Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and the Central Intelligence Agency’s secret prisons.

These were hard and very costly lessons for a country that had emerged from the cold war as the world’s sole remaining superpower. Shockingly, President Bush seems to have learned none of them.



In a speech on Wednesday, the start of the war’s sixth year, Mr. Bush was stuck in the Neverland of his “Mission Accomplished” speech. In his mind’s eye, the invasion was a “remarkable display of military effectiveness” that will be studied for generations. The war has placed the nation on the brink of a great “strategic victory” in Iraq and against terrorists the world over.

Even now, Mr. Bush talks of Iraqi troops who “took off their uniforms and faded into the countryside to fight the emergence of a free Iraq” — when everyone knows that the American pro-consul, L. Paul Bremer III, overrode Mr. Bush’s national security team and, with the president’s blessing, made the catastrophically bad decision to disband the Iraqi Army and police force.

Mr. Bush wants Americans to believe that Iraq was on the verge of “full-blown sectarian warfare” when he boldly ordered an escalation of forces around Baghdad last year. In fact, sectarian warfare was raging for months while Mr. Bush refused to listen to the generals, who wanted a new military approach, or to the vast majority of Americans, who just wanted him to end the war.

All evidence to the contrary, Mr. Bush is still trying to make it seem as if Al Qaeda in Iraq was connected to the Al Qaeda that attacked America on Sept. 11, 2001. He tried to justify an unjustifiable war by ticking off benefits of deposing Saddam Hussein, but he somehow managed to forget the nonexistent weapons of mass destruction.

Vice President Dick Cheney was equally deep in denial on Monday when he declared at a news conference in Baghdad that it has all been “well worth the effort.”

Tell that to the families of nearly 4,000 Americans who have been killed — far too many of them because Mr. Bush and his arrogantly incompetent secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, failed to plan for an insurgency that many others saw coming. Thousands more Americans have been wounded and deprived of adequate post-conflict care while Iraqis have died by the tens of thousands. More than five million have been driven from their homes.

Add in a cost to the United States that some say could exceed $3 trillion, the new political opening created for Iran, the incalculable damage to America’s reputation and the havoc wreaked on Iraqi society. Few lament Saddam Hussein’s passing, but the war has left Iraq a broken country, made the United States more vulnerable, not safer, and stretched the American military to a point that compromises its ability to fight elsewhere.

The increase in American forces last year initially produced a steep decline in insurgent attacks. But the conflict has drifted into a stalemate with the levels of violence remaining constant, and unacceptably high, from November 2007 through early 2008, according to a Government Accountability Office report. As Mr. Cheney visited Iraq, a bombing killed 43 people.



One of the cruelest ironies is that Iraqis have not taken advantage of the American troop surge, which was intended to create space for them to resolve their political differences. After much foot-dragging, they passed a 2008 budget and a law granting amnesty to thousands of Sunnis and others in Iraqi jails. But a law on sharing oil wealth is stalled and one aimed at allowing former Baathist Party members back into government may actually drive many out. Another bill, mandating provincial elections by October, was passed by Parliament, then vetoed by the Presidency Council of Iraq’s top leaders. Only after pressure from Mr. Cheney was it suddenly revived.

The plight of Iraqis uprooted by violence is further proof of how broken the country is. Some 2.7 million Iraqis are displaced internally and another 2.4 million have fled as refugees, mostly to Syria and Jordan. That’s nearly 20 percent of Iraq’s prewar population — the kind of inconvenient truth the Bush administration would rather ignore.

Although thousands of refugees returned to Iraq last year, most ended up leaving again because they did not feel secure. American, Iraqi and international aid to Iraqi refugees is insufficient, and many refugees, their savings depleted and barred from most jobs, are despairing, aid workers say. No one knows when — or if — they can ever return. Syria and Jordan generously allowed Iraqis in, but the huge numbers could destabilize both countries and fuel anti-America resentment.

The United States agreed to admit a paltry 12,000 Iraqi refugees in fiscal year 2008; so far, only 2,000 have been processed.

Brighter spots — Iraq’s economy is projected to grow 7 percent this year — are offset by problems: millions of Iraqis still don’t have clean water and medical care, thousands are jobless and the Iraqi Army, while improving, cannot defend the country on its own.


Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney refuse to let these facts interfere with their benighted notion of keeping troops in Iraq indefinitely and insisting that Iraq — not Afghanistan and Pakistan where Al Qaeda and the Taliban have gained ground — must remain America’s top priority.

It was clear long ago that Mr. Bush had no plan for victory, only a plan for handing this mess to his successor. Americans need to choose a president with the vision to end this war as cleanly as possible.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/opinion/20thu1.html?hp


 
My abortive post was trying to incorporate a bunch of graphs to support a new hypothesis:  Jeremiah Wright has saved the American economy with his G-damned sermon.

Up until March 13 John McCain was trailing both Obama and Hilary. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx
Oil was rising through 106 USD/bbl http://www.oilnergy.com/1opost.htm
Gold was rising through 1000 USD/ounce http://goldprices.com/30day.htm
The Canadian Dollar was at around 1.02 USD/CAD http://www.x-rates.com/d/USD/CAD/graph120.html

All of those rising prices are reflective primarily of a weakening US dollar, occasioned by declining faith of the markets in the future of the US economy.   The prices continued to rise, and volatility continued to grow despite increasing interventions by the US Federal Reserve and more and more government and "industry" interventions, like Chase-Manhattan "rescuing" Bear-Stearns.

I believe, that the markets were significantly affected by the prospect of an isolationist and protectionist Democratic Government that would lock out the world from the US economy and also leave US "friends" (interests) overseas isolated.  I think the fear can be linked to the prospect of the Obama/Pelosi Democrats treating foreigners the way that Pelosi is treating Uribe of Colombia and the way that Jimmy Carter treated the Shah (precipitating both the Ayatollah and Saddam). 

The Democrats harping on about how poor the US economy is when the sub-prime "crisis" affects about 7% of the mortgage market and employment is about the same as it was during Clinton's years (~5%) doesn't help.  The market is not rational.  It is sentient.  It is all about feelings and can be affected/manipulated on that basis.

Whether the current turmoil is a planned event or not it certainly plays to a widely held belief that elections are won or lost on the basis of the economy.  No crisis. No reason for change.

With a perception of a poor and troubled economy then domestic voters were turning away from the Republicans and McCain and towards the Democrats and the agent of change - Obama.

Obama looked to be the front runner, despite a strong rear-guard action by Hillary, meaning a reasonable prospect of Obama in the Whitehouse with Pelosi in Congress, Reid in the Senate and Moveon.Org cheering from the stalls.

On March 13 the Wright story broke. http://bp3.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R-QIAcRIfaI/AAAAAAAAMOs/4KX01u0br-Y/s1600-h/kithbridge.JPG
Obama's approval rating plunged from  50% on March 13 to 42% on March 20. http://bp0.blogger.com/_L6pDyjqqsvY/R-QIMsRIfcI/AAAAAAAAMO8/qlVaWgG7ym0/s1600-h/barack-+wright+approval.JPG

Initially both Clinton and McCain benefited from Obama's pastor. McCain drew even with Obama by the 14th but had drawn ahead by three points by the 15th.  A lead he still holds a week later.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

At the same time McCain drew even with Clinton who had overtaken Obama as the favourite to take the Democratic nomination. But McCain couldn't shake her.  They stayed even in the Gallup tracking poll until March 17 at 46% apiece.  http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

I believe that this is due to it taking some time for CNN to report on the issue (it had just been a blogosphere matter), people waiting to see how Obama would respond and finally people realizing that even if Obama lost the battle to Hillary then the divided, perhaps violently, Democrats would likely lose the war for the Whitehouse to McCain's Republicans. 

When that happened McCain opened up a 3 point lead over Clinton as well. http://www.gallup.com/poll/105559/Gallup-Daily-Clinton-Now-47-Obamas-45.aspx

Once that sunk in then faith in the US economy and US politics increased, strengthening the US dollar.  The consequence of a stronger dollar is that it buys more things: oil, gold and Canadian Dollars.  All of those commodities required fewer US dollars to buy following March 17th.  Refer back to the graphs posted at the beginning of this post.

I think it is safe to say that the hateful Reverend Wright has cost not only Obama the nomination and the Democrats the Whitehouse (and maybe Congress as well) but has also set back the "Revolution" that would put America "in its place" that he so ardently seems to desire.

If this hypothesis is validated I think I shall be thanking someone for the Reverend Wright's intervention.

Of course the simultaneous demonstration of the internal weakness of the rival hegemon, China, probably didn't hurt either.

It has been a good week for Capitalists and the heirs of Adam Smith.






 
It looks like Bill Clinton may have given Obama another helping hand.

His comments, suggesting that only John McCain and Hillary are true patriots, allowed Obama to show of his support from Gen (Ret’d) Merrill McPeak and, simultaneously, to tar Clinton as another Joe McCarthy.

Commentators down here (USA) are suggesting that Clinton might, just might be able to win the popular vote race if, great Big IF, she can win all the remaining primaries by 60%-40%, something she has managed, to date, only in New York, Arkansas and Rhode Island. Failing that, say the pundits, not matter what happens in Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan, Obama goes to the convention with more delegates and more, albeit just a hair more, of the popular vote. The Super Delegates will be hard pressed to overturn the will of the people, even if they decide that Hillary has a better chance against McCain than does Obama – something that the current polls do not suggest. Plus, I am told by some Americans who follow this sort of thing quite closely, there is great fear that if Hillary is chosen, apparently by the white political establishment, the black voters – mainstays of the Democrat’s support since FDR – will abandon the party and stay home or, worse, vote for McCain if he chooses a black running mate, J.C. Watts, or Condoleezza Rice for example.

 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from Saturday’s National Post, is more fuel for the fire:

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=392200
Obama seems inept at patriot games
Clinton wisely mum as troubles engulf rival

Sheldon Alberts, National Post

Published: Saturday, March 22, 2008

WASHINGTON -It is already easy to imagine the Republican attack ads against Barack Obama.

They open with video of his wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time in my adult lifetime" because of her husband's presidential candidacy. Cut to the Illinois Senator explaining that he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin because it is a "substitute for true patriotism." Then flash a clip of Obama explaining that his Caucasian grandmother was a "typical white person" because she uttered racial epithets and was afraid of black people.

Finally, the coup de grace, pictures of Obama's angry, arm-waving preacher blaming the United States for 9/11 and shouting "God Damn America" to the rafters of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ.

Game, set, election, John McCain.

Sound implausible? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so.

The former first lady's best --and, possibly, only --chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination now hangs on a fragile thread. Far behind in delegates and the popular vote, and with re-votes unlikely in Florida and Michigan, Clinton must convince Democratic superdelegates -- the party officials who have become the kingmakers of the race -- that Obama has been so tainted by controversy that he is unelectable.

"The more that the voters learn about Barack Obama, the more his ability to beat John McCain is declining compared to Hillary," Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist, wrote in a campaign memo this week. "For a long time we have explained that poll numbers for a candidate who has not yet been vetted or tested are not firm numbers, and we are beginning to see that clearly."
Clinton herself has remained deliberately, and quietly, on the sidelines as the tempest over Obama's invective-spouting pastor, Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., wreaked havoc on his campaign.

But while Clinton can't dare say it, Pastor Wright may well be the answer to her White House prayers.

"If your opponent is trying to commit [political] suicide, it's wise to just stand back," says Michael Munger, chair of the political science department at Duke University. "Obama seems to be trying to commit suicide. So there is no reason for Hillary to rise up and start shooting at him."

By most empirical measures of the Democratic presidential race, Hillary Clinton's campaign should be on its death bed.

With only 10 states left to hold Democratic primaries or caucuses, Obama has won 1,414 pledged delegates to 1,246 for Clinton, giving him a 168-delegate advantage. When the support of committed "superdelegates" is factored in, Obama has 1,625 delegates to Clinton's 1,494.

Obama's delegate lead has grown large enough, in fact, that Clinton cannot overtake him among pledged delegates unless she wins two-thirds of the vote in every remaining primary and caucus.
That's a tall order even in Hillary-friendly Pennsylvania, which holds its primary April 22, and a taller one yet in North Carolina and Oregon, later-voting states where black voters and upscale liberals tilt to Obama.

Beyond that, Obama has a commanding lead over Clinton in the popular vote, 13.3 million to 12.6 million, a technically meaningless but still symbolic measure of Democratic support throughout the primary season. And yet.

As carefully crafted and courageous as Obama's speech on racial unity seemed to many Democrats, the controversy it addressed has provided ammunition for his political opponents.

Obama's post-racial, culturally transcendent candidacy suddenly became vulnerable to the deep-rooted racial anxieties of many white voters who could swing either Democrat or Republican in November.

Worse yet, the image of Obama's spiritual advisor espousing anti-American views will give critics the opportunity to question his patriotism, a line of attack that has until now seemed legitimate only to the most conspiratorial and subversive of his enemies on the far right.

Make no mistake, this is a dangerous time for Obama's campaign.

"Questioning someone's patriotism is clearly an effective political strategy," says Brian Schaffner, a political scientist at American University of research director for the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies in Washington.

"Obama has had all these minor little squabbles about his patriotism before the race thing, like whether he wears an American flag over his lapel and whether he holds his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance. Eventually it can create a narrative where people think he is not very patriotic."

Any hint that a presidential candidate lacks undying patriotism is "a potential game-breaker for blue collar white Americans who might otherwise vote Democratic because they are with the Democrats on economic issues," Schaffner says.

Just ask John Kerry. The Democratic candidate was a decorated Vietnam veteran whose 2004 candidacy was destroyed, in part, because the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth smeared his service record and attacked his later dissent over the Vietnam War as unpatriotic.

Munger believes Obama, unfairly, now faces serious questions about his electability.

"When it comes down to it, we're really concerned that our president is pro-American," he said.

"If Obama got to talk to every individual voter, he could win. That's not the way it's going to work. We are going to see attack ads with pictures of Rev. Wright."

Clinton knows this, and so do her strategists, who told The New York Times they need the controversy over Obama's pastor to fester.

If Clinton can convince Democratic superdelegates she now has a better chance to beat McCain, it's conceivable they would go against the will of Democratic primary voters and abandon Obama en masse.

"I had a sickening feeling watching Obama's speech [on race]. This was a great speech. And he showed a lot of the character that a president should have," says Munger. "But that's not how we elect presidents. We elect presidents with 30-second ads about Swift boats." Or maybe not.

Obama's saving grace may be that many Democratic superdelegates remain acutely aware of Clinton's own electability problems. They remember the polarization of American politics during Bill Clinton's administration, and how Democrats kept losing congressional seats in midterm elections while he was president.

And they're not totally blind -- they have seen poll after poll showing Clinton consistently has the highest "negative" approval rating of any candidate.

"Because people don't know Obama very well, it gives him a greater opportunity to recover," says Schaffner. "He has months and months to build his reputation back up."

But he has to stop making mistakes. His comment on Thursday to a Philadelphia radio station -- that his racially suspicious grandmother was a "typical white person" -- poured new fuel on a controversy that he seemed to be bringing under control.

"In all honesty, it does seem that there is a sharpening of the racial divide over Obama's candidacy," says Stephen Schneck, a political scientist at Catholic University in Washington.
But Schneck believes "it would still be a long shot" for Clinton to win the Democratic nomination.

"I would not want to be in Senator Clinton's shoes. I think some breaks are falling her way ... but she has also had some difficulties," he says. "She hasn't been able to convince Florida or Michigan to back doing new primaries which would allow her to get a number of delegates ... More than anything else, that is going to block her from winning the nomination."

An acquaintance down here (Texas), the one I cited a few days ago suggesting that the popular vote will be key, agrees - up to a point. He suggests that:

• Clinton can be neither nominated nor elected – not without destroying the Democratic Party, for at least a generation, by driving black voters away;

• Obama is badly damaged – maybe fatally against genuine hero/patriot McCain;

• Americans, broadly, have given up on Iraq.* They no longer care if America wins or loses because they think any kind of meaningful victory is impossible – wasn’t impossible in 2004 but is, now, because of Bush’s failed execution of what should have been a simple, slam-dunk war. If McCain wants to ensure an easy victory he’ll remind Americans, without comparing himself to Nixon, that sad, unwinnable wars can be ended – and that he will end this one, with more honour than (the unmentionable) Nixon, managed 35 years ago;

• The economy now matters a lot and neither McCain nor Obama scores well on economic issues – but Hillary, even if (miraculously) nominated, will not stand up well to scrutiny on that front either;

• Immigration and “free trade/fair trade” are economic issues. Most Americans understand that no one is going to round-up and deport 15 million Mexicans – the political trick is to find a way to allow them to stay in the USA as lawful taxpayers with a route to citizenship – after they are, in some form or another, penalized for jumping the queue; and

• Americans are worried about their declining power – soft and hard. They recognize, intuitively, that the recent solo-superpower situation is unsustainable but they wish it would stay just a bit longer. They tend to blame Bush/Republicans for frittering away their power but they also, equally intuitively, understand that the Democrats don’t have any answers, either. 

But, back to Harold Wilson and his dictum that: ”A weel is a long time in politics.” There’s a lot more than a week to go before our good friends and neighbours elect the next leader of the West
----------

* Tomahawk6 will disagree but my acquaintance presents a substantial volume of poll data to support his contention
 
Interesting way to watch the contest:

http://specials.slate.com/futures/2008/

https://www.intrade.com/aav2/trading/tradingHTML.jsp?evID=23190&eventSelect=23190&updateList=true&showExpired=false
 
Polls dont show much more than how people feel today.The election is in November and as has been stated thats a long time off and anything can happen. The economy is being touted by the leftist media as a failure but I dont know of a recession where unemployment was at 4.8%.If that was a measuring stick most of the economies in Europe would be classed as being in recession with their 9-11 % uneployment levels.

As for the war as I have said before,if the war was so unpopular why cant the anti-war nuts get more protestors out. Families that have lost loved one's are telling Bush to stay the course" so that our scarfice wont be in vain".
 
Tomahawk: There isn't a significant anti war movement because there's no draft. The anti war movement during the Vietnam War was focused on campuses. (Plus, today there isn't the outside ideological twist to it that the Soviet Union financed and fomented back in the 60s.)

cheers, Mark
 
No one was getting drafted in the UK and Canada yet we saw hundreds of thousands of protestors in the streets. The same would be true in the US if the public was really anti-war. The reason I dont think the war is unpopular is that the american public living in fly over country remember 9-11 and are intent on seeing us win.The troops in their emails and letters home are telling a story much different than how the media has portrayed the war.Even in WW2 the public grew weary but cutting and running wasnt in the cards.
 
Well, talking in the international realm, it's much more complex. In my opinion, a lot of the anti-American sentiment is due to our superpower status and the fact that many, many folks are leery of unbridled power. The burden of the war in Iraq here in the US has fallen on the shoulders of a very few Americans and thank God they're up to the task.
 
The democrat nomination has 10 more primaries to go and its getting crazier by the day. Someone today likened the democrat party to the Donner Party [they ended up eating their dead to survive].
 
I wouldn't worry about the Democratic Party. If you look back into history, what's happening now isn't all that uncommon. It's actually a healthy sign (as far as I see it) that folks are engaged in the party and care deeply about who they select.
 
Very little terrorist activity in the run-up to the US election,are
the security efforts paying off,are al-Qaida tired or could it be
that al-Qaida would like to see a Democrat in the White House.                                                          They must know an attack in the US or on any US facilities
would mean a Republican win.
                                    Regards
 
Oh how the wheel turns:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/24/us/politics/24campaign.html?fta=y&adxnnlx=1206453661-TDSVc9s1n%20YIFxAL539/0g&pagewanted=print

March 24, 2008
Clinton Backer Points to Electoral College Votes as New Measure
By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

Mr. Obama, of Illinois, is ahead of Mrs. Clinton, of New York, in most other leading indicators: popular vote (by 700,000 votes out of 26 million cast, excluding caucuses and the disputed Florida and Michigan results, a difference of about 3 percent); delegates (1,622.5 compared with 1,472.5 for her, according to The New York Times’s count); and number of states (27 compared with 14 for her, excluding Florida and Michigan). The opinion polls are mixed but give Mr. Obama a slight edge.

Asked how she could win the nomination, Mr. Bayh said: “Well, I do think the popular vote is important. But that’s a circular argument. It brings us back to Florida and Michigan.”

He said he would also factor in electability and momentum, then added: “But ultimately, you know, if you look at the aggregate popular vote, and as we all recall in 2000, to our, as Democrats, great sorrow, we do elect presidents based upon the Electoral College.”

The Clinton camp has argued that Mrs. Clinton’s having won the big states should be an important factor when considering her electability.

“Presidential elections are decided on electoral votes,” a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton, Howard Wolfson, said in an e-mail message.

But Mr. Wolfson said superdelegates would also be looking at the popular vote when determining which candidate to support.

Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, said that the idea of using the Electoral College as a metric was specious because the Democratic nominee, regardless of whom it was, would almost certainly win California and New York.

Many Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Bayh, have opposed the Electoral College in the past, particularly after 2000, when Florida’s 25 electoral votes were awarded to George W. Bush, who became president, even though Al Gore, the Democratic nominee, had won the popular vote nationwide.

At the time, Mrs. Clinton, who had just been elected to the Senate, said, “I believe strongly that in a democracy, we should respect the will of the people and to me, that means it’s time to do away with the Electoral College and move to the popular election of our president.”

 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080325.wwibbitson25/BNStory/National/columnists

McCain faces rocky road to victory
JOHN IBBITSON

From Tuesday's Globe and Mail

E-mail John Ibbitson | Read Bio | Latest Columns
March 25, 2008 at 3:02 AM EDT

WASHINGTON — Life is sweet right now for John McCain.

The Republican nominee for president spent last week swanning around Europe and the Middle East, meeting with presidents and prime ministers and showing off his foreign policy bona fides - though there was a hiccup, when he confused Shiite extremists with Sunni al-Qaeda.

He was in California yesterday, raising money and holding another one of his many town halls, where the Arizona Senator offers his famous "straight talk," answering every question thrown at him until he exhausts the audience.

With Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton locked in a mortal embrace that could split the Democratic Party, and polls showing Mr. McCain running ahead of both of his potential contenders, it almost seems possible that Mr. McCain could actually lead the Republican Party to victory in November's presidential election.

Which means we need to give ourselves a good shake.

"McCain's path to the nomination may be smooth, but his path to victory in November is very rocky," warns Clyde Wilcox, a political scientist at Georgetown University. "His campaign faces formidable obstacles to victory."

A confluence of forces and issues will converge this autumn that could present Mr. McCain with insurmountable challenges. This may be why, even after a year and more on the election trail, he has no election infrastructure in place. He lacks a pollster, reports The New York Times, and Mark McKinnon, Mr. McCain's media consultant, has said he won't run a campaign against Mr. Obama.

Maybe those who should be lining up to work for Mr. McCain just don't like what they see ahead.

They would see Iraq. Last weekend marked another grim milestone: the 4,000th American soldier killed in that unhappy place. Mr. McCain argued, long before it was fashionable, that the United States needed to greatly increase its troop commitment in Iraq. That surge of deployment, belatedly endorsed by President George W. Bush, has stabilized the situation. But things remain far from encouraging and the war far from popular.

Mr. McCain vows to carry on till victory. Both Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton maintain that only by bringing home the troops will the Iraqi government and people be forced to take responsibility for their own future. If the situation in Iraq stagnates or deteriorates, Mr. McCain will find his doctrine of staying the course harder and harder to sell.

They would see the economy. Mr. McCain, by his own admission, doesn't know much about economics, and doesn't seem much interested in it. Yet voters rank the threatened recession their greatest concern. The Republican candidate's inability to convincingly demonstrate he knows why middle and working-class incomes are flat or declining, and what can be done about it, could cost him dearly in November.

Most of all, they would see Mr. Bush. The current President is one of the most unpopular in modern American history. Mr. McCain, whether he likes it or not, is asking the public to validate that presidency by giving the Republicans a third term in the White House.

Of course, Mr. McCain could always repudiate his President: he did it often enough in the past, over global warming, tax cuts and prosecuting the war on terror. But Mr. McCain is already in trouble with the conservative base of his party. On his overseas trip last week he took his good friend and ideological soul mate, Connecticut Senator Joseph Lieberman. Mr. Lieberman, who now sits as an independent, was the 2000 Democratic vice-presidential nominee, a job in which Mr. McCain is known to have expressed some interest in 2004. Mr. McCain's repeated flirtations with the Democratic Party is exactly the sort of thing that drives the grass roots crazy.

"Add it up and you have a candidate who will struggle to win the base of his own party, who will be constantly confronted with the decision of whether to endorse or repudiate the legacy of the administration that is from his party, in a year when the economy is weak and the war that he supports is unpopular," Prof. Wilcox concludes. Piece of cake.

He has only one ace, and that is the Democratic Party. If the Democrats cannot settle on a candidate, if the contest goes all the way to the convention in Denver, if that convention splits the party, with one half accusing the other half of betrayal, then it is possible they could leave the convention so divided that the voters, disgusted, give the presidency to Mr. McCain.

It might be true to say that Mr. McCain cannot win the election in November, unless the Democrats do the job for him.

 
How things may shape up after the Democratic convention:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/?url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/hillarys_list_of_lies.html

Hillary's List of Lies
By Dick Morris

The USA Today/Gallup survey clearly explains why Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) is losing. Asked whether the candidates were "honest and trustworthy," Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) won with 67 percent, with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) right behind him at 63. Hillary scored only 44 percent, the lowest rating for any candidate for any attribute in the poll.

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)
• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)
• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)
• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.
• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.
• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.
• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.
• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.
• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.
• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.
• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.
• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.
• She was always a Yankees fan.
• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).
• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

Why has McCain jumped out to a nine-point lead over Obama and a seven-point lead over Hillary in the latest Rasmussen poll? OK, Obama has had the Rev. Wright mess on his hands. And Hillary has come in for her share of negatives, like the Richardson endorsement of Obama and the denouement of her latest lie -- that she endured sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia. But why has McCain gained so much in so short a period of time? Most polls had the general election tied two weeks ago.

McCain's virtues require a contrast in order to stand out. His strength, integrity, solidity and dependability all are essentially passive virtues, which shine only by contrast with others. Now that Obama and Hillary are offering images that are much weaker, less honest, and less solid and dependable, good old John McCain looks that much better as he tours Iraq and Israel while the Democrats rip one another apart.

It took Nixon for us to appreciate Jimmy Carter's simple honesty. It took Clinton and Monica for us to value George W. Bush's personal character. And it takes the unseemly battle among the Democrats for us to give John McCain his due.

When Obama faces McCain in the general election (not if but when) the legacy of the Wright scandal will not be to question Obama's patriotism or love of America. It will be to ask if he has the right stuff (pardon the pun).

The largest gap between McCain and Obama in the most recent USA Today/Gallup Poll was on the trait of leadership. Asked if each man was a "strong, decisive leader," 69 percent felt that the description fit McCain while only 56 percent thought it would apply to Obama. (61 percent said it of Hillary.) Obama has looked weak handling the Rev. Wright controversy. His labored explanation of why he attacks the sin but loves the sinner comes across as elegant but, at the same time, feeble. Obama's reluctance to trade punches with his opponents makes us wonder if he could trade them with bin Laden or Ahmadinejad. We have no doubt that McCain would gladly come to blows and would represent us well, but about Obama we are not so sure.

Morris, a former political adviser to Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) and President Bill Clinton, is the author of “Outrage.” To get all of Dick Morris’s and Eileen McGann’s columns for free by email, go to www.dickmorris.com.
 
A look at the delegate problem the Democrats have gotten themselves into:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120657950286167233.html?mod=fpa_mostpop

Hillary's Last Hope
By LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
March 27, 2008; Page A15

I'm a numbers guy, especially if they have to do with politics or economics. So even though I am a Republican, analyzing the Democratic primary results has become a great pastime. This is especially true when it comes to the Democrats' dilemma about how to handle Florida and Michigan -- two states that broke party rules by holding their primaries before the allowed date, but which probably hold the key to the Democratic presidential nomination. To this numbers guy, the solution is pretty obvious from the data.

But the Democrats appear to be a party of lawyers. Only lawyers could have invented delegate selection rules as complicated and opaque as the ones the Democrats are struggling under. It also looks like only lawyers have a chance at the Democratic nomination. Harvard Law (Obama) and Yale Law (Clinton) candidates have survived, while University of North Carolina Law (Edwards), Syracuse Law (Biden), and the University of Louisville Law (Dodd) have been eliminated. And lawyers at the DNC Rules Committee will decide what happens next.
[Hillary's Last Hope]

Still, sometimes lawyers call in numbers guys as expert witnesses.

The first question is whether Florida and Michigan voters acted like these primaries mattered, even though they knew the delegates they chose were not recognized by the national party. This can be discerned from turnout, and in the case of Florida the answer is yes.

Florida had a closed primary in which only registered Democrats could vote; turnout amounted to 46.7% of John Kerry's 2004 popular vote. The primary turnout relative to Kerry's 2004 vote in other closed primaries ranged from 39.8% in New York and 40.8% in Connecticut to 48% in Delaware, 49% in Arizona to 58.5% in Maryland. In other words, Florida Democrats acted as if their primary mattered just as much as other Democrats. By contrast, turnout in Michigan was only 23.7% of Kerry's 2004 vote, and it is an open primary. Michigan Democrats did not act like their primary mattered.

The second question is whether the two states' primary votes were skewed because of their timing, or whether they looked like what would have occurred had they happened on some "legal" day like Super Tuesday. A survey of exit polls from the primaries held so far shows patterns of voting by factors like age, gender, racial and ethnic identification, income, education and religion. This allows us to test whether the Florida and Michigan results looked the way they "should," based on how the voting occurred in other states.

Hillary Clinton beat Barack Obama by 17 points in Florida. If one takes the voting by age in large Super Tuesday states like California and New Jersey and applies it to the demographics of Florida, a predicted margin of 16 points emerges.

The similarities don't end there. For example, Jewish voters made up 9% of the Democratic electorate in Florida and New Jersey. Mrs. Clinton won this group by 32 points in Florida and 26 points in New Jersey. This is not surprising, since many Jewish residents of Florida emigrated from up north, and thus voted the same way their cousins, nieces, nephews and children did.

The statistical evidence strongly suggests that the outcome in Florida reflected what would have occurred had the state voted on Super Tuesday rather than one week earlier.

The voting in Michigan reflects many similarities to other states, but is far less conclusive. Sen. Obama's name was of course not on the Michigan ballot. Yet voters had the option of voting "uncommitted" -- and the demographic evidence suggests they understood that voting "uncommitted" was a vote for Mr. Obama, or at least against Mrs. Clinton. California and New Jersey votes by age, where Mr. Obama was on the ballot, were almost exactly the same as in Michigan, where "uncommitted" was the alternative to Mrs. Clinton. A difference does emerge in the over-60 group, which gave Mrs. Clinton a 37-point margin in Michigan compared with 21 in California, 25 in Missouri and 28 in New Jersey. The average of those would have reduced her 15-point overall margin in Michigan to 12 points.

That difference in margin is virtually identical to the key difference between Michigan and other states: less of a racial gap. Among the 23% of Michigan Democrats who identified themselves as black, "uncommitted" beat Clinton by 38 points. Remember that Michigan voted four days before South Carolina, when the racial issue moved to the forefront. In South Carolina and the Super Tuesday states, Mr. Obama beat Mrs. Clinton by margins between 50 and 60 points. Had this happened in Michigan, Clinton's victory margin would have been 11 points instead of 15. Although unprovable without access to the actual polling questionnaires, the likelihood is that older black voters trended decisively to Mr. Obama after Michigan and South Carolina. That same conclusion also appears to be consistent with national polling.

In sum, the Michigan vote was flawed in ways the Florida vote was not. The most statistically valid conclusion would be that changes in voter attitudes in the second half of January would have produced a much narrower win for Mrs. Clinton of 10-12 points (not 15) had the state voted on Super Tuesday instead of Jan. 15. Still, Mrs. Clinton would almost certainly have won.

The behavior of Mrs. Clinton, who went to Michigan to lobby for a revote, and that of the Obama campaign, which worked to thwart a Michigan revote, indicate that both camps know this would be the outcome. Demographically Michigan looks almost identical to Ohio, which gave Clinton a 10-point victory.

Discussion among Democrats on how to deal with Florida and Michigan centers on three options. The first is not to seat them at all. Legally appropriate, but it would doubtless hurt the Democrats in both states in November -- which may be why Republicans in the state legislatures found themselves as allies of Mr. Obama in working against a revote.

The second option would be to seat delegations that were evenly split between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. This would make the votes of 2.3 million Democrats irrelevant, while creating artificial representation for the states. It is very much like the 72 bonus delegates selected by party leaders to "represent" women, ethnic minorities, the gay and lesbian communities and the handicapped.

The third option would be to let the early primary votes stand, and select delegates according to the outcome. On a statistical basis, this is clearly the right result for Florida. The easiest solution for Michigan is to simply award the 45% of the vote uncommitted or for another candidate to Mr. Obama. This appears to be the intent of those voters, as well as the likely result of a rematch. It would reduce Mr. Obama's current edge in pledged delegates to 115 from 167. It would also reduce the adjusted popular-vote margin, that converts caucus votes to primary votes, to an edge for Mr. Obama of 466,000. If Mrs. Clinton wins Pennsylvania by the margin polls now suggest, the two candidates would be essentially tied in popular votes, with an Obama edge in delegates of about 80. That would leave the remaining primaries and the superdelegates to decide the outcome of an essentially tied race.

Democrats are clearly going to have to rewrite their delegate selection rules after this contest, like they did after similar fiascos in 1968 and 1988. Until then, it's up to the lawyers, and may the cleverest lawyer win. My money is on Mr. Obama blocking the statistically based solution described above. After all, as a product of Harvard myself, I know perfectly well that Harvard produces cleverer lawyers than Yale, regardless of what the numbers might say.

Mr. Lindsey is president and CEO of the Lindsey Group, and author of "What a President Should Know . . . But Most Learn too Late" (Rowman & Littlefield, 2008).
 
(Supposedly) here is John Cleese's take on the whole thing:
A Message from John Cleese

To the citizens of the United States of America:

In light of your failure to nominate competent candidates for President of the USA and thus to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately.

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas , which she does not fancy).

Your new prime minister, Gordon Brown, will appoint a governor for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary.

1. Then look up aluminium, and check the pronunciation guide. You will be amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

2. The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour.' Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the letters, and the suffix -ize will be replaced by the suffix -ise.

Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels (look up 'vocabulary').

3. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication.

There is no such thing as US English. We will let Microsoft kn ow on your behalf. The Microsoft spell- checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of -ize. You will relearn your original national anthem, God Save The Queen.

4. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

5. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.

Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

6. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

7. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and this is for your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understan d what we mean.

8. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables.

Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

9. The Former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline)-roughly $6/US gallon. Get used to it.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

11. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referre d to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager.

South African beer is also acceptable as they are pound for pound the greatest sporting Nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of British Commonwealth - see what it did for them.

12. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters.

Watching Andie McDowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one's ears removed with a cheese grater.

13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

14. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America . Since only 2.1% of you are aware that there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the South Africans first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

15. You must tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us mad.

16. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax collector) from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

17. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 pm with proper cups, never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; strawberries in season.

God

save

the

Queen.
 
muskrat89 said:
(Supposedly) here is John Cleese's take on the whole thing:

Gotta love it:

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

A questionnaire may be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.



6. ...you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. A permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.



13. You will cease playing American football. There is only one kind of proper football; you call it soccer. Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies). Don't try Rugby - the South Africans and Kiwis will thrash you, like they regularly thrash us.

:rofl:


 
Actually, #5 (You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent.  Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.) makes so much sense it should be part of the UN Charter!
 
Well, if we accept this proposal, at least it might go a ways toward fixing the weak dollar. You'd have a fight on your hands with #13 though....  :gunner:
 
Back
Top