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.

Rove: Obama should be ‘way ahead’

By Klaus Marre and Walter Alarkon
Posted: 08/10/08 12:40 PM [ET]

Republican strategist Karl Rove said Sunday the fact that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama does not have a large lead in the race shows that there are “grave doubts” about the Illinois senator.

“With a restive electorate, with an economy that's sort of chugging around, with a war in the background, at the end of eight years of Republican rule in the White House, Obama should be way ahead,” Rove, who engineered President Bush’s two election victories and whose name is synonymous with tough campaigning, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” More...

Meantime, Sen. McCain’s (Ariz.) campaign manager Rick Davis stated that, even though the Republican presidential candidate is an underdog to Obama, the campaign is happy with its current position in polls.

“‘John McCain is an underdog’ may be the understatement of the decade,” said Davis on “Fox News Sunday,” echoing Rove’s thoughts. “The mood of the country is very sour about the current administration. People don’t like the party as much as they did four years ago.”

Davis added that “if someone had told me a year ago when we started the real quest for the primary that we could wind up dead even with the Democratic nominee in this kind of a political environment just before our convention, that would have been fantastic to me.”

With Democrats increasingly claiming that McCain is using “Karl Rove-type” tactics,” Rove said while the Arizona senator was right to criticize Obama in recent weeks, the GOP candidate has to do some positive things to be able to prevail in November.

“One is he needs to use the 12 weeks that are left to lay out a bold agenda for domestic reform, and he also needs to talk more about his character,” Rove said.

The strategist added that McCain also “needs to recognize that every election is about the future. And he needs to describe who he is.”

Rove noted that Obama had “wisely” sought to portray a McCain candidacy as a continuation of the policies of President Bush, noting that the GOP candidate has “responded badly to that.”

“Rather than saying, ‘You know what? Here’s who I am and here’s what I'm about,’ he’s responded by saying, ‘No, I’m not,’ which is the wrong answer,” Rove argued. “If the question is, ‘Who is not George Bush?’, Barack Obama is the answer. If the question is, ‘Who are you? And do you have a vision for the future?’, the answer can be Sen. McCain.”

Davis sought to distance McCain from President Bush’s record just as Obama’s campaign has begun running ads trying to tie the two together. A new Democratic ad features a video clip of McCain saying that he voted for legislation backed by Bush more than 90 percent of the time.

“Who was the biggest irritant to this administration for the last 10 years or last eight years? John McCain,” Davis said. “He sided with Democrats when he thought they were doing the right thing for the country, and sided with the Republicans when he thought they were doing the right thing for the country.”

ACTION! ALASKA DELEGATES UP FOR GRAB!

REPOSTED here from the ClintonDems Website:

During my research on caucus fraud I discovered the little known fact that Alaska will send five delegates to the convention UNPLEDGED. “In addition to officially allocating 13 national delegates, the state convention also decided five delegates that will attend the national convention as officially unpledged - although all but one has endorsed Obama. Here are the names of these officially unpledged Alaska Delegates. Maybe we could contact them.... More...

Here are their names:

John Davies, DNC
Patti Higgins. DNC Clinton
Blake Johnson, DNC
Cindy Spanyers, DNC
Tony Knowles

History Lessons For Eggheads

As Always - a GREAT post from Hillary is 44

Lots of substance going on (besides the Friday swamp of lies from the Edwards familiy and campaign which attacked Hillary’s character during the primaries).

Before we begin our brief history lesson we must note that the tires on the fake unity wagon are deflating. Speeches and speech nights are not enough. The rickety unity wagon is lying by the side of the road, not moving, stalled in Chicago mud. More...

Stories and videos on pro-Hillary websites posted days, if not weeks ago, are finally reported by Big Media as if they are fresh news. NObama, NOvember is getting Noticed.

We Hillary supporters are demanding a roll call vote. If Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi waterboard Hillary into rejecting Hillary’s very own, clearly stated, desire to have a roll call vote that will still not prevent Hillary delegates from voting for her. An Iron Curtain Dictators type vote by acclamation to select Obama will be seen as the deceptive fake unity it is. Every Hillary vote will therefore be a profile in courage and a major embarrassment to Obama/Dean/Brazile/Pelosi and their rikety fake unity mirage.

In the next few days we will attempt to catalog (please send information to admin@HillaryIs44.org) pro-Hillary, NObama events taking place during the next several weeks. There are many events and efforts being organized now in battleground states and in Denver which need assistance if they are to come to fruition. At the same time we will continue our Herculean efforts to keep track of the major Obama gaffes and major Obama flip-flops and major Obama flim-flams.

Briefly, we will note the efforts by To Get Her 4 Us .org (they have a petition, please consider signing the petition) and the heroic Ricki Lieberman. Ricki Lieberman works with Together4us.org and also authors the invaluable Electability Watch newsletter. To receive Ricki’s newsletter email Ricki at rrlieberma@gmail.com.

Please help Ricki with her efforts contacting delegates. Recall when certain websites were laughing at Ricki and insisting that Hillary was repudiating Ricki and her efforts? The ridiculous headlines on these websites was Clinton Distances Herself From Anti-Obama Hillraiser. We defended Ricki then and laughed at her detractors. Today, Ricki has a good laugh at her detractors’ expense:

This evening at a “thank you, Hillraisers” event, Senator Clinton told me how honored she is by the people who are working to have her name put into nomination and appreciative of those signing the petition. So, like the proverbial laser, I am focusing on getting Hillary’s name in nomination and nominated in Denver. This means zooming in on the decision makers and the opinion makers with thoughtful, persuasive communications. Please help in any way you can!

On to our History Lessons For Eggheads.

* * *

In the summer of 2001, a few weeks before the 9/11 disaster, George W. Bush was on another of his all too frequent vacations. Ned Lamont went on vacation to Maine after winning the Connecticut Democratic primary for Senate from Joe Lieberman. Bush was vacationing instead of preparing against Bin Laden; Ned Lamont was vacationing instead of campaigning; Joe Lieberman won. Today Obama follows once again the George W. Bush/Lamont template and goes on vacation to Hawaii and tries to avoid the Edwards swamp.

Hillary and John McCain remain hard at work.

With polls showing him neck-and-neck with John McCain at a stage at which many Democrats expected he would be in the clear lead, they worry about the kind of stray image that helped to defeat John Kerry in 2004.

In a piece of footage endlessly recycled to mock his supposed elitism and even foreignness, Mr Kerry was caught on camera windsurfing off Massachusetts. Since Mr Obama is taking his holiday at a private beach house in Hawaii, surrounded by the secret service, campaign officials worry less about his exposure to the paparazzi. Besides, they say, most Americans will be tuned into the Olympics.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain are on the job. Obama is hiding behind security walls and Olympic coverage. Obama’s grandmother is still struggling under the bus. Obama supporter John Edwards displays his lack of judgement. Superdelegates are in denial.

* * *

Donna Brazile: A new Democratic coalition is younger. It is more urban, as well as suburban, and we don’t have to just rely on white blue-collar voters and Hispanics.

David Axelrod: The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.

The rantings above by Brazile and Axelrod are inspired by theories espoused by Jude Judis and Ruy Teixeira about the emerging Democratic majority. The basic premise is that African-Americans and young voters and liberals are the new Democratic majority. The old FDR coaltion is, for these strategists, too old and too out of fashion.

The Creative Class, as the nutroots flatteringly call themselves, love the snakeoil of an emerging Democratic majority that does not have to bother with the majority of the country - white and particularly white working class voters. The dream of the nutroots, er, excuse us, the Creative Class is that Democrats can’t win white working class voters and other groups so just chuck them out of the way and come up with some new formula to win. In other words stop competing and get a gimmick. Gypsy Rose Lee would be proud.

The Creative Class buys fully into these quack ‘avoid the voters’ schemes. Judis and Teixeira are smart good guys but their analysis is flawed and is employed by mindless Obama incense burners to justify their ‘destroy the winning FDR coalition’ nonsense. Teixeira and Judis published The Emerging Democratic Majority just as September 11, 2001 approached. Democrats have been waiting for the emerging majority for a long time. Like a losing baseball team sloganeers, “wait till next year“. Like end of the world evangelists the goal posts move when victory did not come in 2004.

There are many flaws in the Judis/Texeira analysis. There is also the PINO/DINO problem. What would a Democratic majority mean if Democrats are the ones who approve FISA and John Roberts and oil drilling and no gun control, and run away from pro-choice advocates?

Yesterday, the senior United States Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, was interviewed by Politico.

Schumer argues in a new preface to his book that Americans’ economic insecurity could make 2008 a re-aligning landslide.

“This election has the potential to effect the kind of paradigm-shifting change that occurs once in a generation,” he writes, comparing the vote to Franklin Roosevelt’s rise in 1932 and Ronald Reagan’s in 1980. “If it’s decided by issue and policy offerings, this election might just be the one that creates a political majority for a generation.”

Senator Schumer is someone we generally strongly agree with (sometimes strongly disagree with too). Chuck Schumer is generally one of the good guys. No elected official wanted Hillary Clinton elected President more than Chuck (O.K. some of the reasons were a bit self-interested, but we forgive him).

The senior senator from New York is right that the 2008 election could be a “paradigm-shifting” election. But that is true only if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee.

The key clause in the Chuck Schumer analysis: “If it’s decided by issue and policy offerings“. With Hillary Clinton as the nominee the election will be decided by issue and policy offerings. Truly universal health care and passionate policy positions are Hillary’s forte. Hillary also does not run away from white working class voters.

With Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee Democrats could finally heal the breach caused by the 1964 Civil Rights Act and create a true coaltion of FDR’s white working class voters and Lyndon Johnson’s African-American voters as well as bring in a permanently aligned with Democrats Latino community - and women. {We wrote about healing the breach HERE.]

Obama though is selling his fictional biography as a reason for the nomination and election. Fictional biographies can blow up in your face - ask John Edwards (the confession is HERE). Ask Milli-Vanilli.

No doubt Obama with his broth of faked celebrity biographical offerings easily wins the battle for pasting his face on magazine covers. Idolatry is the Obama ideology. Internet temples of Obama worship, incense thickly perfuming the chant filled air, praise Obama, not his policy. The Kerry’s and the Sullivans and the rest of the all male priesthood worship Obama’s face.

But Democrats have taken the Obama path before. Think of the wonderful Adlai Stevenson - who lost big.

Although Stevenson’s eloquent oratory and thoughtful, stylish demeanor thrilled many intellectuals and members of the nation’s academic community, the Republicans and some working-class Democrats ridiculed what they perceived as his indecisive, aristocratic air. During the 1952 campaign Stewart Alsop, a powerful Connecticut Republican and the brother of newspaper columnist Joseph Alsop, labeled Stevenson an “egghead“, based on his baldness and intellectual air. Alsop used the word in a column describing Stevenson’s problems in wooing working-class voters and the nickname stuck. His running mate was Senator John Sparkman of Alabama. In the 1952 presidential election against Dwight D. Eisenhower, Stevenson lost heavily outside the Solid South; he won only nine states and lost the Electoral College vote 442 to 89.

Does that not sound familiar, Superdelegates?

How about this familiar sounding disaster, Superdelegates:

Stevenson again won the nomination at the 1956 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, aided by strong support from younger delegates, who were said to form the core of the “New Politics” movement.

We are in no way attacking Adlai Stevenson. We respect him but Adlai lost. He lost. That loss had consequences for poor Americans.

The Eggheads unfortunately are at it again. In 2008 they call themselves the Creative Class. There is nothing funny about the damage these self-infatuated Eggheads have wrought through the years. There are Eggheads in both parties. But in the Democratic Party the Eggheads are the harbringers of doom. When the Eggheads solidify for a candidate - watch out.

Adlai Stevenson to his credit recognized the Egghead, er, Creative Class of yesteryear was not enough to win. The Eggheads supporting Obama, their enablers, and the Superdelegates should remember Democrats need a majority to win.

Stevenson’s wit was legendary. During one of Stevenson’s presidential campaigns, allegedly, a supporter told him that he was sure to “get the vote of every thinking man” in the U.S., to which Stevenson is said to have replied, “Thank you, but I need a majority to win.”

Hillary Clinton's Image still Largely Intact

FROM JUNE 4, 2008 Gallup Poll More...


Gallup Poll

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Hillary Clinton is emerging from the bitterly contested Democratic primary campaign with her public image among Democrats largely intact. More than three-quarters of Democrats (74%) still view her favorably, identical to national Democratic views of Barack Obama.

For most of 2007, 80% or more of national Democrats said they had a favorable view of Clinton. Positive views of her dipped below 80% in January and February of this year, rebounded to 85% in March, but have since been in the mid- to high 70s. Over the same period, Obama's favorability rose by 12 points, from 62% last February to 74% today. This was as Obama became better known nationally, and more people were able to rate him.

While Clinton's favorable rating among Democrats is slightly lower today than it once was, it has remained nearly flat among political independents. Also, after about a year of receiving minimal favorable ratings from Republicans (ranging from 12% to 19%), she is now viewed favorably by a slightly more robust 24% of Republicans, similar to the 21% to 28% seen in February and March 2007.

Now ready for prime time: Michelle Obama

NOTE: PRESIDENT CLINTON IS SPEAKING WEDNESDAY NIGHT, NORMALLY RESERVED FOR THE VP, CAUSING *SOME* TO SPECULATE HE WILL ANNOUNCE HILLARY...

That's the word from the organizers of the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month. They've just sent a news release announcing that she'll be the "headline prime-time speaker" on Monday, Aug. 25 -- the opening night of the Democrats' quadrennial funfest that will formally nominate her husband as the party's candidate for president of the United States. More...

Tuesday's headliner is Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom the release described as "a champion for working families and one of the most effective and empathetic voices in the country today." (Not surprisingly, there's no mention of the bitter primary contest between Clinton and Obama, or of the nearly 18 million votes she racked up between Jan. 3 and June 3.)

The vice presidential pick gets his/her turn in the convention spotlight Wednesday night. And Thursday, of course, is the Illinois senator's acceptance speech in front of more than 70,000 cheering fans at Invesco Field at Mile High, the home of the Denver Broncos. (The others have to make do with speaking before an in-person audience of 4,400 delegates and 15,000 members of the media at the Pepsi Center, where the NBA's Denver Nuggets play.)

While nominees' wives have addressed the convention in previous years (Hillary Clinton in 1996, Tipper Gore in 2000 and Teresa Heinz Kerry in 2004), this appears to be the first time that such a speech will be featured so prominently.

As this week progresses, convention organizers will be rolling out the names of other orators, perhaps making it easier to read the currently murky tea leaves on the #2 slot on the ticket. Stay tuned.

-- Leslie Hoffecker

Photo credit: Cheryl Senter/Associated Press

NO SPEND DAY!

Join us on Saturday August 16th, 2008, for a day of NO SPENDING to evidence that we are serious in our demand of fair practices for women candidates. We won’t spend a DIME for 24 hours. NO SPENDING (cash or credit) on: internet purchases, gas for the car, cups of coffee, TV shopping, movies, dining, grocery or clothes. Plan a day of R&R, read a book or clean your closet BUT hold onto your money AND no commercial TV or Radio which has supported biased media.

A day of no spending as a coalition will demonstrate that we are a LARGE number of voters who can impact the economy as well as the election.

The British Description of Sexism in America

This is an older article. I thought it worthy of posting now as a view sexism in America from the British Perspective.

Hating Hillary
from the Newstatesman
By Andrew Stephen
Published 22 May 2008

Gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins.
More...

History, I suspect, will look back on the past six months as an example of America going through one of its collectively deranged episodes - rather like Prohibition from 1920-33, or McCarthyism some 30 years later. This time it is gloating, unshackled sexism of the ugliest kind. It has been shamelessly peddled by the US media, which - sooner rather than later, I fear - will have to account for their sins. The chief victim has been Senator Hillary Clinton, but the ramifications could be hugely harmful for America and the world.

I am no particular fan of Clinton. Nor, I think, would friends and colleagues accuse me of being racist. But it is quite inconceivable that any leading male presidential candidate would be treated with such hatred and scorn as Clinton has been. What other senator and serious White House contender would be likened by National Public Radio's political editor, Ken Rudin, to the demoniac, knife-wielding stalker played by Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction? Or described as "a fucking whore" by Randi Rhodes, one of the foremost personalities of the supposedly liberal Air America? Could anybody have envisaged that a website set up specifically to oppose any other candidate would be called Citizens United Not Timid? (We do not need an acronym for that.)

I will come to the reasons why I fear such unabashed misogyny in the US media could lead, ironically, to dreadful racial unrest. "All men are created equal," Thomas Jefferson famously proclaimed in 1776. That equality, though, was not extended to women, who did not even get the vote until 1920, two years after (some) British women. The US still has less gender equality in politics than Britain, too. Just 16 of America's 100 US senators are women and the ratio in the House (71 out of 435) is much the same. It is nonetheless pointless to argue whether sexism or racism is the greater evil: America has a peculiarly wicked record of racist subjugation, which has resulted in its racism being driven deep underground. It festers there, ready to explode again in some unpredictable way.

To compensate meantime, I suspect, sexism has been allowed to take its place as a form of discrimination that is now openly acceptable. "How do we beat the bitch?" a woman asked Senator John McCain, this year's Republican presidential nominee, at a Republican rally last November. To his shame, McCain did not rebuke the questioner but joined in the laughter. Had his supporter asked "How do we beat the nigger?" and McCain reacted in the same way, however, his presidential hopes would deservedly have gone up in smoke. "Iron my shirt," is considered amusing heckling of Clinton. "Shine my shoes," rightly, would be hideously unacceptable if yelled at Obama.

Evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, American men like to delude themselves that they are the most macho in the world. It is simply unthinkable, therefore, for most of them to face the prospect of having a woman as their leader. The massed ranks of male pundits gleefully pronounced that Clinton had lost the battle with Obama immediately after the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, despite past precedents that strong second-place candidates (like Ronald Reagan in his first, ultimately unsuccessful campaign in 1976; like Ted Kennedy, Gary Hart, Jesse Jackson and Jerry Brown) continue their campaigns until the end of the primary season and, in most cases, all the way to the party convention.

None of these male candidates had a premature political obituary written in the way that Hillary Clinton's has been, or was subjected to such righteous outrage over refusing to quiesce and withdraw obediently from what, in this case, has always been a knife-edge race. Nor was any of them anything like as close to his rivals as Clinton now is to Obama.

The media, of course, are just reflecting America's would-be macho culture. I cannot think of any television network or major newspaper that is not guilty of blatant sexism - the British media, naturally, reflexively follow their American counterparts - but probably the worst offender is the NBC/MSNBC network, which has what one prominent Clinton activist describes as "its nightly horror shows". Tim Russert, the network's chief political sage, was dancing on Clinton's political grave before the votes in North Carolina and Indiana had even been fully counted - let alone those of the six contests to come, the undeclared super-delegates, or the disputed states of Florida and Michigan.

The unashamed sexism of this giant network alone is stupendous. Its superstar commentator Chris Matthews referred to Clinton as a "she-devil". His colleague Tucker Carlson casually observed that Clinton "feels castrating, overbearing and scary . . . When she comes on television, I involuntarily cross my legs." This and similar abuse, I need hardly point out, says far more about the men involved than their target.

Knives out

But never before have the US media taken it upon themselves to proclaim the victor before the primary contests are over or the choice of all the super-delegates is known, and the result was that the media's tidal wave of sexism became self-fulfilling: Americans like to back winners, and polls immediately showed dramatic surges of support for Obama. A few brave souls had foreseen the merciless media campaign: "The press will savage her no matter what," predicted the Washington Post's national political correspondent, Dana Milbank, last December. "They really have their knives out for her, there's no question about it."

Polling organisations such as Gallup told us months ago that Americans will more readily accept a black male president than a female one, and a more recent CNN/Essence magazine/ Opinion Research poll found last month that 76 per cent think America is ready for a black man as president, but only 63 per cent believe the same of a woman.

"The image of charismatic leadership at the top has been and continues to be a man," says Ruth Mandel of Rutgers University. "We don't have an image, we don't have a historical memory of a woman who has achieved that feat."

Studies here have repeatedly shown that women are seen as ambitious and capable, or likeable - but rarely both. "Gender stereotypes trump race stereotypes in every social science test," says Alice Eagley, a psychology professor at Northwestern University. A distinguished academic undertaking a major study of coverage of the 2008 election, Professor Marion Just of Wellesley College - one of the "seven sisters" colleges founded because women were barred from the Ivy Leagues and which, coincidentally, Hillary Clinton herself attended - tells me that what is most striking to her is that the most repeated description of Senator Clinton is "cool and calculating".

This, she says, would never be said of a male candidate - because any politician making a serious bid for the White House has, by definition, to be cool and calculating. Hillary Clinton, a successful senator for New York who was re-elected for a second term by a wide margin in 2006 - and who has been a political activist since she campaigned against the Vietnam War and served as a lawyer on the congressional staff seeking to impeach President Nixon - has been treated throughout the 2008 campaign as a mere appendage of her husband, never as a heavyweight politician whose career trajectory (as an accomplished lawyer and professional advocate for equality among children, for example) is markedly more impressive than those of the typical middle-aged male senator.

Rarely is she depicted as an intellectually formidable politician in her own right (is that what terrifies oafs like Matthews and Carlson?). Rather, she is the junior member of "Billary", the derisive nickname coined by the media for herself and her husband. Obama's opponent is thus not one of the two US senators for New York, but some amorphous creature called "the Clintons", an aphorism that stands for amorality and sleaze. Open season has been declared on Bill Clinton, who is now reviled by the media every bit as much as Nixon ever was.

Here we come to the crunch. Hillary Clinton (along with her husband) is being universally depicted as a loathsome racist and negative campaigner, not so much because of anything she has said or done, but because the overwhelmingly pro-Obama media - consciously or unconsciously - are following the agenda of Senator Barack Obama and his chief strategist, David Axelrod, to tear to pieces the first serious female US presidential candidate in history.

"What's particularly saddening," says Paul Krugman, professor of economics and international affairs at Princeton and a rare dissenting voice from the left as a columnist in the New York Times, "is the way many Obama supporters seem happy with the . . . way pundits and some news organisations treat any action or statement by the Clintons, no matter how innocuous, as proof of evil intent." Despite widespread reporting to the contrary, Krugman believes that most of the "venom" in the campaign "is coming from supporters of Obama".

But Obama himself prepared the ground by making the first gratuitous personal attack of the campaign during the televised Congressional Black Caucus Institute debate in South Carolina on 21 January, although virtually every follower of the media coverage now assumes that it was Clinton who started the negative attacks. Following routine political sniping from her about supposedly admiring comments Obama had made about Ronald Reagan, Obama suddenly turned on Clinton and stared intimidatingly at her. "While I was working in the streets," he scolded her, ". . . you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board of Wal-Mart." Then, cleverly linking her inextricably in the public consciousness with her husband, he added: "I can't tell who I'm running against sometimes."

One of his female staff then distributed a confidential memo to carefully selected journalists which alleged that a vaguely clumsy comment Hillary Clinton had made about Martin Luther King ("Dr King's dream began to be realised when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964") and a reference her husband had made in passing to Nelson Mandela ("I've been blessed in my life to know some of the greatest figures of the last hundred years . . . but if I had to pick one person whom I know would never blink, who would never turn back, who would make great decisions . . . I would pick Hillary") were deliberate racial taunts.

Another female staffer, Candice Tolliver - whose job it is to promote Obama to African Americans - then weighed in publicly, claiming that "a cross-section of voters are alarmed at the tenor of some of these statements" and saying: "Folks are beginning to wonder: Is this an isolated situation, or is there something bigger behind all of this?" That was game, set and match: the Clintons were racists, an impression sealed when Bill Clinton later compared Obama's victory in South Carolina to those of Jesse Jackson in 1984 and 1988 (even though Jackson himself, an Obama supporter, subsequently declared Clinton's remarks to be entirely inoffensive).

The pincer movement, in fact, could have come straight from a textbook on how to wreck a woman's presi dential election campaign: smear her whole persona first, and then link her with her angry, red-faced husband. The public Obama, characteristically, pronounced himself "unhappy" with the vilification carried out so methodically by his staff, but it worked like magic: Hillary Clinton's approval ratings among African Americans plummeted from above 80 per cent to barely 7 per cent in a matter of days, and have hovered there since.

I suspect that, as a result, she will never be able entirely to shake off the "racist" tag. "African-American super-delegates [who are supporting Clinton] are being targeted, harassed and threatened," says one of them, Representative Emanuel Cleaver. "This is the politics of the 1950s." Obama and Axelrod have achieved their objectives: to belittle Hillary Clinton and to manoeuvre the ever-pliant media into depicting every political criticism she makes against Obama as racist in intent.

The danger is that, in their headlong rush to stop the first major female candidate (aka "Hildebeast" and "Hitlery") from becoming president, the punditocracy may have landed the Democrats with perhaps the least qualified presidential nominee ever. But that creeping realisation has probably come too late, and many of the Democratic super-delegates now fear there would be widespread outrage and increased racial tension if they thwart the first biracial presidential hopeful in US history.

But will Obama live up to the hype? That, I fear, may not happen: he is a deeply flawed candidate. Rampant sexism may have triumphed only to make way for racism to rear its gruesome head in America yet again. By election day on 4 November, I suspect, the US media and their would-be-macho commentators may have a lot of soul-searching to do.

In this comment piece on sexist language in the US media in relation to Hillary Clinton Andrew Stephen suggested that Carl Bernstein had publicly declared his disgust for Hillary Clinton's thick ankles. We are informed that Carl Bernstein intended, in his biography of Hillary Clinton, to refer to comments made by others about her when she was at high school. We are happy to accept that Carl Bernstein was not motivated by sexism, and we are sorry for any embarrassment caused.

Obama receives illegal funds from 'terrorist hotbed'

According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists.

Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the "Edwan" family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog. (see Federal Election Commission report) More...

Attorney and conservative commentator Debbie Schlussel notes foreign nationals are barred from making contributions in connection with any election -- federal, state, or local -- and an individual is allowed to give only $2,300 per election to a federal candidate or the candidate's campaign committee.

"The donations are basically through and through illegal -- that's number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it," Schlussel Terrorist with hostagechides. "They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the 'GA' from Gaza so it makes it look like it's legal; and then for the zip code it says '972,' which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza," she contends.

The attorney comments that if the Obama campaign is willing to "accept thousands of dollars beyond the legal limit and they're also going to flout [Federal Election Commission] restrictions...that's very indicative of what kind of president [Obama] is going to be."

"They're not going to be worried about the details and they won't mind if they break the law to get to the final result that they want," adds Schlussel. She believes it is a "major news story when a presidential candidate receives money from 'a bastion of Islamic terrorism.' And Schlussel argues that the media is "bending over backwards to help Barack Obama and cover up any negative news about him."

Schlussel says Pamela Geller will likely file a Federal Election Commission complaint against the Obama campaign for violating restrictions and limits on campaign contributions.

You may view Matt Friedeman's video commentary on this story by clicking here.

Clinton supporters at Democratic meeting fail in bid to end caucus system

So much for the candidate that wants to "hear from the people" and "represent the voters". The party's platform committee, now controlled by Obama and his supporters, set aside the caucus amendment, saying the rules committee will deal with it. The new draft party platform is a mixed bag.

By Peter Nicholas, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
August 10, 2008
PITTSBURGH -- Hillary Rodham Clinton loyalists tried Saturday to kill off the caucus system that proved so damaging to her presidential bid, but were beaten back by a Democratic Party leadership firmly under the command of her former rival, Barack Obama. More...



Democrats who supported the New York senator's candidacy pushed to amend the new party platform so that caucuses would be banned in future presidential contests.

But the party's platform committee refused to allow a vote on the amendment or even a discussion. Co-chair Patricia Madrid, a former New Mexico attorney general, said the matter would instead be taken up at a later date by the party's rules committee.

That left Clinton supporters disappointed. They say that if the party were serious about enfranchising more voters, it would take a clear position against a system that makes participation difficult for shift workers, the disabled and overseas members of the military. In traditional primaries, people have all day to vote. But a caucus may last just a few hours.

During the Democratic race, Obama outmaneuvered Clinton in Iowa and many other states that held caucuses, turning out far more supporters and racking up enough delegates to give him an insurmountable lead.

"My feeling is the issue should have been aired and people should have had the opportunity to speak and vote it up or down," Bob Remer, a delegate for Clinton from Chicago, said in an interview Saturday. Remer, who is a member of the platform committee, had put forward the amendment that was shelved. "The caucus system is the exact opposite of everything I've been fighting for in terms of maximizing democratic input."

The 186-member committee voted to recommend adoption of a new Democratic platform, the party's formal statement of policies and principles. Final approval will come at the party's national convention Aug. 25-28 in Denver.

Clinton supporters were hoping to influence the draft in ways that reflect her interests. For its own sake, the Obama campaign would like to accommodate Clinton forces where it can; with Republican John McCain keeping the general election contest close, according to recent polls, Obama needs to unify voters behind him.

So the platform is a mixed bag. In a section devoted to expanding opportunities for women, the document says that Democrats are proud "that we have put 18 million cracks in the highest glass ceiling," a respectful reference to Clinton's vote total in the primary and a phrase she used in her concession speech.

But Obama, now in control of the Democratic Party machinery, clearly enjoys the greatest influence over the document. The platform reflects many of his policy goals and borrows language from his stump speech. "Our planet is in peril," reads the preamble.

One of the defining policy differences the Illinois senator had with Clinton involved healthcare. She wanted a requirement that people carry health insurance; he did not.

The platform has no mention of a health insurance mandate. But it does include language that acknowledges "there are different approaches within the Democratic Party about how best to achieve the commitment of universal coverage."

Platform committee leaders insisted that Clinton was given a role in shaping the document. At some point, party officials said, the future of the caucus system will be decided, but inserting a paragraph in the platform is not the best way to settle the matter.

Madrid, the committee co-chair who set aside the caucus amendment, said the platform "wasn't effectively controlled by Obama, although his people certainly had a hand in it. He's the candidate and he will have to run on this platform. That's not unreasonable. The issue of the caucuses won't be resolved here at the platform. It will be resolved on the DNC level, and they will have their full day in court, I guarantee you."

Tensions between Obama and Clinton forces were evident at the Convention Center here, where the meeting took place. Clinton's supporters sat together in the audience, wearing campaign buttons and T-shirts bearing her name. One person hissed when Obama's name was mentioned.

Among the activists serving on the committee, there were also signs of a split.

Lynn Forester de Rothschild, the head of a private holding company and a member of the committee, took the microphone after the caucus amendment was defeated to register a protest.

After the meeting, she said she still hadn't made up her mind about whether to vote for Obama because she didn't "understand how a person comes to the U.S. Senate and -- before they've done one thing there -- decides they can be president."

"I have serious questions about Barack Obama and what the Democratic Party is doing," she said. "I have serious issues with Barack Obama."

peter.nicholas@latimes.com

Another chance - filmmaker still in town!

I know it's a busy day of activities - but I just wanted everyone to know about this one, too! Yesterday, Rishad sent out a notice about the documentary America the Beautiful (about America's obsession with beauty) and the chance to meet the director. I went to the film last night and it was great ... and had a wonderful talk with the director, too. He has decided to stay in town one more day to make himself available for to talk with folks who go to the 4:45 or 7:30 show this evening, 8/9/08 (Uptown Cinema, lower Queen Anne). Please spread the word and catch this great new film (which hasn't even opened in LA yet)!!!

Have a great day, everyone ... Cathy

P.S. Anyone who is an organizer/assistant for any other group that might be interested in this, please pass it along! THANKS!

Obama vs. McCain: The Real Polling Data

Posted by Eli Fennell from PUMA Facebook

Because most of the major polls seem to be showing a lead for Obama,
many people are failing to dig beneath the surface and see what
factors contribute to this perception, and where the race really lies
at the moment. More...

Most of the polls that we see on a daily basis are, for one thing,
based on surveys of registered voters. This is simply not a good
standard to judge by, as the Gallup Organization reported themselves after there was confusion over the difference between a Gallup Daily Tracking Poll
showing Obama ahead at the same time that a USA Today Gallup Poll
showed McCain ahead. the USA Today Poll was based on likely voters,
rather than registered voters, and Gallup has conceded that likely
voters are the more accurate of the two criteria. I can personally
attest to having met far more people who say they support Obama but
are unlikely to vote anyways than I have met who say they support
McCain but are unlikely to vote. People who are unlikely to vote may
nonetheless have an opinion of the race and respond to the random
polling of organizations like Gallup and Rasmussen.

There is also the issue of so called "leaners", and these have tended
to show higher support for McCain than for Obama, as they did for
Hillary when she was running against Obama. It seems that if a person
is not sold on Obama's messianic image, their tendency is to lean
towards the more experienced candidate, and this is apparently
especially true of those who remain undecided until the moment they go
into the polling booth and have to make a choice. Change voters seem
to have their minds largely made up before they get there, regardless
of who they think is the better to bring that change.

Beyond this, there is at least one critical factor in the polling data
that is not reported in any tracking poll: The military. Polling
organizations are not allowed to poll on military bases, and are quite
incapable of polling in Iraq and Afghanistan even if they were allowed
to. But there have been informal surveys, and these suggest that in
the war zones support for McCain may be around 90%, whereas
domestically it may be around 75%. The United States military has
approximately 300,000 individuals, including active and reserve duty,
the second largest military in the world behind China. And these tend
to be more concentrated in the blue collar swing states, where as a
voting bloc they have the power to make the difference between victory
and defeat for either candidate.

Based on these factors I submit an ambitious claim: McCain is, in
fact, beating Obama nationally, despite appearances to the contrary,
and whereas McCain is staying level or increasing his support, Obama's
has been in a months-long decline disrupted only by brief periods
where overwhelming media attention has given him a very temporary
bump. So when the media tells that this or that poll says that Obama
is winning, just keep in mind the things they are not telling you, and
the people who are not getting factored into those polls.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mccaindemocrats/
http://readerarticles.realclearpolitics.com/

Internal Clinton Emails

Reposted here from the ClintonDems to share:

Pray for our nation, and for Hillary, that Barack Obama and his cronies fail at their subverted attempts to destroy them both–us all. No wonder he voted for FISA. He absolutely believes the ends justify the means! More...

(by Marc Ambinder at The Atlantic)
The Atlantic’s Josh Green has about 200 of them from the height of the Clinton campaign. Atlantic subscribers should be getting the story in their mailboxes later next week, and we hope to post the story online early next week.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/08/internal_clinton_emails.php

Ambinder infers in his short pronouncement that there is material of interest contained in these emails that he has somehow gotten his hands on from the Clinton campaign. (Patti Solis Doyle comes to mind.) But, it turns out that Rush Limbaugh has them, too, and he read some of them on the air yesterday (8/8/08). From the sounds of it, it’s actually fairly benigned conversation. It includes stuff like she doesn’t think BHO is electable. No news there. Whew!

With BHO’s track record of eliminating the competition, he should know that if he hurts Hillary any more, he’s only closing the final door of his failed attempt to capture the White House in NOvember! He should beware.

PUMAs are prowling, and we are not afraid to ROAR!

Hillary & only HIllary (NO MATTER WHAT) in ‘08!

What Is Obama Talking About?

See related article "Obama Embarrassed by America".

By Betsy Newmark
High School History and Government Teacher/Blogger

Occasionally, Obama has indicated that he has a weak sense of American history. He didn’t seem to know that the Cold War was not a time when the world was standing as one. He didn’t know the history of presidential summits and seems to think that FDR and Truman met with our nation’s enemies. He didn’t know how the Nuremberg Trials worked. And I’m not even talking about his mistake that Americans liberated Auschwitz. More...

But I think his remark when the little girl asked him why he decided to run for president and he gave this response.

“America is …, uh, is no longer, uh … what it could be, what it once was. And I say to myself, I don’t want that future for my children.”

As you watch the video, it’s clear that he formed his words carefully and was thinking about how to answer the little girl.

I’m wondering when is the time that Obama thinks that we were what we could be. It couldn’t have been when we had slavery. So that takes us to 1865. It couldn’t be when we had states divided by terrible Jim Crow laws that segregated society and disenfranchised an entire race. So that takes us to the mid-1960s. It probably wasn’t when we were divided and torn apart by the Vietnam War and racial violence. So that takes us to the 1970s. I doubt that it was when we were suffering devastating stagflation and seeing our hostages being paraded in front of the cameras. So that takes us to 1980. We’re left with the Reagan-Bush years. Is Obama yearning for Morning in America? Many conservatives remember that period with nostalgia; does Obama share that feeling? No, certainly not the 1980s, that decade of greed.

Or is he talking about the Clinton years? Was that the time when we were what we could be? Why then run against Hillary Clinton? And that was a time when we were supposedly being divided by bitter partisanship. Is he yearning for the time when the Republicans controlled Congress? The days of impeachment? Or is he thinking about when we had our heads in the sand regarding the growing development of Al Qaeda terrorism? If that was the one period in our time when we were what we could be, then wouldn’t he have wanted to put that team back in the White House? And we know that he isn’t talking about the Bush years. So what was he talking about?

This matches up with some of the things his wife has said. His wife thinks that we are a “downright mean” country.

Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we’re a divided country, we’re a country that is “just downright mean,” we are “guided by fear,” we’re a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents. “We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day,” she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. “Folks are just jammed up, and it’s gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I’m young. Forty-four!”

We can narrow down when that better time was as far as his wife is concerned. She says it’s gotten worse over her lifetime and she’s 44. I’m still trying to figure out when in the past 44 years she thinks that it was better. Ed Morrissey reminds us of some other remarks that Michelle Obama has said that indicated her dislike of this country. It now seems that her husband shares some of that disdain. Or does he? She’s also said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud of America because America had the good sense to vote for her husband. So does she think that we’re now being what we could be? Or was her childhood during the 1960s and 70s that time when America was so good. It’s all very confusing.

As Jennifer Rubin says, this remark wasn’t a gaffe, but a theme.

But really, it is not just a matter of an off-the-cuff remark. (By the way can you imagine that if Joe Biden is selected as VP he might actually be the less gaffe-prone of the two?) That gloomy assessment and glum world outlook is essential to his message. Remember: if the country is not in dire straits then no ordinary, experienced politician will do. We have to throw away the playbook, take a leap of faith and elect the One Who Is Like No Other. So of course everything must be worse than before — why else would we need Him?

You know, this wasn’t a tough question. She was asking him why he wanted to be president. Ever since Roger Mudd flummoxed Teddy Kennedy, candidates have known how to answer that question. He could have talked about the challenges that our country faces and how he wanted to lead us to a better tomorrow. He was given an opening to talk about how much he loves this country and wants to serve it. If he had to return to his usual solipsism, he could have talked about how proud he is to be the first candidate of a mixed racial heritage to be nominated by a major political party and how far we have come from our grim racial history and how he is looking forward to leading the country as we continued our progress.

Many liberals supporting Obama’s campaign probably don’t see anything wrong with Obama’s reply. But those aren’t the people he needs to convince. If he’s worry about those bitter, clinging voters who voted for Hillary in the primaries, this sort of talk isn’t going to win them over.

And I hope that one day, some reporter, or maybe just another seven-year old child, will ask him. When exactly were those golden, halcyon days? What are all those qualities that he believes represent what we can be and what we once were? And when exactly was that period in American history when we satisfied all those criteria? I hope that those journalists or townhall participants at Obama events who will be trying to think of what questions to ask Obama if they get the opportunity will consider asking him when we were what we could be and if we were waiting for the change that we would be today back then? It all is very confusing, but I’m sure that he can deconstruct it for us.

Rasmussen Daily Presidential Poll

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Saturday shows that the race for the White House is tied—Barack Obama and John McCain each attract 44% of the vote. When "leaners" are included, it’s McCain 47% and Obama 46%. With leaners, the candidates have been within one point of each other for nine straight days (see recent daily results). Tracking Polls are released at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time each day. More...

McCain leads by nineteen points among White Men and by eight points among White Women. Obama leads 94% to 5% among African-American voters and by twenty-one points among Hispanic voters. We invite you to review other recent demographic highlights from the tracking polls. Premium Members can review additional information and get an advance look at new data on the influence of money in politics by visiting the Daily Snapshot.

McCain is currently viewed favorably by 54% of the nation’s voters, Obama by 53%. Other key stats of Election 2008 are updated daily at Obama-McCain: By the Numbers. Sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) and we will keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.

Voters see stark differences between Obama and McCain on two key issues of Election 2008—Iraq and Energy. On Iraq, voters believe Obama’s top priority is getting the troops home rather than winning the War. Forty-nine percent (49%) of voters say that is their top priority as well. On energy, voters believe McCain is more focused on finding new sources of energy rather than reducing the amount of energy we consume. That’s also the view held by 65% of voters.

Each Saturday morning, we review the week’s key polls to see What They Told Us. This week’s review includes new state polling data from Missouri, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Washington.

The Rasmussen Reports Balance of Power Calculator currently shows now Obama leading in states with 210 Electoral College votes while McCain leads in states with 165 votes. When leaners are included, it’s Obama 273, McCain 227. Rasmussen Markets data gives Obama a 60.5 % chance of winning the White House.

Daily tracking results are collected via telephone surveys of 1,000 likely voters per night and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. The margin of sampling error—for the full sample of 3,000 Likely Voters--is +/- 2 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Results are also compiled on a full-week basis and crosstabs for the full-week results are available for Premium Members.

Like all polling firms, Rasmussen Reports weights its data to reflect the population at large. Among other targets, Rasmussen Reports weights data by political party affiliation using a dynamic weighting process. Our baseline targets are established based upon survey interviews with a sample of adults nationwide completed during the preceding three months (a total of 45,000 interviews). For the month of August, the targets are 40.6% Democrat, 31.6% Republican, and 27.8% unaffiliated. For July, the targets were 41.4% Democrat, 31.5% Republican, and 27.1% unaffiliated (see party trends and analysis).

A review of last week’s key polls is posted each Saturday morning.

LaRouche PAC's Open Letter to Democrats

August 8, 2008 (LPAC)—The following letter is addressed to all democrats, and especially to those who may be attending the convention. It was written by LPAC's official spokeswoman, Debra Hanania-Freeman.


August 7, 2008

Dear Fellow Democrat,

Soon, Democrats will gather in Denver to select the Democratic nominee for President of the United States. And, contrary to the declarations of everyone ranging from media pundits to Chairman Dean to Barack Obama himself, we Democrats have not yet selected our nominee. That, my friends, is what the Convention is all about! More...

In 1932, New York Gov. Franklin Delano Roosevelt won the Democratic Party Presidential nomination by a landslide vote of 945-190, over his nearest rival and avowed political enemy, the former New York governor and J.P. Morgan tool, Alfred E. Smith. On Nov. 8, 1932, Roosevelt won a second landslide victory, this time, over incumbent Republican President Herbert Hoover. Roosevelt won 57% of the popular vote, and swept the Electoral College by 472-59. It was the greatest mandate for change in memory, and FDR immediately set out to return the U.S.A. to the tradition of the American System of political-economy, and, in so doing, brought the country out of the depths of the Great Depression, and prepared the nation for the great battles to come--against Nazism and Fascism--and an expected post-war battle to end the scourge of Anglo-Dutch colonialism.

Most Americans, with even a slight degree of historical literacy, know these basic facts about the election of 1932. Few, however, know how close the nation came to a disaster at the Democratic nominating convention in Chicago; how close FDR came to being deprived of the Presidential nomination, despite a groundswell of popular support; and how ruthlessly his Wall Street and City of London enemies sought to overturn the outcome of the 1932 election.

The 1932 Convention fight was a fierce one. Fortunately, Franklin Roosevelt knew that the fight for the United States Presidency was not simply a game of political machines and punditry, but that the coming fight demanded a leader who understood the historic enemy of the United States, and the founding principles of the nation. In those months leading up to the National Convention, FDR said "...while a nation goes speculation crazy the people neglect to think of fundamental principles."

It is that story, rarely told, which offers a vital lesson today to the Democratic Party, and to the American people, as the nation faces what may very well be our nation's most monumental Presidential election--an election, like 1932, that once again may determine whether the United States survives for another generation, as the sovereign republic established by the Founding Fathers.

And so, LaRouche PAC has put the story together in what is probably the most dramatic history lesson ever made available. It is presented, with its full implications for today's situation, in the enclosed DVD "1932: 'We must speak not of parties, but of universal principles.'" I urge you, in the strongest possible terms, to view it before you head to Denver. When you've viewed it, I'm sure that I won't have to urge you to share it with others, because I'm confident you won't need any urging to do that.

There is much more that I can say; about the current crises our nation and the world face, as well as about Mr. LaRouche's proposed solutions. But I am enclosing the best presentation possible of that strategic overview, in two of LPAC's recent pamphlets: "Your Enemy, George Soros," and "One Year Later." The latter is the transcript of Mr. LaRouche's July 22 webcast, and is even more timely today than the day it was uttered.

See you in Denver,

Regards,

Debra Hanania-Freeman

“Painful”

Reposted here from Larry Johnson's NOQUARTER

This ad is very effective. I worry that not every American has realized yet that, in 2005, Barack Obama chose to side with his lobbyist benefactors over the American people, and that he voted FOR the Bush-Cheney Energy bill. Hillary Clinton or John McCain voted against the bill.

Imho, that alone is reason enough to not nominate Barack Obama. “Words? Just words?” Well, sadly, that is all they are, Mr. Obama. When push comes to shove, you ALWAYS side with your money men. You didn’t give a single thought to the AMERICAN PEOPLE.
More...

I just had to get that off my chest. If every American voter KNEW that Barack Obama voted WITH Dick Cheney and George Bush on energy and profiteering for big energy companies, there’d be no doubt who should be nominated.

This ad is about the average American family. It's from the McCain campaign — which this blog does not endorse, but recognizes for its ability to point out the stark differences not only between John McCain and Barack Obama but also between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. click HERE to watch.

ARLINGTON, VA — U.S. Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign today released its latest television ad, entitled “Painful.” The ad highlights Barack Obama’s record of voting to raise taxes on middle class families and his proposals for painful tax increases that will only further hurt those already struggling with higher gas prices, higher food prices and the threat of home foreclosure. The last thing we need to do is raise taxes that force families to make even tougher choices with less money in their pockets. The ad will air in key states.

VIEW THE AD HERE: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWXqpHEsrxc

Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough.

Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family.

Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama.

JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

AD FACTS: Script For “Painful” (TV :30)

ANNCR: Life in the spotlight must be grand, but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.

· Barack Obama Voted Twice In Favor Of The Democrats’ FY 2009 Budget Resolution. (S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #85: Adopted 51-44: R 2-43; D 47-1; I 2-0, 3/14/08, Obama Voted Yea; S. Con. Res. 70, CQ Vote #142: Adopted 48- 45: R 2- 44; D 44- 1; I 2-0, 6/4/08, Obama Voted Yea)

· FactCheck.org: The Budget Resolution Would Have Allowed Most Of The Provisions Of The 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts To Expire, Effectively Raising Taxes On Those Making $41,500 In Total Income. “What Obama voted for was a budget resolution that would have allowed most of the provisions of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to expire. In particular, the resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple. But as those of you who have filled out a 1040 know, that’s not actually how income taxes work. We don’t pay taxes on our total earnings; we pay them based on our ‘taxable income.’ The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center’s Eric Toder told FactCheck.org that ‘people with taxable income of $32,000 would have a total income greater than that.’ In 2008, anyone filing taxes with single status would be entitled to a standard deduction of $5,450, as well as a personal exemption of $3,500. So to have a taxable income high enough to reach the 25 percent bracket, an individual would need to earn at least $41,500 in total income, while a married couple would need a combined income of at least $83,000.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· FactCheck.org: “Obama’s Votes Indicate A Willingness To Raise Taxes.” “Certainly Obama’s votes indicate a willingness to raise taxes, and Obama has not been shy about saying explicitly that he will raise some taxes.” (”The $32,000 Question,” FactCheck.org, http://www.factcheck.org, 7/8/08)

· Obama Campaign: Barack Obama Voted For A Budget Resolution That Wouldn’t Have Increased Taxes For Any Taxpayers Making Less Than $41,500. ROSEN: “Campaign aides to Senator Obama today, called the charge that he voted for tax hikes on people making only $32,000 a year, quote, ‘bogus.’ They circulated an analysis stating that the resolution that Obama had voted for would not have increase taxes on single taxpayer making less than $41,500 a year in total income.” (Fox News’ “America’s Election Headquarters,” 7/30/08)

· The New York Times: Barack Obama’s “Vote Was On A Budget Resolution To Raise Taxes On People Making $41,500 A Year.” “FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan Web site, said the vote was on a budget resolution to raise taxes on people making $41,500 a year; the $32,000 figure, it said, was the amount of taxable income those people had.” (Michael Cooper, “McCain Goes Negative, Worrying Some In GOP,” The New York Times, 7/30/08)

· The Associated Press: Budget Resolution “Would Have Allowed Tax Rates To Return To Pre-2001 Levels, Meaning That An Individual With Taxable Income Of About $32,000 Would Have Faced A Tax Increase.” “At issue is Obama’s vote on a non-binding budget resolution in March that called for President Bush’s tax cuts to expire. Such a step would have allowed tax rates to return to pre-2001 levels, meaning that an individual with taxable income of about $32,000 would have faced a tax increase. Taxable income is what’s left after taxpayers account for deductions.” (Liz Sidoti, “Obama Dismisses Conservative Criticism,” The Associated Press, 7/12/08)

· In June 2008, Obama Said “The Senate Voted To Stand Up For Working Families In Illinois And Throughout The Nation” By Passing The Democrats’ Final Budget Resolution. Obama: “Today the Senate voted to stand up for working families in Illinois and throughout the nation by rejecting the failed policies of the Bush Administration and moving our country back on track to fiscal discipline. … Our country needs change, and this budget is an important step in the right direction. I commend House and Senate leaders for working together to move this legislation through Congress.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Statement Of Senator Barack Obama On The Senate ’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget Resolution,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 6/4/08)

· In March 2008, Obama Hailed His Vote For The Budget As Making “Significant Progress In Getting Our Nation’s Priorities Back On Track.” Obama: “The budget passed by the Senate tonight makes significant progress in getting our nation’s priorities back on track. … We need change in this country, and this budget is an important step in helping bring it about.” (Sen. Barack Obama, “Obama Statement On The Senate’s Passage Of The FY 2009 Budget,” Press Release, obama.senate.gov, 3/14/08)

ANNCR: He promises more taxes on small business, seniors, your life savings, your family. Painful taxes, hard choices for your budget. Not ready to lead. That’s the real Obama. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m John McCain and I approved this message.

· Barack Obama Has Called For Higher Income Taxes, Social Security Taxes, Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes, And Corporate Taxes, As Well As “Massive New Domestic Spending.” “Obama’s transformation, if you go by his campaign so far, would mean higher income taxes, higher Social Security taxes, higher investment taxes, higher corporate taxes, massive new domestic spending, and a healthcare plan that perhaps could be the next step to a full-scale, single-payer system. Is that what most Americans want, someone who will fulfill a Democratic policy wish list?” (James Pethokoukis, “Barack Hussein Reagan? Ronald Wilson Obama?” U.S. News & World Report’s “Capital Commerce” Blog, www.usnews.com, 2/12/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Social Security (Payroll) Taxes On Families. “Obama’s proposal … would impose social security taxes on income above $250,000 per year. He would continue to exempt income between $102,000 and $250,000 from social security taxes.” (Teddy Davis, Sunlen Miller, and Gregory Wallace, “Obama Kisses Billions Goodbye,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, blogs.abcnews.com, 6/18/08)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Income Taxes. Obama: “[I] would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000.” (Sen. Barack Obama, CNN Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Manchester, NH, 6/3/07)

· U.S. Department Of Treasury: Small Business Owners “Are Frequently Subject To The Highest Individual Income Tax Rates.” “Changes in the individual income tax affect most businesses in the United States. That is because taxes on business earnings are often paid through the individual income tax when ‘passed-through’ to business owners. The business income from sole proprietorships, farm proprietorships, partnerships, S corporations, etc., is all taxed at the owners’ individual income tax rates. This year 34 million business owners are expected to receive this type of income and pay tax on this income through the individual income tax. These businesses are typically small and often entrepreneurial in nature, and a source of innovation and risk-taking in the economy. Moreover, these business owners are frequently subject to the highest individual income tax rates.” (”Topics Related To The President’s Tax Relief,” U.S. Departm ent Of Treasury, http://www.ustreas.gov/press/releases/reports/president_taxrelief_topics_0508.pdf, May 2008)

· Barack Obama Would Raise Capital Gains And Dividend Taxes. “Sen. Obama wants to raise the long-term capital-gains rate for families making more than $250,000 to around 20 percent or somewhat higher but not above the 28 percent level it reached during the Reagan presidency, an Obama economic adviser says. The same rate would apply to most dividend income for these investors.” (Tom Herman, “Tax Report Your Tax Bill: How McCain, Obama Differ,” The Associated Press, 6/18/08)

· In 2006, Over 26.7 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Capital Gains Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· In 2006, Over 31.5 Million U.S. Taxpayers Reported Dividend Income. (Internal Revenue Service Website, “Individual Income And Tax Data, By State And Size Of Adjusted Gross Income, Tax Year 2006,” www.irs.gov, Accessed 7/30/08)

· Barack Obama Called For Tax Hikes On “Dirty Energy” Such As Coal And Natural Gas. Obama: “What we ought to tax is dirty energy, like coal and, to a lesser extent, natural gas.” (”Q&A With Sen. Barack Obama,” San Antonio Express-News, 2/19/08)

· Even Barack Obama Admits That His Tax Increases May Harm The Economy. CNBC’S JOHN HARWOOD: “And I found this fascinating, Maria, that on the issue of taxes, he looked to insulate himself by saying that if, in fact, economic conditions justify the fact that it might harm the economy, he might be willing to hold off some of his tax increases when he takes office in January. Let’s take a listen to Barack Obama.” BARACK OBAMA: “Some of those, you could possibly defer. But I think the basic principle of restoring fairness to our economy and encouraging bottom-up economic growth is important. So here’s what we know: We know that over the last decade or so, that more than half of the economic growth has been captured by the top one percent of U.S. citizens. That means the other 99 percent have seen their effective incomes go down. That is not a recipe for long- term economic growth.” (CNBC, 6/9/08)

· Tax Policy Center: Barack Obama Would Raise Taxes On One Out Of Every Three Senior Households. “Even though Senator Obama’s plan eliminates individual income taxes for seniors with incomes less than $50,000, his plan would raise taxes for almost 10 million senior households, over a third of the total (not shown in table). On average, seniors would face a tax increase of about 2 percent of income.” (Burman et al., “A Preliminary Analysis of the 2008 Presidential Candidates’ Tax Plans,” The Tax Policy Center, 6/11/08)

· Tax Foundation: Seniors “Rely Most On The Stable Flow Of Income That Dividends Provide.” “Most debate over whether to extend the reduced rates on dividends and capital gains has focused on the tax benefits of these cuts to high-income taxpayers. What has been largely ignored is the impact these tax policies have on corporations’ decisions on how best to distribute their income to shareholders–including senior citizens, who rely most on the stable flow of income that dividends provide. A recent Tax Foundation analysis illustrated that a large number of those benefiting from dividends are seniors and those on the verge of retirement (See www.taxfoundation.org). A further analysis of these seniors earning dividends reveals that lower-income seniors who file tax returns depend more heavily on dividend income than high-income seniors.” (Gerald Prante, “The Importance Of Dividend Income For Low-Income Seniors,” Tax Foundation, http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/1354.html, 2/8/06)