Latino voting bloc rises at a bad time for black pols

The Philadelphia Enquirer

Two eye-catching things were buried in the new Census Bureau projection that, by 2042, America will no longer be a white man's country. One is that the proportion of African Americans also will fade, or at least not get much bigger. The other is that the number of Hispanics will soar, to about 30 percent of the country's population.

Not only will America not be a white-majority country; but it will almost certainly be a bilingual nation. In many cities, Spanish will as likely to be heard on the streets, in schools and workplaces as English will. This seismic demographic revolution is already happening in many urban neighborhoods. There has been huge growth in Latino-owned businesses and media ownership, and a growing employment dominance in retail and manufacturing industries. In years to come, in entire areas of the country, the economic shake-up will be colossal. More...

The biggest shake-up will be in politics. That's the area with greatest angst potential for blacks.

In 2000, the 23 million blacks eligible to vote outweighed the 13 million eligible Latino voters, even though Latinos had by then virtually reached parity with blacks in the population. More than one-third of the Latino population was younger than 18. Forty percent of Latinos of eligible voting age were noncitizens, compared with only 5 percent of blacks.

Those numbers have radically changed. Since the 2000 election, the number of citizen Latinos of voting age has jumped. Beyond just eligibility, there are now an estimated 15 million registered Latino voters. Compare that with the 15 million black voters in the 2004 election.

That's not the only shift in ethnic politics in America. In past elections, the majority of the Latino vote was concentrated in California, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona and Colorado. In the 2008 national elections, helped by the sharp increase in the number of legal and illegal immigrants in the Midwest and Northeast, the Latino vote will have national impact.

In the next couple of months, presumptive presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain will dump millions into Spanish-language ads, pitches, and pleas for votes on Spanish-language stations. When, not if, Democrats and Republicans cut an immigration-reform deal, one of its features almost certainly will include some legalization plan that within a few years will turn thousands more Latino immigrants into vote-casting U.S. citizens. Democrats and Republicans will pour even more time, money and personnel into courting Latino voters. The potential political gain from a massive outreach effort to Latinos is far greater than putting the same resources into courting black voters.

It's sound political reasoning. That effort worked for Republicans in 2004, when Bush got nearly 40 percent of the Latino vote. The Democrats, meanwhile, maintain a solid lock on the black vote. In every election since 1964, blacks have given more than 80 percent to 90 percent of their votes to the Democrats. They will give even more of their vote to Obama this election.

With the tantalizing prospect of a small, nonetheless important, segment of newly enfranchised Latino voters going Republican, there's no political incentive for Republicans to do more to get the black vote. That even includes their relentless pursuit of black evangelicals. Hispanic evangelical churches have an estimated 20 million members, and those numbers are growing yearly. According to a survey by the Hispanic Churches in American Public Life project, the majority of Latino evangelicals are conservative, pro-family, antiabortion and antigay marriage. Latino evangelicals are GOP-friendly, and they have political clout. They got several mainstream evangelical groups to back the Senate compromise immigration-reform bill. And while the National Association of Evangelicals stopped short of backing the Senate bill, it still urged "humane" immigration law.

The leap in Latino voting strength comes at a bad time for black politicians. Although the number of black elected officials has held steady in state offices and in Congress, the spectacular growth of prior years has flattened out. The Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies reported only a marginal increase after the 2004 elections in the number of black elected officials, mostly in a handful of Deep South states and Illinois.

Politicians already are de-emphasizing traditional black issues. Obama and McCain have been virtually mute on miserably failing inner-city schools, soaring black unemployment, prison incarceration, and the HIV/AIDS crisis that has torn black communities.

The new reality is that immigration, both legal and illegal, has drastically changed the ethnic and political landscape. As whites fade into a minority, the great fear is that blacks could fade just as fast in numbers and political power.

Myths of the Obamacans

By Christopher Caldwell

Published: August 15 2008 18:50 | Last updated: August 15 2008 18:50

One of the winning passages in Barack Obama’s speeches is his description of the Republicans flocking to his campaign rallies. “They whisper to me. They say: ‘Barack, I’m a Republican, but I support you.’ And I say ... ” – here Mr Obama usually lowers his voice to a stage whisper – “‘Thank you.’” The founding of Republicans for Obama this week by former congressman Jim Leach of Iowa, former senator Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island and Rita Hauser, a former fundraiser for George W. Bush, seems merely to make official a phenomenon that is already widespread. “There is going to be a split in the Republican base on foreign policy,” Mr Chafee told reporters, “because the Bush-Cheney approach has been such a failure all over the world.”

Is this true? Mr Obama is making a big pitch to Republicans. He has spoken glowingly of Ronald Reagan, is friendly to religious voters and has invested heavily in advertising and staffing not just in the swing states of the Midwest but also in such Republican strongholds as Texas. Yet there are a number of myths about “Obamacans” (as Mr Obama calls them) or “Obamacons” (as pundits do). Their numbers are overestimated and their import is misunderstood. More...

If there is a recent Republican flight to Mr Obama, foreign policy is not at the core of it. While the Iraq war has been unpopular, Republicans paid the price in defections – a steep one – well before Mr Obama’s rise. The founders of Republicans for Obama all had grave misgivings about the Iraq war. Ms Hauser endorsed John Kerry in 2004. Mr Chafee was the only Republican in the Senate to vote against the resolution permitting the use of force in Iraq. He was constantly rumoured to be on the verge of leaving the party. After his defeat in the Democratic landslide of 2006, he did.

Of the trio, it is Mr Leach who is the key defector. Although he called this week for a “new approach to our interaction with the world”, he was best known, until his own defeat in 2006, as chairman of the House banking committee and a financial watchdog of high integrity. Among today’s Republicans are many who still profess Mr Leach’s budget-balancing kind of conservatism. Mr Obama’s fiscal policy is more compatible with such a conservatism than the deficit-widening tax-cuts John McCain proposes. In fact, Mr McCain’s career of eloquent opposition to George W. Bush’s tax slashing is more compatible with Mr Obama’s platform than his own. According to a new poll from the Pew Research Centre, McCain supporters, asked to say what they admire about Mr Obama, most often name his economic positions.

It is neither on foreign policy nor on economics but on religious values that Mr Obama has made his big pitch to party-switchers. In July, he shocked some Democrats by defending Mr Bush’s use of faith-based programmes as government service providers. He did so in Zanesville, Ohio, one of the most heavily evangelical towns in the country. A study released last week by the Barna Group, a Christian consulting firm, found Mr Obama reaping the rewards of his outreach. He leads among non-evangelical born-again Christians, by 43 per cent to 31, although Mr McCain continues to dominate among the highly politicised evangelicals, 61-17.

Mr Obama’s attempt to synthesise new policies is more sincere and thoroughgoing than that of any candidate since Reagan. You would think Republicans would like Mr Obama a lot more than Democrats like Mr McCain, who not only has been on the political scene for a quarter-century but has also signed on to many of the less popular fiscal dogmas of the Bush-era Republican party. But this advantage for Mr Obama in theory has not materialised in practice. Mr McCain has always had a stronger cross-party appeal than any Republican of his generation. As long ago as 2000, the high points of his presidential campaign were those states – Michigan in particular – that had open primaries, permitting Democrats to cross over and vote for him.

Perhaps due to the bitterness of this year’s Democratic primaries, Mr McCain’s advantage in crossover voting persists, according to that Pew poll. Among Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries, only 72 per cent say they will vote for Mr Obama. Fully 18 per cent will back Mr McCain, and another 10 per cent are up for grabs. This is a sharp contrast to Republican supporters of Mr McCain’s primary opponents, 88 per cent of whom will back Mr McCain versus just 6 per cent who will go over to Mr Obama.

The US could benefit from the party shake-up that Mr Obama is trying to effect. That does not mean such a shake-up is happening. Most Obamacans are intellectuals, including a few who are actually conservative, such as the writers Francis Fukuyama and Andrew Bacevich. But the Republican party is no more a natural home for intellectuals than it is for feminists or trades unionists. Much has been made, stupidly, of the support of family members of prominent conservatives, from the daughter of former president Richard Nixon to the son of economist Milton Friedman – as if families never contain political disagreements.

There has been a former assistant secretary here and a former deputy secretary there. But not a single prominent conservative with either an ongoing political career or a continuing affection for the Republican party has yet chosen to back Mr Obama. The endorsement of General Colin Powell, for instance, or Chuck Hagel, the Nebraska senator, would be an election-shifting coup. Unless and until that happens, Obamacans will be a media phenomenon, not a political one.

The writer is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard

More columns at www.ft.com/caldwell

Rep.: Half of House Dems may vote Hillary at DNC

On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call."

Photo: AP

By AMIE PARNES & BEN SMITH | 8/15/08 5:58 PM EST

Rep. Loretta Sanchez says she’s happy for the chance to vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton at the Democratic National Convention — and she predicts that as many as half of the Democrats in the House could join her.

Just how many former Clinton supporters will vote for the former first lady during the symbolic first ballot is anybody’s guess, but each of them will be called upon to do so — whether they want to or not.  More...

On Friday, the Obama campaign confirmed that the floor vote in Denver, intended to assuage Clinton supporters still stewing over her narrow loss, will be conducted as a state-by-state roll call. Under proposed convention bylaws, delegates would be forced to register their votes on a tally sheet with the convention secretary — the rules could be altered or suspended before the start of the convention.

“By putting her name in nomination, you're putting people on the spot,” said former delegate counter Matt Seyfang, adding a second potential drawback: “Having a roll call ... just chews into your broadcast time.”

Lower-key options were available. For example, Clinton’s name could have been entered into nomination, followed by laudatory speeches, ending with her release of delegates to Obama and proposal that he be nomination by acclamation, Seyfang said.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said the “mechanics” of the roll call vote are still being worked out, but he conceded that Clinton probably will garner many votes on the first ballot.

For Obama’s camp, the roll call is a ritual that will defuse any potential tension with Clinton or her supporters without affecting the outcome or the theater of Obama’s dramatic nomination.

Said Sanchez: “I believe there are a lot of supporters for Hillary among the superdelegates, especially now that they’ve agreed to place her name in nomination. I think half the House Democrats would probably be Hillary supporters, especially women. ... I felt she was the most experienced and the best candidate and I still feel that way.”

Clinton herself has said she plans to vote for Obama.

A longtime Clinton adviser said it was “crazy” to guess at numbers but estimated that the former first lady would garner between 600 and 1,200 delegates — considerably short of the approximately 1,800 she had collected at the time of her departure from the race in early June.

“It’s a bizarre strategy,” said one Democratic strategist of the roll call. “It could backfire and show that her influence is waning. Chances are, she’s not going to have as many delegates vote for her on the floor as she had in the primary.”

Indeed, many Hillary diehards, including at least one member of the New York delegation, are reluctant to vote for Clinton after switching over to Obama.

“I think that most superdelegates, including myself, are going for Obama,” said New York Rep. Anthony Weiner, who campaigned with Clinton around the country. “I made my decision for Obama, and I’m not switching again.”

Other onetime Clinton backers are reluctant to reverse course for fear of angering their black constituents.

“My boss is totally conflicted about it — and pissed Hillary is putting us in this position,” said a congressional staffer for another New York House member. “We still haven’t made up our mind and I don’t know when we are going to.”

Another New York delegate, speaking on condition of anonymity, predicted that as much as 30 percent to 40 percent of the New York delegation would pick Clinton over Obama during the symbolic vote.

Obama’s decision to accept a roll call vote, which came after weeks of talks with the Clinton camp, doesn’t mean he’ll let the process get out of hand, observers say.

“The convention is about nominating Barack, so his people want to speed through the vote as fast as possible so it won’t take too much TV time,” said a Democratic delegate who plans to vote for Clinton. “They also want to avoid a scenario where she’s leading at any point.”

Additional reporting by Glenn Thrush.

McCain Makes Gains in Washington State

Twelve Weeks Out, McCain Makes Gains in Washington State: Democrat Barack Obama defeats Republican John McCain 51% to 44% in an election for President of the United States in Washington State today, 08/13/08, 83 days until the election, according to this latest SurveyUSA pre-election tracking poll conducted exclusively for KING-TV in Seattle and KATU-TV in Portland Oregon. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll released one month ago, when Obama led by 16 points, Obama is down by 4 points; McCain is up 5. Among women, Obama had led by 22, now leads by 15. Among men, Obama had lead by 10, now trails by 1. Among voters younger than Obama, Obama's lead has fallen from 19 points to 10 points. Among voters older than John McCain, Obama's lead has fallen from 24 points to 8 points. Among those voters in between the two candidates' ages, Obama had led by 10, now leads by 4. Obama has lost ground and McCain has gained ground among every demographic group. One month ago, 14% of Republicans crossed over to vote for Democrat Obama; today, 6% do so. McCain now gets 90% of Republican votes. Obama is up slightly among Democrats; one month ago, he took 87% of Democratic votes; today, he takes 91%. One month ago, Obama led by 7 among independents; today, he trails by 2. In Metro Seattle, Obama led by 29, now leads by 15. In the remainder of Western Washington, Obama had led by 11, now leads by 8. In Eastern Washington, McCain had led by 11, now leads by 13. More...

Filtering: SurveyUSA interviewed 1,000 Washington adults 08/11/08 through 08/12/08; of the adults, 875 identified themselves as being registered to vote in Washington state. Of the registered voters, 718 were determined by SurveyUSA to be likely to vote in the November general election. 37 of Washington's 39 counties vote exclusively by mail; ballots must be postmarked no later than Election Day, 11/04/08. Washington has 11 Electoral College votes. John Kerry carried Washington by 7 points in 2004; Al Gore carried Washington by 6 points in 2000.


If you were filling out your ballot for President right now, would you vote for ... (choices rotated) Republican John McCain? Or, Democrat Barack Obama?

718 Likely Voters	All	Gender		Age				<50 / 50+		Age			Race				Party Affiliation			Ideology			College Grad		Attend Religious Service			Abortion		Change Your Mind		Top Issue For Next President								Income		Region
Margin of Sampling Error: ± 3.7%		Male	Female	18-34	35-49	50-64	65+	18-49	50+	< Obama	> McCain	> In Bet	White	Black	Hispanic	Asian/Ot	Republic	Democrat	Independ	Conserva	Moderate	Liberal	Yes	No	Regularl	Occasion	Almost N	Pro-life	Pro-choi	Could Ch	Mind Mad	Economy	Environm	Health C	Iraq	Terroris	Social S	Educatio	Immigrat	< $50K	> $50K	Western	Eastern	Metro Se
McCain (R)	44%	48%	40%	38%	47%	43%	46%	43%	44%	43%	43%	45%	45%	**	**	22%	90%	8%	45%	83%	37%	8%	42%	45%	59%	39%	32%	70%	29%	39%	46%	45%	10%	21%	15%	93%	**	**	91%	37%	46%	44%	53%	40%
Obama (D)	51%	47%	55%	59%	49%	50%	49%	53%	50%	53%	51%	49%	50%	**	**	72%	6%	91%	43%	14%	57%	89%	52%	51%	36%	57%	62%	25%	66%	52%	52%	49%	87%	74%	80%	5%	**	**	5%	57%	50%	52%	40%	55%
Other	3%	2%	3%	2%	2%	3%	4%	2%	3%	2%	5%	3%	3%	**	**	2%	1%	1%	6%	2%	2%	2%	2%	3%	1%	3%	4%	3%	2%	6%	1%	4%	0%	2%	4%	0%	**	**	2%	4%	2%	2%	4%	2%
Undecided	2%	2%	3%	1%	3%	4%	2%	2%	3%	2%	2%	3%	3%	**	**	4%	3%	0%	6%	1%	3%	1%	4%	1%	4%	2%	2%	3%	2%	3%	1%	2%	2%	3%	1%	2%	**	**	1%	2%	3%	2%	4%	2%
Total	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%	100%
Composition of Likely Voters	100%	49%	51%	20%	31%	28%	20%	52%	48%	45%	11%	44%	86%	3%	3%	8%	28%	40%	23%	27%	39%	21%	48%	52%	35%	27%	39%	34%	63%	30%	66%	42%	7%	13%	10%	7%	5%	4%	6%	32%	68%	26%	19%	55%

The Obama Overreach: Refuting A Few of Corsi’s Smears By Re-Writing History

August 15, 2008 5:42 PM

Don’t get me wrong – I half expected to see anti-Obama author Jerome Corsi at today’s Bigfoot press conference.

But not everything in the Obama campaign’s 40-page refutation of Corsi’s shoddy and dishonest book “Obama Nation” is fair.

Much of what Corsi writes in his book is demonstrably false, irresponsible, and feverishly conjured. The book is indefensible, as are Corsi’s many bigoted remarks about Arabs, the Pope and others.

But the Obama campaign got a little greedy in their refutations.More...

First of all, on the front of the response, is a labeled stamped “Brought to you by Bush/Cheney Attack Machine.”

Corsi has actually called for the impeachment of President Bush. Corsi’s a 9/11 Truther who thinks the Bush administration is covering up what “really” happened at the World Trade Center.

That said, the Simon & Schuster imprint that published this book is run by former Cheney aide Mary Matalin. So those looking for evidence this is part of a larger "Bush/Cheney Attack Machine" hit can point to her presence in this literary atrocity. But I don't think it's fair to blame this nasty screed on the President, considering the anti-Bush venom from Corsi.*

One item the Obama campaign labels a “LIE” is the claim that when Obama ran for state senator, “(i)nstead of stepping aside in deference to (then-state senator Alice) Palmer, Obama decided to fight her for the nomination.”

This is not a lie, this is true. Palmer had decided to run for Congress, and Obama was tapped to run to replace her. When Palmer lost in the primary, she wanted to stay as a state senator. Obama said no. He had every right to do so, but he decided to fight her for the nomination instead of stepping aside in deference to her.

Nonetheless, the Obama campaign calls it a lie and quotes a state representative who said Palmer “pulled her own plug”

Read more about what really happened HERE in the Chicago Tribune.

Speculating about how Obama ended up using the words of Gov. Deval Patrick in some of his speeches, Corsi speculates that Obama strategist David “Axelrod most likely liked how the speech worked with his client in Massachusetts and so decided to try it once again with Obama, perhaps thinking no one would notice.”

Corsi has no way of knowing that, but the Obama campaign’s response -- “REALITY: PLAGIARISM ATTACK WAS A “BASELESS AND DESPERATE PLOY” – is over the top.

As backup, the Obama campaign points out that writing in The Nation, Ari Melber wrote that “The Clinton Campaign’s attack on Obama’s use of the line ‘just words’ was widely panned as a baseless and desperate ploy. Her coverup might go over even worse.”

But that’s one man’s opinion.

Certainly it’s not “baseless” to question why Obama was using Patrick’s words as his own without crediting him, as we wondered about HERE.

Whatever you think of the incident, it doesn’t belong alongside the more unhinged Corsi smears, however much the Obama campaign would like it to be considered a non-event.

In another refutation, Corsi’s assertion that Obama adviser Air Force General Merrill ‘Tony’ McPeak (Ret.) has “anti-Israel views” is characterized by the Obama campaign as “SMEARING MCPEAK AS AN ANTI-SEMITE.”

Obviously holding anti-Israel views and being an anti-Semite are not the same thing (though they often go hand in hand.) But more to the point, plenty of Israel supporters have thought McPeak’s views on Israel -- in which he seemed to blame the stalled Mideast peace process on “pro-Israel” voters in New York and Miami – as highly inflammatory.

Again, I’m not defending Corsi. Much of what he writes is troubling and fictional. But that doesn’t mean that the Obama campaign shouldn’t hew closer to the truth.

And yes, I do have higher expectations of them.

- jpt

* This part was added on Saturday.

Hillary's The One!

Bill Press 8/14/2008

Nearing the end of a week's vacation, Barack Obama now faces the toughest decision of his life. He has to come back from Hawaii ready to announce his running mate. And for me it's a no-brainer.

Forget Tim Kaine. He's an impressive young governor of a key swing state, but he has even less foreign policy or national security experience than Obama. Forget Evan Bayh. Again, a popular former governor, now senator, of a key Rust Belt state, but a big, early supporter of the war in Iraq and not exactly a firecracker on the stump. By the same measure, and for similar reasons, forget Bill Richardson, Joe Biden and Chris Dodd. More...

They are all good people. Each of them would make an outstanding member of Obama's Cabinet. But there's only one person with the firepower needed in a vice-presidential candidate. If Barack Obama really wants to blow John McCain out of the water, the best candidate by far is . . . Sen. Hillary Clinton.

It's all about winning in November. So think about the math. She got 18 million votes in the primaries; he got 18 million votes. She won the women and working-class vote; he won the African-American and white-collar vote. Put the two of them together and you have an unbeatable ticket: experience and promise, inspiration and perspiration, change squared. It's the one sure way to unite and excite the party.

Nobody else would bring what Hillary Clinton does to the ticket. So why is there so much opposition, even among Democrats, to her nomination? There are three reasons I hear, from my radio listeners and others: Hillary was mean to Obama during the primaries; Hillary still hasn't fully embraced Obama; and Hillary brings too much negative baggage, especially husband Bill. Come on, let's get real.

Sure, Hillary said some tough things during the primary. She insisted she'd be a stronger candidate against John McCain, for example, and she once famously stated that, while she and McCain offered extensive foreign policy experience, all Obama could offer was one speech. But that's what primaries are all about. She was running to win, she gave it her best shot, she made her best arguments -- and she lost.

It's extremely short-sighted of Obama supporters to reject Clinton as a potential running mate, simply because of something she might have said during the primary. Don't they realize? She lost. Their man won. It's foolish to cling to the differences of the past. The focus now must be on how to win in November and who would help Obama the most.

Nor, in all objectivity, could anyone seriously question Clinton's support for Obama today. She endorsed him, graciously and enthusiastically, on the stage in Unity, N.H. She has asked her followers to support him and write checks. She campaigned for him twice this month. She'll make the case for Obama on the second night of the Democratic convention, and has agreed to campaign for him and with him this fall, whether she's on the ticket or not. There's no doubt she's on Obama's team.

But what about all that negative baggage? What negative baggage? Those who make that argument are the same voices who said Hillary Clinton could never be elected, or re-elected, senator from New York. And it's nonsense, as well as sexist, to suggest that her effectiveness as vice president would be compromised by husband Bill, looking over her shoulder, and telling her what to do. Hillary's much too strong a woman for that. And I've asked several of her Democratic colleagues in the Senate how often, in the least eight years, they've seen Bill Clinton stick his nose into Senate matters. Answer: Never.

Isn't it obvious? Among Obama supporters, there's more than a touch of sour grapes in all three of those arguments against Hillary. Even worse, they're all focused on yesterday, not tomorrow. To allow past differences or personal pique to dictate the strategy of the general election campaign would be a colossal mistake.

Again, the only questions now are: How is Obama going to win in November? And who will best help Obama win? Looking at it coldly in terms of winning -- based on her experience in the White House and Senate, her popularity, her skills as a campaigner, her proven vote-getting ability -- Hillary Clinton's the one.

Not All African Americans Starry-eyed for Obama

By Floyd and Mary Beth Brown

When Obama gives his stadium acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, it will be the night of the 45th anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech. You can count on breathless reporters waxing dreamy about Dr. King’s vision fulfilled that historic night. However, not all African Americans agree. “Barack Obama is directly contrary to many positions and beliefs of Martin Luther King, Jr.,” says black author William Owens, Jr. “Obama is trying to make African Americans believe he is the reality of the Dream come true, but he’s not. It’s a nightmare.” More...

A recent Gallup poll reveals 91percent of African Americans intend to vote for Obama. Nevertheless, there are dissenting voices trying to reach their community with a warning about the candidate. Dr. Alveda King, daughter of MLK’s younger brother, the late slain civil rights activist Rev. A.D. King, says, “Senator Obama’s answer to the ills of society, of higher government spending, weaker national defense, continued tax dollars to Planned Parenthood, and support of gay marriage, are diametrically opposed to everything African Americans truly believe and an anathema to the dream of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.”

“It is high time for Black America, White America and all America to stop making their ethnicity such a big deal that we become zealous for our color over being zealous for what is right and what is truth,” says Owens.

Mr. Owens, founder of Black Americans for Real Change (BARC), makes it known, “I will not remain silent out of fear of repercussions because it is politically incorrect for Blacks to challenge Blacks.” He says one aspect of Obama’s candidacy is “intimidation because many people are afraid to scrutinize Obama and speak out because of the race Issue.” Owens believes Obama is manipulative of African Americans because “in reality he is not a Black American. His heritage is Muslim -- not African American” and calls Obama a pretender and panderer. He points out that the candidate’s record “does not remotely parallel the values, traditions and struggles of Black America.”

Having studied both MLK and Obama, Owens felt compelled to write a book to challenge African Americans “to look deeper at Barack Obama the man, his voting record, and his position on the important issues facing our country.” He urges them not to “put your race before your principles,” the truth, your family and your own country. His book, “Obama: Why Black America Should Have Doubts” has one chapter comparing the policies of the two men who are poles apart on many issues. Every American should read this eye-opening book. Owens says, “it is obvious Obama is trying to solidify the Black vote”, but he reiterates that any candidate needs to be closely examined.

With Obama’s voiced support and voting record for partial-birth abortion and every other pro-abortion bill, Alveda King takes issue with the senator over this topic. From firsthand experience she had before she was “born again” in 1983, King knows the problems a woman can suffer because of abortion. She is now a leader in both the pro-life and civil rights movements. “We can talk about poverty; we can talk about the war; we can talk about teen pregnancy; we can talk about incarceration. However, if we’re not allowed to live, we’ll never encounter those issues.” Although Blacks make up only 14 percent of the population, 40 percent of the abortions in the country are preformed on Black women, thus creating a virtual genocide of African Americans.

King recalls her Uncle Martin saying, “The Negro cannot win as long as he is willing to sacrifice the lives of his children for comfort and safety.” For Alveda King, abortion is a civil rights issue. “Every aborted baby is like a slave in the womb of his or her mother,” she explains. “The mother decides his or her fate.”

“In the shadow of the famous ‘I Have a Dream’ speech by my uncle in 1963, as Barack Obama makes his speech in 2008, how can the Dream survive if we murder the children?” asks Dr. King concerning the unborn. "Life was very precious to my uncle and life today is precious.”

“Our best interests as Black Americans,” Owens says, “…lie in a new direction that reflects our core beliefs and values, not merely a resemblance of someone we look like.”

Again quoting her uncle, King says, “‘there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but one must take it because it is right.’” She passionately adds, “This is not the time to be silent; this is not the time to give Barack Obama a free pass! There is too much at stake.”

©2008 Floyd and Mary Beth Brown. The Browns are bestselling authors and speakers. Together they write a national weekly column distributed exclusively by Cagle Cartoons newspaper syndicate. For more info call Cari Dawson Bartley at 800 696 7561 or e-mail cari@cagle.com.

Mary Beth's latest book is featured at www.condibook.com. Time magazine wrote of Floyd: "Brown has stature among devoted conservatives that almost matches his physical heft (6 ft. 6 in. and 240 lbs.)" See more at Floyd’s blog at www.2minuteview.com. To comment on this column, e-mail browns@caglecartoons.com.

Barack Obama campaign soliciting 'soft money' for the coronation

The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee has decried the practice and vowed to reform convention funding, but the Denver Host Committee was facing a budget shortfall.

By Tom Hamburger and Peter Wallsten, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON -- Facing a large deficit in the Democratic National Convention budget, officials from Barack Obama's campaign have begun personally soliciting labor unions and others for contributions of up to $1 million. In exchange, donors could get stadium skyboxes for Obama's acceptance speech and other perks.

Obama has regularly criticized politicians seeking large donations outside the framework of campaign finance regulations -- so-called soft money -- while touting the virtues of relying on small donations.
More...


But campaign officials last month reluctantly decided they had to take a hand in raising large donations from individuals, unions and corporations. Some of the donors get special bundles of perks, including use of the party suites at Denver's Invesco Field, as well as special policy briefings by Obama advisors, choice hotel rooms and party invitations.

What caused the shift was evidence that the Denver Host Committee was having trouble raising the estimated $60 million in cash and in-kind contributions needed to fund the convention, which runs Aug. 24-29.

Partly as a result of the boost from Obama's campaign, most of the goal has now been met, said Steve Farber, the Denver lawyer helping to lead the effort. In mid-June, the Denver Host Committee's fundraising team reported that it was $11.6 million short of reaching a funding goal.

In an example of the campaign's late-innings effort, a very senior Obama campaign official called the political director of one of the largest labor unions about two weeks ago and asked for a $500,000 contribution on top of a similar amount that had been committed just a few weeks before, according to the union official.

Lawrence Scanlon, the political director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said that since AFSCME had already contributed, he declined to contribute more, urging the campaign to seek donations from wealthy individuals or corporations to help pay for the convention so that the union could spend its funds on voter outreach.

A spokesman for the campaign, Hari Sevugan, declined to say whether Obama himself had become involved in these fundraising efforts or to confirm any details of work done by others from the campaign.

"We are working together with the convention committee on many levels to ensure a successful convention this year," Sevugan said. "As we announced earlier, moving forward, one of Sen. Obama's reform priorities will include changes in the way party conventions are funded to assure they can be run without dependence" on soft money.

Donations made to convention host committees are not covered by federal donation limits. As a result, corporations and wealthy individuals can donate unlimited sums under the premise that the committee is promoting civic pride and economic growth, not a political cause.

However, the leadership ranks of these local fundraising committees are dominated by political partisans and elected officials.

In Minnesota, similar appeals are being made by Republicans to fund their September convention in Minneapolis-St. Paul.

"Both conventions are bringing in new fundraisers connected with the presidential candidate to go the last mile," said Steve Weissman, a reform advocate with the Campaign Finance Institute. Weissman said that the campaigns' involvement in raising these large-dollar contributions contradicts the reform rhetoric both candidates employ to win votes.

Big-dollar donations from corporations and wealthy individuals hark back to the days before the Watergate scandal when big checks from such sources were a staple of campaign fundraising.

Rules now limit the amount individuals or groups can donate, but there remains a loophole for conventions.

The Service Employees International Union has already committed $500,000 to the Democratic convention and an undisclosed sum to the Republicans.

In addition, a new labor consortium it belongs to, Change to Win, has been asked to donate. Other unions that are members of Change to Win, including New York-based Unite Here, have made unspecified donations to the Democrats' host committee. The American Federation of Teachers donated $750,000 last month.

For the GOP convention, the Twin Cities Host Committee recently turned for help to a strong supporter of Sen. John McCain's candidacy, Robert Wood "Woody" Johnson IV, owner of the New York Jets. Committee Chief Executive Jeff Larson said it now is close to meeting its fundraising goals.

After Obama became the clear nominee, a member of the Denver Host Committee's executive panel, Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), approached the Illinois senator, telling him that the committee would need the campaign's assistance in raising funds. Obama did not respond in any detail, she said.

Since that conversation, Farber has been in touch with Obama's chief campaign finance advisor, Julianna Smoot, and others from the finance team.

The campaign team provided the host committee with the names, addresses and telephone numbers of likely donors and dispatched a fundraising expert, Jon Rotenberg, to help.

Use of Invesco Field skyboxes as a fundraising tool provides a positive ending to what was at first considered a financial headache. When Obama announced that he planned to deliver his acceptance speech at the outdoor stadium, campaign officials estimated that it would add about $6 million to the convention's cost. Since then, the sale of the $1-million packages has been highly successful, with many of the boxes selling out.

Those paying the $1-million price tag will get skybox tickets for 25 people and an additional 50 regular tickets to Invesco Field.

What's more, donors will get occasional access to skyboxes at the Pepsi Center, where the rest of the convention will take place. Donors will also have access to private parties and receptions.

Obama spokesman Sevugan insisted that none of the campaign's involvement with large-dollar convention funding indicated a weakening of Obama's resolve to reform the system.

Sevugan said: "In addition to his commitment to reform the convention funding process, Sen. Obama has also taken unprecedented steps to curb the influence of money on the political process in refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists, money raised by them, and asking the DNC to do the same -- all steps that John McCain refuses to take.

"While we recognize that the steps we have taken are not perfect or even a perfect symbol, they do reflect the fact that Barack Obama shares the urgent desire of the American people to change the way Washington operates."

tom.hamburger@latimes.com

peter.wallsten@latimes.com

Times staff writers Peter Nicholas and Vimal Patel contributed to this report.

Hillary Clinton’s rich friend Lady de Rothschild ambushes Barack Obama

Diehard Hillary fans plan to protest at the party’s crowning of Obama – and may even vote for John McCain

At the Democratic national convention next week, Lynn Forester, Lady de Rothschild, one of Britain’s most influential political hostesses, will be contemplating treachery. She poured her heart and money into Hillary Clinton’s campaign and she is thinking of voting for John McCain, the Republican candidate, for president. More...

She is not impressed by Barack Obama and doubts he will reach the White House. “My loyalty is to the Democrats winning. Barack Obama is going to have a serious problem getting elected, for good reason,” she said in an interview.

“The party needs to face the fact that without Hillary Clinton on the ticket, the Democrats will probably lose.”

Rothschild, 54, is a New York businesswoman and top fundraiser for Clinton who married into the British banking dynasty.

The billionaire Sir Evelyn de Rothschild, 22 years her senior and former chairman of the family firm, NM Rothschild, will be with her in Denver when Obama is crowned the victor. She regards the presumptive Democratic nominee, 47, as something of a usurper.

The Rothschilds spent the night of their wedding dinner in the Lincoln bedroom at the White House when Bill Clinton was president, so her loyalty to Hillary is understandable. However, the passionate distrust of Obama shared by many Clinton supporters is turning into a headache for the Democrats.

Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton’s former White House chief of staff, was tasked by the Obama campaign this summer with soothing ruffled feelings and helping Hillary loyalists to get over their sense of loss. It has been a demanding assignment.

“There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred,” Panetta said. “They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the mantle and it’s tough to crack that.”

Rothschild is the founder of Together4Us, a group formed to “honour” Clinton and the nearly 18m voters who supported her in the primaries. Among its demands were a state-by-state roll-call of votes - a final show of muscle by the vanquished Clinton - and a prime speaking slot for her.

They got what they wanted after Obama caved in last week. Seasoned advisers fear the convention is shaping up to be a divisive Bill and Hillary psycho-drama. “It’s not something that I would have recommended, but they’re trying to bend over backwards as far as they can to accommodate her,” said Panetta. “I’m a little disturbed that this keeps playing out.”

The former president and first lady will both deliver big speeches, while diehard Hillary supporters will hold rallies and acclaim their candidate during the roll-call of votes.

“I think the roll-call will be a cathartic moment,” said Rothschild. “There will be a lot of people who will say, ‘Oh, what might have been’ and will vote for Obama but there will be a lot of tears.”

The roll-call will not be enough to bring Rothschild back into the fold, however. “We’re not going to win by pretending problems with Barack Obama don’t exist. He has a huge problem connecting with ordinary Americans, who think, ‘He doesn’t understand me.’ He is not modest; he is arrogant. He radiates elitism.”

It is a surprising charge from a wealthy socialite, but Rothschild believes she understands true grit. She was born Lynn Forester from New Jersey and built her multi-million-dollar telecommunications company before she met her husband. “It is not disloyal to raise legitimate questions about Barack Obama,” she said. “He started running for president before he even set foot in the US Senate.

“No matter what he says, he has not explained properly why he sat next to Reverend Jeremiah Wright [his former pastor] for 20 years. He talks about an end to partisanship but he has no record of reaching across the aisle for any purpose.”

The Atlantic magazine revealed last week that Mark Penn, Clinton’s former chief strategist, proposed targeting Obama’s lack of American roots during the primary campaign.

“I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his centre fundamentally American in his thinking and in his values,” he wrote in an internal campaign e-mail.

Although Rothschild shuttles between London and New York, she shares Penn’s assessment. “Barack Obama can use the words ‘the American dream’, but they don’t resonate,” she said. “He magnified the problem by going to Berlin and calling himself a citizen of the world.” She also resents a lack of effort to pay off Clinton’s $20m campaign debt. “He has provided her with a pittance compared to what the Clintons have given Obama,” Rothschild said. “Her debt could have been cleared within 10 days. It’s ungracious.”

She is particularly incensed by the treatment of Bill Clinton during the primaries, when the former president was accused of playing the race card. “Barack Obama would not stand up and say, ‘It’s outrageous, it’s not permissible’ and speak up for him.” How Bill Clinton will perform at the convention is a source of nervousness for Democrats. “Clearly his wounds are deeper than I thought,” said Panetta, “but ultimately he understands what he has got to do in terms of supporting the candidate and the party.”

The enduring hostility to Obama is reflected in a Pew poll, published last week, showing that 18% of Clinton supporters intend to vote for McCain. With polling averages close to a dead heat between McCain and Obama, every vote counts.

Rothschild has not yet made up her mind. “I haven’t ruled out voting for McCain,” she said. “I like him a lot.” She is waiting to see who Obama picks as his running mate and has her heart set on Clinton.

The favourite is Joe Biden, 65, who chairs the Senate foreign relations committee. He once described Obama as “the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean”, sealing his reputation for putting his foot in his mouth, but he has the security and foreign policy credentials to take on McCain.

Biden will speak on Wednesday next week - the same day as the eventual vice-presidential nominee. But Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, another fancied choice, and Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico also have speaking slots then.

Both McCain and Obama were due to court evangelical voters yesterday at the California mega-church of pastor Rick Warren. In a recent poll, McCain led Obama by 67% to 25% among evangelical white Protestants, a gap Obama hopes to narrow.

Warren told The Sunday Times: “Without doubt, Obama is more comfortable talking the language of religion [than McCain]. In the past, Republicans talked about God and Jesus and the Democrats were silent. This year, their roles are reversed.”

The meeting, he said, was designed to make a statement that the “era of the partisan religious right” was over.

Video: Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild interview on Fox news about her support for Clinton over Obama: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=G1EZJ2hN3a8

Caucus Fraud Data, Analysis, Articles, Testimonials & Videos

By Lynette Long

In two weeks the Democratic Party will formally nominate Barack Obama as its candidate for President of the United States.

It's the triumph of fraud.

I've spent the past two months immersed in data from the 2008 Democratic caucuses. After studying the procedures and results from all fourteen caucus states, interviewing dozens of witnesses, and reviewing hundreds of personal stories, my conclusion is that the Obama campaign willfully and intentionally defrauded the American public by systematically undermining the caucus process.More...

[My] site represents the fruits of my research. It's a work in progress, obviously, and also a central repository for a vast array of data: articles and blog posts from around the web, personal emails to me, interviews with witnesses, affidavits and testimonials, campaign communications, and videos of the caucuses themselves.

I have elected to make this information public. I hope that it sheds light on the caucus process and inspires reform or total elimination of the caucuses. I also hope it gives pause to those Democrats who believe that Barack Obama is the rightful nominee and that Hillary supporters should just "get over it." I have been a Democrat my entire life, but I will not support the Democratic Party at the cost of democracy.

Lynette Long
August 2008

To go to Lynette Longs site and read more - click HERE.

Life with Obama, Abortion Champion

By David Freddoso

The tiny newborn baby made very little noise as he struggled to breathe. He lacked the strength to cry. He had been born four months premature.

“At that age,” says nurse Jill Stanek, “their lungs haven’t matured.”

Stanek is the nurse who found herself cradling this baby in her hands for all of his 45-minute lifetime. He was close to ten inches long and weighed perhaps half a pound. It’s just a guess — no one had weighed or measured him at birth. No happy family had been there to welcome him into the world. No one was trying to save his life now, putting him into an incubator, giving him oxygen or nourishment. He had just been left to die. More...


Stanek had seen it all happen. That family had wanted a baby, but when they learned that theirs would be born with Down syndrome, they wanted an abortion. For that, they went to Christ Hospital in the southwestern suburbs of Chicago, which is affiliated with the United Church of Christ.

In “induced labor” or “prostaglandin” abortion — a common procedure at the hospital — the doctor administers drugs that dilate the mother’s cervix and induce contractions, forcing a small baby out of the mother’s uterus. Most of the time, the baby dies in utero, killed by the force of the violent contractions. But it does not always work. Such abortions sometimes result in a premature baby being born alive. Sometimes the survivors live for just a few minutes, but sometimes for several hours. No one tried to save or treat them — it is hard to save someone you just mauled trying to kill. But something had to be done with them for the minutes and hours during which they struggled for air.

Stanek says her friend had been told to take this baby and leave him in a soiled utility closet. She offered to take him instead. “I couldn’t let him die alone,” she says.

Stanek was horrified by this experience. This was not an abortion — it was something worse. Could it be legal to take a living and breathing person of any size, already born and outside his mother’s womb, and just leave him to die, without any thought of treatment?

Hospital officials dismissed Stanek’s concerns. She then approached the Republican attorney general of Illinois, Jim Ryan, who issued a finding several months later that Christ Hospital was doing nothing illegal under the laws of Illinois. Doctors had no ethical or legal obligation to treat these premature babies. They had passed the bright line of birth that had effectively limited the right to life since the Roe v. Wade decision, but under the law they were non-persons.

Stanek’s effort to right this wrong would lead her to testify before various committees. It would lead her to a state senator, Patrick O’Malley, who would propose a bill to stop what was going on at the hospital.

Her attempt to change a corrupt medical practice and bring hope to defenseless infants would put her on a collision course with a state senator named Barack Obama.

On March 30, 2001, Obama was the only senator to speak in opposition to a bill that would have banned the practice of leaving premature abortion survivors to die. The bill, SB 1095, was carefully limited, its language unambiguous. It applied only to premature babies, already born alive. It stated simply that under Illinois law, “the words ‘person,’ ‘human being,’ ‘child,’ and ‘individual’ include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.”

Two related bills introduced that day included slightly more controversial provisions about liability and medical procedure, but SB 1095 did not go nearly that far. This bill did not apply to those not born, nor did it grant born persons anything beyond recognition of their rights as persons.

Under this bill, SB 1095, babies born alive during an abortion would have to be treated just like every other baby that is born alive and prematurely — not left to die as at Christ Hospital, but given treatment according to an acting physician’s medical judgment as to what is necessary and what is possible — the same standard that applies to any other human being.

There was no legal conflict between this bill and the right to legal abortion, but Barack Obama was still uneasy with the idea. He and 11 other senators would vote “present” in a strategy worked out with Planned Parenthood lobbyists (“present” votes in the Illinois senate essentially count as “no” votes). The bill would pass the Senate easily with a bipartisan majority, only to die in a House committee.

Here is what Obama said on the Senate floor that day in opposition to the bill:

There was some suggestion that we might be able to craft something that might meet constitutional muster with respect to caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion. Unfortunately, this bill goes a little bit further, and so … this is probably not going to survive constitutional scrutiny. Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or other elements in the Constitution, what we’re really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a — a child, a nine-month-old — child that was delivered to term. That determination, then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it — it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an antiabortion statute.

The absurd conclusion of Obama’s argument is hard to miss. He implies that “pre-viable” babies born prematurely, even without abortions, are somehow less “persons” than are babies who undergo nine months’ gestation before birth.

But even this is not the most important part of his argument. That would be his first sentence — the one about “caring for fetuses or children who were delivered in this fashion.” He seems open to this idea. And he does not state explicitly that a pre-viable, premature baby is not a “person.” Rather, he is arguing that the question of their personhood is a moot point. Even if the state should perhaps provide care for these babies, any recognition of their personhood might threaten someone’s right to an abortion somewhere down the road. That made the bill unacceptable to him.

Most people, whatever their view on abortion, agree that the Constitution at least guarantees the rights of born and living human beings. Barack Obama does not agree. For him, the Constitution exists primarily in order to guarantee the right to abortion, and other rights of human persons — born and alive — are secondary. Beginning with abortion rights as his premise, he draws as his conclusion the unfortunate but necessary legality of infanticide.

Given Obama’s position on babies born alive, it should come as no surprise that he opposes and denounces all restrictions on every kind of abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He promised at a Planned Parenthood event in July 2007 that “the first thing” he will do as president — his top priority for the nation — is sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would erase every federal and state restriction on abortion, no matter how modest. His top priority, again, is to re-legalize partial birth abortion under all circumstances, abolish all laws on informed consent and parental notification, and eliminate all state restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortions.

No humanitarian impulse or consideration of bipartisanship has ever swayed Barack Obama’s legislative mind on the issue of abortion. Pro-life voters who try to convince themselves otherwise engage in willful self-deception.

Obama would speak against the born-alive protection bill once again when it was proposed in 2002, and he would kill the bill when it came before the committee he chaired in 2003, after Democrats had taken control of the Illinois General Assembly. His is a radical position that most abortion-choice advocates do not share.

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D., Calif.) does not share his position. In 2001, just three months after Obama inveighed against protecting premature babies in Illinois, the United States Senate voted on the language of the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. It contained no significant legal differences from the Illinois bill, but it did contain even more specific and redundant language stating that the bill did not apply to the unborn, only those already born.

But in case there is any ambiguity, the federal bill was identical, word for word, to the bill that Obama voted to kill two years later in the Illinois senate health committee, which he chaired. Obama’s work to kill the bill in 2003 has always been attested to by witnesses (committee records are poorly kept in Springfield), but yesterday the National Right to Life Committee found and revealed the document showing definitively that Obama had voted against it in committee — against the exact same bill he is now falsely claiming on his own campaign website that he would have supported.

On June 29, 2001, Boxer had spoken in favor of that same bill, the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, on the floor of the U.S. Senate: “Of course, we believe everyone born should deserve the protections of this bill,” she said. “Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that.…We join with an ‘aye’ vote on this. I hope it will, in fact, be unanimous.” It was unanimous: 98–0. Even Hillary Clinton voted for it.

At the time Boxer spoke enthusiastically in favor of protecting premature babies, she had a 100-percent lifetime voting score from NARAL and a 100 percent score from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. She was also a leader on the abortion issue. She was the greatest ally that abortion-choice advocates had in the United States Senate.

At least she was until 2005, the year Barack Obama was sworn in.

— David Freddoso is a National Review Online staff reporter and author of The Case Against Barack Obama.

The Media Had Things Wrong From the Start

August 14, 2008
By Steven Stark

With the polls continuing to show John McCain giving Barack Obama a run for his money, much of the press has seemed flummoxed by the turn of events. After all, the narrative of this campaign was supposed to be how a triumphant Obama rode discontent against the Bush administration to an overwhelming victory.

That still could happen. But if reporters seem surprised at the way things have gone so far, it may be because their account of what has already happened is flawed. As the poet once said, what's past is prologue. More...

The dominant narratives of this race have been how Obama upset the odds (and the Clintons) through a brilliant campaign, and how McCain mostly stumbled his way to the nomination, staging a comeback in New Hampshire and riding the momentum to victory. But maybe that's not what really happened. In truth, Obama always had a much better chance of emerging as the nominee than the press gave him credit for -- which is why this column even made him the slight favorite over Hillary Clinton way back in March 2007.

Yes, Obama was new to the national political scene. But in the primaries, insurgency is often an advantage, especially if the novice is as brilliant an orator as Obama. More important, because of Obama's race, he knew that if he could get a successful launch in Iowa or New Hampshire, he could count on solid support in the African-American community that would guarantee him more than a third of the delegates needed to nominate. That's one heck of a benefit, and he took advantage of it.

Moreover, Clinton was never as strong as advertised -- in part because she's not an exceptional campaigner, but mostly because of Clinton fatigue. If she could be beaten early (and she was), it was axiomatic that much of the support she had garnered simply by being the front-runner would evaporate.

True, Obama ran a creditable campaign and proved himself a brilliant fundraiser. But he was no powerhouse. Outside of a few states, such as Wisconsin and Missouri, he was never really able to expand his base beyond his coalition of African-Americans, the young, and the well-educated.

Every time he had a chance to beat Clinton decisively enough to force her from the race -- in New Hampshire or Texas or Pennsylvania or Indiana -- he lost. In fact, had Clinton not committed a major strategic blunder by failing to get organized for the large caucus states, she could have beaten him.

And, given Obama's major demographic advantages, that would have been the upset.

The Real Story

On the GOP side, McCain did catch some lucky breaks. The most notable was that the major figures in the party who could have beaten him -- Jeb Bush, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Newt Gingrich, even Colin Powell -- chose not to run for a variety of reasons. (In Schwarzenegger's case, the decision was made for him by the Constitution.) And true, the field that remained proved to be a weak one.

But McCain won mostly because Republicans almost always avoid upstarts and gravitate to the front-running figure in their party -- an inclination that, for the most part, has served them well in the past. Moreover and predictably, the experience McCain had obtained running in 2000 served him well. He had the guts to skip Iowa (maybe Clinton should have done the same) and he didn't panic when his campaign went through rough stretches. He also "gamed" the process better than anyone else, understanding that, if Rudy Giuliani's candidacy didn't take off, the former New York mayor's support would go to McCain -- as it did on Super Tuesday, giving McCain a lead in delegates that proved decisive.

Given all this, Democrats have reason to be concerned -- even if, at the moment, their confidence has been bolstered by the mostly glowing press coverage their nominee has received. History shows that the Democrats are up against an experienced, steady Republican candidate who is unlikely to make major mistakes. And their nominee, after a brilliant start in January and February to launch his candidacy and cement his base, hasn't had a terrific six months. Obama continues to show few signs of extending his support to the demographics that are likely to decide the election -- principally the working-class voters concentrated in industrial states such as Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

The good news for Obama and the Democrats is that the race doesn't really get serious (i.e., engage the public), until the conventions kick off the fall campaign at the end of August. A win is still well within their grasp. But it will happen only if they stop buying the press's view of the race and begin to recognize what's really transpired so far.

Boston Phoenix

AUG 26 MARCH IN DENVER AND FESTIVAL FOR HILLARY

We are happy to announce that 18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise will not only be Marching on August 26th in Denver and nationwide to support Senator Clinton and advocate for Women's Rights worldwide, but we will also be hosting a Festival in Denver's downtown Confluence Park all day on August 26th, and throughout the evening, celebrating the 88th anniversary of Women's suffrage and honoring Senator Hillary Clinton.

Please mark your calendars, and join us in Denver!!

And, please keep checking back to http://18millionvoice... for specific details of the Festival, the nationwide concurrent actions, and details on other actions taking place in Denver supporting Senator Hillary Clinton during the convention.


Thanks,
RiseHillaryRise
Organizer
18 Million Voices Rise Hillary Rise

Barack’s BARRY SOETORO school records found!!

From the every diligent TexasDarlin:

The AP caption reads: “This registration document, made available on Jan. 24, 2007, by the Fransiskus Assisi school in Jakarta, Indonesia, shows the registration of Barack Obama under the name Barry Soetoro into the Catholic school made by his step-father, Lolo Soetoro. The document lists Barry Soetoro as a Indonesian citizen, born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, and shows his Muslim step-father listed the boy’s religion as Islam. (AP Photo/ Tatan Syuflana)”.

Which of course discredits THIS picture. More...

And also an American Expat in SouthEast Asia
School documents listed Barry Soetoro as an Indonesian citizen born in Honolulu, Hawaii on 4 August 1961. Barry’s religion was listed as Islam. School documents further record Barry’s father as “L Soetoro Ma” who worked as an official of the Director General’s office in the TNI Topography division of the Indonesian Army.

A classmate, Rony Amir describes Barry Soetoro as enjoying playing football and marbles and of being a very devout Muslim.

“Barry was previously quite religious in Islam. His birth father, Barack Hussein Obama was a Muslim economist from Kenya. Before marrying Ann Dunham, Hussein Obama was married to a woman from Kenya who had seven children. All the relatives of Barry’s father were very devout Muslims”

“We previously often asked him to the prayer room close to the house.” If he was wearing a sarong he looked funny , said Rony Amir, Barry’s classmate when he lived on H Ramli street in Menteng, Jakarta.”

I’ve stated before that I don’t care if Obama Soetoro is Muslim or not, I do care if he has lied about it. I don’t care what color his skin is and I don’t even care if he had gay sex with Larry Sinclair, what I care about is that he has been completely dishonest in all of it and has perpetuated the lie for years now. How can we trust a man to run the country if he can’t even be honest with himself and with us about who he is?

By all means, he should, and hopefully will be disbarred for lying on his official documents about not having other names. IF he has never legally changed his name to Barack Hussein Obama II, then he has falsified his records for running for POTUS and is summarily disqualified. Not withstanding these incidents, he has shown us he is UNFIT to serve either at POTUS or as a US Senator or any other public office.

I don’t think this trip is over. There are other things out there to be uncovered and may be even more damning than this is, if that’s possible. This “man” is not qualified morally, politically, intellectually NOR legally to be POTUS and MUST STEP DOWN AT ONCE!

Failure to step down will lead to civil action, possible impeachment from his office of Senator and disqualification from the Presidential Election. Obama is no longer a viable candidate for the General Election in legal terms regardless of whether the DNC wants him there or not. They cannot legally nominate him. Who is left? Oh yeah, Hillary is.

I guess the DNC will be moving back to DC or to NYC because Chicago is now out of the picture, Michelle won’t be speaking Monday night and they won’t need the 75,000 seat stadium anymore for the coronation of the Manchurian Candidate.

It’s over. Last one out, turn off the lights.

---

**CLINTON’S NAME TO BE PUT IN NOMINATION AT CONVENTION**

NY Times: Democratic officials reached the decision to place the New York Senator’s name on the ballot alongside Obama in Denver.

August 14, 2008, 10:50 am

Clinton’s Name Will Be Put in Nomination

By Jeff Zeleny

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s name will be placed into nomination at the Democratic National Convention, a symbolic move approved by the Obama campaign in an effort to soothe a lingering rift with Clinton supporters.

The decision was reached this week, according to Democratic officials, and will be announced later today. It comes after long negotiations on both sides, with many backers of Mrs. Clinton vigorously pushing for her candidacy to be validated by giving her delegates the chance to support her through a roll call vote.

For Democrats inside the convention center in Denver, as well as the television audience at home, it could create some interesting moments. After the state-by-state roll is tallied, Mrs. Clinton is expected to turn over her cache of delegates to Senator Barack Obama.

So how will Mrs. Clinton, who is a superdelegate herself, vote? Associates say she will throw her lot behind Mr. Obama and ask her supporters to follow suit. To see if it unfolds as the Obama campaign hopes – free of acrimony – tune in on Wednesday, Aug. 27

Officials expected to announce decision later Thursday.

Woman to Woman, Online

8/13/08
NY Times: Sites aimed primarily at women, from "mommy blogs" to makeup and fashion sites, grew 35 percent last year - faster than every other category on the Web except politics, according to comScore, an Internet traffic measurement company. Women's sites had 84 million visitors in July, 27 percent more than the same month last year, comScore said. To read more, please click on the title of this article.

Egypt: Female Film Director Faces Possible Flogging At Behest of Lawyer Affiliated With National Democratic Party

From the Women's Media Center
Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (Cairo)

PRESS RELEASE
13 August 2008
Posted to the web 14 August 2008

One of the lawyers affiliated with the Egyptian National Democratic Party (NDP) who is a specialist in "Hesba" cases (which involve alleged insults to God, which are deemed harmful to Islamic society) against authors and artists has demanded the flogging of an Egyptian female movie director. He sent an official warning to the Sheikh of Azhar demanding the execution of his request, said ANHRI on 13 August 2008. More...

The Hesba lawyer gave the Sheikh of Azhar eight days to execute the flogging of the prominent Egyptian female movie director, Enas El-Dighaidy, whom he said should receive eighty lashes because of a movie she directed, called "Diaries of a Teenager Girl", which he claims defames Egypt.

It is worth mentioning that this same Hesba lawyer demanded, in one of his previous court cases, the punishment of an Egyptian actress because she refrained from wearing a veil. He was also one of the lawyers who demanded that Ibrahim Eissa, chief editor of "Al-Dustour" newspaper, be put on trial in the case known as "the President's Health case".

ANHRI notes that Hesba has become a nightmare for authors and artists. Such Hesba cases could not have increased without the government's blessing and its cooperation with the Hesba lawyers. Such an attitude by the government allows for a heavy pressure to be exerted on brave journalists and bloggers, who are still paying a high price for allowing us to enjoy the benefits of a small margin of freedom of expression.

The Freedom of Expression Legal Aid Unit of ANHRI is strongly supporting El-Dighaidy and all Egyptian artists and creators and calls on all active entities and civil society organisations to stand against in both the religious and political spheres to the phenomenon of Hesba, whether these cases are filed by fame-seekers or instigated by the Egyptian government.

ANHRI also calls on all serious media institutions to ignore those Hesba lawyers and not to publish their names in order to avoid making false stars out of them and to minimise their chances of exercising more influence on the NDP, as well as to assure the right of every journalist or author to express him or herself, regardless of whether one agrees or not with their views.

For further information on the Eissa (Issa) case, see: http://www.ifex.org/en/content/view/full/93126

Relevant Links: North AfricaEgypt Human Rights Legal and Judicial Affairs Women and Gender