Look at who's ahead in the popular vote...

by George Dienhart

Popular Vote (w/FL & MI)

16,668,051

47.7%

16,671,990

47.7%

Clinton +3,939

+0.01%

 

Real Clear Politics has Hillary ahead in the popular vote. This is part of a dual strategy to convince delegates that she’s their gal. The other half of the strategy is reminding people that Obama has not been able to win in the states that Democrats absolutely have to win in order to win the presidency. To wit:

California	02/05		2,186,662	43.2%	2,608,184	51.5%				Clinton +421,522	+8.3%
New York	02/05		751,019	40.3%	1,068,496	57.4%				Clinton +317,477	+17.1%
Pennsylvania	04/22		1,046,822	45.4%	1,260,937	54.6%				Clinton +214,115	+9.2%

These states have provided large margins of victory for Hillary, and the super delegates must address this. If McCain takes 2 out of the three, he is almost guaranteed victory in November.

Someone else that doesn't know when to call it quits

by George Dienhart

I’m talking to you Bob Barr. Apparently, he’s a Libertarian now. A Libertarian with WAYYYY to much time on his hands. What’s Bob’s solution to the federal government spending too much? Why he’s planning on trying to siphon off votes from the candidate that best represents restraint in spending. Great plan Bob, really.

Why is she hanging in there?

by George Dienhart

Clintonista Terry McAuliffe knows why, and dishes in an email sent to solicit campaign funds:

'Hillary is within striking distance of winning the popular vote nationwide - a key part of our plan to win the nomination.'

It looks as though she is not planning to bow out graciously after Obama declares victory on the 20^th. The next two states should go to Hillary by overwhelming margins, adding to her popular vote lead.

Double standard prevails

by George Dienhart

Camp Obama refuses to address corruption issues- ties to Toby Rezko. The Rezko issue was active just 3 years ago when Rezko helped Obama buy his McMansion. Why is this relevant? It is relevant because the Obama Camp has decided to bring up the “Keating 5” scandal from McCain’s past. Past as in 1989. Interesting double standard. A fascinating historical footnote is that 4 members of the Keating 5 were Democrats. Why is that relevant? According to a wikipedia article, “Robert S. Bennett, whom McCain had hired to represent him in this matter, defended McCain's character and was one of many people who criticized the piece. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the Keating Five scandal that The Times revisited in the article, said that he fully investigated McCain back then and suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee to not pursue charges against McCain because of "no evidence against him." Bennett was coincidentally on Hannity and Colmes the night the story broke to talk about his autobiography. On the show, he said that he felt the Committee pursued charges against McCain because, without him, the case would have been entirely against Democrats.” I guess that is what passes as fair to the Democrats.

The Scorecard

by George Dienhart

List courtesy of the New York Times:

Republicans and Democrats agree that the following states are in play:

Colorado

Florida

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

New Hampshire

New Mexico

Nevada

Ohio

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin.
Republicans believe that they can add:

New Jersey

California

Democrats believe that they can be competitive in

Georgia

North Carolina

South Carolina

One things for sure- the maps going to look a whole lot different on election night.

 

The biggest insult of all

by George Dienhart

Obama is compared to Walter Mondale in the Chicago Tribune:

"Obama's 2-front battle has given McCain an edge.  We'll make the case that Barack Obama is a wonderful new voice selling old, discredited ideas, including the most massive tax increase since Walter Mondale ran for president,' said Steve Schmidt, a senior McCain adviser. 'It's a combination of weakness, not being ready to be president and not being able to deliver on the things he says he will deliver on.'”

Maureen Dowd nixes "Dream Ticket"

By George Dienhart

Dowd states (via the Politico):

"Obama will never be at his best around Hillary; she drains him of his magical powers. She's Jane Jinx to him. It's a similar syndrome to the one Katharine Hepburn's star athlete and her supercilious fiancé have in 'Pat and Mike.'

Rezko comes up again in Newsweek

by George Dienhart

This is why I wrote today’s first post about Obama and Rezko- you’ll be hearing a lot more of Rezko’s name as we move closer to the general election. Via Newsweek:

“Obama is 'extremely vulnerable' to questioning about his ties to Chicago fixer Tony Rezko, who has been indicted for political corruption. (Obama is not linked to any wrongdoing.) Another target is former Weather Underground member Bill Ayers, whose association with Obama will remind voters of bomb-throwing student radicals of the 1960s. 'There's plenty of stuff out there,' says Brown. 'I'm kinda like in a candy store in this election.”

The article also describes the upcoming election cycle as “swiftboat times 5”

The mighty middle?

by George Dienhart

Gerald F. Seib and John Harwood of The Wall Street Journal speculates that moderates may pave the way to a less confrontational legislature:

'The long, fascinating spectacle of the presidential primaries has all but obscured their potential impact on American politics: Campaign 2008 may break Washington's gridlock by reviving the long-dormant political center. ...
They go on to write, 'In the wake of Tuesday's primary elections in North Carolina and Indiana, it appears more likely than ever that the two presidential candidates this fall will be Sen. Barack Obama for the Democrats and Sen. John McCain for the Republicans. They happen to be the two most surprisingly successful candidates of the year, and both got ahead largely by arguing they have unique abilities to bring people together in Washington.'

This is probably true of a McCain presidency. An Obama presidency will be more successful in passing legislation that the Bush administration, largely due the Democrats majority in both houses. I doubt that there would be a lot of reaching across the isle, though. There’s not enough common ground between conservatives and the nation’s most liberal Senator (by ACU rating).

From the unintentionally funny file:

by George Dienhart

According to Ron Allen on 'the Chris Matthews Show, Sen. Obama has quite a sense of humor. Or maybe he’s just a vindictive jerk:  'May 20th: Oregon, Kentucky - the day that Obama thinks he's going to get a majority of the pledged delegates. He's probably going to have a big speech, not in Louisville or Portland, but probably in a swing state - Michigan or Florida - and really make a pitch to get this thing moving to the general election.'

So, he’ll declare victory in one of the states that he has worked so hard to disenfranchise. Funny Guy, that Obama…

Smart move from the McCain camp.

by George Dienhart

When Hillary surged late in the primary season, Obama started ducking debates. Apparently someone at McCain HQ noticed. Via the Politico:

'The McCain camp is also examining a suggestion by Mark McKinnon, a media strategist for the Republicans, who has suggested that his boss and Mr Obama agree to campaign together in some states, attending joint town hall meetings and debating each other without a moderator. ... [A] refusal from Mr. Obama could be used against him.  'The town hall meeting is John's best format,' the aide said. 'He's a natural campaigner up close with the public. That would test Obama's claims that he wants a clean fight on the issues. John is also strong on finance reform. If Obama reneges on public funding it will look bad.'

Balls in your court, Sen. Obama.

Who is Tony Rezko and what is his connection to Obama?

by George Dienhart

I have a large family, at least by modern standards. With all the kids, we probably pull apart our coach and vacuum it out more often than smaller families. We always find a virtual treasure trove of items when we clean out the couch. We have found PSP games, missing remote controls, and all sorts of “action figures”. Barbie dolls, GI Joe and other toys seep in to the dark and mysterious crevices of our couch, only to surface when we do our weekend cleaning. We also find spare change. The most I ever found was about enough to buy a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

During the campaign, Sen. Obama also cleaned out his couch. He apparently found enough spare change to buy 24,633 cups of coffee. That is $73,900.00 in change that was found in the cushions of the metaphorical couch where Tony Rezko once sat. When it has all said and done, Rezko has lost about 200 thousand dollars worth of change in the cushions of Obama’s various fund raising efforts. This is what Obama must be referring to in his constant calls for “change”.

So, you must be wondering whom the Rezko connected Obama donors were. The list includes:

• Talat Othman ($1000.00), whom Rezko recommended for a spot on the Illinois Finance Authority.
• Semir Sirazi ($2000.00), a friend of Tony Rezko who insists that Rezko owes him money. I wonder where that money could have went….
• Michael Sreenan ($2000.00), an attorney for a Rezko development company and eventual owner of a certain infamous piece of land in Chicago. Sreenan purchased this lot, which adjoins the Obama’s home, from Rezko’s wife.

All in all, a lot of joe. Still thirsty? I hope so; we also noticed a fresh steaming hot cup of Hypocrisy at the Obama’s house. I will not often thank the Clinton’s, but they served us this tasty treat:

'Senator Obama has premised his campaign on just words, most notably the resounding speech he delivered in October 2002 against the Iraq war. But with the fifth anniversary of the invasion upon us, the onus is now on Senator Obama to demonstrate what he did to act on that 2002 speech when he got to the U.S. Senate. ... When he took over the subcommittee that oversees NATO and Afghanistan and had a chance to follow up on the part of his 2002 speech that argued that Iraq diverted attention from Afghanistan, he failed to hold a single hearing. ... At the end of the day, the true test for a president is not the speeches he or she delivers - it's whether he or she delivers on the speeches.'

So, the most anti-war candidate was actually in position to “do something” about the war. What did he choose to do? Absolutely nothing. No hearings, no new ideas, and no change. Just more business as usual for Barrack Obama, once again showing that his MO is to say something inspiring while doing absolutely nothing...

That is a bad week for a man running for president. Incredibly, there is even more. Controversy once again reared its ugly head in the form of Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright. We all heard the stories about the America hating preacher that Obama counts amongst his advisers. Obama has tried to ignore the talk of what goes on in his church, often stating that he has not attended during the most controversial sermons. Newsmax magazine seems to think otherwise. Ronald Kessler reported that Obama attended for the now famous ‘United States of White America' sermon. He also added, “the senator sat in his pew and nodded in agreement.”

When you add this all together, it becomes apparent that Obama has some serious deficiencies in his personality. His association with Rezko shows that he is a bad judge of character. He compounded his bad judgment in regards to Rezko by taking 200 thousand dollars in cash from him for various political campaigns. He also showed bad judgment in allowing Rezko to become involved in purchasing the lot adjoining the property Obama wished to buy; it appears Rezko may have paid more for his property so Obama would be able to pay less. Either Obama chose to ignore that Rezko might believe that Obama now owed him a favor, or he is the most naïve man ever to walk the face of the earth. Neither trait makes for a good president. These character traits are bad enough, but Obama also chooses to befriend a pastor who takes every available opportunity to insult America, spew hatred and disseminate harmful rhetoric about race. Not only did Obama fail to get up and walk out of the church as Rev. Wright continuously assailed America- he allegedly showed his agreement by sitting quietly in his pew, nodding his head.

I guess a November win by Obama would be a change. We would change Presidents, going from an honest, hard working man who loves America to Obama. That is not the kind of change I want to find.

 

 

 

 

 

No bounce for you!

by George Dienhart

A bounce is an increase in your poll numbers after major event- things like a primary, or locking up a nomination. It is something young Barry should have received after winning NC and, more or less, sewing up the nomination. It is not something that happened. As I said before, elections are for closers, and Barry is no closer. Gallup pegs him with a two percent lead. He had the same two percent lead before Tuesday’s primaries.

You may ask how can he only have a two percent lead on McCain? You would be asking the wrong question. He has a two percent lead on Hillary- you know the vanquished one. Some polls show young Barry trailing McCain. This is not only proof that Obama cannot close, its proof that the Democrats are in serious trouble.

This year each of the two Democrats candidates supporters have been polled saying up to 30 percent will not support the other candidate. That is more than enough to guarantee victory for McCain. It is more than enough to have ripples in the congressional election- it would amount to near record low turnout for the Democrats (as a percentage of registered voters). It is enough to possibly through the house back into Republican hands. Thirty percent is a lot of voters.

This poll is exactly what Hillary needs for people to start a new round of fundraising. It is virtually guaranteed that neither candidate will have enough delegates for nomination if Florida and Michigan are seated. To add to Barry's woes, it should be all Hillary in the remaining primaries. This is a big problem for Obama. He is perceived by everyone that is mot a member of the mainstream media as not being able to close this out. Most importantly, voters seem to be turning away from him as the campaign drags on. He is dying a death of 100 cuts- most of which were inflicted by former mentor Jeremiah Wright. Voters that used to associate him with hope and change now associate him with suspicion and indifference. Had Wright gone on his book tour in January, Hillary would have already locked up the nomination. You see, Hillary is a closer.  Obama better hope a miracle- or he will be marginalized by McCain in the general election.

Someone owes Real Clear Politics...

by George Dienhart

Look at what I circled- this was a real ad served up by google. Just the thought of this made me go temporarily blind…

Click to enlarge, and no I didn't click on the link...

Do Democrats know the difference between entertainment and news?

by George Dienhart

I occasionally listen to Rush Limbaugh. Many conservatives do. In fact many, many people listen to Rush. He rose to popularity during the Clinton years. I even remember watching his TV show occasionally. He rose to prominence due to President Clinton’s many foibles, and has since remained a giant in his industry. That is because he is informative and entertaining. He is a thumb in liberal’s eyes. To the left he is the Boogieman.

The left blames Rush for the”canonization” of President Reagan, and the demonicfiation of President Clinton. The left cannot accept the fact that Reagan wonthe Cold War and presided over what was, at the time, the biggest peacetime expansion of the economy. Clinton’s problems were self-created. He was a mediocre president that was caught shtupping the help. He then lied under oath to cover it up. His actual accomplishments were few and far in between. This was not Rush Limbaugh’s fault- he was just smart enough to capitalize on Clinton's troubles.

The lefts latest fit of Limbaugh hysteria is over “Operation Chaos”- a radio bit encouraging Republicans to cross over and vote for Hillary in the Democratic Primaries. Just a quick question- how many people out there allow people to tell them who to vote for, let alone to switch parties? The answer would be almost none. As I have said before, voting is a personal act, and people are not prone to use their vote to promote a radio show, no matter how entertaining it is.

The funniest part of this is how liberals are promoting Limbaugh’s agenda, every time they complain about Operation Chaos. Just yesterday, John Kerry accused Limbaugh of “tampering” with the primary. We all know that Sen. Kerry is an excellent whiner, but even someone as blindly partisan as he is can see that particular accusation is a bit thin. Operation Chaos did not give the Democratic Party a split result on “Double Primary Tuesday”- a deeply divided and conflicted electorate did.

When you discount Lake County Indiana, which is part of Metropolitan Chicago (Obama’s home turf) - Hillary had a convincing win in Indiana. Hillary was also pummeled in North Carolina. These two entirely different states, gave us two entirely different results. This division is one of the reasons Hillary will not drop out of the race. She believes that she is more electable than Obama. She has seen the same polls we all have- showing Obama to be battered and bruised by former mentor Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Most of the county sees Wright as a problem- and will continue to see him as such. Every time Wright raises his head, we will hear of problems with Obama’s integrity and his inability to make the correct decisions. We will be reminded that he through his grandmother under the bus for this man, and then threw Wright beneath the wheels just weeks later. We will be reminded that he is just another politician that has problems discerning the truth from lies, and his own grandiose self-image from the perception of the average voter.

In the end it will be Barrack Obama that loses the election for Barack Obama. Rush Limbaugh will have no sway in this arena- he’ll just continue to entertain us.

Even Obama realizes he can't close.

by George Dienhart

According to the Politico, Obama will not declare victory until after the primaries on May 20:

"Not long after the polls close in the May 20 Kentucky and Oregon primaries, Barack Obama plans to declare victory in his bid for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

The articles author, David Paul, also terms the present situation a “train wreck”

 

ABC Jake Tapper is a funny guy.

by George Dienhart

I laughed aloud at this:

"You know what's funny? There's a guy named Harold Ickes who was on the DNC's Rules and Bylaws Committee who voted last year to strip Michigan and Florida of their delegates for violating the rules. I mean what are the odds?"

Wright still an issue

According to the Wall Street Journal, Rev. Wright weighed heavily on the minds of voters.:

"Almost half the voters in Indiana and North Carolina said the Wright matter had affected their choice - and those voters heavily favored Sen. Clinton in her fight for the Democratic presidential nomination, according to early exit polls. ... In Indiana, seven in 10 voters who said the Wright 'situation' was very or somewhat important to them voted for Sen. Clinton. In North Carolina, six in 10 supported her."

Good news for the McCain campaign.

Bill Clinton "Sour"

by George Dienhart

Mort Kondracke on Fox News deemed Bill Clinton “sour”: "I thought that Bill Clinton's expression, standing behind Hillary Clinton, said it all: He was sour. There was hardly a smile on his face. He was somber. He looked almost sick. I think the Clinton campaign sees this grand chance for the restoration slipping away right before their very eyes, when they thought that tonight was the chance to score a big victory."

 

Hillary's future plans:

by George Dienhart

The Politico had a good analysis yesterday:

From a Roger Simons piece:  "I don't think Clinton has any obligation to quit before the last primary, but she must continue to look scrappy and resolute in the weeks ahead and not sad or pathetic. ... Clinton could try for the nomination again, but even if she does not run for president in 2012, she is up for reelection to the Senate that year. Or she could run for governor of New York in 2010. Or she might want to become majority leader of the Senate. She has options, but only if she manages her endgame carefully. If she becomes known as the candidate who was willing to destroy her party in order to gain the nomination, she is likely to lose not just the nomination but also her political future”