I think the campaigns have now gone on so long that these people are starting to lose it. Hillary laughing irrationally at a serious question. Bill confecting even more Bosnia trouble for her. Barack Obama has even started making sexual wisecracks to ladies on the meet and greet lines.

At this point (meaning both in the presidential run AND in the ongoing story of Obama’s Teflon candidacy) I’m starting to wonder what Obama could say or do that would actually hurt him here in the primary.

But the Senator keeps trying. Speaking of Midwesterners in general and Pennsylvanians in particular, Obama said this at a fundraiser in San Francisco last week.

“It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Just taken at its face value, this statement is a BUFFET of poorly expressed ideas.

He doesn’t even cite the correct negligent administrations. He doesn’t dare. Because the Midwest and rust belt tumble that he is referring to began in earnest during the Carter administration.

You could go through those towns in Pennsylvania and ask those people when was the worst economic period in their memory and I’d bet many would recall the Carter years, the energy crisis, gas shortages, the recession, etc. That all hit the manufacturing base very hard.

From Carter’s crisis of confidence speech in 1979.

It’s clear that the true problems of our Nation are much deeper — deeper than gasoline lines or energy shortages, deeper even than inflation or recession.

And those who don’t cite the Carter years as being the hardest would probably tell you the two terms of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s were the worst.

But Obama needs Jimmy Carter’s superdelegate vote so he’s not going to say anything negative about Carter.

And he’s trying to suck up to this thing he’s heard of called the Reagan democrat so he’s not going to say anything bad about Reagan.

But funny, he’s got no problem going after the Clinton years, and laying all the misery of the “Midwest” Pennsylvanians on the Clintons.

That Obama continues to go after the Clintons, speaking disparagingly of their years in office, trashing their legacy in the process, this to me is the unforgivable sin he has committed in trying to step over Hillary Clinton to get the nomination.

If you want to wax negatively of presidential realities… think Johnson (Vietnam), Nixon (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Watergate), Carter (energy crisis, recession, general doom and gloom), Reagan (Midnight in American for Democrats and the left, ketchup emerges as the vegetable du jour for public school children, Iran-Contra), Bush I (oil war, recession) Clinton (peace and prosperity, tech boom, balanced federal budget plus a surplus), GWB, (war and a savaged economy, recession, world opinion of US trashed.)

And yet what Barack Obama continually finds to be fertile ground for attacking past presidencies are these 8 terribly inconvenient years of peace and prosperity under Bill Clinton. The only two term Democrat since Harry Truman.

The current de facto leader of the Democratic party.

So in the end, when Barack Obama loses the general election by double digits and we’re sitting under John McCain for 4 years, the Democratic party, dazed and confused by the evaporation of its clear path to victory, is going to be kicking at stones on the ground and wondering what happened in ‘08.

I hope they ask themselves as well if it was all worth it. Was losing an election and having the party once again defined by a effete out-of-touch candidate, this one with explosively controversial associations, worth having the Democrats’ version of the Reagans, the party’s biggest stars, a two term president and his first lady, the party’s most proven winners, who, beyond the scandals that were largely the work of the Republicans and the right wing freak show, set the standard of what a successful Democratic presidency should look like… was it worth having all that trashed by a guy who only 4 years ago was an Illinois state senator?


The rationale being offered by Democratic big wigs and the mainstream media as to how the Democratic party can get away with ignoring both a potential popular vote victory by Hillary Clinton, as well as ignoring or redefining the stated purpose of the superdelegates, is as follows:

To have the super ones move to Hillary even after a popular vote win by her AND an unambiguous momentum shift towards her signaled by win after win in the remaining primaries is to do two things…

a) Ignore or overturn the “will of the voters” as expressed in popular raw vote totals.

b) Assert that a pledged delegate lead is the ONLY criteria to be considered by the superdelegates.

OR ELSE… Democrats risk splitting the party and alienating, not only African Americans, but young people all over the country who have been “energized” by the Obama candidacy.

This is BULLSHIT.

Black people. Young people. Neither has a vote that is MORE determinative than my vote or the vote of a middle aged white woman simply because of their race or age!

If certain people want to seriously consider what would also be destructive to the party… and anyone wishing the best for Democrats in this or any other election cycle should… look now at the other side of this, before it is too late.

If the superdelegates ignore a popular vote win by Hillary Clinton as well as a giant shift in momentum towards her there are many many millions of people who will be just as outraged and these Democratic voters will have a much more valid argument as to WHY they are outraged.

The Democratic party can not let racial, or any other, identity politics issues factor into the decision as to who the party’s nominee will be.

We really should let the VOTERS decide the outcome of this primary. No?

If you, as a party, have already succeeded in locking the voters of Florida and Michigan out of the process and now you’re going to let things like the wacky undemocratic caucuses and the weird delegate allocation rules such as the Texas Two-Step, factors that, let us not forget, are largely responsible for GIVING Obama his pledged delegate lead… then I believe, as a party, you need to get your head out of the Obama campaign’s ass and start thinking again about what it means to be a Democrat.


On a video feature in the Bloggingheads section of the New York Times website there is a discussion with Robert Reich, formerly a Clinton administration labor secretary. The teaser reads like this.

Robert Wright of Bloggingheads.tv, left, and former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich discuss the possibility of superdelegates giving the election to Hillary Clinton.

The video begins with the text overlay of this question. Verbatim.

Unless Hillary Clinton wins landslide victories in the upcoming primaries she will likely finish with fewer pledged delegates than Barack Obama. What will happen if the superdelegates override the voters?

My question is this. When suddenly did the mainstream media, made up of so many who have gone to school at places like Harvard and Yale, begin to emulate this dishonest three card Monty style of question construction that would make a hack car salesman proud? (Mr. Wright’s Wikipedia bio boasts a Princeton education.)

I have an alternative question which I believe to be more honest.

If Hillary Clinton overtakes Barack Obama in the popular vote, what will happen if arcane and varied Democratic party rules as to how primaries are carried out and how pledged delegates are allocated are used by the party to override the will of the voters?


Barack Obama himself has said that the speech he heard from his Pastor and mentor Reverend Jeremiah Wright was reprehensible. But he says that he can’t turn away from his pastor because this is the man who led him to Jesus Christ.

This is something that has me shaking my head in the context of the godless left’s support of Obama in this campaign. The candidate sits under a racist pastor who espouses hate speech for twenty years and then asks us to accept that because this guy led him to Jesus?

And that’s okay with Air America?

Hate speech is okay with the left because of Jesus? That makes me dizzy. Where are the ideals of the left and how can this possibly be acceptable coming from a candidate who is endorsed by the left? It’s just amazing. Ralph Nader calls Obama the liberal evangelical.

Obama is a lefty atheist coming out of Ivy League schools who attaches to a church and finds Jesus… but THIS is okay with the left because Obama’s pastor is really some kind of radical closet black power demagogue?

Oh shoot, I’ve got it backwards.

But does it matter? Is hate speech okay because of Jesus or is Jesus and hate speech BOTH okay because of the Pastor’s politicized left-leaning rants?

Jesus, there’s something for everyone on the new Religious Left.

Except for a plurality of the American people’s votes come November.


I’ve listened to two of Pastor Jeremiah Wright’s sermons in their entirety. The sermon from Sept. 2001 twice.

I don’t agree with those who are claiming that the offending comments were taken out of context. That’s a specious claim. They are taken out of context only literally and the traditional usage and implications of the term taken out of context is not that something has been literally excerpted. When it is said that something is taken out of context it means specifically that comments or quotes are pulled in a way that distorts their meaning or intent.

Pastor Wright was PREACHING that American foreign policy led to 9/11. There’s certainly some truth in that and most on the left would agree that there’s some factual basis to Pastor Wright’s perspective. But it is certainly an accurate portrayal of Pastor Wright’s perspective and he was forcefully and emotionally offering that perspective from the pulpit of his, and Barack Obama’s, church, just a week after 9/11.

That is going to be offensive to many people in this county, even if they tend to agree with the Pastor’s point. And most won’t.

The excerpts do not in any way distort the intent of Pastor Wright’s comments. In fact, the opposite is true. They reflect his political feelings quite accurately. To say that he was taken out of context is just simply false. It is not a distortion of Pastor Wright’s position that is reflected in the excerpted videos. Those are his feelings and they are offensive and hostile and damaging, as are many of the controversial things that he has been caught preaching to his church and writing in the church bulletin.

It’s wholly irrelevant that in this case he preaches peace and love for most of his sermons. The negative moments are like a window opening up where he lets the congregate experience his real feelings and rage. There is no context wherein his sort of divisive and racist rage is acceptable and to suggest otherwise is wrong on so many levels none the least of which is simply the blind denial of the damage caused by having someone stand up there preaching in this way.

For the people in those pews, the message of negativity is very damaging. It’s old school poison like what you’d hear from that angry uncle. It’s destructive and negative and it holds people back which is completely counterproductive to Pastor Wright’s intent, I’m sure.

That is the danger of subjecting yourself to the teachings of a Pastor Wright and the danger, always, of such a highly politicized religious experience.


Superdelegates announcing their support for Barack Obama are making the biggest mistake in the history of the Democratic party. Not because they will ultimately cast their vote for Obama. When the time comes it’s their duty to support who they see fit to be the nominee of the party.

But that they are starting to break now for Obama, before this last set of primaries, is spitting in the face of half the Democratic party and potentially reducing future primaries, which have generated great excitement in at least one coveted swing state, to being totally irrelevant afterthoughts.

All the money and all the donors sending that money to Hillary Clinton to carry on the fight?

These superdelegates are saying to those very people that their contributions to the Democratic party’s primary process are a waste. Because superdelegates going for Obama now, in concert with the calls for Hillary to quit the race, threatens to literally turn those campaign contributions into money down the drain.

Way to go, Democrats. Way to treat nearly half your own loyal check writing base.

All Hail President McCain.


Democrats who really want to win the White House, now or ever, should take note of something.

On the one side of the push to get Hillary Clinton to quit the race you have the party’s perennial LOSERS at presidential politics. Howard Dean, Chris Dodd, Bill Bradley, John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Bill Richardson.

On the other side you have this party’s ONLY winners. The Clintons. Bill Clinton is the only two term Democratic president since Harry Truman. The Clintons didn’t just win the White House twice but presided over, by any measure, the most successful administration in half a century.

The Clintons tackled the problems of this country with supreme confidence and competence and peace reigned and the budget deficit, the NUMBER ONE Republican issue of the early 90s, was turned to a surplus.

And now here comes the tone deaf left wing blogosphere, repeating the same old anti-Clinton bile while siding with this party’s presidential ex-wannabes against the only real winners the party has had at presidential politics in many long decades.

I’m not surprised at all at those on the left siding with Obama and participating in the trashing of the Clintons. You can have a superior education and a nationally famous political blog, but that doesn’t mean you have a drop of political insight or the slightest notion of what one looks like.

What disturbs me is the Democrats falling in step with the party’s losers at presidential politics. For primal screaming out loud, Howard Dean couldn’t even lose in Iowa without also losing his composure and destroying his presidential aspirations.

And what does the Democratic party do?

They make Howard Dean chairman.

Because Howard Dean was able to raise money on the internet and, it seems, young people like him. I’ve heard left wing bloggers lament that Howard Dean’s fall from electability was for the stupidest reason ever in the history of American political falls. But that perspective is the result of so many of these people being themselves absolutely tone deaf.

The fact is that it was a fitting take down and the truth is that the left and the Democratic party are both rapidly becoming an extension of Howard Dean’s ghastly and unelectable roar that night in Iowa.

Great rallying cry there.

And what does Howard Dean know anyway about avoiding catastrophe?

His LAST chance of avoiding what is already upon the Democratic party was when the Obama campaign began to play the race card against Dean’s own party’s version of the Reagans. He could have sat the Obama campaign down and said… no… we’re not going to do this. This IS a two term Democratic president and his first lady. They ARE the Democratic party. You can’t destroy them. It WILL end in disaster for all of us.

But, people. Howard Dean wouldn’t have known. He doesn’t have that kind of political insight or instincts. Howard Dean helped create this mess by not having the sense to perform a function the leader of the party should be there to perform.

And with so much of Obama’s support coming from the old Dean democrats from 2004, it’s easy to believe that Howard Dean, like these other castoffs from elections past, would like nothing more now than for the party’s only champions and proven winners to step aside for a guy who was an Illinois state senator a little over three years ago?

Yes. Coming from the man infamous for making impolitic noises, and the party that made him its leader, this all sounds about right.