136,450 Democrats & Independents Against Obama Emails & Counting! July 26th, Update

Perhaps many of you are already seen this initiative - but I had not. I apologize to those who have read this before...

136,450 Democrats & Independents Against Obama Emails & Counting! July 26th, Update Wow!

This morning we have updated the 'Last Stand' Email Initiative to stop the nomination of Barack Obama has passed the 136,000 mark. To date we have targeted approximately 1/4 of the Superdelegates and plan on reaching all of them, including the Superdelegates that have pledged support to Hillary Clinton, prior to the Democratic Convention. More...

Now is the time to try one last attempt to convince Democrat Superdelegates to drop Obama and reform the Democratic Primary System an re-establish the rule of "equal representation".

Thank you to those few have donated to offset the maintenance and time involved with this project, and thank you to those who have emailed me to thank me or to ask questions. I have been slow to respond, as I seem to be bombarded with emails from unhappy Obama supporters. I will respond to friendly emails, it may just take me a few days to do so. There have also been numerous emails as to why I have set-up this initiative, some out of curiosity some for other reasons. If you've visited our site from the beginning, then you know that I am a John McCain Supporter but that I also believe that an election should be a contest between the 2 candidates best suited to be President. I have seen, first hand, what Obama and his Chicago buddies have done the government in Illinois, and I will not stand by and risk that occurring on a national scale. I would welcome a Clinton or McCain presidency, and if there is any opportunity to keep Obama from being one-step closer the presidency then I welcome the opportunity.

I also have gained a great deal of personal respect for a group of Democrats, many life-long Democrats, who have realized that their party is no longer the party of FDR, Truman and Kennedy; it is the party of McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, Pelosi and Reid. They recognize that the party which has decried disenfranchisement and pointed fingers in the past is the very party responsible for manipulating their own primary system resulting in the most widespread volume of fraud and disenfranchisement in American Political history. We may not agree on all political positions, but we agree that this nation was built upon the ideal of "equal representation" and a government that works for the people rather than to secure more power.

Thank you again to all those who have donated and the list has been updated as of this morning. The next update will occur on Tuesday morning. With that in mind, when you complete the form, please remember the costs and time that I am committing to this project and consider a small donation. This will allow us to continue to maintain the form and update it on time every three days. Also, please remember to visit every three days to resubmit your email to the updated lists of Superdelegates.

Click Here For "Last Stand" Email Initiative For Pumas

J Brown
July 26th, 2008


Tired Of High Gas Prices? Send a message to congress to do it all and do it now! Join our Drill Now Congressional Email Initiative

Democrats & Independents Easily Contact Dem Superdelegates through our 'Last Stand' Stop Obama Email Initiative

National Women's History Project Website

"A piece of history we need to remember, or perhaps become aware of, told in a brief and moving way. I never knew this anyway. This is the story of our Grandmothers, and Great-grandmothers, as they lived only 90 years ago. It was not until 1920 that women were granted the right to go to the polls and vote. The women who made it so were innocent and defenseless. And by the end of the night, they were barely alive. More...

Forty prison guards wielding clubs and their warden's blessing went on a rampage against the 33 women wrongly convicted of 'obstructing sidewalk traffic'. They beat Lucy Burn, chained her hands to the cell bars above her head and left her hanging for the night, bleeding and gasping for air. They hurled Dora Lewis into a dark cell, smashed her head against an iron bed and knocked her out cold. Her cellmate, Alice Cosu, thought Lewis was dead and suffered a heart attack. Additional affidavits describe the guards grabbing, dragging, beating, choking, slamming, pinching, twisting and kicking the women.

Thus unfolded the 'Night of Terror' on Nov. 15, 1917, when the warden at the Occoquan Workhouse in Virginia ordered his guards to teach a lesson to the suffragists imprisoned there because they dared to picket Woodrow Wilson's White House for the right to vote.

For weeks, the women's only water came from an open pail. Their food--all of it colorless slop--was infested with worms. When one of the leaders, Alice Paul, embarked on a hunger strike, they tied her to a chair, forced a tube down her throat and poured liquid into her until she vomited. She was tortured like this for weeks until word was smuggled out to the press.

So, refresh my memory. Some women won't vote this year because--why, exactly? We have carpool duties? We have to get to work? Our vote doesn't matter? It's raining?

Last week, I went to a sparsely attended screening of HBO 's new movie 'Iron Jawed Angels' starring Hilary Swank. It is a graphic depiction of the battle these women waged so that I could pull the curtain at the polling booth and have my say. I am ashamed to say I needed the reminder.

All these years later, voter registration is still my passion. But the actual act of voting had become less personal for me, more rote. Frankly, voting often felt more like an obligation than a privilege. Sometimes it was inconvenient.

My friend Wendy, who is my age and studied women's history, saw the HBO movie, too. When she stopped by my desk to talk about it, she looked angry. She was--with herself. 'One thought kept coming back to me as I watched that movie,' she said. 'What would those women think of the way I use--or don't use--my right to vote? All of us take it for granted now, not just younger women, but those of us who did seek to learn.' The right to vote, she said, had become valuable to her 'all over again.'

HBO released the movie on video and DVD. I wish all history, social studies and government teachers would include the movie in their curriculum. I want it shown on Bunco night, too, and anywhere else women gather. I
realize this isn't our usual idea of socializing, but we are not voting in the numbers that we should be, and I think a little shock therapy is in order.

It is jarring to watch Woodrow Wilson and his cronies try to persuade a psychiatrist to declare Alice Paul insane so that she could be permanently institutionalized. And it is inspiring to watch the doctor refuse. Alice Paul was strong, he said, and brave. That didn't make her crazy. The doctor admonished the men: 'Courage in women is often mistaken for insanity.'

Please, if you are so inclined, pass this on to all the women you know. We need to get out and vote and use this right that was fought so hard for by these very courageous women. Whether you vote democratic, republican or
independent party - remember to vote. History is being made.

Linda M. Dyer"

There is a man’s face and an accusing word in this picture... Could it be obama?

Misleading Information from Democratic canvassers on Queene Anne

*In Washington State your vote WON'T be counted if you write Hillary's name in!*

Dear Michael,

A woman at your Seattle office asked me to email you directly concerning an incident this afternoon with one of your neighborhood canvassers. About 20 minutes ago a young woman with light brown hair (put up on her head) came to my doorstep. My 12 year-old daughter answered the door. My daughter came to my office and said there was a woman wearing an obama shirt and buttons at the door and that she wanted to speak with me because “she if for Hillary, too.” (We have a large Hillary campaign sign in our window). I wondered why this woman would tell my daughter that she is for Hillary if she is 1) wearing obama advertising and 2) Hillary’s nomination is the subject of much debate at the moment.More...

When I came to the door the young woman was standing on our walkway and she made the declaration in an overly bright voice that she was indeed “..for Hillary, too!” I asked her who she was representing and she said she is with the local/state Democratic party. I told her that I am an “Independent” voter and that I would not be voting for obama. She admonished me to not vote for McCain and when I told her that I would probably be voting for McCain, she said that that was too bad because McCain was a bad choice and his platform is different than Clinton’s. I told her that while that may be true, I find that McCain’s ethics are closer to Clinton’s and that is why I will not be voting for obama.

She then said that I should, instead, “write Hillary’s name in on [my] ballot.” Naturally I was surprised that she would advise me to do such a thing and told her that of course everyone knows that writing in Hillary’s name is no more than a throw away vote and that she shouldn’t be advising people to do that since it is intentionally misleading. At that point I wanted to end the discussion, but she continued in a loud voice. I walked back into my house and she continued to shout at me from outside, but still standing on my property.

I don’t know what the state Democratic party is thinking to have such brash and untruthful people working for it but enough is enough. As a former Democrat myself, I am deeply saddened to see the tactics you are using to get votes for your candidate. I will be writing and speaking with a couple of news outlets to let them know to tell their readers to be on the lookout in the next few weeks for people working for the state Dem party who use such dishonest tactics.

Sincerely,
XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
Queen Anne/Seattle XXXXX

IT'S TIME FOR CLINTON TO TELL THE DNC THAT SHE AND HER SUPPORTERS DON'T DO WINDOWS.

Posted by Marc Rubin at Tom in Paine and reposted here to share.

After corrupting Democratic rules and procedures to try and force a dishonest, inept, and clownish candidate down the throats of the majority of the Democratic Party who have rejected him, the leadership of the Democratic Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) have expected Hillary Clinton to put her own credibility on the line as well as give up her own legitimate candidacy for President to clean up the mess the DNC has made of the entire selection process, the impending disaster waiting at the convention, and Democratic chances in the fall, which, if Clinton does not have her name put in nomination, are nil. More...

After corrupting Democratic rules and procedures to try and force a dishonest, inept, and clownish candidate down the throats of the majority of the Democratic Party who have rejected him, the leadership of the Democratic Party (an oxymoron if there ever was one) have expected Hillary Clinton to put her own credibility on the line as well as give up her own legitimate candidacy for President to clean up the mess the DNC has made of the entire selection process, the impending disaster waiting at the convention, and Democratic chances in the fall, which, if Clinton does not have her name put in nomination, are nil.

They've been expecting Clinton to drum up support from her voters for a bogus and unelectable candidate who had no business being presented as the nominee in the first place based on Democratic rules and reality, and now the time has come for Clinton, for the sake of the party and her own credibility, to tell them enough is enough.

Corrupt is not too strong a word to use to describe what is going on among the leadership of the DNC, and their sycophants in the press (like the absurd op ed of August 10 in the New York Times by Michelle Cottle which shows, like most of her colleagues, she is either badly out of touch with reality or in Obama's pocket).

A glaring example of this unvarnished and what can only be called shameless corruption, is Bill Richardson who sounds more and more like someone stealing hub caps than someone who is the governor of a state. When he was asked by Jake Tapper in a recent interview about Clinton's name being placed in nomination and having a roll call vote this is what he said:

"I do not believe we should have a roll call vote but just get behind Barack Obama as our nominee and this is happening. We will be united at the convention therefore there is no need for a vote.

This is the corrupt politician Richardson has become. Call it the Obama Effect, Richardson is like a dog taking on the characteristics of his or her owner. Richardson is now ready to throw 18 million voters under the bus and pretend they don't exist in the name of faking party unity. This is the kind of lunacy that makes one think that Obama supporters like Richardson need to be on Prozac before they end up on parole for even greater corruption.

Even for those as stupid as Richardson who were taken in by Obama or corrupted by him from the beginning, his recent appeal to the credentials committee to allow the full seating of Florida and Michigan strips him of the 55 delegates he was awarded in the Michigan compromise which means that even including the bogus super delegate declarations that officially don't count, Obama does not now have the 2/3 needed to be the nominee and neither he, Richardson, nor the DNC have any right to call him the nominee.

That it continues is just further proof that Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and sycophants like Richardson are willing to corrupt the process, the party and the rules to push a dishonest and false candidate. Given the choice between saving the Democratic Party or saving their face, they seem to be choosing to save their face.

As for Clinton and her charade of support for Obama, the Democratic leadership has expected Clinton to support Obama even while she was running against him, which is part of the reason the playing field was so slanted on his behalf. The press and their own corrupt bias made it worse.

Even so she won 8 of the last 11 primaries and Obama limped to the finish line like a punch drunk fighter. Then, as everyone knows, Dean and Pelosi browbeat a bunch of spineless super delegates into making symbolic declarations that didn't count for anything just so they could declare they had a candidate when according to party rules and processes they didn't.

Clinton has dutifully gone along with this charade long enough. She has been loudly supporting Obama even though a village idiot knows she is only doing what the Democratic Party is asking. But it has to stop. It has done no good. And it never will. People simply aren't as stupid as Dean, Pelosi and Brazile want to think they are. And, not too put too fine a point on it, unlike Pelosi, the people she is trying to persuade do not have a 9% job approval rating like she does, which is another reason nothing she says will go anywhere with the majority of the party.

Obama is an unelectable candidate. From the very beginning he's had all the earmarks of a con artist—a snake oil salesman with no moral compass, no principles, no ideas, nothing of any value to anyone except his own, arrogance, stupidity and ambition. He managed to get as far as he has because Dean and Pelosi corrupted the process and because Obama could impress the easily impressed and easily duped, which includes many of the water buffalo known as the news media most of whom would rather shoot a puppy than have to stand up on their own and tell the truth.

Richard Cohen, an early Obama supporter is a good example. He recently wrote:

He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol — a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.

Cohen even now, in trying to see Obama for what he is, doesn't want to face the truth. Obama is not an accomplished pol -- he is an accomplished liar and there is a big difference. Cohen still doesn't want to face that he was taken in when tens of millions of other people weren't. Which is typical of people who have been conned. Ask anyone in law enforcement and they will tell you the single biggest reason con artists get away with their con is that people are too embarrassed to admit they were fooled and would rather not report it then face embarrassment. Add Richard Cohen to that list.

But with Clinton going along with this charade because it's what the Democratic leadership is asking, there is the danger of Clinton's own credibility being damaged by continuing to show support for a candidate who by the party’s own rules, is not the official candidate, who does not have the support of the majority of the Democratic Party, who has collapsing poll numbers and who he is now at a point where his own megalomania and serial lying has disintegrated into looking absolutely clownish.

Not only that, but there is evidence staring everyone right in the face that Obama is clearly afraid he will lose if Senator Clinton's name is in nomination.And the press seems to be blind to it.

I made this point today to an editor who was doing a follow up interview with me and I pointed out that if Obama really felt he had this nomination sewed up he would be the first one to place Clinton's name in nomination to win over her voters. If he were sure he had the super delegates he needed to win, it would be politically stupid for him not to. He can't possibly win a general election without her voters and conservatively right now I'd say he will lose a lot more than half. He cant win losing 10 million votes. So why is he so against putting her name in nomination?

In a recent interview he was asked about Clinton's name being put in nomination. He said her role was being worked out. The interviewer said, " so then you don't object to Senator Clinton's name being placed in nomination". His answer was, " I didn't say that".

It should be clear to anyone in the press or anyone with even a shred of political acumen that Obama doesn't want her name in nomination because he is afraid he will lose. There is no doubt that head counting going on within the Obama campaign ,just the way there is on Capitol Hill when a controversial bill is to be brought to the floor to see if the bill will pass and if there aren't the votes, the bill isn't brought up.

There is no doubt that Obama is realizing the votes may not be there, that he cant count on all of the 438 super delegate declarations he thought he could. And he is counting on Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi to do what they can to corrupt the process to make sure that cant happen. They'd rather corrupt democracy than have an honest but contentious convention where at least whoever emerged as the nominee could actually claim to be the legitimate nominee.

The time has come for Clinton to say to Howard Dean, " this is your mess not mine, you did it, not me and it's not for me to clean up. If you had played by Democratic Party rules in the first place, if you hadn't been so politically stupid, you wouldn't have this brewing disaster on your hands. Stop putting it on my shoulders. It's not my responsibility to make this clown an electable candidate when he isn't."

The only thing that can save the Democratic Party now is acknowledging that by their own rules they simply don't have an official nominee and wont till the roll call vote. They have to let party procedures play out and then let whoever wins win. And it has to be honest. Any hint of a backroom deal or pressure on Clinton to be anything other than a legitimate candidate with a legitimate chance, and the party will go completely down the drain in November and take all the down ticket Democrats with them. And they will deserve it.

Obama, and people like Richardson, Dean, Pelosi and Brazile have corrupted the party and its processes and Clinton can't in good conscience be a party to that anymore.

Including Florida and Michigan which Obama now acknowledges should count as per their original results, Democratic primary season ended with this result:

Obama, 1,711 pledged delegates, Clinton, 1,662, giving Obama a paltry 49 delegate lead out of more than 4000. Clinton won the popular vote with a 175,000 vote lead.

This is the result that caused the leadership of the Democratic Party and the sycophants in the press to declare Obama the winner over Clinton even though neither candidate had the 2/3 majority and no super delegate vote had been officially cast. These are the results that led Bill Richardson to say we shouldn't have a roll call vote, that Obama is the nominee and that the party should unite behind him.

And they are telling Clinton voters to get over it?

Right now, by any standard including HBO's Comedy Night, Obama as the Democratic Party's presumptive nominee is a joke. And unless there is a fair and open convention the Democratic Party will deserve to get wiped out in November which they most surely will, and then Clinton's voters can say " get over it."

At the risk of being redundant, Clinton didn't make this mess, they did. She didn't try and slant the playing field in Obama's favor, they did. She didn't usurp and trash Democratic Party rules and procedures when they just should have been allowed to play out, they did. And she didn't force Obama to display a phony Presidential seal, renege on every promise he made during the primary season, bribe people with food and a free concert to fake a big turnout at his speeches and prove himself to be a serial liar, he did all that on his own. It's not her responsibility that Obama cant get out of a tie with John McCain when almost any Democratic candidate would be up by double digits. Any candidate but Barack Obama.

It's their mess and its not Clinton's job to help clean it up. And its not up to her supporters to clean up the mess either.

No one doubts that Clinton feels she is the better candidate both for the Democratic Party and for the country. And obviously so do the 18 million who voted for her and saw through Obama's clownish facade from the beginning. The best thing Clinton can do for the country and the party now is to stop making these unequivocal statements of support on behalf of Obama. No one believes them anyway and they are not doing anyone any good. Obama's numbers are getting worse every day because of Obama not because Clinton isn't doing enough.

The only course of action for the Democratic Party now is to put an end to this charade, have Dean and Pelosi swallow what is left of their pride, have an open roll call vote with both candidates' names in nomination and let the super delegates do what they are supposed to do -- vote for either nominee. Let them take responsibility for their votes and the outcome of their votes, and let whoever gets the most votes wins. Which is the way it should have been in the first place.

Then let Dean, Pelosi, Obama and Brazile grab a mop and a broom and some window cleaner and when the convention is over, do their own cleaning up.

NOTE: I received a copy of this email reply to a Clinton supporter from the Mayor of Albuquerque NM, home of Obama sycophant and political water boy Bill Richardson. He didnt tell the supporter to do windows but he did tell her to get lost. His email address along with his reply is published here. I think he will be suprised about who represents what and what he thinks he knows. And how this attitude, if something doesnt radically change, is going to bring down Obama if he is the Democratic nominee and every Democratic candidate for office that supports him.

From: mailto:martychavez%40gmail.comDate: Sun, 10 Aug 2008 21:20:45 -0600To: "________" Subject: Re: Hillary in Nomination

First, you may have supported Senator Clinton but neither you nor Puma represent the people that voted for her. Only she does. Second, you have no place telling me how to do my job. Third, remove me from your e-mail list. Fourth, get lost.

The Hillary Clinton Memos

A complete index to the internal communications referenced in "The Front-Runner's Fall.

by Joshua Green
The Hillary Clinton Memos

“The Plan,” October 2006
Clinton had forbidden her advisers from openly discussing her presidential ambitions until after she’d won reelection to the Senate. But behind the scenes, planning was already underway. In this October 2006 strategy memo, Mark Penn sketched out the campaign’s strategic principles (“HRC is the power candidate”) and assessed potential opponents. He worried that Al Gore was “waiting to swoop in later.” More...

Penn’s “Launch Strategy” Ideas, December 21, 2006
Shortly after Clinton’s reelection, Penn tried out some themes in this flattering memo to his boss. He suggested former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher as a role model: “We are more Thatcher than anyone else.” Penn believed that voters view their president as the “father” of the country. “They do not want someone who would be the first mama,” he counseled. “But there is a yearning for a kind of tough single parent.” (He did not propose divorce.) Penn thought voters were “open to the first father being a woman.” But he warned again about the perils of being seen as too soft. “A word about being human,” he wrote. “Bill Gates once asked me, ‘Could you make me more human?’ I said, ‘Being human is overrated.’”

Penn Strategy Memo, March 19, 2007
More than anything else, this memo captures the full essence of Mark Penn’s campaign strategy—its brilliance and its breathtaking attacks. Penn identified with impressive specificity the very coalition of women and blue-collar workers that Clinton ended up winning a year later. But he also called Obama “unelectable except perhaps against Attila the Hun,” and wrote, “I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values.” Penn proposed targeting Obama’s “lack of American roots.”

Karl Rove Strategy Memo to Bill Clements, Jr., September 4, 1985
As a contrast to Mark Penn’s memos, here’s a fun piece of political arcana: a Karl Rove strategy memo written to former Texas governor Bill Clements, Jr., on the eve of the 1986 gubernatorial race. Clements was elected governor in 1978 but lost his bid for reelection. He was attempting a comeback. Note the tone of bracing honesty: Rove lays out his client’s “potentially explosive” weaknesses, including arrogance and bad press relations. Then he explains how they can be overcome. (Let’s forgive Rove the hackneyed Napoleon quote—Clements won the race.)

Harold Ickes Lists the Campaign’s “Key Assumptions,” March 29, 2007
Soon after Clinton’s presidential campaign got underway, senior adviser Harold Ickes circulated this list of “Key Assumptions.” They include his belief that February 5 would decide the nominee; that Clinton could not survive losses in Iowa and New Hampshire (but that John Edwards and Barack Obama could); and that the prevailing view of her as the incumbent was potentially dangerous. Fatefully, Ickes cited the need to maintain a $25 million reserve fund for use after Iowa—but following Clinton’s loss, he confessed to colleagues, “The cupboard is empty.”

Penn Strategy Memo, April 8, 2007
With Obama’s popularity and fund-raising strength becoming clearer by the day, Penn seemed to absorb the public criticism of Clinton as behaving imperiously. “Show more of the happy warrior,” he counseled. He was also becoming attuned to the importance of the “change” theme Obama was touting: “Let’s talk more about a movement for change coming from the people.” He proposed the slogan “America is Ready for a Change, and HRC is Ready to Lead Us.”

The “Kindergarten” Attack, December 2, 2007
On December 2, Clinton exploded at her staff on a morning conference call, frustrated that her campaign wasn’t on the attack. Hours later, in this series of emails, her panicked staff reacted by putting together an ill-advised attack on Obama for having written a kindergarten essay titled “I Want to Become President.”

Harold Ickes Memo on the Delegate System, December 22, 2007
Harold Ickes was the adviser with primary responsibility for the campaign’s delegate and targeting strategy. While the Obama campaign shrewdly exploited the Democratic Party’s complicated system of allotting delegates, Ickes and the Clinton campaign did not. On December 22, just twelve days before the Iowa caucus, Ickes finally laid out the system for the campaign’s senior staff in this somewhat impenetrable memo.

Penn Strategy Memo for New Hampshire, December 30, 2007
On the eve of the Iowa caucus, the race was too close to call. In this memo, Penn ranked the “six potential scenarios coming out of Iowa” in order of preference. The best had Clinton winning and Obama finishing third. The worst-case scenario had Obama on top and Clinton in third—which ended up being the result. Penn laid out options for how the campaign might respond, including attacks on Obama and Edwards.

Patti Solis Doyle Welcomes Her Eventual Successor, January 13, 2008
In the wake her Iowa loss, Clinton chose not to fire anyone. Instead, she added another layer of advisers, including Maggie Williams, her former chief of staff. In this email, Patti Solis Doyle, Clinton’s embattled campaign manager, welcomes the woman who soon succeeded her.

"Move Your Cars!"
A memo to the entire D.C. staff.

Guy Cecil Memo Projecting Clinton’s Super Tuesday Performance, January 21, 2008
With the February 5 primaries just ahead, senior adviser Guy Cecil circulated this targeting memo to staffers. While Clinton had once expected to wrap up the nomination on Super Tuesday, Cecil recognized just how imperiled her candidacy was as that fateful date loomed. Nevertheless, he predicted that she could net 58 delegates.

Internal targeting projections for February 5th states, January 21, 2008

Harold Ickes post-Super Tuesday strategy, February 4, 2008
In this strategy memo on the eve of Super Tuesday, Harold Ickes surveyed the grim landscape ahead. Having cut the polling budget for many February 5 states, the campaign was essentially flying blind. “We are in for a real fight,” Ickes wrote, “but ... given some breaks, it is a fight that she can win.”

Letter of Complaint from the Washington Post’s Managing Editor, Philip Bennett, February 11, 2008
The Clinton staff engaged in epic battles with the press. As the campaign’s fortunes worsened, resentment at the press turned into personal attacks against reporters. In this letter to Clinton’s campaign manager, the Washington Post’s managing editor complained that Phil Singer, a senior Clinton spokesman, was spreading malicious—and false—rumors about a Post reporter to one of her own colleagues.

Penn Strategy Memo, March 5, 2008
On the heels of critical wins in Texas and Ohio, Penn continued pushing the ideas of “strength” and “leadership.” He worried that white male voters were “steadily eroding” and railed against the idea of showcasing Clinton’s softer side. “The idea,” he wrote, “that this can be won all on smiles, emotions, and empathy is simply wrong.”

Robert Barnett Email to Clinton and senior staff, March 6, 2008
A Washington wise man loses his cool.

Penn’s “Path to Victory,” March 30, 2008
After death-defying wins in Texas and Ohio, Mark Penn circulated his “Path to Victory,” which included portraying Obama as “a doomsday scenario.” He chided his adversaries for their timidity about attacking Obama’s pastor, Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Jr. “Many people,” Penn wrote, “believe under the surface that 20 years sitting there with Goddamn America would make him unelectable by itself.”

Harold Ickes Email, May 4, 2007
Harold Ickes was Clinton’s point man on the issue of Florida and Michigan. Throughout the campaign, he kept tabs on the ongoing strife between the two states and the Democratic National Committee—he did not try to influence it until too late.

Harold Ickes Email, August 24, 2007
More Florida-Michigan back and forth.

The “Florigan Plan I,” February 25, 2008
With Clinton’s delegate gap looming as a serious problem, a group of her advisers drew up a proposal to seize back momentum by demanding revotes in Florida and Michigan. Dubbed the “Florigan Plan,” it called on Clinton to issue a challenge to Obama on the morning of March 5, the day after her expected wins in Texas and Ohio.

The “Florigan Plan II,” March 5, 2008
Their initial suggestion ignored, the advisers behind the “Florigan Plan” again pushed the campaign to act on the issue of revotes in Florida and Michigan.

The “Florigan Plan III,” March 10, 2008
With hope fading that Clinton could close the delegate gap, several of her advisers made a final, unsuccessful push to address Florida and Michigan right away. The campaign did not do so until nine weeks later, on May 21.

Geoff Garin Email, April 12, 2008
When Geoff Garin replaced Mark Penn as chief strategist, he was appalled at the leaking and backstabbing. “I don’t mean to be an asshole…,” he wrote in this admonitory email to the senior staff.

Geoff Garin Email, April 25, 2008
Geoff Garin thought that a positive strategy, backed by a new infusion of spending, could revive Clinton’s campaign. He believed he could deliver a big win in Indiana and narrow the margin in North Carolina to single digits, as he explains in this email to senior staff.

The Clinton Campaign’s Final Pitch to Superdelegates, June 3, 2008
As the Democratic primaries drew to a close, Mark Penn put together a final presentation for superdelegates arguing why they should support Clinton over Obama. Note the province of Penn’s maps: Karl Rove & Co. faux pas?

55% Believe Media Bias is More of a Problem than Big Campaign Contributions

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 55% believe media bias is more of a problem than big campaign contributions: Voters overwhelmingly believe that politicians will "break the rules to help people who give them a lot of money," but most say there's a bigger problem in politics today - media bias.

OMG! Obama is so kewll!!!

Obama's using a new tech announcement gimmick to garner more personal information on people...More...

Obama's VP choice imminent via website, e-mail, text message

Sen. Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, is on vacation in Hawaii tonight. We believe. But, thanks to loyal Ticket reader Mark, just minutes ago we learned that the freshman senator's presidential campaign has confirmed that announcement of Obama's running mate choice is very near.

An e-mail just sent out says Obama "is about to choose a running mate." And when word comes, it will come by text message, e-mail and on the campaign website. An interesting twist that coulWho will be Democrat Barack Obama's vice presidential running mate? Questioned mean the word might be released this week even during Obama's family vacation.

The announcement will surely come before the Democratic National Convention starts in Denver on Aug. 25. It could even come while the candidate is on vacation, scheduled to end next Friday. If not, that leaves a 10-day announcement window of Aug. 15-25.

The traditional scenario would be for Obama and his pick to appear at a grand joint announcement somewhere with their families and dozens of TV cameras.

However, if hypothetically the announcement was to be made dramatically via cellphone texts, e-mails and the Obama website, the two candidates would not need to be together.

And if it came, oh, say, sometime this week, it would instantly dominate the news stream and erase any advantage Republican Sen. John McCain might have gotten from a week of campaigning without the Democrats' competition.

Then, the two Democratic running mates could appear together later at another event and get a bonus second publicity boost.

We're just saying.

This modern tech announcement gimmick, of course, also has the added benefit of presumably getting thousands of people to offer the campaign their e-mail addresses and cellphone numbers, a priceless, free recruiting and fund-raising tool.

When you sign up to receive the VP notification, you are offered another form to help recruit many friends and family to sign up too. NON-PARTISAN WARNING: You will soon also begin receiving regular pleas for money.

(Now, this commercial message: If you would rather receive instant notification of Obama's vice presidential choice via The Ticket -- free -- along with all new blog items 24 hours a day, you can enroll here:

(For existing Twitterers, go to http://twitter.com/latimestot

(Click Follow. Enroll there for alerts on every new Ticket item AND our instant, breaking-news items whenever and wherever anything is happening in the presidential race. And it's all free, of course.

(For about-to-be Twitter folks, think of it as text message headlines to any mobile device. Go here to enroll. Click on Join, not surprisingly. RSS feeds also available here.)

No Ticket donations appeals. We promise.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Why Barack Obama Will Not Win

By Steven Warshawsky

There is palpable anxiety, even despair, among many Republicans and conservatives over the possibility that Barack Obama will be elected president this November. This anxiety is being fueled by the mainstream media's fawning coverage of Obama's every word, while shamelessly downplaying John McCain's campaign; by public opinion polls that purport to show Obama "leading" the race over McCain; and by political commentators, on both sides of the aisle, who believe this is the Democrats' "election to lose," based on historical cycles, an uneven economy, high gas prices, continuing opposition to the Iraq War, and President Bush's dismal approval ratings.

I don't share this anxiety. For months now, I have been reassuring my right-leaning friends that Barack Obama will not be elected president. If I were a gambling man, I would buy lots of McCain stock on Intrade. Why am I so confident that John McCain is going to win the election? In short, because Barack Obama is not an acceptable choice to lead the country. Let me explain. More...

Obama is too young and inexperienced.

One of Obama's most striking characteristics is how "green" he is compared to previous presidential candidates. Obama was born on August 4, 1961. He just turned 47 years old. The average age of elected presidents since 1952 (the era of televised politics) is 56.

If elected president, Obama would be the fifth youngest president in U.S. history. The only younger presidents would be Teddy Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Ulysses S. Grant, all of whom were much more accomplished than Obama. Grant, Roosevelt, and Kennedy were war heroes. (Not Clinton, notoriously.) Roosevelt and Clinton had served as state governors. Grant had been the general-in-chief of the Union Army during the Civil War. The least experienced of the four, Kennedy, had served twelve years in Congress, six in the House of Representatives and six in the Senate, and had been a serious candidate for vice-president in 1956.

What has Obama accomplished to date? In truth, not very much -- except to master the art of self-promotion.

Obama has written two best-selling autobiographies: Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (1995) and The Audacity of Hope (2006). Yet he has never served in an important leadership position in government, business, or the military. His ability to perform as a chief executive officer is completely untested.

Obama has prestigious degrees from Columbia University and Harvard Law School, but no significant professional achievements to his name. No businesses or organizations he has founded or managed. No law firm partnerships. No important cases he has tried. Not a single work of legal scholarship he has authored, despite having been Editor-in-Chief of the Harvard Law Review and a part-time law professor at the University of Chicago for twelve years. (This is unheard of in the elite ranks of the legal profession, and calls into question the bona fides of Obama's professorship.)

Obama's principal occupation before entering politics was as a "community organizer" in Chicago. By his own admission, these efforts achieved only "some success," and none worthy of highlighting on his campaign website. Obama then served eight unexceptional years in the Illinois Senate, and was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004, where he is not even considered one of the Democratic Party's legislative leaders.

And this man believes he is "the one we have been waiting for"?

Obama may be considered a "rock star" by his supporters, but the kind of superficial glamour and excitement that this terminology suggests is not what most voters are looking for in a president. Heartland values, not Hollywood values, still define what most voters want in a president. Most voters want a president whom they perceive as loyal, courageous, hardworking, and fair. Someone who commands the respect of others through the strength of his character and the wisdom of his actions. Someone who is prepared to fight to protect his home and country from invaders. In other words, someone who appeals to voters, on a psychological or emotional level, as the kind of person they would want for a father, husband, boss, or comrade-in-arms.

Rock stars may be fun, but they do not fit this image. Neither does Obama. His life story, while unique and interesting, bespeaks little more than an ambitious and opportunistic young man, still wet behind the ears, with an unhealthy fascination with his own ego - and potentially unreliable when the chips are down.

The American people are not going to entrust the security and prosperity of the country to such an immature and unproven man.

Obama is too liberal.

The last Democratic presidential candidate who garnered more than 50% of the popular vote was Jimmy Carter in 1976 - and Carter received only 51% of the vote in a political environment marked by defeat in Vietnam, the Watergate scandal, an energy crisis, and stagflation. There has been only one other Democratic president in the past 40 years: Bill Clinton. Despite campaigning as "New Democrat," Clinton received only 43% of the popular vote in 1992 (his victory was due to the third-party candidacy of Ross Perot) and 49% of the popular vote in 1996. Significantly, the Democratic candidate's share of the popular vote has gone down the last two elections. Al Gore received 48.4% of the popular vote in 2000, and John Kerry received 48.3% in 2004.

The Democratic Party has a terrible track record at the presidential level since the 1960s because it consistently nominates far left presidential candidates who do not represent the values, interests, and aspirations of most Americans. See McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Kerry. Even Gore, who was considered a "moderate" Democratic (no longer), lost to the uninspiring George W. Bush in 2000.

Barack Obama is no exception. In his brief tenure in the U.S. Senate, Obama has compiled a consistently liberal voting record, and was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2007 by the National Journal. This distinction does not augur well for Obama. John Kerry was named the Most Liberal Senator for 2003 -- the year before he lost the 2004 presidential contest to Bush.

As a U.S. Senator, Obama has voted along Democratic Party lines 97 percent of the time, almost 10 percentage points higher than the average for Senate Democrats. So much for his "bipartisan" image. He opposed funding for the War on Terror that was not tied to a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. He opposed strengthening the ability of the federal government to monitor terrorist communications. He voted in favor of providing habeas corpus rights to detainees at Guantanamo Bay. He supported the failed "comprehensive immigration reform" bills. He voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He opposed a bill that would have reduced the federal estate tax. He voted against the confirmations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

For his efforts, Obama has received "100" ratings from Americans for Democratic Action, Planned Parenthood, the AFL-CIO, the American Federation of Government Workers, Citizens for Tax Justice (i.e., for raising taxes on the "rich"), Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, the National Education Association, and the National Organization for Women. He has received "F" grades from the National Taxpayers Union, the National Rifle Association, and U.S. English, a 13 rating from Citizens Against Government Waste, 7 ratings from the Club for Growth, the American Conservative Union, and the Eagle Forum, and zero ratings from the Family Research Council, the National Right to Life Committee, and Americans for Tax Reform.

Obama's voting record as a state senator reflected the same left-wing agenda: He opposed restrictions on partial birth abortion and requiring medical care for fetuses who are born alive during an abortion. He opposed requiring school officials to install pornography-blocking software on public computers accessible to minors. He opposed a $500 income tax credit for parents who send their children to private schools. He supported restrictions on gun ownership, and opposed a bill that permitted the owner of an unregistered handgun to claim self-defense if he used the gun in his own home. He consistently voted in favor of higher taxes.

True to form, in his campaign for president, Obama advocates a dizzying array of hyper-liberal policies, including: "equal pay" laws, expanded federal leave laws, expanded "hate crime" laws, a panoply of social services for convicted criminals, increasing foreign aid spending by tens of billions of dollars with the goal of "cutting extreme poverty around the world in half by 2015" (pure utopianism paid for by the American taxpayer), requiring 25 percent of U.S. electricity come from "renewable" sources by 2025 (an impossible goal without drastically shrinking the economy), spending tens of billions of dollars on an FDR-style array of federal economic programs, further raising the minimum wage, and providing "affordable" and "comprehensive" health insurance to all Americans (aka socialized medicine). Naturally, he proposes to pay for all these programs by raising taxes on "the wealthiest taxpayers" and imposing a "windfall profits tax" on oil companies.

With the sole (and misguided) exception of "universal health care," there is little popular demand in this country for the kind of soak-the-rich, tax-and-spend politics that Obama is offering. This is not 1932 or 1965. The American people are not interested in another round of top-down social engineering by the federal government. If anything, the nation's political leaders need to catch up to the waves of conservative and populist impulses spreading throughout the country. See, for example, the grassroots movement to limit the eminent domain power of state and local governments and the nationwide revolt against "comprehensive Immigration reform."

Obama's dissolutely liberal politics will sink him in the general election, just as it torpedoed previous Democratic candidates.

Obama is too race-conscious.

Finally, we come to the "hot button" issue in this election: Obama's black racial consciousness.

Contrary to what Obama and his supporters want the American people to believe, Obama is not a "post-racial" politician. As abundantly demonstrated in his two autobiographies, his 20-year membership in Rev. Jeremiah Wright's "unashamedly black" Trinity United Church of Christ, and his "intensely race-conscious approach" to politics as an Illinois state senator (see here), Obama is deeply committed to his "black" identity -- despite having a white mother and being raised for much of his childhood by his white grandparents. Furthermore, Obama built his political career on promoting the interests of the black urban community. Right or wrong, fair or unfair, Obama's black racial consciousness is going to have a negative effect on his campaign for president by undermining his appeal among white working- and middle-class voters.

Let's look at some numbers. According to the CNN exit poll, in the 2004 presidential election, the electorate was composed of 77% whites, 11% blacks, 8% Latinos, 2% Asian, and 2% other. They voted as follows: whites 58-41 for Bush; blacks 88-11 for Kerry; Latinos 53-44 for Kerry; Asians 56-44 for Kerry.

I see little reason to believe that the Latino or Asian votes will change substantially in 2008. Clearly, the black vote will shift even more strongly in favor of the Democratic candidate. However, the white voting population is seven times larger than the black voting population. Consequently, a shift in the black vote of seven percentage points is roughly equivalent to a shift in the white vote of one point. Even if Obama were to receive essentially all black votes, which is unlikely, a loss of less than two percentage points of the white vote would be enough to offset these gains.

So the key to the upcoming election is whether white voters will be more, less, or equally likely to vote for Obama as for Kerry. I believe the answer is less likely.

Interestingly, commentators on the left tend to agree with this prediction, because they believe that many white voters are "racists"; commentators on the right usually ignore the race issue altogether, because they fear that any discussion of white voting preferences will support the "racism" charge. I disagree that "racism" is the explanation. Rather, it is Obama's history of race-based politics and his membership in a militant black church - which places him in opposition to most white voters on such emotional issues as welfare, crime, and affirmative action, and casts doubt on his ability and commitment to represent the interests of the entire nation.

To develop a profile of Obama's electoral strengths and weaknesses, I examined the CNN entrance and exit polls for the 2008 Democratic primaries in Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. These were the states in which the spread between Bush and Kerry in 2004 was three percentage points or less (in either direction). (New Hampshire also belongs on this list, but I could not find polling data for the 2008 primaries in that state.) I selected these states because they are likely to be the critical battlegrounds this fall.

The polls show that, in general, Obama did especially well among black voters, younger voters (under 45), voters who earn more than $100,000 per year, voters with college and postgraduate degrees, non-religious voters, and self-described liberal voters. In other words, the core constituencies of the Democratic Party. On the other hand, he demonstrated much less appeal to white voters, older voters (ages 45 and up), voters who earn less than $50,000 per year, voters with some or no college education, Catholic voters, and self-described moderate voters. In other words, white working- and middle-class voters -- so-called Reagan Democrats. These voters strongly preferred Hillary Clinton.

Significantly, in the 2004 election, John Kerry performed reasonably well among this group. He won 55 percent of voters who earn less than $50,000. He won 47 percent of voters ages 45 and up. He won 47 percent of voters with no college degree. He won 47 percent of Catholic voters. He won 55 percent of self-described moderate voters. Nevertheless, Kerry lost. If only a few percent of these voters switch to McCain, as I believe they will, Obama cannot win. Yes, tens of millions of Americans (of all colors) will vote for Obama; but more will vote for McCain.

Overall, I predict Obama will receive even less of the popular vote than John Kerry in 2004 (48.3%), and perhaps as little as Michael Dukakis in 1988 (45.7%).

As I wrote last December, "[t]he pundits can talk until they are blue in the face about Obama's charisma and eloquence and cross-racial appeal. The fact of the matter is that Obama has no chance of being elected president in 2008." I am more convinced of this conclusion than ever.
smwarshawsky@hotmail.com.

American Thinker

The Obama/Wright/Kilpatrick Collision

By Steve Mitchell

Two percent. That's the percent of voters outside the "Motor City" that have a favorable impression of embattled Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick. You don't have to be a pollster to understand how strongly disliked Kilpatrick is throughout Michigan.

Sit in any restaurant or bar, and all you hear is people talking about Kilpatrick's troubles. Indicted in March on eight felony counts for committing perjury during a whistleblower trial that eventually cost the city about $9 million, the Mayor spent one night in jail on August 7th for violating his bond and then was arraigned the next day for a new crime. In the latest charges, Kilpatrick is accused of assaulting two sheriff's deputies as they were trying to serve one of his close friends with a subpoena.

And, what does this have to do with Barack Obama? Although Kilpatrick has distanced himself from Obama and Obama has distanced himself from Kilpatrick, they are both inextricably linked to Rev. Jeremiah Wright. And, that is Obama's problem. More...

The night before Wright imploded in front of the Washington press corps, he was the featured speaker at an NAACP dinner in Detroit where Mayor Kilpatrick gave him a rousing introduction, an introduction shown on local TV news shows. Undoubtedly, some 527 committee or the Michigan Republican Party has that introduction on DVD.

Rev. Wright has already proven to be an albatross around Obama's neck. Obama's support plummeted among white North Carolina General Election voters after TV ads linking him with Rev. Wright were aired during the North Carolina Democratic primary. That plunge in support did not go unnoticed by McCain supporters.

It is very likely that similar ads will be run in key battleground states starting in mid-October. In Michigan, you can bet that the much hated Kilpatrick will be included in the Obama/Wright ads, making them look like the Three Musketeers, "one for all and all for one."

Not only does Obama have to overcome Wright's fiery rhetoric, he has to overcome the Kilpatrick connection, too. Kilpatrick's tremendous unpopularity has fueled latent and sometime blatant racism among Michigan voters, the last thing Obama needs in a key state less than three months before the election.

White voters around the country demonstrated their concern with Obama when they voted by a more than 2:1 margin against him in all the primary elections after March 4th. Michigan has a large number of lower income, less educated white voters, the same type of voter who rejected Obama in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, and other states.

During the primaries, Obama dismissed some white voters by saying they "cling to their guns or religion." Democrats must now worry that white voters in Michigan may well cling to their enormous antipathy towards Kwame Kilpatrick and take it out on Barack Obama.

The timetables being set for Kilpatrick's hearings and trials certainly seem to have an incredibly coincidental link to the presidential election, something that the two state leaders who have set them would deny.

Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm has the power to remove Kilpatrick from office under a little used law. So far, she has been hesitant to do so. The primary reason for her not kicking him out of office was given by an African-American Detroit city councilwoman who said "we don't want a white governor removing our black mayor."

However, since the most recent charges and problems, she has been under added pressure from the media and the public to kick him out. She has also been under intense pressure from the Obama campaign to get rid of him because he could be a real a drag on the ticket. When Obama campaigned in the City of Detroit recently, the Mayor did not attend the rally, saying he didn't want to hurt the presumptive Democratic nominee's chances.

Granholm has other reasons she might want to fire the mayor. Because of Michigan's ongoing recession, coupled with a tax increase she signed into law last year, Granholm's job approval has dropped dramatically. A decision to get rid of the mayor would take her sagging approval from the mid-thirties to the mid-seventies or higher, probably overnight. Granholm has scheduled her removal hearing for September 3rd.

It is probably not a coincidence that the date she has chosen is the day before Sen. John McCain's scheduled acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention. The timing assures that almost everyone in Michigan will be concentrating on the mayor in Detroit, not on the GOP convention in Minneapolis. So, the Democrats win round one on Kilpatrick.

However, even if he is removed, Republican Attorney General Mike Cox said that he expects the assault charges will be tried in the next 90 days. He said at the time he announced the indictments that simple assault cases like this almost always go to trial within three months. That means the high profile trial should occur in late October or early November, right before the election. In fairness to Cox, his timeframe is absolutely consistent with how other similar cases are handled. Round two to the Republicans.

Democrats hope Kilpatrick's removal from office will insulate Obama from any connection to Kilpatrick, just as they hope Obama's renunciation of Wright will end the controversy about his former pastor. However, radio talk show hosts Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin have all kept up the drumbeat about Obama, Wright, and white radical Will Ayres.

It's hard to believe that this association will not be the subject of TV ads in the weeks before the election, even though Obama has distanced himself from his former pastor. And, you can also expect that pro-McCain forces will try to tie Wright, Kikpatrick and Obama together in Michigan, no matter what happens to Mayor Kilpatrick. In office or out, guilty or not guilty, the clip of Kilpatrick introducing Wright does not go away. Neither does the clip of Obama defending his former "spiritual leader" or the clip of Wright saying "it's not God Bless America, it's God Damn America."

With Kilpatrick all over the news for his assault trial at the same time as the Obama/Kilpatrick/Wright ads are on TV, it may well be that the final round goes to McCain, perhaps by a knockout. Michigan is a pivotal state for both Obama and McCain. The final results might hinge on guilt through association. It would be more than ironic if two African-Americans, Kwame Kilpatrick and Rev. Jeremiah Wright, are responsible for Barack Obama's loss in Michigan. And, it is hard to write a scenario where a Democrat can be elected president without winning Michigan.
*********************

(To assure full disclosure, Mayor Kilpatrick and Attorney General Cox are former clients of Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc.)
Steve Mitchell is president of Mitchell Interactive a political polling, marketing research, and public affairs company based in Detroit and Washington, DC.
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/08/michigan_the_obamawrightkilpat.html at August 11, 2008 - 11:32:25 AM PDT

7 worrisome signs for Obama

By GLENN THRUSH | 8/11/08

A few weeks back, Time magazine was musing that John McCain was in danger of sliding from “a long shot” to a “no-shot.” Around the same time, a hard-nosed former Hillary Clinton insider declared the race “effectively over” thanks to the McCain campaign’s ineptitude, the tanking U.S. economy and Obama’s advantages in cash, charisma and hope. And Obama, up by three to six points nationally, was about to leverage a much-anticipated trip to Iraq, Afghanistan and Europe into a pre-convention poll surge.

Instead, his supporters are now suffering a pre-Denver panic attack, watching as John McCain draws incrementally closer in state and national polls – with Rasmussen’s most recent daily national tracker showing a statistical dead heat. More...



Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has been privately enumerating her doubts about Obama to supporters, according to people who have spoken with her. Clinton’s pollster Mark Penn recently unveiled a PowerPoint presentation red-flagging Obama’s lukewarm leads among white female voters and Hispanics – while predicting a five-point swing could turn a presumed Obama win into a McCain landslide.

“It’s not that people think McCain will win – it’s that they are realizing that McCain could win,” says Quinnipiac University pollster Peter Brown, whose surveys show tight races in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida. “This election is about Barack Obama — not John McCain — it's about whether Barack Obama passes muster. Every poll shows that people want a Democratic president, the problem is they’re not sure they want Barack Obama.”

Obama’s aides point to the stability of his small national lead, say they aren’t worried about his summer stall and think his numbers will improve when voters begin tuning in to the conventions.

“This is a country that is looking for a fundamentally different direction, and John McCain offers nothing but the status quo,” said spokesman Bill Burton, adding that he wasn’t “losing any sleep” over Obama's rough patch.

The campaign’s confidence may turn out to be justified, but two weeks prior to the national convention there are more than a few worrisome signs for Obama. Here are seven:

1. Race. “The idea that Obama was going to win in a blowout was always preposterous,” says former Nebraska senator and onetime presidential hopeful Bob Kerrey, an Obama backer. “A big piece of this, of course, is whether white people are going to support a black guy. ... If [Obama] is a tall, skinny white guy named Paul Jones, it's a different story.”

Obama is running nearly neck-and-neck with McCain among white voters in most polls, a major cause for optimism considering that John Kerry lost the white vote by 17 points and that Al Gore lost it by 12 points. Among whites, he does well with women, the affluent and college grads but fares poorly among low-income earners and Catholics — key swing groups that handed Hillary Rodham Clinton stunning blowouts in West Virginia and Kentucky.

How much does his race factor into tightening contests in Missouri, Wisconsin, Florida, Minnesota and Ohio? Nobody knows — and that’s the problem.

A huge challenge for Obama, insiders say, is simply determining how much skin color will matter in November. Race is nearly impossible to poll — no one ever says “I’m a racist” — and no campaign wants it revealed they are even asking questions on the issue.

“It’s the uncertainty that kills me — we know it’s going to be factor, but how big a factor?” asks a Democratic operative with ties to the Obama camp. “How do you even measure such a thing?

Adding to the jitters: GOP surrogates like New York Rep. Peter King have vowed to make Obama’s relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright a centerpiece during the homestretch.

2. Obama’s strength in Virginia may be overhyped. His chances of ending the Democrats 44-year losing streak in the commonwealth are pretty good — thanks to the explosive growth of the liberal D.C. suburbs, and a 147,000 spike in voter registration sure to benefit Democrats. But Obama’s aides privately concede his odds in Virginia are probably no better than 50-50 and that the state is far from a lock-solid hedge if he loses Ohio and Florida.

3. Michigan’s in play for McCain. In the year of the downturn, the hard-hit upper Midwest should be prime Obama country. Instead it’s a potential minefield. Obama is still ahead by two to five points there — similar to margins of victory enjoyed by Gore and Kerry in the last two presidential contests — but McCain has quietly crept up over the past month and could vault ahead if he anoints ex-Gov. Mitt Romney as his running mate. Simmering tensions between predominantly black Detroit and its white suburbs could hurt Obama. And McCain’s surrogates were handed a gift in the jailing of Detroit Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, an Obama supporter.

“Watch Michigan — the Democrats think they've got it but they don't,” says Quinnipiac’s Peter Brown, a longtime Michigan observer. “Obama should be killing [McCain] there, but there's a lot more racial tension in Michigan than in other states.”

Obama also hasn’t pulled away in other Democrat-friendly neighboring states, watching leads in Wisconsin and Minnesota erode over the last month.

4. Bad times could be good for McCain. If anger helps Democrats, fear works to the advantage of Republicans. A growing number of Democratic strategists worry that some swing state voters may opt for McCain if the economy veers from merely awful to downright terrifying. The typical political calculus —that bad economic times will deliver the White House to Democrats — may not hold if people start viewing the downturn as, essentially, a national security crisis that can’t be entrusted to a novice. And that was McCain’s underlying message in his Paris Hilton ad: Bank failures, soaring gas prices and plummeting house values are forms of economic terrorism, and he’s an all-purpose anti-terror warrior.

“John McCain is a known quantity,” says Bob Kerrey, who thinks Obama will ultimately prevail. “You don't look at John and say, ‘Who the heck is he?’. He's a veteran, he's a guy who got pretty banged up in Vietnam. He can deal with crisis. There's some uncertainty about Senator Obama.”

The good news for Obama, of course, is that McCain — who infamously admitted he “never understood” economics — is loathed by unions, was somnambulant at the dawn of the housing meltdown and still gropes for a coherent economic policy that doesn’t include the words “offshore drilling.” But he doesn’t have to win the argument, just reinforce doubts about Obama with wavering swing state voters. The Illinois senator still enjoys a major edge on the economic issues, but his 20-point June lead on the question of who can best fix the economy slipped to a 17-point edge in July, according to the Pew Research Center.

“Obama wins on the economy,” said Guy Cecil, Hillary Clinton’s field director during the primaries. “But it will be interesting to see if McCain’s able to close the economic gap.”

5. Where have you gone, Ross Perot? Bill Clinton, the lone two-term Democratic president since FDR, wouldn’t have been elected if independent Ross Perot hadn’t siphoned 19 percent of the vote in 1992. Former Georgia Rep. Bob Barr, staging an indie bid from McCain’s right, has little cash and doesn’t seem to be a factor in competitive states.

6. The Legacy of LBJ, Jimmy and Bubba. Barack Obama would have been a trailblazer no matter what —but the Democrats’ trail to the White House has been remarkably narrow since 1960, accommodating only Southern whites with border-state strength: Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. (Add Al Gore if you’re counting the popular vote.)

7. Americans may want divided government. Some Democratic operatives think a possible landslide for their party in congressional races could backfire on Obama.

“Fairly or not, folks think he’s pretty liberal and nobody wants a pair of Pelosis running things,” says a New York-based Democratic consultant.

Adds Bob Kerrey: “The country's still pretty divided … people may want a divided government. They want change, but I'm not sure that the Democratic agenda has the support of a majority of Americans.”

Hillary's Surprise

Editorial of The New York Sun | August 11, 2008

Could Senator Clinton win the Democratic presidential nomination at the last minute by taking advantage of buyer's remorse among Democratic super-delegates who are dismayed by the performance of Senator Obama's campaign so far?
More...

Here's the scenario: Senator Obama has raised tens of millions more dollars than Senator McCain, which Democrats think should translate into an advantage in the polls. The economy is doing poorly, which Democrats think should translate into an advantage in the polls given that the Republicans control the White House and the incumbent party is often blamed for a bad economy.

The Republican nominee-in-waiting, Senator McCain, is old and is unpopular with his party's base because he has broken with conservatives on taxes, global warming, torture, and campaign speech limitations. The Democrats think that should translate into an advantage for them at the polls, too, even though their presumptive nominee is several kiloparsecs to the left of Mr. McCain.

The Republican incumbent in the White House, President Bush, is personally unpopular, blamed for the Iraq War (as Robert L. Bartley liked to say: "They'll forgive you for being wrong. What they won't forgive you for is being right"). Three of the top 15 books on the New York Times bestseller list are Bush-bashing tomes; one advocates that he be prosecuted for murder. The Democrats think that this, too, should translate into an advantage for them at the polls.

Despite all these factors, Mr. McCain is running roughly even in the polls with the presumptive Democratic nominee, Mr. Obama, a time when he is supposed to be way ahead. In early August of 1988, Governor Dukakis was ahead of Vice President Bush by a wide margin. In early August of 2004, Senator Kerry was ahead of President Bush. If Mr. Obama doesn't have a big lead now, it could get pretty ugly for the Democrats as November approaches, the theory goes.

It will only get worse when Messrs. McCain and Obama face off in presidential debates. The public will discover that Mr. Obama, notwithstanding his reputation as a silver-tongued orator, is not that good a debater — which explains why he did his best to dodge debate invitations from Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain. Feature Mr. Obama's flubbering on the outbreak of war between Russia and Georgia.

Is all this enough to prompt Democratic super-delegates to re-think their allegiance to Mr. Obama and hand the nomination to Senator Clinton? If you count Michigan, Mrs. Clinton won the reported popular vote in the Democratic primaries and caucuses, 17.8 million to 17.5 million, and won many of the hotly contested big battleground states that the Democrats need to win in November — Pennsylvania, Ohio, California, New York, New Jersey, Florida. She won Massachusetts even after Senators Kennedy and Kerry endorsed Mr. Obama.

Take away the delegates Mr. Obama has by virtue of the endorsement of Senator Edwards, who has newly admitted deceiving the electorate about the adultery he committed while his wife lay stricken with cancer, and the delegate gap is even narrower. Even Mr. Obama doesn't have enough delegates to win the nomination without the super-delegates, so there wouldn't be anything terribly exceptional about the super-delegates putting her rather than him over the top.

Probably all this isn't enough — at least not yet. But what if, by the time the convention rolls around, Mr. Obama isn't just running neck and neck with Mr. McCain but is lagging by, say, five percentage points, or if Mr. Obama makes a big blunder with his choice of a running mate, or some other campaign stumble? Then expect the whispers already swirling among Clinton supporters to turn into a full-fledged roar.

Mrs. Clinton's Tuesday keynote address, scheduled for the Tuesday of the Convention, could then start to sound less like an endorsement speech and more like a final campaign plea. If it's a real hit, anything can happen. Expect, too, the well-timed release of some public poll showing Mrs. Clinton doing better than Mr. Obama in matchups against Mr. McCain in battleground states. Already the Clinton campaign is surfacing, through the forthcoming issue of the Atlantic Monthly, a memo portraying Mr. Obama as "not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values."

***

This newspaper doesn't presume to tell the Democrats whom to nominate, but we did start out this campaign hoping for three New York presidential candidates. Mayors Giuliani and Bloomberg are out of the race for the top spot on any ticket, though Mr. Bloomberg may still prove attractive as a vice presidential candidate. We have no illusions about the ultra-long-shot of Mrs. Clinton's chances of actually emerging as the Democratic nominee, but they are not technically impossible, as Mr. Obama is no doubt aware. Mr. Obama skipped a visit to a military hospital in Germany. He spent this weekend on vacation in Hawaii. Mrs. Clinton spent last week visiting wounded service members at Fort Drum. Mr. Obama may think the primary campaign is over, but Mrs. Clinton's die-hard supporters still itch for a last-minute surprise.

Who's Party is IT?

So according to Politico, Obama has a new book coming out next month. "The Book will hit stores on Sept. 9, just as the fall campaign is heating up.

"Change We Can Believe In: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise” includes a campaign photo album from the road, a collection of seven of the hit speeches by Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), and new essays outlining his policy proposals.

Since everything Obama is selling well these days, that means the senator's picture and policies will be in the front of most bookstores in America throughout the heart of the general-election campaign.

The secret project—both a collectible, and an answer to questions about his substance—was launched just a month ago, and got to the printer with no leaks."

Is it any wonder that the new Democratic platform sounds like a compilation of Obama's stump speeches? Apparently the big party platform meeting that just took place was a complete sham as the platform had already been sent to Obama's publishers weeks before. I feel bad for all the people who took time out of their lives and spent the money traveling to attend this dog and pony show. What a waste of time, money and energy.

Read more at: http://commonsensegram.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/we-have-been-bamboozled-again/

And for those of you who would like to read the actual draft of the Democratic Platform, you can read it by clicking HERE.

Wolfson: Edwards' Cover-up Cost Clinton the Nomination

Aides Say She Would Have Won Iowa if Edwards Affair was Exposed
By BRIAN ROSS and JAKE TAPPER

August 11, 2008—

Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide, making a charge that could exacerbate previously existing tensions between the camps of Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama. More...

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

Clinton finished third in the Iowa caucuses barely behind Edwards in second place and Obama in first. The momentum of the insurgent Obama campaign beating two better-known candidates -- not to mention an African-American winning in such an overwhelmingly white state -- changed the dynamics of the race forever.

Obama won 37.6 per cent of the vote. Edwards won 29.7 per cent and Clinton won 29.5 per cent, according to results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party.

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."

Two months earlier, Edwards had vociferously, but falsely, denied a story in the National Enquirer about the alleged affair last October, and few in the mainstream media even reported the denial.

The lie "certainly had an impact on the election," Wolfson said.

Former Clinton adviser James Carville told "Good Morning America" that Wolfson's comments are just speculation.

"My instinct tells me she probably would have done better if Senator Edwards wouldn't have been on the ballot," said Carville. "But that wasn't the circustances at the time. I think Howard is fine in engaging in this kind of speculation, but it doesn't really mean very much."

Wolfson said the Clinton campaign was aware of the issue, but did not try to fan the flames.

"Any of the campaigns that would have tried to push that would have been burned by it," said Wolfson.

But he says he is mystified about the failure of the national media to pursue the story as it has allegations of other candidates' affairs.

"I can't say I understand the rules of the media and I'm not sure they do either," he said.

Wolfson's suggestion comes at a delicate time in negotiations between the Clinton and Obama camps, as the Obama campaign decides whether the convention later this month should feature a roll call vote allowing Clinton's delegates to voice their enthusiasm for their candidate. Many Clinton supporters are already resentful of Obama, whom they see as having only won the nomination with the support of a sexist media and Democratic establishment. Wolfson's argument that these same players helped keep Edwards in the race, thus hurting Clinton -- a highly debatable contention -- will likely only fan the flames of Democratic division.

Wolfson's contention is not shared by the Obama campaign, whose officials never bought the argument that Clinton was the second choice of Edwards voters. Immediately after Edwards dropped out of the race at the end of January, Obama won eleven straight contests in a row.

And Clinton's steadfast refusal to say she regretted her vote to authorize use of force in Iraq -- unlike Obama, who always opposed the war, and Edwards, who said his vote for war was a mistake -- turned off many anti-wars liberals in Iowa, who make up a disproportionate number of caucus goers.

In May 2007, Mike Henry, then Clinton's deputy campaign manager, thought the terrain so hostile to Clinton he wrote a memo to "propose skipping the Iowa caucuses and dedicating more of Senator Clinton's time and financial resources on the primary in New Hampshire on January 22, the Nevada caucus on January 19, the primaries in South Carolina and Florida on January 29, and the 20 plus state primaries on February 5th."

There was no comment from the Obama campaign.

The Audacity of A Fraud

You just might want to read an African American Speaking out...It has some choice words here,,,hope you find it both alarming as well as rather raw, as she does not mix her words. I appreciate that she does not want Senator Clinton on the ticket with Obama to tarnish her name and that she is bold enough to say what is on her mind... More...


This historical election for Senator Obama, based on his words, can be traced all the way back to Selma Alabama. A place Senator Obama states in his speech in 2007 he owes his very existence to. His passionate speech before a congregation at Brown Chapel A.M. E. Church tells the story of how the protests in Selma played a part in him being able to stand there before them that day.

The riveting story on how JFK played a part in his father having the chance to be one of the young Africans who were bought to this country to give them scholarships to study so they can learn what a wonderful country this is, was poignant and beautiful as he described how the events and his very existence came about reflects in this passage of his speech:

"This young man named Barack Obama got one of those tickets and came over to this country. He met this woman whose great-great-great-great grandfather had owned slaves. But she had a good idea there was some craziness going on because they looked at each other and they decided that we know that in the world as it had been, it might not be possible for us to get together an have a child.

He goes even more in depth, filled with emotion as he describes the impact of this movement on who he is, and where he is today ....
"there was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born. So don't tell me I don't have a claim on Selma, Alabama. Don't tell me I'm not coming home to Selma Alabama. I'm here because somebody marched. I'm here because you all sacrificed for me. I stand on the shoulders of giants".

Moving..riveting and nothing but LIES. The march in which he refers happened on 7 March 1965, when demonstrators attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma Alabama. It is mathmatically impossible for Obama senior and Ann Dunham to decide to marry based on the "march" in Selma and produce Senator Obama, if Senator Obama was born in AUGUST 1961 and the march in Selma happened in 1965. How can he state JFK was responsible for the first airlift bringing Kenyans over when Kenyan nationalist leader, Tom MBoya was responsible between 1959 & 1960 on gaining financial support for this endeavor? JFK was responsible for the SECOND airlift and had nothing to do with the first. Senator Obama's father was already in Hawaii studying. But there are those who had an impact and were part of that movement that Senator Obama carelessly used in a speech for political gain, destroying our history without KNOWING our history....

Amelia Boynton Robinson, whose mother with a horse and buggy used to get people down to the registration office and help them register in Savannah Georgia in 1920. Who decided herself that she would help people vote because so many people were illiterate and couldn't fill out the two page literacy tests.

Or John Lewis who talks about Freedom Day in Selma October 8 1963 which he felt was a turning point during the Civil Rights movement. Who witnessed the march on Washington by the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee call for "one man, one vote" and decided to see if that idea would work down in Selma.

2.1 percent. 2.1 percent of black people of age were registered to vote. Hundreds of black people lined up and stood outside of a county courthouse for almost an ENTIRE DAY on October 8th 1963. And at the end of that day after elderly black men and women stood outside all day. Only 5 people made it in to take the literacy tests. Five. Almost similar to the treatment of those who attempted to vote in the caucuses in this election. But just like the elected officials we have now, the ones back in Selma in 1963, they did not care because they looked to the bigger picture. Suppressing the right for some to vote.

Because of the threat of the Democratic Party losing congressional state and local campaigns based on alienating the "African American" community from having a "historical" election, our country will end up suffering a possible 4 years of the most worthless candidate in American history that should never have made it this far. Who made it to this point based on the pigmentation of their skin only. When Civil Rights Leaders and Activists fought to NOT be judged by the color of there skin. To have fair representation and NOT be denied based on the color of there skin. But you want us to vote based on his. Now,its to the point they would rather lose the 2008 election just to gain seats in the House and the Senate. By using the ignorance of the black community by not explaining the process. By not educating them on how the nomination process works. By putting the idea in there head that the Super Delegates voting at the convention is some form of "backroom" deal. I am black. And hell would freeze over before I ever give my vote, my support, or my loyalty to an individual who uses the backs of the black community and our history as a stepping stone to 1600 Penn Ave.

Who has zero problem straight out lying, embellishing stories and twisting the words to give the appearance of something that is not there and nothing but an allusion. Mariah Carey, Rosario Dawson, Vin Diesel, Rachel Ray Smith Miss USA 2007, Soledad O'bryan, Barack Obama. What do they all have in common? Biracial. Except Senator Obama doesnt acknowledge his "other side" because it would ruin the image to be called the first "black" president. That is why you get to see the Kenyan relatives and not the loving "white" ones who raised him. If he can throw his grandmother under the closest bus, and she raised him. What will he do to his so called "black community" when they find out what he "really" means after the convention, then, it will be based on the "lesser of two evils" and they will see they were used to achieve a goal. Especially when he lied and stated he can no more disown them than Rev Jeremiah Wright.

Yes, I am disappointed in those of my race who would rather dance in the streets screaming "Yes We Can" and who state they want a "black" president and a "historical" election more than a job or health insurance. What will they do on Nov 5th when he loses and they realize they STILL dont have a job, still dont have a house, still dont have health insurance, still struggling to make ends meet, still can barely afford gas, still standing in that same damn welfare line, still standing in the unemployment line, and still struggling to put food on the table? Will everyone then go back to screaming the mantra that "the white man is still keeping you down"? Probably. But they keep themself down by making irrational and frivoulous decisions. They DESERVE to struggle. You can only be a victim but for so long before its time to become accountable for your own actions. Anyone who cannot see that the "white" elected officials like Robert Wexler who are using the word "racist" to apply to anyone who have the audacity to ask a question towards Senator Obama. They use words such as this to "incite" the black people, to "rile" up the black community, and like idiots they fall for it hook, line and sinker.
To the African American: Super Delegates & Delegates, elected officials, Local and State leaders, community leaders, & Ministers within the black community? Your worthless. Positively worthless. You have condemned MILLIONS to suffer based on the fact you cant look past of the color of the hand before you. You would rather have a "historical" election, gain seats, and lose the general election, than to have change. If Senator Barack Obama was a white man, or if this was Senator Mccain and had a WHITE pastor giving anti american speeches in the pulpit, associates like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and Rezko, endorsing Raila Odinga, HE WOULD OF NOT MADE IT THIS FAR. To believe that Senator Obama was ignorant to the actions of his associates is hard to believe considering the degree from Harvard University.
To the local and state officials, white & black, and the African American community leaders in Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Louisiana? If your constituents are voting for Senator Obama based on skin color. Please forward my email address to them: soldier4hillary@yahoo.com, they are going to need it to get a clear explanation and reason for why Senator Obama lost.

Senator Clinton does not need to be anywhere near a Obama ticket. I could care less about her endorsement of Senator Obama. I could care less about her words of support. She can give that speech during the convention with the original birth certificate of Senator Obama in one hand, his hidden grandmother standing behind her and the other hand linked to Larry Sinclair all while giving a speech stating the truth was really not the truth, all while singing Kumbayah and I would still vote against him. And if she is on the ticket I would vote AGAINST her as well. Because when Senator Obama's political career goes down the drain and he loses the election, based on the information the Democratic Party chose to overlook, she does not need to be anywhere in the vicinity, and her political career she has worked her life for does not need to become jeopardized. I could care less about your black constituents voting solely on skin color and a false belief Senator Obama is "one of them". If you want to see a true riot, not the "paid" rioters Al Sharpton talked about, put her on that losing ticket and let her political career become tarnished by that loser. I would rather reelect a Republican Senator who takes gifts to get his house fixed than to vote for one Democratic Party member on ANY ballot that is willing to sacrifice the safety of our country, nominate a candidate that foreign countries have the ability to blackmail and gain the upper hand based on information this party overlook. It's no longer about Senator Clinton. Because the day after the Democratic Convention, it is going to be an all out assault on those looking to have the "black folk" backs be the path to maintaining your seat because you have done your part and gave them there "historical" election with there "historical" candidate knowing he does not have a prayer of a chance for winning.

When Senator Barack Obama loses in November, and he will lose big, you will blame Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. You will blame her because as she fought for the heart and soul of your party, to be able to push this country forward and back on track, as you fought just to have Senator Obama, his coattails and a couple of extra seats and positions in your districts. You care nothing for this country. You have no LOYALTY to its people. No matter what happens from this day forward I will ALWAYS continue to support, standby, do all for, Senator Clinton. Not because she asked or feel its her right, but because she EARNED IT! She earned it when it was deemed necessary to label a former First Lady, Acting Senator, and Presidential Candidate Racist. She earned it everytime one of her supporters receieved death threats and hate mail, she earned it for every single time I was called a "Hillary Nigger", "Hillarity Nigger", "Sell Out", "Uncle Tom" "Military Republican Troll", "Dead Ender" from those of my very own race who are quick to call someone else racist as they throw every racial slur they can think of my way because I choose to not support a candidate that is here today only because of the color of there skin.

I have no loyalties to any party be it Democratic or Republican. I could care less about fake "riots" as threats instigated by Al Sharpton. I could care less about any Democrats on any ballots. The idea of true "change" went out the door when people turned a blind eye to the dead coming back to vote in a primaries against my goddamn candidate. If the thought people will choose the lesser of two evils was the route this party attempts to go, you never realized we wanted solutions for our country versus a historical election. For Rev Al Sharpton? You had the audacity to get on television and state there would be "riots" if anything was taken away from Senator Obama if he won the popular vote. Al? HE DIDNT. Senator Clinton did. You know good and damn well no one is going to "riot" for Senator Obama.

The reason they like Senator Obama is based on the fact that he thinks he can come to the black churches and give speeches "telling you about yourselves" and what the "black community" has done wrong. He comes and talks down to the people by telling them everything wrong, ie black men abadoning there families, and never saying anything done right. He tells you about his father being a goathearder and his mother on welfare as if that is what being "Black in America" is all about, and the masses eat that shit up. Because now they think he is knows about the struggle, overcoming and beating the odds. Does he highlight going to school in Hawaii? Or that he had loving grandparents who raised him? Hell no. You didnt have the decency to check the goddamn facts before you got up on national television spouting useless, false nonsense. Between Jessie Jackson Jr who threw his own damn father under the bus for Senator Obama, you have hurt the chances of millions having the things outlined throughout Senator Clintons campaign. Amazing. You and the African American Super Delegates and Delegates have a Senator who has came along and will credit himself as the one who banished racial divide and affirmative action forever because since he is nominated it must mean it is no longer needed or no longer happening. All by just waving his sparkly magic wand in the air to make it all go away. All while riding on his prancing sparkly pony as leprachauns prance around yelling "Yes we Can". The skys opening up with angels playing a harp with glittery butterflies in the air. Now if you speak out, according to CNN your just jealous and bitter because he is our new messiah who transcinds race.

Rev Sharpton. What do you think will happen if he is nominated? You and all of those in the black community who support him will be under the closest bus. You are no longer needed. Your threats in the Primary of "riots allowed him to win based on paid Super Delegates and scared Super Delegates afraid to have those in there community not vote for them. Simply amazing....

Senator Obama talks about his father "abandoning" him. Get fucking real. His father already was married with a family. Do you see him giving speeches on adultery? His father went to an Ivy league school. Did you see him give a speech on being able to succeed? His mother went to a ivy league school. Did you see him give a speech about his mother who was on "welfare" but was able to attend a prestigous college despite the odds? Senator Obama says what is needed for the moment and has no problem destroying everything people fought for. The only thing he knows about the black community is based on what Axelrod has taught him. They brought you out to incite the masses with words of "riots". You know good and damn well what happens during a primary. You know how the process works. You know. But you allowed people to remain ignorant to achieve a goal.

So I will continue to be a Republican Dead Ender Puma Kitty Hillary Nigger Troll who gets hate mail and threats, I wear the title as proudly as the flag on my right shoulder. I would rather stand for something than to stand for nothing at all.