PUMA in WA will unite together!

PUMA stands for "People United Means Action!" You may know that there is another, more defiant meaning for the acronym P.U.M.A. There will be no unity in the Democratic party until the voices of the 18 million voters who support Hillary Clinton are heard and heeded.

We are motivated to action by our shared belief that the current leadership of the Democratic National Committee has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all democrats in all 50 states. They are misleading our party and aim to mislead our country into nominating an illegitimate candidate for president in 2008. Our goals are fourfold:


1. To support the candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2008 / 2012.

2. To lobby and organize for changes in leadership in the DNC

3. To critique and oppose the misogyny, discrimination, and disinformation in the mainstream media, including mainstream blogs and other outlets of new media

4. To support the efforts of those political figures who have allied themselves with Hillary Clinton and who have demonstrated commitment to our first three goals

DAILY Rasmussen Poll:

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows Barack Obama attracting 49% of the vote while John McCain earns 46%.

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Report Reveals Obama Birth Certificate is a digitally modified Forgery

UPDATE: According to Puma Radio, there is an individual attempting to place an injunction against Obama's candidacy until an authenticated Certificate of Birth is provided.

By TechdudecloseAuthor: Techdude

Foreword by TexasDarlin: Techdude’s latest report, written exclusively for the TD and No Quarter blogs, is mind-blowing. This report solves the “security border” mystery AND exposes THE SMOKING GUN that will be conclusive in proving that the Certificate of Live Birth (COLB) proffered by Barack Obama on his official campaign website IS FAKE.

The author’s previous report and professional credentials are at the end. He is the REAL DEAL.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This follow up report, although it is more of an addendum, is about to reveal enough proof, beyond any doubt, that the KOS COLB is a digitally modified forgery and was based on another individual’s post-2006 COLB.
To read more click here

Big-Dollar Donors Are Major Force in Obama Campaign

New York Times

Big-Dollar Donors Are Major Force in Obama Campaign
By MICHAEL LUO and CHRISTOPHER DREW
Published: August 5, 2008

In an effort to cast himself as independent of the influence of money on politics, Senator Barack Obama often highlights the campaign contributions of $200 or less that have amounted to fully half of the $340 million he has collected so far.

But records show that one-third of his record-breaking haul has come from donations of $1,000 or more: a total of $112 million, more than Senator John McCain, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival, or Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, his opponent in the Democratic primaries, raised in contributions of that size.

Behind those larger donations is a phalanx of more than 500 Obama “bundlers,” fund-raisers who have each collected contributions totaling $50,000 or more. Many of the bundlers come from industries with critical interests in Washington. Nearly three dozen of the bundlers have raised more than $500,000 each, including more than a half-dozen who have passed the $1 million mark and one or two who have exceeded $2 million, according to interviews with fund-raisers.More...

While his campaign has cited its volume of small donations as a rationale for his decision to opt out of public financing for the general election, Mr. Obama has worked to build a network of big-dollar supporters from the time he began contemplating a run for the United States Senate. He tapped into well-connected people in Chicago prior to the 2004 Senate race, and once elected, set out across the country starting to cultivate some of his party’s most influential money collectors.

He courted them with the savvy of a veteran politician, through phone calls, meals and one-on-one meetings; he wrote thank-you cards and remembered birthdays; he sent them autographed copies of his book and doted on their children.

The fruits of his efforts have put Mr. Obama’s major donors on a pace that almost rivals the $147 million raised by President Bush’s network of Pioneers and Rangers in contributions of $1,000 or larger during the 2004 primary season.

Given his decision not to accept public financing, Mr. Obama is counting on his bundlers to help him raise $300 million for his general-election campaign and another $180 million for the Democratic National Committee.

An analysis of campaign finance records shows that about two-thirds of his bundlers are concentrated in four major industries: law, securities and investments, real estate and entertainment. Lawyers make up the largest group, numbering roughly 130, with many of them working for firms that also have lobbying arms. At least 100 Obama bundlers are top executives or brokers from investment businesses: nearly two dozen work for financial titans like Lehman Brothers, Goldman Sachs or Citigroup. About 40 others come from the real estate industry.

The biggest fund-raisers include people like Julius Genachowski, a former senior official at the Federal Communications Commission and a technology executive who is new to political fund-raising; Robert Wolf, president and chief operating officer of UBS Investment Bank; James A. Torrey, a New York hedge-fund investor; and Charles H. Rivkin, chief executive of an animation studio in Los Angeles.

“It’s fairly clear that this is being packaged as an extraordinary new kind of fund-raising, and the Internet is a new and powerful part of it,” said Michael J. Malbin, executive director of the Campaign Finance Institute. “But it’s also clear that many of the old donors are still there and important.”

The care and feeding that top Obama fund-raisers have received underscores their significance to his campaign. Members of his National Finance Committee who fulfill their commitment to raise at least $250,000 are being rewarded with trips to the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Finance committee members participate in conference calls with top campaign officials every other week. The fund-raisers meet quarterly, often with Mr. Obama dropping in. He lingered after the most recent meeting in June in Chicago, telling his staff he wanted to thank every person in the room. Some fund-raisers who knocked on doors for Mr. Obama in places like Indiana, Iowa and Pennsylvania got to spend time with Mr. Obama backstage before and after speeches on primary nights.

His fund-raisers invariably say their support for him is not rooted in any kind of promise of access, but rather their belief in him.

“This is about Barack Obama and changing the direction of our country,” said Jonathan B. Perdue, a business consultant in Mill Valley, Calif., who has raised more than $250,000 for Mr. Obama’s campaign.

Mr. Obama has pledged not to accept donations from lobbyists or political action committees registered with the federal government. But some top donors clearly have policy and political agendas. Hedge-fund executives, for example, have bundled large sums for Mr. Obama at a time when their industry has been looking to increase its clout in Washington.

Kenneth C. Griffin, chief executive officer of Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, has collected more than $50,000 for Mr. Obama. But Mr. Griffin, whose $1.5 billion in income in 2007 made him one of the country’s highest-paid hedge-fund executives, has given generously over the years to Republicans as well, and he recently helped to hold a fund-raiser for Mr. McCain. Citadel has spent more than $1.1 million, dating back to 2007, in lobbying against higher tax rates for hedge-fund gains. (Mr. Obama has supported the higher tax rates.)

Similarly, Paul Tudor Jones, a billionaire hedge-fund manager from Connecticut, has raised more than $100,000 for Mr. Obama. But he also gave to Mr. McCain, to Rudolph W. Giuliani and to Mitt Romney. Mr. Jones, who has given more than $900,000 over the last decade to federal candidates and political organizations, helped form a trade association that has fought hedge-fund regulation.

Many fund-raisers sit on the campaign’s array of policy working groups, getting a chance to weigh in on policy positions and speeches. Mr. Genachowski, a Harvard Law School classmate of Mr. Obama, leads the technology working group. Fund-raisers from private equity and hedge funds sit on Mr. Obama’s economic policy group.

Despite Mr. Obama’s image as a newcomer, many of his bundlers are Democratic Party stalwarts, including people who were some of the top fund-raisers for Senator John Kerry in 2004. At least 58 of them appear to have personally made more than $100,000 in contributions to federal candidates and committees over the last decade. Updated bundler lists released recently by the McCain and Obama campaigns show that they have similar numbers of high-dollar fund-raisers.

The Obama fund-raising operation is meticulously organized. Bundlers are assigned tracking numbers, and the finance staff sends them quarterly reminders of how they are doing in meeting their goals.

“There’s no price for admission,” said Alan D. Solomont, a top Democratic fund-raiser in Boston who made his fortune in the nursing home industry and has given more than $1.5 million to Democratic candidates and causes. “We value every donation and every donor equally. But we are a performance-based organization. We want everybody to feel like they’re included, but at the same time we’re not here to have tea together.”

Mr. Obama began courting many of his fund-raisers soon after he burst upon the national scene with his rousing speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Mr. Solomont, a major fund-raiser both for Mr. Kerry and for Bill Clinton during their presidential runs, received a call on his cellphone in February 2005, a year after Mr. Obama’s election to the Senate, from a member of his staff who asked if he would like to get together with Mr. Obama.

They met for Chinese food in Washington the following week, and Mr. Obama scored points with Mr. Solomont when he pointed out that they had both been community organizers earlier in their careers.

“I’ve been involved in politics a long time,” Mr. Solomont said. “Nobody’s bothered to know that about me.”

Early that same year, Mr. Obama attended a dinner in the Bay Area for about 20 major Kerry supporters. The dinner was organized by Mark Gorenberg, a Silicon Valley venture capitalist who was Mr. Kerry’s single biggest fund-raiser, after Mr. Obama’s staff members contacted him. Several of those on hand, including Mr. Gorenberg and John Roos, head of a Silicon Valley law firm, became among the earliest and biggest check collectors for Mr. Obama’s presidential bid.

In 2006, Mr. Obama became a vice chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, giving him the opportunity to campaign across the country and to cultivate other potential benefactors.

When his book “The Audacity of Hope” came out later that year, his staff members organized book parties at the homes of major Democratic donors.

In December, Mr. Obama visited the New York office of the billionaire investor George Soros to court a roomful of high-powered Democratic fund-raisers, hoping to lure some of them away from Mrs. Clinton. Not everyone was swayed, but Mr. Obama won over Orin Kramer, a hedge-fund executive from New Jersey, and Mr. Wolf, the UBS executive, both of whom are now among Mr. Obama’s biggest fund-raisers.

Mr. Obama signed on as his finance director Julianna Smoot, who had led fund-raising for Senate Democrats and, before that, for Senator Tom Daschle when he was majority leader.

With guidance from Ms. Smoot, a key part of the campaign’s fast start was its success in scooping up top former Kerry fund-raisers, including Lou Susman, a Chicago investment banker who was Mr. Kerry’s national finance chairman, and Kirk Wagar, a lawyer in Miami who became Mr. Obama’s finance chairman in Florida.

Even so, the initial meeting of Mr. Obama’s national finance committee, held in Chicago the day after he officially announced his candidacy, was a relatively small affair, numbering about 75 people.

Penny Pritzker, the billionaire heiress to the Hyatt hotel fortune whom Mr. Obama asked to become his finance chairwoman, challenged the group to double in size.

The number of bundlers ballooned quickly. The Obama campaign made important inroads among affluent people under age 45, including Silicon Valley engineers and hedge-fund analysts, many of whom had not been on the political radar screen.

Donations in June, the latest month for which Mr. Obama has disclosed his donors to the Federal Election Commission, illustrate the double-barreled nature of the campaign’s fund-raising. Mr. Obama brought in nearly $31 million in contributions of less than $200, his best month for small donations. But he also collected more than $12 million in contributions of $1,000 or more, the most since the first half of 2007.

The share from large contributions appears poised to increase, as Mr. Obama has stepped up his fund-raising schedule.

“In 2007, the campaign relied on the tried and true methods like fund-raisers, for both large- and small-dollar donors, with the candidate or his surrogates, and the Internet largely financed it in 2008,” said Kirk Dornbush, the president of a biotech firm and a top fund-raiser in Atlanta. “When you combine the traditional fund-raising methods with the continued online contributions, you have a very, very powerful fund-raising engine.”

Denver Police Brace for Convention

Security was heavy for the Democratic National Convention in Boston in 2004, including state troopers in riot gear the day before it opened. This year’s convention is in Denver on Aug. 25-28.
The New York Times
Printer Friendly Format Sponsored By


By DAVID JOHNSTON and ERIC SCHMITT
Published: August 5, 2008

WASHINGTON — Federal and local authorities are girding for huge protests, mammoth traffic tie-ups and civil disturbances at the Democratic National Convention in Denver this month, fearing that the convention will become a magnet for militant protest groups. More...

Officials say that what makes Denver different than past conventions is the historic nature of Senator Barack Obama’s nomination, a megawattage event whose global spotlight could draw tens of thousands of demonstrators, including self-described anarchists who the police fear will infiltrate peaceful protest groups to disrupt the weeklong event.

The Secret Service is wary of discussing threats against the people they protect, but with Mr. Obama poised to become the first black presidential nominee, there are special worries. While law enforcement officials say there are no specific, credible threats against Mr. Obama, they expressed concern about low-level chatter on Web sites frequented by white separatists who spew hate about Mr. Obama’s race and what they perceive as his liberal agenda.

One recent scheduling change caused a major shift in security plans. When Mr. Obama announced last month that he would accept his party’s nomination not at the Pepsi Center in downtown Denver, where the convention is being held, but at Invesco Field, home of the Denver Broncos, the Secret Service scrambled to work out plans with local authorities to secure the open-air stadium, which seats more than 75,000 people. Invesco is also adjacent to Interstate 25, a major corridor through the Northern Rockies that will most likely be closed for at least part of Mr. Obama’s acceptance speech.

“The magnitude of the event has expanded,” said John W. Hickenlooper, the mayor of Denver and a Democrat. “It’s bigger and more profound than we expected.”

Officials acknowledge that their projections for the number of protesters are based more on a worst-case chain of events than specific information about who will show up, but they say they cannot take any chances.

As a result, the Secret Service, the Pentagon, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and scores of police departments are moving thousands of agents, analysts, officers and employees to Denver for the Aug. 25-28 convention. They will operate through a complex hierarchy of command centers, steering committees and protocols to respond to disruptions.

National political conventions are a chance for federal agencies to test their latest and most sophisticated technology, and this year is no different. There was a brief flare-up recently between the F.B.I. and the Secret Service, when each wanted to patrol the skies over the convention with their surveillance aircraft, packed with infrared cameras and other electronics. The issue was resolved in favor of the Secret Service, according to people briefed on the matter.

Both Denver and St. Paul, where the Republican National Convention will be held Sept. 1-4, are enlisting thousands of additional officers to help with security. Even so, their numbers will be only about a third of the 10,000 police officers that New York City fielded for the 2004 Republican convention, just three years after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Denver Police Department will nearly double in size, according to federal officials involved in the planning. The city is bringing in nearly 1,500 police officers from communities throughout Colorado and beyond, even inviting an eight-person mounted unit from Cheyenne, Wyo. State lawmakers changed Colorado law to allow the out-of-state police officers to serve as peace officers in Denver.

The expressions of concern about security at the convention could have more immediate political and legal implications, too. A federal judge, Marcia S. Krieger of United States District Court in Denver, is expected to issue a decision this week in a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union seeking to ease security provisions at the convention. The A.C.L.U. has suggested that the Secret Service and the Denver police have exaggerated risks as part of a crackdown on dissent.

The case centers on whether the security zone around the Pepsi Center is so large, and the designated parade route through the city for marches and rallies so far away, as to unnecessarily stifle free speech. New worries about protests and anarchy could bolster the government’s case that the plans are justified.

Last month, under pressure from the A.C.L.U. lawsuit, the city released a list of expenses related to the convention showing that the police were preparing for large demonstrations and mass arrests and that the department had spent $2.1 million on protection equipment for its officers, $1.4 million for barricades and $850,000 for supplies related to the arrest and processing of suspects.

In disclosing the cost breakdown, city officials denied rumors that had circulated for weeks that they had contemplated buying exotic nonlethal weapons that fired an immobilizing goo, or that used radiation or sonic waves to incapacitate people or vehicles.

Similar preparations are under way for the Republican convention in Minnesota, but without the harsh glare that, at the moment, seems to be focused on Denver. St. Paul’s 600-member police force will grow nearly sixfold with about 3,000 additional officers arriving from around Minnesota, as well as from Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin and the Dakotas, said Tom Walsh, a spokesman for the St. Paul Police Department.

“St. Paul isn’t New York,” he said. “We just don’t have the staffing.”

Kenneth L. Wainstein, the White House adviser on homeland security and counterterrorism, recently visited Denver and St. Paul, a trip that reflected the administration’s interest in the conventions. “In the post-9/11 world, you have to prepare and plan for all contingencies,” Mr. Wainstein said. “That means preparing for everything from a minor disruption and an unruly individual to a broader terrorist event. We need to plan for everything no matter what the threat level is on any particular day.”

Intelligence analysts, however, have not reported a heightened threat from Islamic extremists or domestic threats from antigovernment groups or environmental militants like the kind that operate in many Western states, according to federal officials. “We just aren’t seeing a credible threat,” said James H. Davis, the F.B.I. agent in charge of the Denver office.

Each convention has been designated a National Special Security Event, which makes the Secret Service the lead federal agency responsible for protecting dignitaries and providing overall security. Other agencies will be on standby.

The National Guard in Minnesota and Colorado will each have hundreds of troops on call to their governors to help civilian medical personnel or bomb squads, for instance, if needed. National Guard specialists trained to deal with biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons will also be available.

“There won’t be a visible military presence,” said Maj. Gen. Guy C. Swan III, director of operations for the military’s Northern Command, which is in charge of the military’s response to threats on American soil.

Each city has been awarded $50 million in federal funds for convention costs, a substantial part of which is being spent on security-related equipment and training. And each city has been enlisting the help of neighboring communities to provide more officers to help police the conventions.

The security and safety of convention delegates and visitors has become an increasingly significant issue in Denver and Minneapolis-St. Paul, where local officials were hoping to avoid complaints, heard in 2004 after the Democratic convention in Boston and the Republican convention in New York, that restrictive security arrangements had nearly locked down the convention sites.

From the start, the Democrats’ decision to hold their convention in Denver and the Republicans’ choice of St. Paul stirred concerns about whether local police in each city had enough officers to deal with a wide range of threats, including terrorist attacks or a lone gunman.

The most pressing fears, particularly in Denver, are that as many as 30,000 demonstrators may sweep into the city to disrupt the convention. Much of the city’s planning, in conjunction with federal authorities, has been based on the possibility of such protests, according to federal officials.

Still, these officials acknowledge that they have little concrete intelligence indicating that such large or unruly demonstrations are being planned. But, officials said they had based their assessments on groups like Recreate 68, Tent State and other activist coalitions. Organizers insist the groups are nonviolent, but to the authorities their names alone raise the specter of violent confrontations like those at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago.

In Denver, federal officials have expressed concern that demonstrators could try to shut down regular business at several major offices, including the Federal Reserve Bank, the United States Mint, and the federal courthouse.

“Because of the Internet, the ability of protesters to mobilize and share information has metastasized,” said Troy A. Eid, the United States attorney for Colorado. “That would be fine if it were peaceful, as we expect. But we have to plan accordingly.”

In recent days, domestic security officials issued a heightened awareness bulletin urging greater attention because of a number of factors, including the election and the conventions. But law enforcement authorities say they are trying to strike a balance between planning for every conceivable threat, including terrorist attacks and large public demonstrations, and not strangling a city’s commercial life in the process.

“We’re not looking to shut down an entire city,” said Malcolm Wiley, a Secret Service agent involved in security planning for the convention in Denver.

Kirk Johnson contributed reporting from Denver.

The Molten Core of Barack: Why Obama Can't Win

SUMMARY: John McCain is a complete and well-formed man. Barack Obama is completing himself. As he moves to fit what he perceives to be a right-of-center country, he distances himself from the simple and authentic passion of a young candidate who once pledged "Change We Can Believe In."

This is the trap Barack Obama has made for himself, the one he cannot escape, the one Hillary Clinton foresaw, the one that may doom him. The Obama campaign knows it too. In fear the dream is being lost drop-by-drop, they are going negative on John McCain. Maybe the aliens should ask to meet McCain, as well. (Click on the header to read the full article)

Critical of McCain, Obama Quiet on Own Energy Vote

Not only is Obama running a negative campaign, he's flip flopping himself in an apparent display of hypocrisy...More...

Tom Raum

Democratic candidate Barack Obama criticized Republican John McCain on Tuesday for taking a page out of "the Cheney playbook" on energy, overlooking his own support of oil-friendly policies that the unpopular vice president helped to craft.

Vice President Dick Cheney, a former oilman, early in the Bush administration helped draft an energy policy that Obama asserted is biased in favor of tax breaks and favorable treatment for big oil. Obama's remarks were an attempt to capitalize on Cheney's unpopularity.

"President Bush, he had an energy policy. He turned to Dick Cheney and he said, 'Cheney, go take care of this,'" Obama said. "Cheney met with renewable-energy folks once and oil and gas (executives) 40 times. McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook."

In stumping Tuesday in this key battleground state, Obama sought to link the troubled economy with Republican policies and offer his own energy plan in contrast. He has tried to cast McCain as more concerned about oil company profits and drilling than an overall energy strategy.

However, Obama himself voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure Cheney played a major role in developing. McCain opposed the bill on grounds it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

The Obama campaign has said the Illinois senator supported the legislation because it included huge investments in renewable energy.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds, said, "Barack Obama is opposed to offshore drilling and is also opposed to admitting that he voted for the same corporate giveaways for Big Oil that he's campaigning against today."

With polls showing concern over gas prices a prime concern of Americans, Obama has been depicting energy as the nation's most pressing national security and economic issue.

Obama has proposed a $1,000-per family energy rebate to be paid for by a tax on excessive energy-company profits. He called for ending U.S. reliance on oil from the Middle East and Venezuela over the next 10 years, a project he said would cost the U.S. $150 billion.

Obama has also proposed borrowing oil from the strategic petroleum reserve as a short-term measure to reduce gasoline prices, a conditional and limited resumption of offshore drilling, and a new emphasis on alternative energy sources and hybrid vehicles.

"Our economy is in turmoil, I don't have to tell the people of Youngstown," Obama told a high-school gymnasium audience in this rust-belt city. "People here have known some hard knocks and hard times."

Ohio is a bellwether state, having voted for the winning candidate in all 11 presidential elections since 1964, including handing Bush a close re-election victory in 2004.

Increasingly, with his appearances this week and with a new ad, Obama has been seeking to tie McCain to the oil and gas industry, although McCain, unlike Bush and Cheney, did not previously work in the industry.

A new Obama ad says Big Oil filled McCain's campaign with $2 million in contributions and that he "wants to give them another $4 billion in tax breaks."

That $4 billion consists mainly of potential revenue from a McCain proposal to lower corporate taxes on all American businesses.

The McCain campaign pointed out that the ad doesn't mention Obama has taken some $400,000 from oil company executives.

"We have to end the age of oil. "Obama said. "If we fail to act, there are severe indications for national security, our economy and our environment."

Obama has had trouble connecting with white working-class voters, who are a major factor in Ohio. Clinton won the state in its Democratic primary earlier this year. Gov. Ted Strickland, who had been a Clinton supporter, gave a rousing endorsement of Obama, calling him "bright, young, energized and compassionate."

Obama's focused on economic issues. He said that oil giant Exxon-Mobil "makes in 30 seconds what the typical Ohio worker makes in a year."

"We need more jobs and economic development. Why don't we focus on clean energy and reopening factories and putting people back to work? Nobody is benefiting from jobs that are leaving the community," he said.

Obama has proposed a $15-billion-a-year program to help promote clean-energy jobs.

In a question-and-answer session, Obama was asked if he would support term limits for members of Congress by a questioner who noted that many senators were elderly.

"I've got colleagues in the Senate who are doing absolutely outstanding work, and they're well into their 70s," Obama said. He praised ailing Sen. Edward M. Kennedy as one.

"I'm generally not in favor of term limits," he said. "Nobody is term-limiting the lobbyists or the slick operators walking around the halls of Congress. I believe in one form of term limits. They're called elections."

Obama had a 6 percentage point lead over McCain in an Associated Press-Ipsos poll released Tuesday. He leads McCain among women by 13 points, among young voters 33 and younger by 30 points, and by 55 points among minorities, according to the poll. McCain leads among whites by 10 points.

A poll released Monday by The Washington Post showed Obama with a 2-to-1 edge with low-income voters.
The Associated Press
Page Printed from: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/news/ap/politics/2008/Aug/05/critical_of_mccain__obama_quiet_on_own_energy_vote.html at August 05, 2008 - 03:11:00 PM PDT

The Oborg continues its collapse.


In the past few days, a raft of new polls have documented the depth and severity of voters' reactions to Obama as they get to know the so-called "presumptive nominee" better.

For the second day running, Rasmussen shows McCain leading by 47-46%.

Zogby shows McCain ahead by 42-41%, a stunning reversal of a Zogby poll earlier in the month that had Obama ahead by 46-36%. Zogby noted that Obama's collapse was swiftest and sharpest amongst voters he has always taken for granted, and especially voters aged 18-29 and women.More...


-Among voters aged 18-29, Obama lost 16 percent and McCain gained 20. Obama still leads, 49-38;

-Among women, McCain gained 10 percentage points. Obama now leads 43-38;

-Among independents, Obama lost an 11 point lead. They're now tied;

-Among Democrats, Obama's support dropped from 83 percent to 74 percent;

-Among Catholics, Obama lost the 11 point lead he had in July and now trails McCain by 15.

The Rasmussen and Zogby polls come hot on the heels of the Gallup tracking poll that showed Obama's support evaporating over the course of of last week, and the Gallup/USA Today poll last Monday that showed McCain ahead 46-43%. We are no longer talking about outliers: this is a sharp trend that coincided with Obama's most recent policy reversals, his make-believe "presidency in waiting," and McCain's most recent ads inviting viewers to laugh at Obama's pretensions. He has gone from Messiah to national joke in almost no time flat.

Pundits seem taken aback at how quickly the Chosen One is cratering. They shouldn't be. From the beginning, PUMAs have warned that Obama's lack of principle, his complete inexperience, the cultishness of his campaign and his overbearing arrogance would turn off voters in the general election. Since he was crowned by the media (and without even waiting for the Democratic Party to formally nominate him) Obama has gone out of his way to alienate his base of inexperienced young voters, upper-mid-income "progressives" and blacks at virtually every opportunity.

Obama's has betrayed his constituents on almost every single signature issue of his: campaign finance reform, FISA, NAFTA, Iraq and now offshore-drilling. No wonder his support is going through the floor. It's hard to draw much of a meaningful distinction between him and George Bush or John McCain on policy, except that McCain seems to have more conviction. Obama gives the impression of being "willing to do anything to win," something that progressives used say about Hillary back when Obama was against NAFTA, for public campaign funding, against FISA, against staying in Iraq and against offshore-drilling.

Remember those days?

Of course, some things haven't changed since then. And they may also have something to do with the Dear Leader's plunging poll numbers. Just as he did in the Winter and Spring against Hillary, Obama spent last week trying to tar the McCain campaign as "racist" for having the temerity to campaign for president at the same as him. Not surprisingly, the Clintons didn't jump to Obama's defense. Clinton campaign communications director, Howard Wolfson, had this to say on Fox News about the McCain campaign's slapping Obama down after the Precious One accused John McCain of running a "racist" campaign against him:

I think the McCain camp watched our primary on the Democratic side very carefully, and they know that any accusation of racial divisiveness can be very, very harmful for a candidate's prospects.

The Obama campaign's bullying tactics worked in a Democratic Primary season when many of the Democratic electorate were pining for an excuse to vote for a black man no matter how unqualified he was and when young male Democrats were given license to exercise their sexist impulses, as long as it was in the service of the Oborg.

But now we're in a general election, and the general electorate is less in thrall to the idea of "making history" by electing Obama as President. They want to know what the next President will do about Iraq, about jobs, about energy, about national security.

Obama has no answer for them: he has no experience, he has no record. All he can do is talk about his wonderful self. He blew any credibility he could have as a principled politician with his constant policy flip-flops and his arrogant preening as "president in waiting."

Voters have seen the man for what he is, and they don't like him. Unlike in the Democratic primaries, general election voters can't be guilt-tripped into voting for Obama.

As they head into the nominating convention in Denver, superdelegates need to take their responsibility to the Democratic Party and to the country seriously. They need to ask if the Democratic Party can afford to nominate yet another loser in a year that by all rights a Democrat should win -- but that this Democrat cannot.

OP Ed with a little Humor: The Obama derangement syndrome.

Obama causes derangement. I am convinced of it. Much has been said about the "Clinton Derangement Syndrome" - that is the media and individuals having irrational hatred for the Clintons based in ...well...nothing...it is just mindless hatred.More...

There is an "Obama Derangement Syndrome" as well. ODS is a malady that causes people to shove their rational abilities aside and fall into an adoring trance for BHO. I came across another advanced case of ODS today.

DISCLAIMER: Not everyone who intends to vote for Obama (should he become the nominee) has ODS. Those who do not have ODS usually fall into the "I can't vote for the Republican and don't care to think about it much" camp. I really can't take issue with those voters. They don't vote GOP - ever. I respect party loyalty - to a degree. I have often been in this camp. I have never voted for a Republican in a presidential race. In presidential races I have voted FOR the Democrat 3 times - 92, 96, and 2000. Though I was queasy about Clinton for a long time in 1992. In 84, 88, and 04 - my "Democratic" votes were out of resignation. Mondale, Dukakis, and Kerry were sad excuses for nominees. But they were qualified for the job. (Dukakis would have been a disaster - but he had executive experience. Besides he had no chance of winning so I felt safe in sticking to my - former - party.) The presumptive Democratic nominee this time is not even qualified to be a Senator much less a President. Still I understand sane voters resigning themselves to Obama and hoping it turns out alright.

It's the delusional BHO people that alarm me. Even the most committed Kerry or Dukakis people never gave up their common sense. Even the fiercest labor unionists for Mondale did not delude themselves about who Walter Mondale actually was. This is not the case with the hard core Obamites. They believe in someone who simply isn't there. Like Santa Clause.

Today I had a brief conversation with a young guy who had come to my building to check on some landscaping. Without getting to detailed, in short order "news" came up. The conversation went something like this:

ME: I restrict my news intake at this point.
POD: I know. It's so depressing. McCain is ahead in the polls.
ME: Actually it's a tie now. I don't find that depressing, though.
POD: Well, I just can't understand how people would want McCain. He's awful.
ME: I'm not crazy about McCain but better him than the other guy.
POD: WHAT?
ME: Obama is a joker. I don't trust him at all.
(his eyes glazed as he probably decided I must be a bigot)
POD: But you're not going to vote for McCain.
ME: I might.
POD: Why?
ME: At least McCain has experience. I don't trust Obama has far as I can spit. Why are you for him?
POD: He's great. I just love him.
ME: Why?
POD: Because McCain wants war forever. I used to like Hillary until she started eating her own.
ME: Clinton ran a much cleaner campaign that Obama. Do you know who Tony Rezko is?
POD: Who?
ME: Rezko.
POD: No
ME : You should.
POD: Come on. Obama is great. He'll be good for the country.
ME: How?
POD: We just can't afford McCain
ME: Don't his flip flops bother you?
POD: What flip flops?

We went on like this for a while and nothing got out of hand. But you'll notice that he could not defend Obama in a meaningful way.He followed a set pattern for Obama fanatics:

Rule one: Obama is a great man. Period. No back up needed. (or available)
Rule two: Insult Clinton or Clintons
Rule three: Attempt - however lamely - to imply McCain is bad, evil - whatever.

I wish I could report that this conversation I had today was unique. It is not. I have never seen anything like this year. When I volunteered for McGovern in 1984 and Clinton in 1992 I could give you solid reasons, based in fact, as to why they would make good Presidents. I knew about McGovern's WW2 record and had a basic knowledge of his work in the Senate. By August of 1992 I could report - albeit weakly - on some of Clinton's accomplishments as a governor. I knew about Hillary's work with Marian Wright Eldeman and the Children's Defense Fund. I did not know a lot but I knew something. I have yet to find a strong Obama supporter on the street who can quantify Obama's qualifications beyond a speech here and a speech there. However, and most disturbingly, their adoration for the man is in direct inverted proportion to their knowledge of him.

Facts don't matter.

How appalling is this year? Cynical as I have become I am still shocked by the gleeful emptiness embedded in Obama fanatics. Contempt for experience is a badge of honor.

We've seen this campaign already. 2000. I knew no - zero - zip - Bush voters in 2000. But my father who resides in Texas knew plenty. In many conversations he reported the same thing about Bush voters that I now see in Obama voters. The gulf between the actual man and the man presented by handlers and the press was enormous. The difference is that W came from a long line of politicians. There were experienced adults in his entourage. I did not agree with them - but they had experience. Bush was a buffoon to be sure. Be he had back up.

Later in the day I was at a social gathering. An older Edwards supporter told me that she felt she had no choice but to vote for McCain. Obama was simply unacceptable. I told her I knew exactly how she felt.

Does BHO have the potential to be a good or great President. Sure, I guess. Any number of people do. If BHO wins and becomes a good or great President will I admit I was wrong?

You bet.

Hold me to it.

If after a few years of President Obama things have changed for the better I will eat my words and I will get on board for Obama 2012. My anger at Obama is much less personal than it sometimes seems around here. I'd like to be wrong about Obama - and Peak Oil - and hope I and many others are.

What I won't do now is vote on a hope and a prayer. This is not American Idol. This is our country and our lives.

Finally, I do not understand why the DNC is forcing this man on us. Clinton's claim on the nomination is as strong or stronger than Obama's. Neither has enough delegates. The super delegates can make a sound and sane choice in Denver. A race between Clinton and McCain for the White House is a contest of titans. A contest between Clinton and McCain can be run on ideas and issues. McCain versus Obama is not a choice a concerned citizen in an established democracy should be forced to make. The man with experience who I don't agree with much or the mystery behind door number three...

The DNC should be ashamed.

If you are maxed out but still want to help support Hillary Clinton, Here Are Some Options


1. Starting a Matching Fund Drive where you will agree to match a contribution to Hillary Clinton with a contribution to a candidate who has been loyal to Hillary (Sheila Jackson Lee and Stephanie Tubbs Jones come quickly to mind, but there are countless others). If you don't have a blog or website and want to conduct the Matching Fund Drive on any one of PUMA's blog sites.
2. Donating to Heidi Li's Denver Group.The group's goals are: An open convention; Senator Clinton's name on the ballot; Speeches allowed by supporters of Senator Clinton on behalf of her candidacy; A roll call vote; and No coronation.

In White House Race, Strong is Often Wrong


The image of Michael Dukakis in a tank haunts the Democratic Party
Photo: AP







By: Mark J. Penn
August 5, 2008 07:50 AM EST

In many recent presidential elections, Americans have had a choice: pick the candidate they think is a stronger leader or pick the candidate they believe is right on the issues. Almost always, they have chosen the stronger leader — even though they have often come to regret that decision.More...

Strong and wrong or weak and right — that is the choice that Republicans have tried to present to the voters. They will try it again this year; as conditions in the economy worsen and with two wars in the background, Americans are again looking for a tough leader for tough times.

We hear less and less about who the voters would rather have a beer with or ask to baby-sit for their kids — the voters have had it with those kinds of choices.

So take key issues such as the economy, health care and Iraq. Once again, the Democrats lead on those issues by large margins. Americans don’t want their troops in Iraq for a hundred years or even for two years — they want to see the war end and the money spent on military action in Iraq going instead to help relieve our country’s problems at home. They favor alternative energy over drilling and nuclear energy, and they see the health care system falling into increasing disrepair.

So if they overwhelmingly favor the policies of the Democrats, why is the presidential horse race not reflecting a 10- or 15-percentage-point edge for Barack Obama? Because of the same concerns that the public had about past Democratic presidential nominees Michael Dukakis, Al Gore and John F. Kerry. The image of Dukakis in a tank still haunts the Democratic Party.
See also

* Pelosi: At-risk Dems back drilling
* Book says White House ordered forgery
* Hell freezes, coalition melts

In response, Democratic candidates have tried to show that they, in fact, are strong leaders, too — that is why Dukakis got in a tank in 1988 in the first place. And that is why Kerry held a convention in 2004 that was about his war record instead of his war policies. Dwight D. Eisenhower easily defeated the stirring rhetoric of Adlai Stevenson, and President Jimmy Carter’s inability to deal with the Iranian hostage crisis cost him the presidency in 1980.

I sometimes joke that for presidents and large figures, “being human is overrated.” And by that I mean that Americans really look for a superhuman leader as their president — someone who can do what can’t be done: fight terrorists and solve the problems of the Middle East at the same time; lower energy prices and stimulate alternative energy; cut taxes and balance the budget. The great presidents have been those who had incredible resolve in the face of danger at home and abroad, people such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who took strong stands even when those stands sent us to war. The public is always looking for the next larger-than-life person who can do the big things that the job often demands. That is at the core of many voters’ attraction to Obama, who promises change and draws audiences of hundreds of thousands of people, even in Germany.

So when John McCain mocks Obama’s drawing power as mere celebrity, it is a significant volley in the battle over who can be the right leader for these difficult times. Obama is running as the candidate of leadership for our new times, and so his convention will be judged by how effectively his leadership offers Americans solutions to the tough problems facing the country.



In this election, it is McCain who will be playing the war hero card to project an image of having the strength necessary to protect America from danger. But evidenced by the losses of Kerry and Bob Dole, both decorated war heroes, that’s no longer the only yardstick for measuring leadership.

In polls, the public consistently chooses two qualities as most important for the next president: honesty and strength. The media tend to conflate the public’s desire for someone who is genuine with the idea that the public wants someone warm and fuzzy. The public has made clear over and over again that it does not judge presidents by their personal lives; rather, the public cares deeply about promise-keeping. When a candidate vows to cut taxes or end the war, voters want that person to cut taxes or end the war. “Read my lips” had better mean “read my lips,” or voters can turn on a president very quickly. And remember that when President Bill Clinton beat back the Republicans’ efforts to impeach him, he had kept his promises to revive the economy and balance the budget.

The past few elections have been dominated by images of Democrats mountain climbing, duck hunting and motorcycle riding. Obama’s attempt at bowling was in this tradition. Once again, Democrats will face a choice: do the equivalent of putting their candidate in a tank or do something completely different. And if the Democrats go in this direction again, they will face a torrent of ads ridiculing them. Republicans have proved adept at convincing voters that there is too much risk in electing a Democrat, and that is where they are likely to focus their energies again.

So here is a radical suggestion: Rather than sparring on the Republican playing field to determine the rougher and tougher leader, Democrats should introduce more clearly substantive differences. How about this for a message — ending the war in Iraq now, making an Apollo-like investment in alternative energy and starting a revolution in health care to cover every American. I suggest making clear that this election is not about who is strong or weak, but about who is right or wrong. Maybe the key will be to emphasize that there will be real policy differences between a Democrat and a Republican in the White House next year and that those differences will — as they did in the past eight years — make all of the difference in the world to the country and the lives of its people.

Mark J. Penn served as chief adviser to President Bill Clinton in the 1996 presidential election and to Hillary Rodham Clinton through her Senate and presidential races. He is author of the best-selling book “Microtrends: The Small Forces Behind Tomorrow’s Big Changes” (Twelve, 2007).

Two Articles on Obama's Reversal on Energy Positions

The New York Times Article "Critical of McCain, Obama quiet on own energy vote" describes how Obama has been seeking to tie McCain to the oil and gas industry, even though McCain has no direct ties to the industry, unlike Bush and Cheney, who both worked in the industry before their election. In fact Obama voted for a 2005 energy bill backed by President Bush that included billions in subsidies for oil and natural gas production, a measure for which Vice President Dick Cheney played a major role. McCain opposed the bill, saying at the time that it included billions in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil industry.

The second article titled "Obama Reverses Two Positions in New Energy Plan" describes Obama's reversals on tapping the oil reserves and opening up off-shore drilling.

To use Obama's own words "The same old Washington politics won’t fix our problems. We need honest answers — and a president we can trust." (ref: http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/5/5/16528/47565). Those are Obama's words in an advertisement responding to the McCain/Hillary Gas Tax holiday proposal as a potential way to give citizens short term relief on the rising gas prices.

The hypocrisy is simply amazing...

Anti-Obama Bloggers Say They Were Silenced

UPDATED: AUG 5, 2008 12PM PST Obama Campaign Accused of Criminally Suppressing Free Speech(Additional info added below)

Election 2008

By ANNA PHILLIPS, Special to the Sun | August 5, 2008

Web loggers who are campaigning against Senator Obama's presidential run are accusing Google and Obama supporters of silencing them after their Web logs were marked as spam and their accounts temporarily frozen.More...

On Thursday, hours after publishing a post about an online petition demanding that Mr. Obama publicly produce his birth certificate, an associate professor of business administration at Brooklyn College, Mitchell Langbert, found that he could no longer access his Web log.

Google's Blogger hosting service had suspended "Mitchell Langbert's Blog," which Mr. Langbert describes as "two-thirds academic stuff I'm working on and one-third politics," until it could verify the Web log was not a "spam blog," or a site designed solely to increase the page views of associated Web sites.

A day later Google lifted the block on the account, but the incident and earlier Web log freezes in late June have led Mr. Langbert and other anti-Obama bloggers to accuse the Illinois senator's supporters of intentionally identifying their blog addresses to Google as spam blogs. They also say the company has reflexively suspended the sites.

"These tech-savvy smart alecks have figured out that if you report a blog you don't like, you can do some damage to a person," Mr. Langbert said.

A spokesman for Google, Adam Kovacevich, said in a statement that an overzealous antispam filter was responsible for the blocks.

"We believe this was caused by mass spam e-mails mentioning the 'Just Say No Deal' network of blogs, which in turn caused our system to classify the blog addresses mentioned in the e-mails as spam," he said. "We have restored posting rights to the affected blogs, and it is very important to us that Blogger remain a tool for political debate and free expression."

Several of the blogs that were blocked, including hillaryorbust.com and comealongway.blogspot.com, are part of the "Just Say No Deal" network of anti-Obama blogs. But Mr. Langbert's blog is not, leading him to conclude that Obama supporters had targeted him.

On her right-leaning blog "Atlas Shrugs," Pamela Geller keeps a list of blogs that Google has temporarily blocked. "The blockings do come in waves," she said. "The last wave was this past week, and now it got very quiet."

Some writers have had their blogs unblocked, while others have moved them to WordPress, a rival blog host.

"I don't think" Google has "malicious intentions at all, it's just that spammers can literally overrun a service if you're not careful, so their defenses have become overzealous," a spokesman for WordPress, Matthew Mullenweg, said in an e-mail.

"We always have human review before turning off an active blog," he said. "People invest so much time into their blogs, to treat it with anything less than the utmost respect is criminal."

But wait, there's more:

http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/08/blog-shutdowns-attack-from-ips-assigned-to-barackobamacom/

"We have reported twice in the last two weeks about the attacks on anti-Obama websites. ["Google, Blogger, Obama: Obamanation Shut Down My Blog!"]] & [BabbaZee's "Anti-Obama Blogs Shut Down by Google, Obamabots"]

Speculation on who was behind the attacks has ranged from “Obama supporters” to “it’s no one, just a glitch” “to “it’s a browser problem”. [Site Meter causing Internet Explorer failure ]. This latter is a completely different issue from the blogs that got shut down by Google/Blogger.

A few liberal blogs and Instapundit have said there is no connection between this latest wave of blog shutdowns and the Obama camp.

Speculation can now be set aside–at least, in one instance.

We came across this post by MacRanger at MacsMind [Macsmind Hacking UPDATE] yesterday, where Mac presents “one fact that can’t be explained away”.

On July 22-25 Macsmind was DOS’d (Denial of Service) that originated from three IP addresses that are assigned to Barack Obama’s website. This isn’t a theory but was confirmed via law enforcement through an inspection of the site logs from those dates. The IP address in question; 66.39.4.254 66.39.143.229 216.146.206.181, are all registered via “Go Daddy” under the name barackobama.com.

On those dates, beginning at At 5:48PM Central on the 22nd, the hosted server that contained our site was hit by a 1.6 gigabyte flood of illegitimate traffic. The attacks never abated and only stopped when our host provider took us off line.

Spam traffic originating from three IPs assigned to the barackobama.com would seem to be compelling evidence to the disinterested reader. We haven’t been able to reach MacRanger yet, but the real question isn’t “Is the Obama camp involved in this?”

It’s “Will this story be publicized?”

MacsMind finishes with

Speculation is one thing, but facts are another. This time however we’ve taken protective measures to prevent this from happening again. Additionally the investigation will continue and appropriate interstate authorities have been notified.

Texas Hill Country [] makes the comment, “Translation: People using computers at the Barack Obama Campaign are using them to systematically hack, attack and shut down websites that don’t agree with him. This is so messed up. It’s some Orewellian type business and it’s stuff like this that makes Obama scary as hell…”"

Monday, August 4, 2008

"I Am Not Lolita!"

by: Lynette Long
Mon Aug 04, 2008 at 15:59:47 PM EDT

I am not Lolita. I will not crawl back into bed with a party that raped me. I will not stay in an abusive relationship because I have nowhere else to go. I will not be placated by a pat on the head or a worthless trinket. I will not spend the rest of my life waiting for tomorrow or listening to people tell me that today is better than yesterday.More...

I am tired of being invisible in a country to which I have given so much. I am tired of reading editorials written by men, watching male sports teams and male news anchors. I am tired of spending money adorned with images of men. I am tired of having a government and a court of men run my life. For all their arrogance, men have not done a good job of running my country. We are constantly at war, we ignore the least among us, a large percentage of our citizenry is poorly educated, and crimes against women and childen are at intolerable levels.

A country run by women would be more humane, more peaceful, and more prosperous. I am tired of waiting for my turn. I am tired of other women who are willing to wait their turn. Our turn is now. I will not go back to the Democratic Party. It is not my party. It cannot placate me with more promises.

History proves that the Democratic Party over-promises and under-delivers. Barack Obama will be no different. The Republican Party is not my home either. I will find a home. I will create a home. A home that reflects my values. But returning to an abuser, only perpetuates abuse, and then I become complicit in the abuse.

I am not Lolita. Howard Dean, do not expect to find me in your bed come November.

Video of Obama FISA & Fossil Fuel flip flops in Florida

McCain Gains Ground in Yet Another Poll!

The new Reuters/Zogby poll Highlights:

Obama loses support among his strongest demographic groups
The margin between the candidates is statistically insignificant, but demonstrates a notable turn-around from the Reuters/Zogby poll of July 7-9 that showed Obama ahead, 46%-36% in a four-way match-up that included Libertarian candidate Bob Barr of Georgia and liberal independent candidate Ralph Nader. McCain made significant gains at Obama’s expense among some of what had been Obama’s strongest demographic groups. For example:
More...

* McCain gained 20% and Obama lost 16% among voters ages 18-29. Obama still leads that group, 49%-38%.
* Among women, McCain closed 10 points on Obama, who still leads by a 43%-38% margin.
* Obama has lost what was an 11% lead among Independents. He and McCain are now tied.
* Obama had some slippage among Democrats, dropping from 83% to 74%.
* Obama’s support among single voters dropped by 19%, and he now leads McCain, 51%-37%.
* Even with African-Americans and Hispanics, Obama shows smaller margins.

Catholics, who are always a critical voting bloc, favored Obama by 11% in mid-July. Now, they favor McCain by 15%.

Answering McCain's Attacks

By Fred Hiatt
Monday, August 4, 2008; Page A11

As a week of name-calling and rapid responses faded into history, political practitioners seemed to agree that John McCain had diminished himself and his straight-talk brand with negative ads and petty misrepresentations. Yet, surprisingly, a consensus also seemed to be forming that Barack Obama, at least tactically, had not come out on top. More...

Which raises the question: How should Obama respond?

Critics of his performance last week (including some supporters) focused on his "dollar bill" comments -- his apparent invocation of race in saying that his opponent would try to scare voters because he, Obama, did not resemble previous presidents whose portraits adorn our currency.

I was more struck by the preamble to that comment: by Obama's statements that McCain and the Republican Party are so bankrupt in policies that they can win only by spreading fear .

This resonates with an article of faith among many Democratic believers that has been so long and deeply held it is hardly considered noteworthy: that Democratic policies are so obviously superior, and so much more in the interest of a majority of voters, that only some form of chicanery can explain Republican election victories.

In this view of the world, Republican operatives, from Lee Atwater to Karl Rove, are more diabolically clever, and less bound by ethical restraint, than their Democratic counterparts. They manipulate cultural symbols and issues (God, guns and abortion) to deceive people into voting against their economic self-interest. Or they inflate security threats (Iraq, terror) to frighten them into voting against their self-interest. Obama himself a few months ago said that people who vote Republican are "tricked into believing" that Democrats are out of touch.
ad_icon

Whatever the substantive merits of this analysis, it seems to pose some tactical dangers to Democratic candidates. One is the risk of offending voters who may not see themselves as easily tricked or too dim to understand where their interests lie.

Middle-class voters who believe passionately that life begins at conception, for example, may find it insulting to be told that if they vote for a candidate who opposes abortion and favors tax cuts for the rich, they are being bamboozled. Even middle-class voters making their decision primarily on economic grounds may resent an assumption that they should vote for whoever promises the most tax breaks for their bracket, rather than weighing arguments about economic growth and societal benefit. This year, voters may not want to hear that concerns about Obama's relative paucity of national and international experience must stem from fear of his race or unusual name.

But a bigger danger of this faith in the superiority of Democratic policies, ironically, may be insufficient attention to making the case. Yes, this should be a Democratic year. The economy is sour, the incumbent unpopular. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan drag on, and the cost of deregulation is becoming increasingly clear in sector after sector. But voters will still want to be convinced.

Which brings us back to the question of how Obama should respond to McCain's negative campaign. Not long ago, the Democratic candidate rejected the Republican's offer of weekly, informal town hall debates. That was the smart move, most consultants said: The town hall forum is best for McCain, a wooden speaker who can't compete with Obama on the stump, so why would Obama play on his turf?

But by questioning Obama's substantiveness, McCain has begun to diminish the advantage of Obama's skill in rhetoric; and besides, there's no reason to think Obama -- who, after all, is deft, eloquent, quick-thinking and supremely well informed -- wouldn't be every bit as skilled in town halls as McCain. The forums would return attention to the issues, where Obama believes he has a clear advantage. And if McCain sought to use them for personal attacks, he would at least have to bear full personal responsibility for doing so.

Just after Obama clinched the nomination, he received a phone call from McCain. "He called me to congratulate me," Obama said the next day. "I had called him after he had won the nomination. We joked about the fact that, if you'd asked the pundits a year ago who were going to be the two nominees, it wouldn't have been me and John McCain.

"And we pledged to have a substantive debate, a debate that's not personal but is about our respective visions for the country."

Maybe it's time to go back to Plan A.

fredhiatt@washpost.com

Florida, Three Months Out -- Sun Shines on McCain!

In an election in critical swing-state Florida for President of the United States today, 08/04/2008, Republican John McCain defeats Democrat Barack Obama, 50% to 44%, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll pre-election poll conducted exclusively for WFLA-TV Tampa and WKRG-TV Pensacola. Obama leads by 9 points in Southeastern Florida, where he takes 52% of the vote; McCain takes 52% of the vote in Central Florida, 53% in Southwestern Florida, 55% in the northeastern Florida, and 59% in Northwestern Florida. Among voters younger than Barack Obama, who turns 47 years old today, Obama leads by 5 points. Among voters older than John McCain, who turns 72 at the end of the month, McCain leads by 13. Among voters in-between their ages, McCain leads by 14. Among white voters, McCain leads by 19 points. Among black voters, Obama leads by 68. Hispanics favor Obama by 60 points. McCain leads among both men and women, among both college grads and non-college grads, among both those who earn less than $50,000 a year and among those who earn more than $50,000 a year. For more, click here.

Two NObama Books are Bestsellers On Amazon.com

"Obama Nation" by Jerome Corsi is at #6 currently and "The Case Against Barack Obama" by David Freddoso (released today) is at #20. Hopefully these will help open some people's eyes!

Numerous Questions raised on Obama Campaign's Lax Online Donation Form

Last update: 2:01 p.m. EDT Aug. 4, 2008

JERUSALEM, Aug 04, 2008 /PRNewswire-USNewswire via COMTEX/ -- Palestinian brothers inside the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip are listed in government election filings as having donated $29,521.54 to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign, according to WorldNetDaily's Jerusalem bureau chief, Aaron Klein.

The donations would violate election laws, including prohibitions on receiving donations from foreigners and guidelines against accepting more than $2,300 from one individual during a single election, Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the Federal Election Commission, said in response to a query.
The contributions also raise numerous questions about the Obama campaign's lax online donation form, which apparently allows for the possibility of foreign contributions.More...

Last week, the Atlas Shrugs blog outlined a series of donations in 2007 made to Obama's campaign from two individuals, Monir Edwan and Hosam Edwan. In an online form on Obama's campaign site, the Edwans listed their street as "Tal Esaltan," which they wrote was located in "Rafah, GA."
Rafah is not a city in Georgia. The Atlas blog immediately raised concerns that the money may have been donated from the Gaza Strip town of Rafah.
A WND investigation tracked down the Edwans, who are brothers living in the Tal Esaltan neighborhood of Rafah, a large refugee camp in the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip.

Speaking to WND, the two brothers praised Obama and admitted giving the money online to his campaign. They said they are not U.S. citizens or green card holders but are citizens of "Palestine." Monir and Hasam Edwan denied their financial transactions online were actual donations to Obama's campaign. Instead they claimed they purchased about $30,000 in Obama T-shirts from the presidential candidate's online store -- a contention that did not hold up during a WND interview, when they changed their story several times.

Monir Edwan claimed he sold the T-shirts in Gaza for around $9 and that a profit was made. But it was pointed out to Edwan the T-shirts for sale on Obama's website are listed as $20.08 and that selling the merchandise for less would not yield a profit. Edwan could not explain how he managed to get shipments of T-shirts into the Gaza Strip during the months he claimed to have purchased the merchandise, since Israel imposed a tight closure of the Gaza Strip starting in June 2007 that lasted until June 2008.

"We don't want to cause any damage to Obama's campaign," was Edwan's reply.

Obama's campaign did not return WND phone calls or e-mail queries.

Media Contact: Maria Sliwa, M. Sliwa Public Relations, media@msliwa.com, 973-272-2861 / 212-202-4453

O-Force One: Your Obama campaign donations at work.




Barack Obama’s new campaign plane is nothing short of grand. Well, for the candidate that is.

Obama’s section of the plane rivals that of any first class. Recently the front cabin of the Boeing 757 was retrofitted to install four individual chairs that resemble La-Z-Boys. They are free-standing and made of plush leather with pockets on the sides. There is also a booth which seats four for a meeting or a meal. His chair has his name and campaign logo embroidered on the back top -- “Obama ‘08” on one line and “President” underneath.
More...
To one side is a small table stacked with newspapers ready for the candidate’s arrival. The table of the booth is always covered in snacks and cheese and is where Obama spends most of his time during flights meeting with staff and sitting for the occasional interview.

“Typically the candidate's cabin is like business class -- roomier and less chaotic than the staff and press areas, but still short of the accoutrements of a pro team's charter,” says Politico’s Mike Allen, a frequent campaign flier.

After looking at a few photos of Obama’s cabin, Allen quipped, “Air Force One may seem a tad claustrophobic.” Check it out for yourself (pictures at the top).

There are five sections on the 757, the first of which is Obama’s section, which can seat up to eight people at a time, although rarely are all eight seats taken. Depending on the destination or length of trip, Sen. Obama is joined by body man Reggie Love and a few senior staff members or perhaps a key Senate colleague. Recently, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., hitched a ride from Washington, D.C., to her home state for a full day of campaign events.

The next two sections are outfitted with expansive business class seats for senior and junior level staff including Obama’s media team, which films all of the candidate’s events for promotional purposes.

The back two sections are traditional coach seats where the Secret Service, reporters, cameramen and some of the communications staff sit. It is a rite of passage each election cycle for the party’s nominee to retrofit an aircraft to distinct specifications. While the campaign pays for their share of the plane, the news media also pay thousands of dollars to fly with Obama for each leg of his campaign.

CBS News’ John Bentley, who's covering the John McCain campaign, reports that McCain flies in a slightly smaller Boeing 737, which has four compartments: the first class area, where he sits; the “straight talk” area for interviews; a business class section for staffers; and the back of the plane, where the press and secret service sit.

In McCain's spacious first class area, there are 12 plush leather seats for the candidate, his wife and senior staffers. The “straight talk” area features a long leather bench and another first class seat which McCain sits in when he talks to the press – or would, if he used the area.

Since they acquired the plane with its specially modified area, McCain has spoken to the press there precisely once, over a month ago. All of these sections are separated by curtains, which are always shut as tightly as possible as soon as the plane takes off in order to keep the different sections of the plane from interacting with each other.

Impeach / Expel Barack Obama!

If you do not know the real Obama, spend some time to
get the facts. The main Stream Media has done a poor job
of covering Senator Obama. Read the petition and ask questions.
You may have to do a lot of digging. The Obama Campaign has
spent millions to distort and hide information on the internet. For more information, go to this site: ObamaImpeachment.org.

Message from the on the ground 18 Million Voices Denver coordinator! !

Great News Everyone,

I just heard from the Denver liaison for parade and park permits, and we have a definite parade slot on Tuesday, the 26th, between the hours of 9-11 am.

Not only that, but due to a sudden cancellation, we now have Confluence Park in downtown Denver reserved for ALL DAY on the 26th. We’re also working with the mayor’s office to secure a spot for a rally on Monday the 25th as well.

Things are starting to come together. Let’s get the word out to everyone. E-mail our fliers to everyone you can. Let’s have a big showing for our wonderful candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton!

It’s my understanding that Will Bower will be one of our speakers either on the 25th or the 26th, as well as Cindy Sheehan. Now that we have our assembly sites, we can invite more people. Any suggestions?

Dear Barack, sorry Sweetie, it’s

Poll finds low-income voters don't think either candidate can fix economy

By Michael D. Shear and Jon Cohen
The Washington Post
updated 8:59 p.m. PT, Sun., Aug. 3, 2008

Democratic Sen. Barack Obama holds a 2 to 1 edge over Republican Sen. John McCain among the nation's low-wage workers, but many are unconvinced that either presidential candidate would be better than the other at fixing the ailing economy or improving the health-care system, according to a new national poll.More...

Obama's advantage is attributable largely to overwhelming support from two traditional Democratic constituencies: African Americans and Hispanics. But even among white workers -- a group of voters that has been targeted by both parties as a key to victory in November -- Obama leads McCain by 10 percentage points, 47 percent to 37 percent, and has the advantage as the more empathetic candidate.

Still, one in six of the white workers polled remains uncommitted to either candidate. And a majority of those polled, both white and minority, are ambivalent about the impact of the election, saying that no matter who wins, their personal finances are unlikely to change.

"It's not my main concern in life," said Mary Lee, 50, a factory worker in rural Kentucky. "I know how politics is. I really don't think it's going to matter either way."

More than disaffection drives these workers, according to the new national poll by the Washington Post, the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University.

Their politics are shaped partly by their lot in the current economy: These voters are among the most severely hurt by rising prices, and many are insecure about their finances and lack jobs with basic benefits. Nevertheless, many are optimistic about the future even as they express deep suspicion about government.

Key demographic
The new poll included interviews with 1,350 randomly selected workers 18 to 64 years old who put in at least 30 hours a week but earned $27,000 or less last year. As a group, they are somewhat less likely to be Republicans than all adults under age 65 and are also less likely to be registered to vote. As many call themselves conservatives as liberal, and nearly four in 10 said their views on most political matters are "moderate."

The group, which accounts for nearly a quarter of U.S. adults, gives the Democrat the nod both as the more empathetic candidate and as the one who more closely shares their values. And while many express no opinion about who would do more to improve the economy or health care -- or the voters' finances -- Obama has the clear edge among those who picked a favorite on these core issues.

Obama's standing with the white workers runs counter to an impression, dating from the primary season, that he struggles to attract support from that group. McCain advisers have said for months that they think the Republican can win a significant share of those voters because of Obama's performance in the spring.

The survey suggests it will be difficult, but not impossible, for McCain to increase his appeal. Whereas Obama underperforms congressional Democrats by six points among low-wage whites -- 53 percent would prefer that the party control Congress -- McCain has a seven-point edge over congressional Republicans.

A target for the McCain campaign
Sixteen percent of the white workers polled expressed either no opinion about the presidential race or indicated they would support no one, someone else or just plain not vote.

Ruth Haskins, 64, the city clerk of Billings, Mo., for one, said she is "scared about the younger generation running the country" and is solidly "on the fence" about the election.

In May, as the race between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton raged on, McCain adviser Charlie Black told reporters that the campaign would reach out to working-class white voters, in part because of Obama's difficulties wresting such voters from the Clinton camp.

"Senator Obama doesn't appear to have the ability to hold the traditional Democratic coalition together as well as Mrs. Clinton might," he said at the time.

In an interview last week, Black said the campaign still plans to target working-class white voters, particularly by appealing to them on economic and energy issues. Jobs and gasoline prices are "very big to people in that income range," Black said.

Nearly two-thirds of the white workers surveyed want the government to make lower gas prices a "top priority," something McCain pitched earlier this year in advocating for a suspension of the federal gas tax. One respondent was particularly clear on this point: "I'll vote for whoever can bring the price of gas down," said Brian Levesque, 25, a social worker from Lansdale, Pa.

But slightly more, seven in 10, say government should focus on helping people like them find more affordable health insurance, a core component of Obama's campaign. Fewer, just over four in 10, favor placing a top priority on tax cuts or the creation of new jobs through an expansion of public works projects.

Overall, the survey suggests that Obama's economic appeals have the most resonance with white workers who are under the greatest financial stress. Obama has a lead of 19 percentage points among those white workers who feel "very insecure" financially; that is more than double his advantage among those in the group who feel better off.

McCain leads among those who say they have advanced over the past seven years, but it is a much smaller group -- only 17 percent of low-wage white workers. Obama has the edge among those who say they have stayed about even over that time period.

An issue of acute importance to low-wage workers -- the impact of illegal immigration -- is one that divides workers in the poll about evenly: Forty-nine percent said illegal immigrants take jobs from legal residents, and 47 percent said they do not.

Nearly six in 10 white and black workers said they think undocumented workers take jobs away from those here legally; seven in 10 Hispanics disagreed. (Nearly half of the Hispanic workers interviewed in this poll are not U.S. citizens.)

International trade -- and its impact on increasingly scarce jobs -- is another issue that may prove a flash point for workers in the fall campaign.

Wary of trade deals
Half of those polled said growth in trade has made things worse for the country; far fewer, only about two in 10, said it has had a net benefit, and a similar percentage said they are unsure. But a majority also said trade has not changed their lives one way or the other.

As is the case with immigration, majorities of white and black workers said trade has done more harm than good, while most Hispanics disagreed.

"One thing I keep seeing is a lack of wherewithal to tackle the tough issues like health care, illegal immigration," said Stephanie Dayton, 51, a bookkeeper in Tucson. "It's sort of like overhauling the tax code. If there was an easy way to tackle it without conflict, they would have done it already. At some point it takes some backbone to get it done. Get some backbone and decide what you stand for."

McCain's biggest challenge is among minority workers.

Among the African Americans polled, 92 percent chose Obama as the candidate more concerned with their problems; not a single black respondent said so about McCain, although 1 percent said "both do." Hispanics also sided with Obama on that question, favoring him by more than 40 percentage points as the more empathetic candidate.

The poll was conducted by conventional and cellular telephone June 18 to July 7, among a random national sample of low-wage workers. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish. The results have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus four percentage points.

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta and assistant polling analyst Kyle Dropp contributed to this report.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26003168/

Is Obama's $5 Million ad buy during the Olympics inappropriate, given he called for a boycott by Bush?

On April 9, 2008 ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports:
In his strongest language to date about the Olympics, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., said that President Bush should boycott the opening ceremonies of if the Chinese do not take steps to stop the genocide in Darfur and respect the human rights of Tibetan people.
Given his position, is Obama's $5 million ad buy in the Olympics innappropriate? You be the judge. But according to the Political Machine's unscientific poll, 78% of people nationally believe it is.

VP pick may chafe Hillary supporters

By: David Paul Kuhn
August 4, 2008 04:54 AM EST

Many of the foremost activists in the women’s movement ardently believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton should be Barack Obama’s running mate — and primary wounds that are just beginning to heal may be torn back open should the Democratic nominee select someone else, as it seems very likely he will.More...

Geraldine Ferraro, a Clinton supporter who in 1984 became the first woman on a major party presidential ticket, said Obama should be “gracious” enough to offer Clinton the vice presidency, considering how narrow the race was.

Marcia Pappas, who heads the New York state chapter of the National Organization for Women, believes that Clinton supporters “would be outraged to know she was not given that right of first refusal.”

“She is the only woman in history who has ever garnered this much support,” Pappas continued. “She is the only woman in history who was able to raise the kind of money one would need to run a presidential campaign.”

Pamela Sumners, who directs the Missouri chapter of the abortion-rights group NARAL, added that Clinton “is now seen as the reigning dean of the women’s movement. It’s sort of Moses gets all the way to the mountain and doesn’t get to the promised land — and I think there would be people really
angry about that.”

About one in five voters who supported Clinton in the Democratic primaries tell pollsters that they are not voting for Obama, according to a mid-July Quinnipiac University national poll of likely voters — a number that’s only slightly lower than when Clinton dropped out and the conventional wisdom had it that support would coalesce around the presumptive nominee after a brief cooling-off period.

The split isn’t limited to women. “No matter who he picks,” said former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, “the question is going to be raised: Are you telling me that this person would be a better qualified vice president than Hillary Clinton?”

While there had been speculation that Obama might seek to mend fences by tapping another woman for the role, this seems increasingly unlikely — and it’s not clear that even if it did happen that it would help with Clinton loyalists, especially since the most-often named women all endorsed Obama in the primaries, earning the resentment of many leaders of women’s organizations.

“If he picked Claire McCaskill or [Janet] Napolitano [or Kathleen] Sebelius, I think it would annoy women,” Ferraro said.

Ferraro added that “those are women who we spent our lifetime helping run for office” and that “a lot of us are not happy with these women for not supporting Hillary because they came to us for help based in large part on their gender.”

“I would be very concerned about his judgment if he offered the position to another woman before offering it to Hillary Clinton,” Pappas said, “or any person.”

“The women who have been elected to office in this time in history are the beneficiaries of the women’s movement,” Pappas continued. “And it’s disheartening to see those same women turn their backs on another woman who is better qualified, and one can only wonder what they are getting out of their decision to turn their back.”

Any selection other than Clinton will reinforce some women’s sense that the most qualified candidate, a woman, has been passed over for the position.

Clinton has in this sense become a metaphor for the women’s movement itself.

“There are a lot of women apoplectic at the discussion of Bob Barr and Chuck Hagel,” said Kim Gandy, president of the National Organization for Women.

“It seems like the smart choice will be to pick Hillary Clinton because she adds so much to the ticket but the second choice should be a nominee who supported Hillary Clinton, to try and bring the sides together.”

Clinton’s most vocal sympathizers, like Sumners, warned that Obama cannot presume that Clinton’s supporters will return to the Democratic fold no matter who he selects.

Obama’s assertion at a closed-door meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus that Clinton’s supporters will “get over it,” once they consider the choice between him and presumptive Republican candidate John McCain, further frustrated many women.

“Those adamant Clinton supporters, the older, and I would say wealthier women, and some of the better known feminists from the dark ages, I think they will use his vice presidential choice, whether a woman or a man, as an excuse not to support him,” said Joan Hoff, an historian at Montana State University and a former president of the Center for the Study of the Presidency.

“There is disappointment out there,” noted Ellen Moran, executive director of women’s political group EMILY’s List. But she added that the “Obama campaign is taking important steps to reach out to and welcome and incorporate Hillary Clinton supporters.”

Part of that outreach took place when Moran and EMILY’s List president Ellen Malcolm flew to Chicago after the Democratic primary to meet with Obama’s senior advisers.

That outreach will culminate at the Democratic National Convention, where Clinton is scheduled to speak on Aug. 26 — which is also the 88th anniversary of the ratification of the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, a bit of symbolism that may chafe some of her supporters.

“I’m sorry to say this but I do think [the Democratic divide] is sort of significant,” Hoff said. “It could have an impact. It’s not that you need a lot of them,” meaning Clinton supporters who will sit out the general or vote for McCain. “You just need enough of them in key places.”

Hoff compared the current dynamic to the Republicans in 1976, when Ronald Reagan’s supporters never fully rallied to Gerald Ford, and the Democrats in 1980, when Edward M. Kennedy’s supporters never fully warmed to Jimmy Carter.

“Ford lost because the neoconservatives sat on their hands and didn’t turn out to vote. The real worry is that [Clinton’s supporters] are going to sit on their hands, the older feminists,” Hoff said. “I’m telling you they’re mad.

“It’s not that they are going to vote for McCain,” Hoff added. “It’s just that they are not going to get out there on the hustings” for Obama.

Against fully seating Michigan and Florida before he was for it!

Here's the Right's view of obama move to have the delegates from Michigan and Florida fully seated:

:deadpan: Oh, my. How shocking. I am absolutely stunned by this.
More...
However could this change of heart possibly have happened?
Obama says give Fla. and Mich. delegates full vote

WASHINGTON - Now that Barack Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination for president, he wants convention delegates from Florida and Michigan to have full voting rights at the party's national convention.

Obama sent a letter Sunday to the party's credentials committee, asking members to reinstate the delegates' voting rights when the committee meets at the start of the convention in Denver.


Two things. First: ah-ah-ah, AP. McCain's the only person in this race who has clinched his nomination. I understand that the Democrats like to pretend otherwise, but until they actually have the final votes and anoint his head with the sacred oil, Obama is merely the assumed nominee. He doesn't like it, then maybe he should have gone out and won California. Or New Jersey. Or Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, Texas, or Massachusetts.

Second: this is yet another flip-flop for the fellow. As per the St Petersburg Times:

KISSIMMEE — Delving deeper into Florida's Democratic delegate debacle than he ever has to date, Sen. Barack Obama said Wednesday that "a very reasonable solution" would be to count Florida's disputed primary votes and cut the state's delegation to the convention in half.

Still, in an interview with the St. Petersburg Times, Obama brushed off Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's emphasis on counting Florida's primary as a meaningful indication of the popular vote. She in turn called that stance an insult to 1.75-million Democrats who voted on Jan. 29.

"In all these races if I didn't campaign at all and this had just been a referendum on name recognition, Sen. Clinton would be the nominee,'' Obama told the Times during his first campaign trip to Florida in eight months. "It's pretty hard to make an argument that somehow you winning what is essentially a name recognition contest in Florida was a good measure of electoral strength there."


That was then. As Jake Tapper notes, this is now:

"Party unity calls for the delegates from Florida and Michigan to be able to participate fully alongside the delegates from the other states and territories,' Obama wrote in a letter to credentials committee chairs Alexis Herman, James Roosevelt, Jr., and Eliseo Roques-Arroyo. "Accordingly, I ask that the Credentials Committee, when it meets on August 24 to approve the delegates for the National Convention, pass a resolution that would entitle each delegate from Florida and Michigan to cast a full vote."


This naturally has nothing to do with the fact that Michigan - a state that Obama absolutely needs to win - is currently polling at +4.3 for the last month. In July. Before the race tightens. It's merely a sign that the candidate is all about making sure that everybody gets represented at the convention.

Now that he thinks that he knows how it's all going to turn out, of course.

Moe Lane

PS: Just for the record, I don't feel any particular contempt towards Senator Obama for this exercise in applied political cynicism. I might, except that all my contempt reserves are unfortunately dedicated towards those of his supporters who seem to think that we must turn off our critical faculties and worship the man, merely because they have chosen to.