Obama Strategy

Everyone has been whining about the tightening numbers and that Obama is not attacking enough and that he is going to lose and that he's like Kerry or Dukakis or whatever else they are whining about. I understand their concerns to a point, but this is getting pathetic. As I have said before, Obama will win and I believe he is doing a good job. The numbers were going to tighten. This is a Red/Blue country. Obama is still leading by 3-7 in the composite. There was no way a black Democrat was going to walk all over the old white POW. It's almost like people are pretending or intentionally ignoring the dynamics of this race. Obama has the right idea here and let me tell you why.

VP Speculation

I called that Obama would make his selection before the Olympics. He didn't and there is a strategy behind it. What has everyone been talking about for the past two weeks? What does CNN, AP and every other blog write about everyday? They speculate who his VP will be. They write about people speculating about who it will be and they speculate about people speculating who will be the VP. This is free and easy coverage. Obama has thrown so many names around as well. He's listed people from Indiana, New Mexico, Connecticut, the military, Arkansas, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kansas and many other states. This inclusion plays well to the voters in those states. It shows that Obama is in-line with their worries and their issues. I don't even want to speculate anymore. I will wait for my international text from the Obama camp and then I will go with it. When the announcement is made, it will be all the news for the week. McCain will try to pull something slimy, but it won't stick. This speculation has served him well.

Attack Strategy

This is the one that has the Kossacks and all the other liberal netizens up in arms. "Why is Obama doing this?!!", "He needs to fire his press team!!", "He's worse than Kerry!!" and my personal favorite, "Obama just lost the election!!!". All bloggers assume their wisdom is the best and therefore feel like they can write posts that seem to be talking AT Obama. I do not do that. I talk to myself. Obama has the right strategy on this and the primary season tells us why. Like all GOP strategies, they chose the short-sighted path and tried to interfer with the Democratic primary so the Dems could kill their chances of unifying before convention. They realeased the all the Wright, Rezco and Ayers stuff hoping that Obama would be so bruised and the Hillary hate would allow for a smooth McCain victory. The Wright stuff hurt, but Obama has now cruised past it. If McCain brings it up again, it will only seem stale and a little desparte. It would not be as effective.

This is what Obama was thinking. Let McCain dish out his first round of garbage (of which possessed no substance), endure it and refute it to around convention time. Obama's theme has been more positive, so his convention needs to reflect that. But after convention, the negative ads will start rolling out and the money is going to pour in. He let McCain go first and now McCain's attacks are getting old and most people think that it is a poor reflection on McCain's character. If Obama had started releasing a lot of McCain=Bush ads now, by October that would be stale and not as effective.

The branding starts now. Obama planted the seed and took the high road first. Sure he might have lost a couple points now, but he's only got one place to go.

Here are his new ads airing this week.

"Mountain out of a Molehill"

That was the quote from PA governor and Clinton supporter Ed Rendell.



This poorly made and lame attempt at taking advantage of Obama's gaffe is just another phase in the 'make Obama unelectable' campaign. However, I think that Obama made a great statement and should have stuck by it. Who cares if Clinton (who will not be the nominee) takes advantage of it. People have made up there mind. They know he is not "out of touch" and the people also know that Clinton is pandering more than she ever has.

New lows everyday.

Question: According to Hillary, what does Obama hate more?

1) Freedom

2) Grandmothers

3) Special Olympics

4) Children's laughter

Chess is not Checkers

Why do I even get surprised anymore? Why do I turn on the computer and read something that TH is doing and always seem to be baffled? Not only do I do that, but I continue to get in heated debates on blog forums and still come across the same ever-evolving methodology that TH use's to justify the campaign.

Today I came across this chart.



It is what many Clintonites are now using as their reasoning to stay in. Do you notice the problem? They are only primary totals and and it leaves out caucuses. This is insane. All we hear from TH is that every vote should count and the will of the people shuold be represented. Yet, when actually counting the total vote, they choose to leave out all the states who happened to have caucuses. If by winning the popular vote, TH means the votes you get while ignoring caucus states like Iowa, Maine, Washington, Nevada, and allocating votes in two primaries that were declared in advance not to count, one in which Obama wasn't even on the ballot, then yes I guess so.

I'm sure there are all sorts of ways we can count the vote in which one person wins or the other. But in the actual real world according to the system we have set up, what difference does it make? In that world, in that election, Obama is winning.
They want to sweep his wins under the rug and pretend like Hillary is the champion of voter enfranchisemnt.


The race isn't decided by the popular vote. If it was, presumably all the candidates would have campaigned very differently and it's impossible to know what the result would have been (leave alone the conundrums with the caucus sates and Michigan and Florida). It's as though we were playing a game of chess, and I was winning, and you said, you know. . .if we we're playing checkers, I'd be ahead. And I looked at the board, and yes you would be, but if we were playing checkers I don't think I would have played it this way.

I suppose the bottom line is, can arguments like this convince a large number of super-delegates to ignore delegate totals and switch over to Clinton giving her the race. If they were secretly looking for a way to give the nomination Clinton.

Where are the SD's?

There have been repeated calls for Hillary to quit. The math is irrefutable. She can only win by drilling into Obama and making him so tainted that good Rev. White wouldn't cast his ballet for him.

However, as much as I understand the motivation behind this argument, it really doesn't make a whole lot of sense strategically. If one accepts the proposition that Hillary will do anything to win (which is clear), then in what sense is it likely that calling on her to quit for the good of the party will fall TH's ears? They lost their hearing long ago. Of course she's not going to quit. She wouldn't give up this nomination fight if there is a 1% chance of her winning.

As as we have been hearing recently, TH is quite certain that they are tied and that the race is wide open. I've. It seems to me though, that even if you ACCEPT the argument, that "the race is tied," then it makes it even more logical that the SD's should vote now. Will they? Doubtful. Read this article.

Let’s accept the following propositions:

1. The race for the Democratic nomination in it's current form is highly polarizing and is doing damage to the Democratic Party as well as both candidates (and their chances in November).

2. The race is essentially tied at this point. (It's not, but let's think about this from TH's view). Based on current polling data, and estimated delegate counts resulting from that data, there is no reason to think that the current "tie" will be changed by the upcoming contests. So, if one accepts the above propositions, then the question presents itself: What possible reason can there be for SD's not to decide now?

Every day that goes on like this McCain gets a pass. Every day that goes on like this both of our nominees bloody each other. Where is the reward? What possible benefit is there in allowing this to continue? If there is a "tie" than this would be the best time for the to step in. Hillary will win KY and PA. Obama will win the rest. There WILL NOT BE A CHANGE! As Bredesen said, this will be a "tie" in three months as well. It will be a "tie" at the convention.

But wait! It's not a tie; Obama is ahead by every measure! Except that this fact doesn't need to be emphasized because it's so obvious. SD's are deeply involved in the political process. They know very well who is ahead at the moment.

From a tactical standpoint the goal of TH is to drag this out so that Clinton can claw out some kind of victory (maybe a close popular vote) to twist the SD'd arms with and maybe even use the "establishment candidate" argument. At that point TH will surely stop talking about a tie and point to their (hopeful, but doubtful) .00001 percent advantage in the popular vote and count that as the "will of the people." We might even get to hear, "The people have spoken" or "I found my voice" slogans as well.

But whatever kind of victory they imagine it will be somewhat futile at best, especially when both candidates are kneecapping each other (and/or themselves) and the SD's will still need to decide anyway. Since TH has been pounding the "supers should exercise independent judgment" rule like a drum, why not embrace it? (I know.)

The race is a "tie" and will remain a "tie."

The supers should recognize that they will have to break this "tie," either now, or in the future.

The supers should exercise their best judgment and evaluate all the relevant facts at hand (and we know what those facts are).

Having reviewed these relevant facts they should make their judgments and decide now for the good of the party.

There is no reason to delay.

Call or write your SD.


OHIO
Sherrod Brown
Hon. Chris Redfern - OH Chair
William Burga
Enid Goubeaux
Ronald Malone
Patricia Moss
Charlie Wilson
Marcia Kaptur
Betty Suttor
Tim Ryan
Rep. Zack Space
Rep. Dennis Kucinich

GEORGIA
Jim Marshall
Richard Ray
Jimmy Carter

TENNESSEE
Lincoln Davis
Bart Gordon
John Tanner
Al Gore
Gray Sasser
Dr. Inez Crutchfield
Vicki Harwell
Jerry Lee
Phil Bredeson


OKLAHOMA
Ivan Holmes
Jim Frasier
Rep. Dan Boren (OK)
Reggie Whitten
Brad Henry

I will try and find some telephone numbers and emails for you, but contact your SD!

Bill Richardson is not important?

I was happy when BR endorsed Obama and of course, TH went into defense mode and reduced BR down to a racial endorcement claiming that his time to endorse was before Texas and now it's meaningless.

Here's a hypothetical dialogue I came across at Kos.

Bill Richardson: Hey, Hill? After much thought and deliberation, I've decided to endorse you.

Hillary Clinton: Too late.

BR: Huh?

HC: Yeah, the time when your endorsement could have been effective has long since passed.

BR: But, I'm a super delegate, and ultimately, we'll be forced to decide this thing!

HC: Not important. Frankly, Bill, I just don't think yours would be a significant endorsement in this environment.

BR: So you're telling me that my endorsement means nothing?

HC: That's exactly what I'm telling you. It doesn't matter. A few weeks ago? Maybe, but today? I don't want it. It's useless.

BR: Frankly, Hillary, I'm finding this a bit disconcerting.

HC: So? What are you going to do about it?

BR: Endorse Obama.

HC: Judas.

How do you think Carville could spin that?

Operation Chaos v. Obama Crossover

As we know, Rush has been despartely trying to get his listeners to register as a Democrat and vote for Hillary Clinton is as many primaries as they can. He calls this "Operation Chaos" and is even selling coffee mugs, bumper stickers, T-shirts and pain killers sporting the the logo.

The question isn't whether or not he violates the law (he might be), but how much damage can be done by this.

Obama has been calling on people from all backgrounds, politcal affiliation etc... to cross-over and support him. He even had a commercial running in PA that was encouraging people to make they regsitered. TH will claim that he is doing that because he's trying to get the anti-Hillary voters out. He's not. He knows that some people might be crossing over so they can vote against Hillary, just as some people cross-over to vote against him. That will always happen. Obama wants to change the Purple states Blue and the Red states Purple. That shift has not happened since Reagan and then LBJ before that and both of those favored the GOP. Why can't TH allow this kind of realignment? Why? Because these typical old Dems see the GE as a map with 10-15 states. They will ignore the possibilty of winning typically Red or Purple states.

I digress...

What Rush is doing is different. He is encouraging them to join the Dems for the day, vote for Hillary and then change back. This is illegal and I'll throw a statute at you.

If you want the statutes, check

3503.011. Qualifications to vote in primary


At a primary election every qualified elector who is or will be on the day of the next general election eighteen or more years of age, and who is a member of or is affiliated with the political party whose primary election ballot he desires to vote, shall be entitled to vote such ballot at the primary election.
ORC Ann. 3513.19


(A) It is the duty of any judge of elections, whenever any judge of elections doubts that a person attempting to vote at a primary election is legally entitled to vote at that election, to challenge the right of that person to vote. The right of a person to vote at a primary election may be challenged upon the following grounds:
.... (3) That the person is not affiliated with or is not a member of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote. Such party affiliation shall be determined by examining the elector's voting record for the current year and the immediately preceding two calendar years as shown on the voter's registration card....

...(B) When the right of a person to vote is challenged upon the ground set forth in division (A)(3) of this section, membership in or political affiliation with a political party shall be determined by the person's statement, made under penalty of election falsification, that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose primary ballot the person desires to vote.


3513.20. Statement of challenged person; provisional ballot


Before any challenged person shall be allowed to vote at a primary election, the person shall make a statement, under penalty of election falsification, before one of the precinct officials, blanks for which shall be furnished by the board of elections, giving name, age, residence, length of residence in the precinct, county, and state; stating that the person desires to be affiliated with and supports the principles of the political party whose ballot the person desires to vote; and giving all other facts necessary to determine whether the person is entitled to vote in that primary election. ....
3599.11. False registration; election falsification


No person shall knowingly make any false statement on any form for registration or change of registration or upon any application or return envelope for an absent voter's ballot.
Whoever violates this division is guilty of a felony of the fifth degree.

Also, 3599.36. Election falsification (5th degree felony) and 3599.25. Inducing illegal voting and a few others.

First of all, Rush claims that this is legal and that Obama is doing it as well when he calls on voters to cross-over and join the Dem party. The difference is quite glaring of course.

Will he get in trouble? No.

Daily Politics: Calculated and Never Short-sighted

As all of you have seen, Geraldine Ferraro (GF) has been running around the talk show circuit setting up something that is quite impressive and despicable .

She meant to plant this seed. This is why I KNOW it was a planned comment.

She isn't just saying this off the cuff. She's been saying it over and over again. Each and every talk show she goes on, she adds a little fuel to it. She refuses to back down even when she is told she is being widely percieved as a racist. When confronted forcefully, she walks right through her argument and sets up the next and she never hesitates for a second.

Bottom line: She expected this reaction and she has a plan to respond and will scream as loud as she can about reverse-racism. In fact, she has already demanded that Obama apologize to her. Is she f***ing crazy? SHE is the one who demeaned Obama and his supporters. She is the one who used race in a VERY blatant way. She likes to excuse herself from being called racist because she compared her own VP nomination to his bid and that she, like him, got it only because she was a woman. Last time I checked, Hillary WAS A WOMAN!!!

Let's turn this around: David Axelrod (Top Obama advisor) says that Hillary would not be where she is today if she was not a woman AND that we would not be in this position if she was a man. And then when people got upset, he would go on all the major talk shows, continue his sexist rants under the guise of reverse-sexism and demand that Hillary calls him and apologizes.

Would Hillary denouce it? -Yes

Would the women be furious? -Yes

Would I write this post? -Yes

Do not let anything cloud your thinking. This was calculated and this kind of no-apologies policy reminds me of a certain administration. In fact, that will an upcoming post...

***Say a prayer for 희망! It's not looking too good right now!***

Daily Politics: TH's Affirmative Action Strategy

We all know that the rise of civil rights cost the Dems the "Solid South". When LBJ signed that into law he lost all of the southern white vote (especially men). We have all read about Geraldine Ferraro and her racist comments, but her reaction to the negative press she has received, to me, is the tell-all for what TH is up to.

Her inexcusable comments, imo, is a another lame and damaging TH attempt to manipulate the playing field before PA. These comments were not meant for MS. It was too late for that. They are going after the fence voters in PA. She claims, "They are attacking me because I'm white."

By claiming this reverse discriminative treatment, she is trying to hit a cord and get the poor white guy who is positive that the black guy got the job instead of him ONLY because he's black. She's trying to give a voice to those closet racist Dems, by saying "I know how you feel, and you have an option: Hillary Clinton."

"Obama is winning only because he's black" would work if he only won SC, AL, GA and MS. What about WY, WA, ID, IA and CO? He's winning because people like him more. He's winning because he has run an amazing campaign. He's winning because Hillary has too many enemies and comments like this are not going to have the SD's lining up.

Ferraro knew what she was saying. She knew that Hillary would lose MS. They did not know they would lose it this big though. Now, of course, they will diminish the win. Which way will they choose? Well, it wasn't a caucus full of activists. That won't work. It's not a "latte liberal" state like Oregon either. Well, I guess they'll use the AA and Red state excuse.

Since they knew she would lose BIG TIME in another AA-dominated race, Ferraro can claim that Hillary is also a "white Affirmative Action victim", get away with blatant racism and hopefully appeal to the poor white workers in PA.

You think that's bad? Just wait...

Daily Politics: Clinton Rules = Obama Victory

I have been out for two weeks with a sick puppy and a burnt mother board, but I'm back and will be back BIG TIME! I missed writing and now will get right into it.

After her win in OH and RI (I do not mention TX because it was a 2-part contest where Obama won more delegates) TH has been working hard to redefine their case to the SD's. Her M.O. has always been to diminish the Dems in the Red states and build up her Blue state success and she, like ALL bloggers, have been claiming that pledged delegates should not be viewed as more important as the popular vote. The flaw in this is that WE HAVE DELEGATES! If we did not have delegates then I would agree that the popular vote should be the one AND only way to decide our nominee.

So, let's let TH make their popular vote argument. Remember, a popular vote is not only taken from the primaries. The caucuses have a say in this too. This, however, brings me to my next point and TH's next strategy: ignore the caucus results. She has been doing this the whole time anyways and her continual insistance to ignore a large part of this process is careless.

Okay, let's go by TH rules. Count FL and MI and discount popular votes in the caucus states.

Obama: 13,025,003
Clinton: 12,421,316

Hmmm... That's over 600,000 votes that he's leading by. And that's by Clinton rules. That number is almost unstoppable. Now, let's do the real math and see where Obama ACTUALLY stands with the caucus numbers added in.

Turnout Obama % Clinton % Popular vote advantage

IA: 220,588 38 30 Obama +17,646
NV: 117,599 45 51 Clinton +7,055
WA: 250,000 68 32 Obama +90,000
ME: 45,000 59 40 Obama +8,550

Now, his lead is over 700,000. What is we were to add in his TX caucus results. Since this has yet to be certified, I can only guess. There were 1,000,000 caucusers in TX. We'll split it 56-44 (like CNN split it) and that gives him a gain of over 100,000 more.

Now, we're near 850,000 votes that Hillary will have to somehow make up. It's impossible. She can whine about MI and FL all she wants, but it's clear that the arithmetic points to Obama.

Her Rules = His Win

It's almost settled imo...

I said almost.

Daily Politics: The Delegate Game

CNN has come up with a fun little delegate "game" that allows you to make your own projections in all the upcoming races and see how the delegate battle will play out. If you have a few minutes, check it out.

CNN Delegate Game

My figures show Obama winning no matter what. Surprised?

Daily Politics: PC and the GOP

There are so many reasons that Obama should be the nominee over Clinton and I hopefully won't have to, but will talk about many of them in the weeks to come, but one thing is very clear to me: The GOP is scared of Obama.

They are not scared of him for the right reasons though. Sure, he is a centrist with a liberal heart who appeals to millions, but McCain has similar qualities. The issue is going to be the campaign for the GE. If Clinton is the nominee, we can expect business as usual. They will slam her record and rile up their base around the hatred of her. However, they will be a lot more caustious to slam Obama. Why though?

The GOP has not been the party of human rights to say the least. Campaigning against an AA can be a very slippery slope for them and I think that they will shy away from personal attacks. This will leave the door open for the Dems to slam a checkered 20 year senate run where the candidate can't see beyond the barrel of his gun. Furthermore, sexism seems to be a lot more acceptable and Clinton hate is a lot more rooted than Obama hate (which is non-exsistant beyond TH).

Daily Politics: Red State, Blue State

TH has been claiming that a win in Ohio is more important than a win in Texas and all the other Red states where she was soundly beaten by Obama. The rationale is that those states will be red anyways and that that her blue state wins are more important. Again, great excuses for a possible loss.

Let me attempt to figure this out. When she wins a blue state like CA and NY which will go blue in November anyways, that somehow means she will fair better in the GE. When Obama wins big in a red state (even if the Dems who voted just for him outnumbered the total number of GOP voters) it is not as impressive. This, imo, is the most insane logic, but I'm not surprised. It just follows her overall poorly run campaign.

Naturally, there is a lot of time left before November, but to me, it seems that capturing both red, blue and purple states is the goal here. Obama does not want just the big ones. No, he wants all of them and is going to fair much better in the red ones than she would. Kerry tried to simply hold the blue states in hopes of an electoral victory, but it bombed. She is trying the same thing. Remember 2000? We were all up in arms about the absurdity of the electoral college, yet now, TH seems to think that it is the best way. The Dems will fail if they try to coast in on blue states.

Also, she is alienating so many voters by continually reducing the importance of red states. She might beat Obama in Ohio, but that does not suggest that Ohio will be blue. If you have been alive for at least 15 years, you know that she is polarizing enough and to base her strategy on the possible color of a state in November is so risky.

I would have thought her so-called "experience" would have produced more than this.

Daily Politics: Texas, Ohio and TH

If you recall, Bill Clinton said that if Texas did not deliver for Hillary, then she would have to bow out. Her base has also said this and this has been her campaign's strategy in the face of her huge losses this month. However, I'm getting a feeling that she's going to continue even if she loses Texas.

The polls are suggesting that her 20 point lead in Texas has diminished. In fact, most have Obama leading her by five points or so. What does this mean? Obviously, her Guliani-esque "Last Stand" strategy is not working as she thought it would. Surprised? TH thought that by making TX a must win, her fence voters would be guilted into voting for her and this would give her the margin she needed. Well, I remember New Hampshire, but if these polls suggest anything, it's that Obama has made some serious dents into her base and an objective onlooker (if there are any left) could confidently say that a TX loss would be the time for her to concede graciously. And until recently, I had no doubt in my mind that she would bow out.

However, now I am seeing elements of TH starting to make excuses for her potential TX loss or narrow victory. I know they try to soften the blow with this (pathetic) strategy, but how many can we make excuses for? I'm seeing people already thinking that PA is where it will decided and I even read one blogger who was counting on Puerto Rico to go to Hillary.

TH is making the PA argument because they are already starting to give up hope in TX and are trying to redefine their argument that Ohio is actually the important one and Texas is not as crucial.

Hypothetical:

If Hillary loses Texas, both popular vote and delegates, she will trump Ohio (presuming she wins) as a victory and plan on stumping in PA. She will claim that Texas will be red in November anyways and that the will of Ohio is more important. However, she will face instense pressure from the DNC to drop out and the SD's will flock to Obama in order to mend and unify the party. She will drop out while her white woman support will swear to stay home in November. They won't though.

If Hillary wins the popular vote in Texas, but loses the delegate count (which is very possible), she will trump it and Ohio (presuming she wins) as the TRUE will of the people. TH will critisize the DNC, caucuses, Obama and alienate all the other Dem voters. The DNC will still ask her to step down, but not as many SD's will flock to Obama, but a lot still will. She will start stumping in PA, plan debates and intensify attacks on Obama. Her white woman base will become even more vocal, but now the MSM will intervene and start running stories about Hillary being stubborn and asking why she has not dropped out yet. She will not drop out. Still, I don't think she could get the nomination. After PA, it's six weeks until the next one. That gives McCain too much time.

If Hillary wins both the delegate counts and popular vote in both states by a large margin, then she will stay in and we go to PA. This is the road to a brokered convention which some of TH is not too upset about. Talk about selfish...

If Hillary loses both, then she's done. Still her base will start chanting about her wins in MA, NY and CA.

This needs to be over soon. Everyday gets a little worse and the attacks intensify and get dirtier. The goal is a Dem in the WH.

Daily Politics: Nader, Clinton and Obama

I turned on CNN today and was shocked to see Ralph Nader on there. I thought for sure that he would be discussing the current race, but as we know, he was announcing his bid for the White House. The guy is 74. All I can say is, who cares?

The political climate was much different in 2000 than it is now. Nader appealed to a generation that has matured and now has hopefully aligned themselves within the two party system. If they have not, I can guarantee that they are much more guarded with who they support and fully understand the impact they had on the past eight years of world history. Technically, Nader was a spoiler in 2000, but we can't forget the average campaign that Gore ran which allowed for Nader to become such an issue. However, the similarites of Hillary's campaign is quite shocking as well. She, like Gore did, is running in the shadow of experience. Both of these candidates accomplishments are worth giving credit, but they were and are running on the public's Bill Clinton high that was much more addicting then than now. The main difference is that Hillary has the women that would vote for her if their hair was on fire.

Nader is a good man and has good ideas, but he simply does not need to be the president. He'd be a great part of an administration, but that's as far as he should go. The question, as it always is these days, is if the MSM gives him any time. They did not give Gravel or Kucinich any time, so I would be shocked if they gave him anything.

There could be a possibilty that some disgruntled Clinton fans might head in his direction so they could still vote, but not for the MAN (as they see it) who stole their chance to shine. I have read some hateful blogs that berade Obama for winning and running an excellent campaign. Let's hope that does not happen.


Nader, thank you for the interest, but not this time.

Daily Politics: Ron Paul fans...give it up!

I know that there are some fanatical Ron Paul fans. They are trolling the blogs and other sites, just picking a fight and doing so in such a childish way. As you know, I have an Obama video on youtube. This very harmless video has gotten a few hits (Dailykos picked it up!), but it was a fun, impromptu video. Be that as it may, some trolls found it. Here's a little taste...

Zile77 (1 month ago)

"Either way, you have many more kids if Obama or Hillary win. They want to kill all the babies!"

cloud1232006 (1 month ago)

"ron paul 08...
Get informed... you have no idea whats going on in the world and why its happening... easy to tell by who you're rooting for..."

gjswank (1 month ago)

"To bad we have people like you brainwashing the kids in another nation....
I would hope that the parents of these children watch this and kick your butt out of their school......"

JBTG33 (2 days ago)

"RP fans just want the government to get out of their wallet. The feds waste a ton of money and then want more!!! 20% of the budget goes to pay the interest on the debt!!! WE keep voting the same chumps into office and expect a different result...thats not simple that is stupid."

I decided to follow up on this guy since he was the first to have an opinion beyond "Ron Paul is my lover".

Me:

And Kucinich would be a great President as well, but that is not the point. We all know that neither one of the men could ever get past the primary, let alone the GE. So we are left with the electables and we most choose the best who can change our shameful trajectory. It's fun to yell and scream about RP and he does have some good ideas, but eventually reality will set in and his very vocal youtube supporters will quietly fade away and no doubt vote for the GOP.

That's what is "simple".

JBTG33

"This is the first election that their isn't a great deal of differense between the top 3 candidates. (baby killing aside) They are all big government liberals who think that the government can solve the peoples problems by handing out more candy. Are government programs going to all the sudden work? If so what is going to be different. I am a simple person, who doesn't like to waste my money."

Me:

First of all, the phrase "baby killing" is a little much and in very poor taste.

""Are government programs going to all the sudden work?"

I'll answer your question with a question: When has it worked to totally eliminate the government's role in people's life?

Furthermore, you use the term "waste". Define it..."

JBTG33

"Abortion is killing your own baby, to think that a mother would do that to the baby growing in her belly.

Waste, I would start with the 20% of the budget that goes to pay the interest on the debt. Considerint that the latest budget is over 3 trillion. The waste here would amount to 600 billion. For every tax dollar that is supposed to go to food stamps, 75cents is used to run the program only 25cents actually gets to the person who is supposed to be hungry. The government needs to ballance their check book just like you and I have to. Spending is out of control, and if Barrack Hillary McCain do a third of what they talk about, taxes will have to go up again. I don't trust the feds to spend your money, let alone mine.

If I wanted to live in a Socialistic country, I would move to Cuba, I hear they have "free" health care."

Me:

"The reality is that what you want is an impossibility. Again, name a time when a complete hands-off government thrived. It's fun to have these ideas, but I would love some support for this great society you speak of.

Once you accept the reality of the world and country you live in, then the question becomes: Since this money WILL be spent, where would you like it to be spent?

In addition, abortion is a privacy law and while your philosophical views regarding it might be genuine, I have noticed a very conservative GOP-leaning pattern in your postings. You do not approve of government spending money on programs and since you only mentioned a form of welfare (food stamps), I can assume you disapprove of social programs specifically. You are overly pious in your disapproval of a woman's right to privacy, and you use the word "liberal" like it's a bad thing.

RP might be in the GOP, but even he would not make such claims. But this is not about RP at this point. IMO, you are not a RP fan, but an aging GOP'r that still lives the Reagan-myth of a hands-off government that did not and does not work.

Political maturity can be defined in two ways.

1) Acceptance and mastery of the current system

2) Feasible change

Conservative and GOP talking points do not fit into the above criteria. However, I'm happy to keep this going if you want to reply.

I'll let you know if he responds.

However, my point remains. RP fans are the worse than undecided and independent voters. This generation of closet Repub's think that they are fooling people with 1984 theme's like "Wake up and vote for RP 2008" and "You're all Robots! RP will unplug you." RP is not Timothy Leary. The RP fan gets to claim that they are anti-war and compassionate while slamming everything that the left stands for.

The hypocrisy!!!

Daily Politics: Why Debate?

The debate was not interesting in the least. I think Obama did well on Immigration and Iraq and Hillary did well on Healthcare, although both agree on most issues. TH needed a big and clear victory in the debate, but at this point it simply can't happen.

Why?

I don't think Hillary is going to go agressively negative. If she was going to, she would have last night and she didn't. The ball is already rolling and both of them have as much momentum as they are going to get. The supporters of each candidate will view the next fews weeks as a victory for their team and nothing will change.

I'm not sure why we are having another debate.

If you have 20 minutes and wouldn't mind a little laugh, then go here.

Daily Politics: Hillary's Alamo?

Doubt it. Hillary usually does well in debates and we should expect that she will come out punching and ready to destroy Obama (and herself) for the GE. Still, I'm so confident that the Dems will walk all over the aging senator in the GE that even if they really lay it on, it still won't matter.


What to expect:

Hillary will not be able to use her new "empty speeches" theme tonight because he will be there and that hurts her. However, she is viewed as an underdog, so many of the liberal blogs will give her the win regardless. She will focus on debunking Obama's NAFTA claim while championing her basically identical policies. She will be smug and she will try to be inspirational.

Obama will treat this like he did in his WI victory speech. He will address every claim against him and try to clear himself in a very orderly fashion. He is also a great debator, so don't expect him to lose any ground. What he does need to do is lay on some policy. Hillary is a policy wonk. She knows her stuff and she is ready to flaunt it. He needs to jump in there too and specifically needs to play up his Immigration Policy which I think is his strength.

In the end, it's all about the moderators. I don't know who is moderating, but I hope they ask policy questions, not campaign questions.

Good luck!

Daily Politics: Derailing the Straight Talk Express

First of all, I think McCain is going to be easily and soundly defeated without the help of his checkered past.

Judging by the new strategy, it's pretty clear that McCain believes Obama is going to be the candidate. TH already has the car waiting outside for him to hop right in. Good thinking TH.

I think McCain is such a bad politician that he won't be able to stand next to Obama very long. McCain's entire strategy is to continue to brand Obama as inexperienced. This is all he will be able to run with. Even with all of McCain's foreign policy credentials, I don't think he can convince ANYBODY that he is the best choice for President.

The lobbyist thing (at this point) is not a proven romance. -- it's that she was a lobbyist whose company had business before his committee. This is about his ethics and his casting himself as a reformer. Yet he makes questionable decisions. There are other instances in the article, like him refusing to fly a plane route he voted for but yet accepting corporate flights from those with business before his committee:

Mr. McCain promised, for example, never to fly directly from Washington to Phoenix, his hometown, to avoid the impression of self-interest because he sponsored a law that opened the route nearly a decade ago. But like other lawmakers, he often flew on the corporate jets of business executives seeking his support, including the media moguls Rupert Murdoch, Michael R. Bloomberg and Lowell W. Paxson, Ms. Iseman's client. (Last year he voted to end the practice.)

This will cause the MSM to revisit his involvement with the Keating scandal, the Keating Five hearings, and his being proved to be in the pocket of Keating. This whole thing is about him exercising poor judgment on ethics issues while hailing his superiority on it.

I believe that McCain is a media darling (like Obama) and that the media and the people can look at this two ways. Which one will be a bigger story? Well, the NYT article was more about ethics than an affair, but the after-story seems to be more about sex. We'll see where this goes, but I think this will bite him.

It's in the hands of the MSM now and if they run with this, then it only helps Obama in TX!

I can say that the Right does not want or need any more bizarre stories coming from their leaders. I mean, meth-smoking preachers, toilet-sex seeking senators, prostitute-glomming Vetter and page-stalking Floridians is a lot to deny, even for them.

**Could this be a hint of which way the Media will spin for the GE?**

Daily Politics: Rush and Company

We all have heard the wingnuts of the GOP claim that they will support Hillary or a Dem if McCain gets the nomination.

I have a theory and I hope it's crazy, but here it is: Are Rush and Co. making this outrageous "he's too liberal" claim in order to appeal to those indy's and mod's who might be concerned to vote in another crazy conservative? By doing this, they can disway those with Obama leanings and now they offer another choice.

Am I giving too much credit to these idiots?

Daily Politics: Hillary for McCain

The GOP knows that McCain is going to be the nominee. Even Huckabee knows it and this fact is allowing McCain to get a free ride. He is jumping on Hillary's anti-Obama wagon and enjoying the free ride. McCain can just sit back and let TH find all the dirt and he can just repackage and deliver it.

He's all over the "empty rhetoric" rant and the more she digs, the less he has to do. So, essentially she is working for McCain.