Wednesday, April 30, 2008
'With Obama, there is only the man himself — his youth, his ease, his race, his claim on the new century. His candidacy is essentially a plea for voters to put their trust in his innate capacity for clarity and judgment. There is no Obama-ism, only Obama. "People don't come to Obama for what he's done in the Senate," says Bruce Reed, president of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "They come because of what they hope he could be." What Obama stands for, if anything, is not yet clear.'
' This is as openly radical a background as any significant American political figure has ever emerged from, as much Malcolm X as Martin Luther King Jr. Wright is not an incidental figure in Obama's life, or his politics. The senator "affirmed" his Christian faith in this church; he uses Wright as a "sounding board" to "make sure I'm not losing myself in the hype and hoopla." Both the title of Obama's second book, The Audacity of Hope, and the theme for his keynote address at the Democratic National Convention in 2004 come from Wright's sermons. "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright." '
One of the Black Value System pledges is
'Pledge Allegiance to All Black Leadership Who Espouse and Embrace the Black Value System'
As a member of the church, BHO must have believed in the following 10 facts (listed below), especially after being a member for over 20 years. Does in include the interpretation of the Rev Wright's values (Obama called him his spiritual advisor)?
Fact number one: we’ve got more black men in prison than there are in college.
Racism is alive and well. Racism is the American way.
Racism is how this country was founded, and how this country is still run.
No black man can ever be President. I don’t care how hard you run Jesse.
No black woman will ever be considered for anything outside of what she can give with her body.
Fact number three: America is still the number one killer in the world.
We invaded Grenada for no other reason than to get Maurice Bishop. We destroyed Panama because Noriega would no longer dance to our tune anymore.
We are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training professional killers.
We bombed Cambodia, Iraq and Nicaragua, killing women and children, while trying to turn public opinion against Castro and Qaddafi.
Fact number four: we put Mandela in prison and supported apartheid the whole 27 years he was there.
We believe in white supremacy and black inferiority. And believe it more than we believe in God.
Fact number five: we supported Zionism shamelessly while ignoring the Palestinians, and branding anybody who spoke out against it as being anti-Semitic.
Fact number six: we conducted radiation experiments on our own people. You’re just finding out about that. We care nothing about human life, if the end justifies the means.
Fact number seven: we do not care if poor black and brown children cannot read and kill each other senselessly. We abandoned the cities back in the sixties when the riots started, and it really doesn’t matter what those nnn… [niggers] "natives" do to each other.
We gave up on them and public education for poor people who live in the projects. We with VCRs, DVDs, CDs and portable phones have more homeless than any nation in the world.
Fact number eight: we started the AIDS virus, and now that it is out of control we still put more money in the military than in medicine. More money in hate than humanitarian concerns.
Everybody does not have access to health care. I don’t care what the rich white boys in the Senate say.
[Garbled] listen up. If you are poor black and elderly — forget it.
Fact number nine: we only able to maintain our level of living by making sure the Third World people live in grinding poverty.
Fact number ten: we are selfish, self-centered ego egotists, who are arrogant and ignorant.
We pray at church and do not try to make the kingdom that Jesus talked about a reality.
And, and, and… in light of these in fact God has got to be sick of this shit!
Here is a story from a Chicago Tribune article from 2007:
'In his 1993 memoir "Dreams from My Father," Obama recounts in vivid detail his first meeting with Wright in 1985. The pastor warned the community activist that getting involved with Trinity might turn off other black clergy because of the church’s radical reputation.
When Obama sought his own church community, he felt increasingly at home at Trinity. Before leaving for Harvard Law School in 1988, he responded to one of Wright’s altar calls and declared a personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
Later he would base his 2004 keynote speech to the Democratic National Convention on a Wright sermon called "Audacity to Hope," –also the inspiration for Obama’s second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope."
Though Wright and Obama do not often talk one-on-one often, the senator does check with his pastor before making any bold political moves.
Last fall, Obama approached Wright to broach the possibility of running for president. Wright cautioned Obama not to let politics change him, but he also encouraged Obama, win or lose…'
Here is what Obama said in response to Gibson's questioning on Wright from Real Clear Politics:
'But, Charlie, I've discussed this extensively. Reverend Wright is somebody who made controversial statements but they were not of the sort that we saw that offended so many Americans. And that's why I specifically said that these comments were objectionable; they're not comments that I believe in. (emphasis added)'
Hmmm. I guess when it is politically expedient you change your mind. So much for integrity.
Well lookie here! Look who loved the idea when he was a lowly state senator!!
From the AP:
'Democratic Sen. Barack Obama accuses his presidential rivals of pandering to voters by supporting the "gimmick" of temporarily lifting federal taxes on gasoline, despite his own past support for a similar tax holiday.
As a state legislator voting for a tax break, Obama even joked that he wanted signs on gas pumps telling motorists that he was responsible for lowering prices.
In 2000, gasoline prices were climbing quickly, reaching $2 a gallon in the Chicago area — a remarkable price back then. Illinois legislators scrambled to offer some election-year relief to angry motorists.
Obama voted three times for a tax holiday.
The version that ended up becoming law required a six-month suspension of the state's share of the sales tax on gasoline, a 5 percent tax paid directly by consumers rather than gas stations. It also required gas stations to post signs on their pumps saying that the Illinois General Assembly had lowered taxes and the price should reflect that cut.'Now all we need is the Clinton camp to amplify this to the voters of Indiana and NC!
Here an excerpt from the Washington Post:
'Her operatives speak confidently about winning in Indiana. They are publicly playing down their chances of victory in North Carolina, but her schedule suggests otherwise. Clinton is almost spending as much time in the Tar Heel state as the must-win state of Indiana--as is her husband, who is campaigning extensively in rural towns in both states. Her aides think finishing only a few points behind Obama in North Carolina and winning in Indiana and other states in May could push her to a lead in the overall popular vote, even without counting votes in Michigan and Florida.
Ace Smith, Clinton's North Carolina state director, is repeating the campaign's mantra that a win in the Tar Heel State would be "the upset of the century." Clinton operatives in both Indiana and North Carolina are targeting independent voters in both states, believing a demographic that heavily favored Obama in early primaries is now shifting to the New York Senator. And the endorsement of Gov. Mike Easley of North Carolina added to the Clinton camp's sense of momentum there. '
Here is a post from the Washington Post:
'If recent trends in other states hold, this is only the beginning of another round of attack ad wars between Clinton, Obama, and the groups that support them.'
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
'Buyer's remorse is an emotional condition whereby a person feels remorse or regret after a purchase.'
This is going to affect the super delagates who have committed to supporting Obama but have enough doubt to switch their allegiances.
Here is an excerpt from NYT:
'Mr. Obama, a parishioner at Mr. Wright’s church for about 20 years, tried to tamp down the controversy in Philadelphia more than a month ago, with a major speech on race relations. In that address and since then, Mr. Obama said he disagreed with some of Mr. Wright’s remarks but would not denounce him because he had become like family.'
I would not be surprised that if they used snippets from the National Press Club comments of Rev Wright with BHO's press conference comments in attack ads in NC.
If she can eek out a win in NC, it will show that she can come from behind and beat BHO. That will definitely place the seed of doubt in the remaining uncommited super delegates.
'It was the Rev. Dr. Barbara Reynolds, a former editorial board member of USA Today who teaches at the Howard University School of Divinity. An ordained minister, as New York Daily News writer Errol Louis points out in today's column, she was introduced at the press club event as the person "who organized" it.
But guess what? She's also an ardent longtime booster of Obama's sole remaining competitor for the Democratic nomination, none other than Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York. It won't take very much at all for Obama supporters to see in Wright's carefully arranged Washington event that was so damaging to Obama the strategic, nefarious manipulation of the Clintons.'
Come on, really! Who the heck belives that Wright was setup by a Clinton supporter! Only those who have blinders on and follow Obama blindly. Wait there are a whole mess of folks like that!
From the NYT:
'“I’m outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday,” Mr. Obama said, speaking to reporters here today. He added, “I find these comments appalling. It contradicts everything that I’m about and who I am.” '
You think he did that to help him in the Indiana & NC primary? No duh.
This is the same guy who says he was not aware of Wright's support of Rev Louis Farrahkahn. Not aware? Didn't everyone know that Rev Farrahkahn organized the million man march. Didn't BHO attend it. Didn't Wright help organize it with Rev Farrahkahn?
Thursday, April 24, 2008
'Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, who helped to kick off Obama's first political campaign and with whom Obama's campaign says he has a "friendly" relationship. Ayers and Dohrn were domestic terrorists in the 1960s and 1970s, and they are as radical now as they ever were, as evidenced by their own words. Obama emerged from the far-left fringe of Chicago politics, and his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn, like his relationship with spiritual mentor Jeremiah Wright, raises important questions about Obama's own political beliefs.
Obama has defended his relationship with Ayers and Dohrn by saying that Ayers did "reprehensible" things forty years ago, when Obama was eight years old. He says that Ayers and Dohrn are now respectable, mainstream figures in Chicago. But the reality is quite different; they, like Wright, are anything but "mainstream" in their views of America. The audio clips in which Ayers and Dohrn reveal their still-radical views were uncovered by Guy Benson, a recent college graduate who works for radio station WYLL in Chicago. Guy writes to introduce this series of clips:'
'Remember this when evaluating the profound discrepancy between Barack Obama's damage-control denials and flowery rhetoric, and his long track record. Understand that he, like the other candidates, is interviewing for the job of president with you, the interviewer. His job is to bend the truth; your job is to discern it. The only question is: Who will do a better job, he or you?
'While arguably critical to determining the viability of Mr. Obama’s candidacy, the role of race is difficult to disentangle from the other strands of the political debate surrounding him, encompassing topics like values, elitism, ideology and experience. Although some polling evidence hints at the depth of racial attitudes in this country and the obstacles Mr. Obama faces winning white voters, it has historically proved challenging to measure how racial attitudes factor into voter decisions. (Respondents do not tend to announce to pollsters that they will not vote for a candidate because he or she is black.)'
'For Mr. Obama, race presents two potential problems: Voters opposing him simply because he is black, and Democrats who will not support him because they do not think a black man can win a general election.
The results in Pennsylvania suggest that problems exist. A poll of Democratic voters conducted by Edison/Mitofsky for the television networks and The Associated Press found that Mrs. Clinton drew 63 percent of the white vote while Mr. Obama drew 90 percent of the black vote, mirroring a pattern in many other states. More strikingly, the poll found that 18 percent of Democrats said that race mattered to them in this contest — and just 63 percent of those voters said they would support Mr. Obama in a general election.'
'Sen. Clinton will make her pitch to the uncommitted superdelegates using her own math: her popular-vote count, including Michigan and Florida; her lead among the other superdelegates; and her success in winning primaries in six of the country's seven largest states, losing only Illinois, the fifth-largest state, to Sen. Obama.'
Looks like Clinton does have the popular vote according to the WSJ:
That means Sen. Obama retains his lead in the national delegate count with 1,723 to Sen. Clinton's 1,592, according to the Associated Press calculation, which includes superdelegate votes. But the Pennsylvania balloting narrowed the Illinois senator's margin to 131 delegate votes, with 408 pledged-delegate votes at stake in the remaining nine contests.In an analysis of the popular vote, the political Web site RealClearPolitics.com calculated that Sen. Obama now leads Sen. Clinton 14.4 million votes to 13.9 million. The gap both narrows and widens depending on how the popular vote is counted, though.
The RealClearPolitics total doesn't include 1.2 million votes cast by Florida and Michigan voters. Both states lost their seats at the national convention this summer in Denver as punishment for holding their primaries out of turn, but are certain to get back at least some votes, the Democratic Party has said.
Sen. Obama took his name off the Michigan ballot, so he got no votes there. But Sen. Clinton remained on the ballot, and the New York senator picked up 329,000 votes. Both candidates were on the ballot in Florida, which Sen. Clinton won by about 300,000 votes. If those two states' disputed votes are counted, Sen. Clinton would lead in the popular vote by 123,000.
The RealClearPolitics estimate also doesn't include the results of four caucus states that didn't release numbers. The Web site calculates that Sen. Obama would net 110,000 votes if its estimate of those vote totals were included. That would still leave him behind by 13,000 votes, or 0.04%, of the 30.7 million cast.'
They did not ask the candidates to withdraw their names. Obama CHOSE to, but Hillary did not. She did not exercise that option because according to option theory, options are valuable until the last possible moment that they become worthless.
Now that it is a close race, she can rightfully claim that the popular vote should be counted because Obama CHOSE to pull out!
From the WSJ:
'The Clinton campaign is renewing its fight to claim disputed votes from Florida and Michigan primaries, but that may anger the very superdelegates the campaign needs.
The Democratic Party stripped both Michigan and Florida of their convention delegates because both held primaries earlier than party rules allow, as all the Democratic presidential candidates recognized at the time. None campaigned in the states, and most candidates -- including Sen. Obama -- weren't on the Michigan ballot. The Clinton campaign says both states' votes should be counted. If they are, Sen. Clinton would overtake Sen. Obama's lead in the overall popular vote, and cut deeply into his pledged-delegates lead.
Hillary Clinton took the Democratic primary while Barack Obama left the state before the polls closed. WSJ's Chris Cooper evaluates whether Clinton's finances and delegate count make her a formidable opponent.
Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said on the pro-Clinton conference call that giving Sen. Clinton the lead in the popular vote from all contests, including Michigan and Florida, "should be a sign to these superdelegates that she in fact is the strongest candidate to win the general election in November."
But many party leaders are angry that the Clinton camp is forcing the issue in this way. They fear it could antagonize other states and Obama supporters, and potentially split the party.'
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
'Despite all his incandescent gifts, Obama has missed several opportunities to smash the ball over the net and end the game. Again and again, he has seemed stuck at deuce. He complains about the politics of scoring points, but to win, you’ve got to score points.
He knew he tanked in the Philadelphia debate, but he was so irritated by the moderators — and by having to stand next to Hillary again — that he couldn’t summon a single merry dart.
Is he skittish around her because he knows that she detests him and he’s used to charming everyone? Or does he feel guilty that he cut in line ahead of her? As the husband of Michelle, does he know better than to defy the will of a strong woman? Or is he simply scared of Hillary because she’s scary?
He is frantic to get away from her because he can’t keep carbo-loading to relate to the common people.
In the final days in Pennsylvania, he dutifully logged time at diners and force-fed himself waffles, pancakes, sausage and a Philly cheese steak. He split the pancakes with Michelle, left some of the waffle and sausage behind, and gave away the French fries that came with the cheese steak.But this is clearly a man who can’t wait to get back to his organic scrambled egg whites.'
You also do that when you opponent presents those opportunities and when your opponent presents himself as goody two shoes.
With the race so close Hillary will have to go at Obama with everything she's got.
She can make a credible case that out of the millions of votes cast, a mathematical win (1 more than your opponent) ) is really a win?
'Mr. Obama is not blameless when it comes to the negative and vapid nature of this campaign. He is increasingly rising to Mrs. Clinton’s bait, undercutting his own claims that he is offering a higher more inclusive form of politics. When she criticized his comments about “bitter” voters, Mr. Obama mocked her as an Annie Oakley wannabe. All that does is remind Americans who are on the fence about his relative youth and inexperience.'
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
He loves Al Gore, really! Not!
Here is an interview with Barrons.
The demographics are similar and team Obama was impotent in blunting any of Hillary's attacks.
Clinton is going to use the same attack plays knowing that team Obama has their hand tied if they have to respond in kind and deviatate from the brand.
All Clinton now needs is money. The PA win should bring her some bucks.
It also should plant some additional seeds into peoples head about Obama's chances!!
From the AP:
'In a campaign marked by increasingly personal attacks, Clinton was winning 55 percent of the vote to 45 percent for her rival with 85 percent counted in Pennsylvania.'
Monday, April 21, 2008
Many of the top 10 managers on Alpha magazine’s mind-blowing 2007 rich list, which was released last week, have put money on Mr. Obama, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign contributions. They have each given the maximum donation allowed, $2,300. (Let’s face it, this is pocket lint to these guys.)
Mr. Obama’s hedge fund contributors include:
John Griffin, the founder of Blue Ridge Capital, who made $625 million in 2007, according to Alpha. Mr. Griffin is backing Mr. Obama after initially supporting Mitt Romney.
Kenneth C. Griffin (no relation) of the Citadel Investment Group in Chicago, who earned $1.5 billion. He contributed to the Obama campaign after the senator came to his office last year.
Stephen Mandel of Lone Pine Capital, who took home $710 million last year.
And, of course, George Soros, who earned almost $3 billion last year. It is no surprise that Mr. Soros, a Democratic stalwart, is backing Mr. Obama. Mr. Soros campaigned against President Bush in 2004, and Moveon.org, which the billionaire investor has plied with tens of millions of dollars, endorsed Mr. Obama in February.''So why is Mr. Obama such a popular choice among the hedge fund crowd?
In a word, access. Unlike Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Obama is relatively new to national politics and is therefore open to bringing new people — and new money — into the tent. For money types who want a table, or at least to look involved and get an invitation to the right parties, Mr. Obama is the candidate.
As one of the hedge fund managers on the Alpha list said, “To be in Hillary’s inner circle, you had to be giving a decade ago, when Bill was president.” The same goes for Mr. McCain.'
From the San Francisco Chronicle:
'While Obama is again leading in Gallup national tracking polls, Clinton is ahead by 5 to 10 points in Pennsylvania (and an MSNBC poll of bowlers suggest Clinton has double-digit leads) thanks to her strengths among whites, women and working class voters.
And Obama, despite outspending Clinton by at least 2-1 in the critical state, acknowledged Monday that he doesn't expect to come out the winner in the primary of a state that is 85 percent white and heavily Catholic and blue-collar. "I'm not predicting a win, I'm predicting it's going to be close," he told a radio station in the state.'
Excerpt from WSJ:
'Sen. Obama entered into a real-estate deal that would later come to haunt him. He and his wife bought a mansion in Hyde Park for $1.65 million, $300,000 below the asking price. The wife of a longtime friend and donor, real-estate developer Tony Rezko, paid full price for an adjacent lot that was listed at the same time by the seller. Six months later, the Rezkos sold Mr. Obama a strip of their land so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, newspapers were reporting that Mr. Rezko was under investigation for corruption and influence peddling involving the Illinois governor's office. He was subsequently indicted and is currently standing trial.
Sen. Obama, who hasn't been named in connection with that case, has since called his decision "boneheaded" because it gave the impression Mr. Rezko was trying to curry favor. Mr. Axelrod says Sen. Obama never discussed the house purchase with his political team. If he had, Mr. Axelrod says, they would have told him not to do it.'
Why didn't tell his campaign about the bone headed move?
Lets eat up what is fed to us by brand Obama!! Not!
''In the Illinois State Senate, some Democrats and Republicans tagged Mr. Obama as an elitist who looked upon the state legislature as a political stepping stone. Chicagoans who knew him frequently offer stories of his intimidating intellect and sometimes chilly manner -- a counterpoint to the widely circulated stories about his skills as a listener and his ability to connect with people of different views.'
'Mr. Obama next set his sights on the 2004 Senate race. Several white Democrats were planning to run. If Mr. Obama could win the black vote and attract liberal whites, he figured he could get 30% of the vote, enough to win in a crowded field, according to his aides on that campaign. Learning from his prior defeat, he visited three black churches every Sunday, delivering his stump speech in the cadence of black preachers. He raised money furiously.'
'Most importantly, Mr. Obama persuaded Mr. Axelrod, one of Chicago's most powerful political strategists, to run his campaign. Mr. Axelrod specialized in electing black candidates who could cross over and win white votes, emphasizing themes of unity and change. He also worked for Mayor Daley.'
'Mr. Axelrod, who had been holding money back, unleashed a flurry of Obama television ads. They made no mention of the Hull matter, but focused on Mr. Obama's biography. Mr. Obama won the primary with 53% of the vote.'
'Mr. Obama sailed to victory. By the end of the campaign, his aides were sending workers into Iowa, the first Presidential caucus state, to begin developing contacts among Democrats there, according to Al Kindle, an Obama campaign aid at the time.'
It shows that is not a different type of politician looking for change. It is the packaging of fetor to feed the uninitiated masses. Here are some excerpts!
'Mr. Obama hired a fellow Harvard Law School graduate, challenged the validity of signatures on her nominating petitions, and got her thrown off the ballot. He eventually ran unopposed, launching the career that has made him the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president.'
'After he was criticized as arrogant by some fellow Illinois state legislators, he forged alliances with establishment Republicans and Democrats in meetings and at poker games. After he was trounced in a congressional race by a former Black Panther, he barnstormed black churches to build support for a Senate run. His subsequent victory was helped along by newspaper disclosures of embarrassing material from the divorce papers of a Democratic opponent.'
'Mr. Obama had lived much of his life as an outsider: a biracial boy raised by a white mother and grandparents, an American in Indonesia, a Hawaiian native in New York. "He had never encountered blue-collar and lower-class African-Americans," says Mr. Kellman. "If he couldn't be comfortable emotionally with them, he couldn't build a political career." '
Sunday, April 20, 2008
He was talking about questions he would liked to ask Obama but did not get a chance. One of those questions was why Obama did not make any campaign stops in the predominantly African American areas of Philly. Was it because of the post Wright era where being seen with boisterous African American supporters might be a liability?
Of course Obama had a deft answer. But Mr.Davies' tone suggests otherwise.
So much for Race not being an issue!
'The Obama campaign is planning to expand its research and rapid-response team in order to repel attacks it anticipates over his ties to 1960s radical Bill Ayers, indicted developer Antoin Rezko and other figures from his past. David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, tells NEWSWEEK that the Illinois senator won't let himself be "Swift Boated" like John Kerry in 2004. "He's not going to sit there and sing 'Kumbaya' as the missiles are raining in," Axelrod said. "I don't think people should mistake civility for a willingness to deal with the challenges to come." The move appears to be an acknowledgment that the Obama campaign may not have moved aggressively enough when questions about Ayers and Rezko first arose, and it comes amid fresh indications that conservative groups are preparing a wave of attack ads over the links.'
Saturday, April 19, 2008
Here are some thoughts from David Brooks of the NYTimes:
'It was inevitable that the period of “Yes We Can!” deification would come to an end. It was not inevitable that Obama would now look so vulnerable. He’ll win the nomination, but in a matchup against John McCain, he is behind in Florida, Missouri and Ohio, and merely tied in must-win states like Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. A generic Democrat now beats a generic Republican by 13 points, but Obama is trailing his own party. One in five Democrats say they would vote for McCain over Obama.
General election voters are different from primary voters. Among them, Obama is lagging among seniors and men. Instead of winning over white high school-educated voters who are tired of Bush and conventional politics, he does worse than previous nominees. John Judis and Ruy Teixeira have estimated a Democrat has to win 45 percent of such voters to take the White House. I’ve asked several of the most skillful Democratic politicians over the past few weeks, and they all think that’s going to be hard.
A few months ago, Obama was riding his talents. Clinton has ground him down, and we are now facing an interesting phenomenon. Republicans have long assumed they would lose because of the economy and the sad state of their party. Now, Democrats are deeply worried their nominee will lose in November.'
'He made a sweeping read-my-lips pledge never to raise taxes on anybody making less than $200,000 to $250,000 a year. That will make it impossible to address entitlement reform any time in an Obama presidency. It will also make it much harder to afford the vast array of middle-class tax breaks, health care reforms and energy policy Manhattan Projects that he promises to deliver.
Then he made an iron vow to get American troops out of Iraq within 16 months. Neither Obama nor anyone else has any clue what the conditions will be like when the next president takes office. He could have responsibly said that he aims to bring the troops home but will make a judgment at the time. Instead, he rigidly locked himself into a policy that will not be fully implemented for another three years.
If Obama is elected, he will either go back on this pledge — in which case he would destroy his credibility — or he will risk genocide in the region and a viciously polarizing political war at home.'
'Obama has emerged as a more conventional politician and a more orthodox liberal.
He sprinkled his debate performance Wednesday night with the sorts of fibs, evasions and hypocrisies that are the stuff of conventional politics. He claimed falsely that his handwriting wasn’t on a questionnaire about gun control. He claimed that he had never attacked Clinton for her exaggerations about the Tuzla airport, though his campaign was all over it. Obama piously condemned the practice of lifting other candidates’ words out of context, but he has been doing exactly the same thing to John McCain, especially over his 100 years in Iraq comment.'
Friday, April 18, 2008
But Mr. Obama has also said he's open to raising – indeed, nearly doubling to 28% – the current top capital gains tax rate of 15%, which would in fact be a tax hike on some 100 million Americans who own stock, including millions of people who fit Mr. Obama's definition of middle class.
Mr. Gibson dared to point out this inconsistency, which regularly goes unmentioned in Mr. Obama's fawning press coverage. But Mr. Gibson also probed a little deeper, asking the candidate why he wants to increase the capital gains tax when history shows that a higher rate brings in less revenue.
The facts about capital gains rates and revenues are well known to our readers, but we'll repeat them as a public service to the Obama campaign. As the nearby chart shows, when the tax rate has risen over the past half century, capital gains realizations have fallen and along with them tax revenue. The most recent such episode was in the early 1990s, when Mr. Obama was old enough to be paying attention. That's one reason Jack Kennedy proposed cutting the capital gains rate. And it's one reason Bill Clinton went along with a rate cut to 20% from 28% in 1997.
Either the young Illinois Senator is ignorant of this revenue data, or he doesn't really care because he's a true income redistributionist who prefers high tax rates as a matter of ideological dogma regardless of the revenue consequences. Neither one is a recommendation for President.Yet another reason whey Obama is bad for the country.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
'Wading back into the Democratic presidential race, billionaire businessman Bob Johnson said Monday that Sen. Barack Obama would not be his party's leading candidate if he were white.'
'"What I believe Geraldine Ferraro meant is that if you take a freshman senator from Illinois called `Jerry Smith' and he says I'm going to run for president, would he start off with 90 percent of the black vote?" Johnson said. "And the answer is, probably not... ."
"Geraldine Ferraro said it right. The problem is, Geraldine Ferraro is white. This campaign has such a hair-trigger on anything racial ... it is almost impossible for anybody to say anything." '
'Johnson disputed the notion that Obama has built a broad coalition. Most of his support, he said, comes from African Americans and white liberals but not white, working-class Democrats.'
'But Obama, like Clinton and John McCain, has accepted donations from oil and gas company employees — $222,309 in Obama's case from donors from Exxon, Shell, Chevron and others, according to campaign-finance data. Two oil company CEOs have pledged to raise at least $50,000 each as part of Obama's fundraising team.'
'"The Obama campaign is trying to create a distinction without very much of a practical difference," said a statement on the website of FactCheck.org, an affiliate of the University of Pennsylvania. "We're not sure how a $5,000 contribution from, say, Chevron's PAC would have more influence on a candidate than, for example, the $9,500 Obama has received from Chevron employees."'
'The episode underscores the pitfalls confronting a candidate who rails against special interests while raising $193 million and counting — the most of any presidential campaign. Obama's fundraising tests the limits of his claim that he is independent of Washington's influence industry because he doesn't take money from federal lobbyists and PACs.'
'Obama holds fundraisers at law firms that lobby in Washington. Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor confirmed the campaign held five fundraisers at New York and Boston offices of three firms that lobby, including Greenberg Traurig, whose lobbying clients include gambling and handgun interests.
Obama counts lobbyists among his informal advisers, including Broderick Johnson, who heads the Washington lobbying practice of Bryan Cave, which represents Shell Oil, records show. Nine campaign staffers have been lobbyists, public records show. Johnson did not respond to requests for comment. ''Obama is raising more than his opponents from executives of some of the corporate interests he criticizes. Obama has received more money from people who work at pharmaceutical and health product companies, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. He's taken in $528,765 through February, compared with $506,001 for Clinton and $139,400 for McCain, despite saying last July that "I don't take pharma money." '
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
From the San Jose Mercury News:
'Several people who wanted to be Obama delegates were still feeling a little down after the Obama campaign's decision last week to purge more than 850 people from their California list of potential delegates, including Father Allen Ramirez-Martinez. He'd been an alternate delegate for John Kerry in 2004 and had done phone-bank work on behalf of Obama.
After widespread complaints, the Obama campaign reinstated everyone.
"They purged me and they don't even know me. I was upset, yes. What, no democracy now?"
But, he conceded, the show was about as democratic as it gets: It came down to who could get the most people to show up for you on a beautiful spring Sunday afternoon. '
Monday, April 14, 2008
Obama's 'smart' comments is hurting him in PA. Let's see if it holds.
From the LATimes:
'The first fresh poll results from Pennsylvania are in since Barack Obama's "bitter" comments about people in small towns exploded as a news story, and the findings could hardly be worse for the Democratic presidential contender.
Intriguingly, the man in charge of the survey said interviews with voters indicate Obama's tumble in the state has more to do with what the candidate himself has said were ill-chosen words than anything else.
The new poll by American Research Group -- conducted Friday, Saturday and Sunday -- gave Clinton 57% and Obama 37% (based on interviews with 600 Democrats, the survey has an error margin of plus-or-minus 4 percentage points). The 20-point margin is all the more dramatic because, just the week before, an ARG poll found the pair in a flat-out tie in Pennsylvania, each with 45%.'
Here is a result of a poll regarding Obama's small town twits comment:
'Partisan and ideological differences suggest that the comments are more likely to be a factor in the General Election than in the Primaries. A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%--agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree. '
This country is still a bit 'conservative' and defining a politician as liberal and elitist will blunt their appeal.
Since Clinton's support draws from the Regan Democrats you should see them hammer Obama this week and the days leading up to the PA and Indiana primaries. The Rebublicans are going to doing a lot of 'testing' to see what message hits home with this segment.
I opine that all John McCain needs is a sliver of these Regan democrats to eek out a win over Obama.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Here are some thoughts on entitlements from Greg Mankiw:
'Those on the political left want to raise taxes to fund all those promises. Some want to go even further by expanding entitlements, such as providing taxpayer-financed national health insurance for all Americans. That is a feasible choice, as many European nations demonstrate, but it is not advisable. As we economics professors never tire of explaining, market economies allocate resources efficiently (with a few exceptions, which I will return to in a moment). Taxes distort incentives and debase market outcomes. In technical terms, they cause "deadweight losses." In less formal terms, taxes shrink the size of the economic pie, leaving most people with a smaller serving of prosperity.'
'Yet the supply-siders are right about one thing: Because higher tax rates reduce the size of the tax base, raising taxes generates less revenue than the "static" revenue estimates assumed in Washington would suggest.'
'According to research by Nobel laureate Edward Prescott and by economists Steven Davis and Magnus Henrekson, the high tax rates in Europe have reduced work effort and distorted the industrial mix. The Davis-Henrekson study reports that a tax increase of 12.8 percentage points (a change of one standard deviation) reduces work for an average adult by 122 hours per year. It also reduces the employment-population ratio by 4.9 percentage points and increases underground economy by 3.8% of GDP.'
'Economists have long noted that while most taxes distort incentives and shrink the size of the economic pie, others improve incentives and enlarge it. A higher tax on gasoline, for example, is better than CAFE standards as a policy to improve the fuel efficiency of the American car fleet. It would also encourage people to drive less by, for instance, living closer to where they work. A tax on carbon is the best way to deal with global warming. These are called Pigovian taxes, after the British economist Arthur Pigou, an early advocate of using taxes to correct market imperfections.
Similarly, economists have increasingly viewed "sin taxes" as a good way to raise revenue. While Pigovian taxes aim to protect innocent bystanders from the actions of others, sin taxes aim to protect people from themselves. To the extent that people have problems with self-control, sin taxes can be welfare-enhancing. Economists Jonathan Gruber and Sendhil Mullainathan report evidence that smokers are happier when cigarette taxes are higher. Of course, non-smokers won't object to shifting the tax burden to others. Maybe we should consider higher taxes on smoking, drinking, gambling and other activities about which people lack self-control.'
A great strategy in my opinion. It goes like this. The opposition research digs up dirt against Obama and passes it on to the conservative news pushers. These guys amplify the dirt to a national level so that the public and the Clinton camp hears it.
The Clinton camp then takes this signal and uses the dirt for their own advantage, helping them and the Republicans. This create s wealth of information for the Republicans that can be used against Obama and Clinton.
If the dirt stops Obama that is great because Clinton is a flawed candidate and will NEVER win in the general election. If Obama wins the Democratic nomination, the Republicans can use the dirt, filtered by Clinton to change just enough swing voters to give John MaCain the slightest advantage.
If nothing major blows up with John McCain, it is going to be 2000 all over again.
From the Timesonline:
'Republicans are turning on Obama for his connection with William Ayers, once a member of the Weather Underground, a terrorist group that bombed the Capitol, the Pentagon and the State Department in the 1970s.
Ayers was loosely involved in Obama’s election as an Illinois state senator in the late 1990s, when he was introduced to local activists at a meeting in his house. He also donated $200 to Obama’s reelection campaign in 2001.
Obama served with Ayers on the board of the Woods Fund, a philanthropic foundation, for three years and shared a platform with him at two academic conferences.'
'Two police officers were killed in 1981, when members of the Weathermen and Black Liberation Army stole $1m from an armoured car. It was their last action.
Ayers, 63, turned himself in to police that year, when charges against him were dropped because of mishandled FBI surveillance. He is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago and is admired in progressive political and educational circles.'
'In an interview in The New York Times on the day of the September 11 attacks, when he was promoting Fugitive Days, his book on the Weathermen, Ayers said: “I don’t regret setting bombs,” and added: “I feel we didn’t do enough.”
He defended the comments on his blog www.billayers.org last week by claiming: “I’m sometimes asked if I regret anything I did to oppose the war in Vietnam and I say: no, I don’t regret anything I did to stop the slaughter of millions of human beings by my own government.
“Sometimes I add: I don’t think I did enough. This is then elided: he has no regrets for setting bombs and thinks there should be more bombings.” '
Wonder how the Clinton Camp is going to use this? Since the Wright scenario worked for her I would not doubt for a minute that they will raise this later on this week and next.
Saturday, April 12, 2008
' “We don’t get bogged down and looking back – we’re always looking forward,” she said, as heavy applause nearly drowned out her words. “Whatever obstacle we see, we get over it. Whatever challenge we have, we meet it. We’re the problem-solvers, we’re the innovators, we’re the people who make the better future.”
For the third time since Mr. Obama’s remarks were made public Friday night, Mrs. Clinton criticized him at length, saying his comments seemed “kind of elitist and out of touch.”
“I disagree with Senator Obama’s assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration,” she said.
She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.” '
Friday, April 11, 2008
'You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama told supporters at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, according to a transcript posted on the Huffington Post blog.
"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," he added.
John MaCain commented
' "It's a remarkable statement," said McCain's senior adviser, Steve Schmidt. "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans." '
Thursday, April 10, 2008
Here is an excerpt from NYTimes
'In a comment at a fund-raiser Tuesday night, Mr. Obama appeared to be offering a hint at how he could back away from a pledge he made last year to accept public financing if the Republican nominee did the same. The remark set off a debate Wednesday, with the McCain campaign accusing Mr. Obama of flirting with reneging, and the Obama campaign responding assertively.
In his remarks, Mr. Obama told donors in Washington: “We have created a parallel public financing system where the American people decide if they want to support a campaign, they can get on the Internet and finance it. And they will have as much access and influence over the course and direction of our campaign that has traditionally reserved for the wealthy and the powerful.” '
So much for integrity! He is just another politician packaged for mass consumption. His marketing team had done a great job thus far to market Obama . Yes we can...rope the masses in. Just like great marketers have peddled colored sugar water, cigarettes and content for the idot box called television, team Obama has infected a certain part of the electorate with some serious poison.
Here is what they are up to in California from the San Jose Mercury News:
'Driven by fears that some prospective delegates might be concealing their true allegiances, campaigns have weeded out dubious candidates by searching campaign-finance data, scouring the Internet and making phone calls. Both sides want to guard against electing delegates who might actually support their rival—or even a fringe candidate.
Most of the cutting was done by the Illinois senator—about 900 potential Obama delegates were dropped by his campaign, with about 50 excluded on Clinton's side.
Roger Salazar, a Democratic operative running as a Clinton delegate, compared the behind-the-scenes screening to jury selection.
The campaigns "want to make sure the people who are running for delegate for their candidate are going to stay true to that candidate," Salazar said. "If they see somebody who is a supporter of the other side, they are going to knock them off" the candidate list for each congressional district.'Yes We Can! What a joke.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Mr. Cogan, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, was deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Reagan. Mr. Hubbard, dean of Columbia Business School, was chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under President George W. Bush.
Many commentators and political leaders, including Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, believe that tax increases are needed to restore near-term budget balance and finance longer-term entitlement growth. These claims fail budget arithmetic and economics. Worse, they raise serious questions about the nation's broad fiscal policies and its commitment to economic growth
By historical standards, federal revenues relative to GDP, at 18.8% last year, are high. In the past 25 years, this level was only exceeded during the five years from 1996 to 2000. Still, we stand on the verge of a very large tax increase, one that will occur unless the next Congress and president agree to rescind it. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire will drive the personal income tax burden up by 25% – to its highest point relative to GDP in history. This would be the largest increase in personal income taxes since World War II.
Here is a comment about judgment from Obama:
"The person you want answering the phone at 3 a.m. is the person who has read the intelligence reports, who is asking the tough questions about why we want to invade a country like Iraq that had nothing to do with 9/11. That's somebody who has good judgment. And there's only one out of the remaining candidates who qualifies on that front," Obama said.'
Well if we hold him to this standard then he obviously did not have good judgment back in 2002!
'now Senator Barack Obama is suggesting a more cautious approach.
Mr. Obama said Wednesday that President Bush should leave open the option of boycotting the opening ceremonies of the Olympic Games if the Chinese government did not take steps to help stop genocide in Darfur as well as improving human rights for the people of Tibet. Still, he said, a decision to boycott should be made closer to the Games.'Why do you want to wait? Do you think China gives a hoot? The sooner you support the boycott the more pressure you can put on China.
"When you have finite resources, you've got to define your goals tightly and modestly," he said.'
Duh. But what about the opportunity costs when you have a terrorist threat against US citizens and your military?
Tuesday, April 08, 2008
'In his well-read column, he’s said variously that we should fear a backlash against Mr Obama’s “mystique” and admire Hillary’s relatively concerted focus on winsome economic issues; he’s noted too that Mr Obama has never faced a serious Republican and is anyway not sufficiently partisan.
But now he says—on the record, and yet not so audibly—that there is one big, singular reason not to prefer Mr Obama as the Democratic nominee. He wishes it didn’t have to be said aloud. In fact, he almost avoids saying it. Turning from the historical discussion of the Southern strategy and its million effects, he finally comes round to the subject for which we’ve all been waiting. This year ought to be the Democrats’, by rights, what with the economy tanking, Bush hatred soaring and Iraq a persistent disaster. Which Democrat’s? Ahem. Squirm. “Let’s abstract from what I just said for a moment…[sigh, frustrated]”. “Okay…[regretful laughter] And there are other reasons …” (Namely, Mr Obama’s not partisan enough, and also his health-care plan stands to the right of Mrs Clinton’s and Mr Edwards’s.)May we say it for him, rudely? He thinks that a black candidate will lose a national election. So it’s bad tactics to support Mr Obama.
Here is a a comment from Obama:
"We have more than 150,000 Americans in the middle of two wars, brave men and women on their second or third or fourth tours of duty in Iraq, a place where we're spending $400 million a day to help a government that refuses to help itself, a war that never should have been authorized and never should have been waged," Obama told the North Dakota State Democratic Convention on Friday.'
Seems like the State Senator from IL got lucky in 2002 when he first blurted this out. 73 Senators including 29 Democrats (including notable Intelligence committee veterans like Joe Biden (Delaware) and Bob Graham (Florida) ) and had more information than Obama, including classified and independently verifiable information, to make this decision. Some of these Senators have more experience and knowledge than Obama.
Note the Senators had access to additional information like the 92-page National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s ability to attack the U.S. (which most of them may not have read!) which Obama did not have access to.
It was not just the Senate, foreign policy experts and commentators (like Frareed Zacharia, Thomas Friedman) also supported this decision.
The dissenting Senators main objection was not that we should not go to war with Iraq but that the resolution passed on Oct 11th 2002 was too broad and premature.
Here is the main part of the resolution:
"The president is authorized to use the armed forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq, and (2) enforce all relevant United Nation Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
In decision sciences you can get lucky for making the right decision with the wrong outcome or make an uninformed decision with the right outcome.
Obama was not smart in making this decision. He got lucky. Luck plays a role more often than what people give credit for.
'A health nut, Obama (Ill.) has consumed hot dogs, french fries and homemade chocolates. He has sipped a few Yuengling beers. He has largely skipped arena-filling rallies in favor of town-hall-style events and casual visits, delivering populist appeals to the small-town, working-class voters who have proven most resistant to his candidacy.'
Here is an excerpt from USA Today:
' Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., says on his Senate website that he personally believes marriage is between a man and woman. But he voted in 2006 against amending the Constitution to make that declaration. He said decisions about marriage should be left to the states. Obama said he supports civil unions that would give same-sex couples the same benefits as married couples, including hospital visitation rights and health insurance coverage. Obama has also said he would repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which set a federal definition of marriage as between a man and a woman and said states don’t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed by another state.'
I personally believe that two people can be married even if they are of the same sex. Why aren't more of his gay backers calling him on this issue.
More and more companies are offering their gay employees and couples the same benefits and coverage as straight employees and couples so his actions won't a a whole lot of impact.
Friday, April 04, 2008
This lowers the price of the home in a low demand environment because the supply of homes is higher than demand (too much supply leads to lower demand). It also reduces the prices of other like properties on the market. This lower price environment allows new home buyers to enter the market as the home prices become more affordable. The new entrants are lower risk and higher quality buyers. So the loss goes to the lender who took the risk and the borrower who mid misjudged their ability to pay.
The Fed should LOAN not bail out investment banks because these banks possess a huge risk to the entire financial framework. In fact the Fed forced the market to take a loss (in this case the Bear shareholders) and is holding on to collateral that will (most likely) not loose its value over time. It is providing a SHORT TERM loan and will unwind this transaction in the future.
Here is a good explanation of why the Fed acted from Paul Kedrosky blog.
'It is important to understand that investment banks now perform many of the economic functions traditionally associated with commercial banks, and they are also vulnerable to a sudden loss of liquidity. Unlike commercial banks, which rely significantly on deposits for funding, investment banks operate according to a business model in which they fund large portions of their balance sheets on a secured, short-term basis in what is known as the repo market. Because the assurance of access to short-term secured funding on a daily basis is such a critical component of business functioning for these entities, they are vulnerable to the possibility of a sudden pullback in short-term lending, or a reduction in the willingness of investors to lend against certain classes of securities'
Think twice when Obama wants to save the homeowners! Yes We Can - save reckless folks!
'The poll found that Americans blame government officials for the crisis more than banks or home buyers and other borrowers. Forty percent of respondents said regulators were mostly to blame, while 28 percent named lenders and 14 percent named borrowers.'
Blame the banks! Don't take any responsibility! Blame the regulators! Blame everybody else!
Oh yea, while the economy is slowing, raise taxes on earned income! If you earn money based on your endowments and effort then you should be taxed. If you happen to make a lot of money, MOST people save more of their money (as they make more). These savings are invested back into the economy in the form of equity for new businesses and loans!
The democratic candidates are pandering to this sentiment!! Shame on them. Yes We Can!
'Fifty-eight percent of respondents said they would support raising taxes on households making more than $250,000 to pay for tax cuts or government programs for people making less than that amount. Only 38 percent called it a bad idea. Both Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential candidates, have made proposals along these lines.
More broadly, 43 percent of those surveyed said they would prefer a larger government that provided more services, which is tied for the highest such number since The Times and CBS News began asking the question in 1991. But an identical 43 percent said they wanted a smaller government that provided fewer services.
And although both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have blamed trade with other countries for some of the economy’s problems, Americans say they continue to favor trade — if not quite as strongly as in the past. Fifty-eight percent called it good for the economy; 32 percent called it bad, up from 17 percent in 1996.'
They rolled up their sleeves and fought a scrappy street fight with the Obamanuts. They were able to make him stumble by getting the press to look at his record and his associations.
Here is the latest from NYTimes
'Mr. Obama’s favorability rating among Democratic primary voters has dropped seven percentage points, to 62 percent, since the last Times/CBS News survey, in late February. While that figure is by any measure high, the decline came in a month during which he endured withering attacks from Mrs. Clinton and responded to reports that his former pastor had made politically inflammatory statements from his church’s pulpit in Chicago.
Still, the events of the last month do not appear to have fundamentally altered the race for the party’s nomination or provided what Mrs. Clinton’s campaign has been seeking: evidence of a collapse in Mr. Obama’s standing or an overwhelming preference voiced for Mrs. Clinton by Democratic voters in polls, developments that could be used to persuade uncommitted superdelegates to sign on with her.'
'Bush got us into Iraq, JFK into Vietnam. Bush stole the election in Florida; Kennedy stole his in Chicago. Bush outed a CIA agent; Kennedy left hundreds of them to die in the surf at the Bay of Pigs. Bush lied about his military service; Kennedy accepted a Pulitzer Prize for a book written by Ted Sorenson. Bush was in bed with the Saudis, Kennedy with the Mafia. Oh.'
Still waiting for that critical view of JFK! So many young folks these days have read only the rosy colored history of JFK. With the proliferation of the Internet and the democratization of information you should see a ton of 'truth' on JFK!
I love David Mamet and love his movies. Who can forget Glen Gary Glen Ross (Coffee is for closers!) (and the other movies!) and his amazing talent to create dialog that is just fun AND intelligent to listen to!!
He penned a piece in the Village Voice (yes that one) as to why he is no longer a liberal. The title you ask?
Why I Am No Longer a 'Brain-Dead Liberal'
Awesome!! Read it for yourselves to get an alternative view of the other side! Yea take a walk on the wild side!!
From NYDaily News:
'"The truth is that my foreign policy is actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan, and it is George Bush that's been naive and it's people like John McCain and, unfortunately, some Democrats that have facilitated him acting in these naive ways that have caused us so much damage in our reputation around the world," he said.
He must be positioning himself for the 'middle' folks!
'Critics in the foreign-policy establishment and from rival presidential camps said his idea could undercut pro-Western forces and legitimize leaders whose power the U.S. wants to undermine, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Increasingly, they are presenting his ideas as a radical departure from standard U.S. doctrine.'
'Sen. Obama also has said he would be willing to reach out to Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez and Cuba's new leader, Raúl Castro.
U.S. foreign-policy doctrine has traditionally held that American presidents should be discerning in where and when to use the prestige of their office. During U.S. engagements with the Soviet Union and China, summits by presidents Reagan and Nixon were withheld to the end of the diplomatic process rather than occurring at the start. U.S. leaders have been averse to photo opportunities with the likes of Cuba's Fidel Castro, fearing it could provide them a propaganda tool.''Middle East experts said Obama's strategy holds potential pitfalls. In Iran, they said, Sen. Obama could strengthen Mr. Ahmadinejad if as U.S. president he moves too quickly to hold direct talks with Tehran's leader. They note Mr. Ahmadinejad is facing presidential elections in 2009 and could use a summit with Sen. Obama as proof of his enhanced stature. They said Mr. Ahmadinejad also could seek to sell to his people that talks with Washington were a direct result of his hard-line stance.'
'"Saying you'll talk to Syria no matter what undercuts Washington's position," said Emile El-Hokayem, a Middle East expert at the Henry L. Stimson Center, a nonpartisan Washington think tank. "I don't think it's feasible to revolutionize how diplomacy is conducted" with Damascus.'
'On health care Obama is behaving as kind of, "Let's make a deal." The idea that he would be talking even in the primary campaign about the big table is suggesting that he is not all that committed to taking on special interests.' - From TMP Election Central
This guy just wreaks of big government but you can't get that scent from his magical words.
Sure 'Yes We Can'! We can socialize healthcare!
I have no idea what is being said but it must in along the lines of
The team at Brand Obama is positioning Obama as the champion of the average Joe! This Tonight Show episode highlights the folly of this effort and is great fodder for the Clinton team. Who are the kidding.
The Obama brand position has be set since last year. He is the man for the Latte Liberals! Bowling is for the Dunkin Donut crowd :)
I would not be surprised if they came out with some TV spots before the PA primary showing Obama doing average Joe things!!