04/21/2008 - 1:37pm
Robert Creamer gives the case for Obama over Hillary, in case the Super D's might get any ideas about Barack being the inferior candidate, in the Huffington Post. Its the usual babiddybabo, but its a good refresher course:

Obama's ability to inspire enables him to reach out to independent voters that otherwise find McCain very attractive. It also gives him the ability to mobilize millions of young and African American voters that will change the electorate.

Most importantly, Obama's proven ability to mobilize at the grass roots gives him the credibility to convince voters that he can accomplish what they want most -- that he can lead a movement to change the way things are done in Washington.

The narrative that over incredible odds, a young African American Senator has challenged the conventional wisdom, won the Democratic nomination for president, and found 1.3 million grass roots donors to finance his candidacy gives him enormous credibility to argue that he can take on the special interests and force members of Congress to guarantee health care for everyone. It gives him credibility that he can lead a movement to remake our economy to benefit everyone and not just the wealthiest among us.

And, of course, Obama's judgment in opposing the War in Iraq from the first day, contrasts sharply with McCain's commitment to four more years of Bush foreign policy. Hillary Clinton's early support for that War does not.

Which one bothers you the most? For me its the final one.

If you play out the scenarios of Barack as president, having been elected as the guy who will end the war, who owes that to the electorate, who has guaranteed that he will pull troops out without regard for what's happening on the ground in Iraq, you have to figure it will take him into a second term to start winding things down, don't you? The LBJ of Iraq. The guy who actually turns Iraq into Vietnam.

Compare that to a President whose election is a mandate to win the war.

The latter is obviously the one with the better chance of ending the war quickly, and to suggest that a guy who has positioned himself as the anti-war candidate but has done nothing in terms of anti-war activism in the Senate is the best guy to end it strikes me as, sorry, dumb.

04/21/2008 - 12:17pm
I think everyone knows, even if you didn't want the debate, that Barack got a little testy in the most-watched debate the other night. How testy?
In watching campaign debates dating to Kennedy-Nixon in 1960, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often (at least eight occasions). "Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie," said Obama, after Gibson interrupted him following a 126-word answer.
That's from Bob Novak's column today, What's the Matter with Obama.

Novak says that, until recently, Barack's campaign had been attracting "Obama Republicans," crossover voters who, in their lust for hope, would ignore his liberalism in such large numbers that he might have won in a landslide.
...they have leaned toward him as an exceptional candidate in the mold of John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan, a post-partisan leader and a welcome contrast to George W. Bush's failed presidency. That impression is threatened by Obama's performance the past 10 days, climaxing in Wednesday night's debate with Clinton.
What Novak doesn't address is the inevitability of this moment. Its a long presidential campaign, and at some point someone was going to pierce the bubble and Barack would float to earth.

Thank God for Hillary! She stuck around to do pierce the bubble so a rational examination of the candidate can get started early enough for folks to do some reality-based voting come November.
04/20/2008 - 1:31pm
Barack's disingenuous attempt to shrug off his friendship with domestic terrorists is nicely challenged in an op-ed today by Steve Chapman, a member of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board.
Obama minimized his relationship by acknowledging only that he knows Ayers. But they have quite a bit more of a connection than that. He's appeared on panels with Ayers, served on a foundation board with him and held a 1995 campaign event at the home of Ayers and his wife, fellow former terrorist Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers even gave money to one of his campaigns.
Bill Ayers and his wife once fought a war against the United States. Their opinions of the country haven't changed, and they don't repudiate their actions.
Dohrn has likewise rationalized the explosions, claiming that "our acts of resistance were tiny and symbolic." She even went to prison for refusing to testify about an armored-car robbery involving her confederates. That crime was not tiny or symbolic to the two police officers or the security guard who were shot to death in the process.
And, of course, there's the old double standard.
It's hard to imagine (Barack) would be so indulgent if we learned that John McCain had a long association with a former Klansman who used to terrorize African-Americans. Obama's conduct exposes a moral blind spot about these onetime terrorists, who get a pass because they a) fall on the left end of the spectrum and b) haven't planted any bombs lately.
Well, there you go. That's why Barack can't win the presidency.
04/20/2008 - 1:00pm
Gallup shows Hillary leading by a point nationally for the first time in a month, a sign of some impact on democrats from the 'bitter' uproar. Rasmussen has Barack hanging on to a two point lead.

More significant is the matter of negatives. Hillary's been drawing much media attention over recent days for the impact on her unfavorable ratings caused by chasing Barack on his San Francisco remarks. But the Rasmussen numbers suggest that her strategy has been working - while her bad numbers have shot up, so have Barack's, and they're viewed with pretty similar levels of disdain.
Obama’s ratings are 47% favorable and 51% unfavorable. For Clinton, those numbers are 45% favorable, 53% unfavorable (see recent daily favorable ratings).

Knocking Barack off his cloud has been a tough one, but the Clintons have finally done it. Compare the way the two democrats are viewed by the country to the perception of John McCain:
McCain is viewed favorably by 56% and unfavorably by 40%.
While McCain benefits from his relative anonymity - he's really not part of the campaign right now - and these numbers are obviously fluid, this does show that the Clintons aren't as dumb as they look to some.

Remember, Hillary's goal is that Barack Obama not become president. When viewed through this lense, everything she's doing makes good sense.
04/19/2008 - 12:54pm
Analysts keep misunderstanding what Hillary is up to. They talk like she doesn't know that the nomination belongs to Barack. Hillary isn't dumb, as she reminded us the other night, but she thinks everyone else is, and she's been proven correct thusfar.

How could Hillary be counting on a strategy of winning over the Super Delegates when they keep swinging toward Barack? The Super D's have no interest in her - the party can't stand the Clintons - and a big part of the irrational exuberance over Barack comes from their glee over the notion that it might be possible to win a national election without the involvement of Bill and Hill.

Meanwhile, an AP analysis shows Barack likely to get within 100 delegates of the 2025 needed for the nomination with pledged delegates, making it all the more ridiculous to expect the Super D's to force things against Barack. But AP headlines with a dramatic "Time, Delegate math working against Clinton."

In an LA Times article today
on the Robert Reich endorsement of Barack, Mark Barabak writes about how democrats are getting turned off by Hillary's aggressiveness:
The more aggressive her tack, polls suggest, the higher she drives her own negative standing with voters.

"She's in a box," said Democratic strategist Joe Trippi, who has stayed neutral since his candidate, former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, quit the race. "The more she does the thing she has to do, the more people don't like her.

But Hillary doesn't care about that box. She's worried about Barack winning the presidency, which would effectively box her out of running for the next 12 years (two terms of Obama and one run for his VP), at which time, she'd be as old as... John McCain!

So when people like Robert Reich jump off the fence and commit to Barack, its their way of telling her they don't like the game she's playing.

Which is sorta funny, because endorsements from the Robert Reich crowd don't help Barack, they hurt him. What does he need with more radicals lining up behind him? Barack's problem is that he is one of them, and he doesn't need anyone making that easier to prove.

But Hillary isn't much concerned over how high the hateometer. She wants to make sure that Barack is weakened for the general election so McCain can win, and the Init to Winnit, 40 year effort to become president can keep going for another 4 years.
04/18/2008 - 5:53pm
The shock that liberal moonbats are suffering this week continues to grow.

"The way Charlie and George spoke to the Messiah Wednesday night was just over the top," is the sort of lament I've been hearing.

Predictably, the Boston Globe editorialized that the real elitists are the ABC News crowd, which kidnapped the event for their own nefarious purposes when they should have been talking policy:
Instead, Obama was forced once again to explain his remark that some voters in small-town America are so embittered with their circumstances that they cling to divisive wedge issues. Obama's answer was a weak and rather artless attempt to slide from characterizing voters from "bitter" to "frustrated." But the ABC anchors made it clear they weren't there for the voters or the issues or even the candidates, but only for themselves and their hunger to make news. Talk about elitism.
The shock that the moonbats feel over how Barack "Fell to Earth" as David Brooks puts it in today's New York Times is delightful. They keep fantasizing that somewhere there is a devout liberal who is electable to national office, and they still think that Barack's the guy who can pull it off.

This is irrational, of course. And hard for those who haven't fallen head over heels in love with Obama to understand. One of our readers, who is a psychologist, offers some clarification as to why the moonbats are reacting so emotionally to some truth being told about The Chosen One:

It was so clear from the very beginning that a vast swath of America had what we refer to in the business as an idealizing transference. When a patient in therapy starts to revere you a little too much, you know it's time to fasten your seatbelt because their disillusionment and the flip side of the idealization, repressed rage, is just around the corner. So I've said all along that there will eventually be hell to pay here.

Repressed rage. Wow. That's what leads folks from the Boston Globe down to your average university professor to feel so betrayed over Barack facing some tough questions at a debate.

As Barack whines over how he was treated - he was clearly upset to the point of haughtiness Wednesday - it makes me wonder if its possible that he is so in love with himself that he feels the same sort of repressed rage over reporters not realizing that he is above questions that can offer some evidence to voters regarding who he is and what he believes.
04/18/2008 - 1:03pm
Barack said at the debate Wednesday night that its not appropriate to make him responsible for the words or actions of people who happen to support him. That sounds reasonable on the surface. But in the Rev Wright situation, Americans ask themselves, "Would I have stayed in that environment for 20 years and listened to anti-American rants?"

In the case of the former terrorist William Ayers, there's a similar question. "Would I let the guy hold a fundraiser for me?"

The LA Times today argues that Barack's ties to the bad guys are thin, but writes:

Obama and Ayers moved in some of the same political and social circles in the leafy liberal enclave of Hyde Park, where they lived several blocks apart. In the mid-1990s, when Obama was running for the Illinois Senate, Ayers introduced Obama during a political event at his home, according to Obama's aides. Ayers, a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago, later contributed $200 to Obama's state campaign.
What? Does a normal person accept donations and fundraisers from people who say they're proud of having blown up buildings during the Vietnam protest era? Does a normal American agree to serve on a charitable board with the same guy? Is that a thin connection?

And does Barack's attempt to distance himself from Ayers ring true?
He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that . . . knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values doesn't make much sense.
Disingenuous at best.

All this is more evidence of why Barack can't win the presidency, which will lead to guilt by association attacks like this popular YouTube video:

04/18/2008 - 12:21pm
An interesting sidebar to the debate over Barack's Bitterness is the very question of whether Barack is right or not. Dan Schnur blogged in the New York Times on Wednesday that:
By using a voter’s adverse economic circumstances to rationalize his cultural beliefs, Barack Obama has reintroduced what has been a defining question in American politics for more than a generation: Why do so many working-class voters cast their ballots on social and values-based issues like gun ownership, abortion and same-sex marriage rather than on economic policy prescriptions?
Interesting question. But is the premise true - are working class voters actually "values voters?" Paul Krugman, the liberal economist who is a Times columnist pulls together the conversation on this question over the past few days. He lays out the argument that Barack has his stereotypes wrong about the bitter middle class voting on religion:
It’s true that Americans who attend church regularly are more likely to vote Republican. But contrary to the stereotype, this relationship is weak at low incomes but strong among high-income voters. That is, to the extent that religion helps the G.O.P., it’s not by convincing the working class to vote against its own interests, but by producing supermajorities among the evangelical affluent.
In an op-ed yesterday, Larry Bartels, again from the Times, crunches the numbers and announces:
Small-town people of modest means and limited education are not fixated on cultural issues. Rather, it is affluent, college-educated people living in cities and suburbs who are most exercised by guns and religion. In contemporary American politics, social issues are the opiate of the elites.
So not only did Barack choose his words poorly, he was making a point that is part of the false premise that the dems operate under - that they run the party that cares about regular folk. (see the numbers in the next post that prove this point.) Somehow, through all the disinformation, working people have figured out that the GOP has a vision for the country, and a belief in it, that matches theirs.

Somehow middle class America has discerned that all the plans that democrats have for building huge bureaucracies to reallocate wealth and build a political base don't actually help people... that people need to help themselves. Which is why they believe in America in a way that people like Jeremiah Wright and Michelle Obama, and yes, it seems, Barack, don't.

Which has those lapel pins looking a lot more appealing to Barack these days.
04/18/2008 - 12:05pm
The full measure of Barack's San Fran blunder will be taken in the general election, where the fight over the "average American," the middle class white folk without college educations, will decide who becomes President. The importance of working class voters is nicely laid out in a Time Magazine analysis:
In 2000 Al Gore lost them to George W. Bush by 17 percentage points; four years later, John Kerry lost them by 23 points. By contrast, Democratic candidates in the 2006 midterm elections ran 10 percentage points behind Republicans among working-class whites--and managed to win back the House and the Senate as well as six governorships and nine state legislatures.
If you've been wondering why Hillary pounced on Barack's blunder so relentlessly, ignoring her own skyrocketing negatives, this is the answer:
For decades, the Democratic Party has been slowly losing white working-class voters. In 2004, President Bush beat John Kerry by 34 electoral votes, clinching the key battleground in Ohio. Even a tiny shift among white working-class voters could have changed the outcome.
04/17/2008 - 11:47pm
Barack is bitter over the debate last night. For the first time, he faced vigorous inquiry from a media that just hasn't done its job. With so little known about him, George and Charlie went after him last night in an attempt to discover more.

Many may agree with Baracks assessment:
"Last night we set a new record. It took us 45 minutes ... before we heard about health care. Forty-five minutes before we heard about Iraq. Forty-five minutes before we heard about jobs. That's how Washington is," Obama said.
But it seems to me there is far less question about what Barack and Hillary have to say about the issues after all these debates than there is a sincere and legitimate desire to know something about who this guy is who democrats are trying to rush into the presidency sight unseen.

And with the small bits of evidence we have about who Barack is and what he believes running in an ominous direction, it would have been irresponsible had ABC not tried to learn more.

Barack is bitter, and clinging to hope.

We'll see if people fall for it.
Syndicate content