Artermis March on "Creepy" Obama

Hi Friends: This blog is only periodically active. However, I write nearly every day on two other blogs: http://stevemaloneygop.blogspot.com and http://draftpalin2012.blogspot.com. I hope you'll visit both. The material below was sent out today to my e-mail list, and it mentions both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Again, thanks to those of you who keep coming back here.

Artemis March is a excellent writer with great insight into the "Obama Phenomenon." She's been a staunch defender of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, although I admit her defense of the latter sounds much more plausible to me than her defense of the former. That aside, her pieces on the campaign and post-election period (in places like NoQuarter and The New Agenda) are very worth reading. She truly understands Obama's appeal -- and it scares her to death. She's worth googling. Her insights also contain the core of a strategy for defeating Obama in 2012 when, yes my friends, he will be running for re-election. :"The dog ate my birth certificate."

"Those caught up in his [Obama's] rhetoric feel like they are part of the "we," and that they are going to be part of something big and wonderful together. Others of us get an unsettling sense that even when he says "we," it's all about him, quite singular. We don't sense individuals in a crowd relating to him (as we do, for example, when Hillary Clinton speaks), but a fused entity lost in him. He is not offering to serve them or fight on their behalf. He is proclaiming that they can become part of him. Many of us get an eerie chill because this is the kind of messianic promise made by cult leaders, not politicians.

She says:"And that's just the beginning of the diametrically opposed reactions to Obama that have deeply divided feminists, progressives, and Democrats, and pitted friends, family members, co-workers, neighbors, networks, interest group members and officials, former political allies, as well as demographic groups against one another. One of the things that keeps us so divided is that his devotees and even many of his converts seem to know so little about him yet consistently reject information that does not fit with their trusting view of him. Many pour out unprecedented-for "progressives"-nastiness, misinformation, and hatred to demean Hillary Clinton and then Sarah Palin, and to intimidate and even threaten those who don't agree with them. Their bullying has dominated campuses, caucuses, and the convention as well as the blogosphere and media. "Truth squads" aim to silence anything but unqualified admiration. "

"http://www.noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/11/16/anatomy-of-a-divider-part-1a-why-obama-cannot-unify/ [This piece and the related one are very worth reading]

Biden Bye-Bye, Hillary Hello?

In his piece linked below, Pittsburgh columnist Jack Kelly cites me (correctly) as one of the sources on the movement to dump Joe Biden and replace him with Hillary Clinton. I stand by the story, although it becomes more difficult for Obama to act as the story gains greater publicity. Obama nemesis Cristi Adkins and I interviewed Jack Kelly yesterday on Clintons4McCain Blog Talk Radio (accessible soon on the widget to your right).

Dump Joe Biden Idea Gaining Momentum
September 18, 2008

We reported here on Peace and Freedom yesterday that some top Democrats are now urging Barack Obama to dump Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate and replace the Senator from Delaware with Hillary Clinton, the Senator from New York. The rumblings of this idea persist….and are gaining momentum….Link to our article from yesterday and then read below Jack Kelly’s take on all this:

Could Hillary Replace Biden As Obama VEEP Candidate?

By Jack Kelly
The Washington Times
September 18, 2008
COMMENTARY:I

n what now seems the long ago days between the time Sen. John McCain chose Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate and her acceptance speech, there was considerable speculation in the news media that Mr. McCain would drop her from the ticket.

This was entirely a media invention. There was no sentiment among Republicans for replacing Mrs. Palin, and Mr. McCain - whose loyalty to his friends nearly cost him his life in Vietnam - is not the kind of person who would desert his choice.

And there was a very practical reason why this option never was considered. Sen. George McGovern was going to lose in 1972 no matter what, but the final nail in his coffin was when he dumped running-mate Sen. Thomas Eagleton after it was revealed Mr. Eagleton had had shock treatments for an unspecified mental illness. With one stroke, Mr. McGovern called into question both his judgment and his loyalty.

There has, of course, been no further speculation about dropping Sarah Palin from the ticket after her boffo performance in St. Paul, Minn. But my friend Steve Maloney (who first got me interested in Sarah Palin) says his sources in the Democratic Party tell him Barack Obama is being pressured to dump Sen. Joseph Biden from the ticket and replace him with Hillary Clinton, the switch to come just after the vice presidential debate Oct. 2.

Speculation about such a switch has emerged on several left-wing blogs.“It’s time to dump Biden and replace him with Sen. Hillary Clinton,” said Andy Ostroy on the Huffington Post Monday. “I’m starting to think that if Team Obama doesn’t do something dramatic fast, it’s gonna lose this election.”

(You can read all of Kelly's fascinating article by clicking on the story-link above. The date I hear for the Biden Bye-Bye is Oct. 5 at which point he will feign a serious illness.)

Obama Deceives, Humiliates Hillary Clinton

Michelle: They can write all the "bring-us-together" speeches they want for Michelle Obama. But she will always be the angry woman in her 40s who "for the first time in [her] adult life [was] proud of [her] country" when her husband began winning presidential primaries. Michelle, please go visit America.

At videoboard, you can find out how to get great videos of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, John Edwards, Chris Dodd, and various other Democrats during the Primaries. They're the videos and images Obama doesn't want you to see.

["And Obama's humiliation of Hillary Clinton continues . . . " Please scroll down to see new material about what Obama's saying about Hillary and his refusal to consider her for the vice-presidential slot.]

If you want a video widget for your blog, please go to the same site: http://videoboard.gop.com/. There, you can copy and paste the code. Notice the VideoBoard widget on my sidebar. At the web site, you'll find links to many videos. You'll also find out what Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton really think about the inexperienced Sen. Obama.

If you're looking for the shocking new piece on how the Obama campaign has gone after Criti Adkins, co-founder of Clintons4McCain and Nobama Mission, please scroll down to the previous column. It has drawn thousands of visitors, and I appreciate your interest in this story of the Obama Campaign's thuggery.

If you want to support Cristi, please join Clintons4McCain and Nobama Mission. As you may know, the Obama text-messages about the Biden announcement were a scam. They had nothing to do with informing people. They had everything to do with using surreptitious means to grab information -- esssentially to get individual's cell phone numbers. The "announcement" came several hours after the media had broken the news.

Hopefully, millions of people's cell phones will not be awakening them regularly at 3 a.m.

One of the best sites for revealing Obama's constant prevarications about his life and career is at: http://talkstraight.org/. It's definitely worth many visits.

OBAMA'S CONTINUING HUMILIATION OF HILLARY CLINTON

"And the humliation of Sen. Clinton continues . . ."Please make sure as many people as possible see the material below. It's new -- and very revealing:

A friend says: I was just reading a post on no-obama09 "Screwing The Pooch Slowly" ( http://no-obama09.com/blog/2008/08/07/screwing-the-pooch-slowly/ ) which included this comment:

Surely it’s not just me, but what is taking so damn long for someone… anyone… to give a straight answer. On Obama’s plane in route to Chicago this morning. The Precious One was asked about Hillary’s name being placed in nomination. His response was weak… to say the least. The written quote given at the NYTimes Political blog, as well as other blogs and so-called-news sites, was not an accurate transcript; it left out a LOT. I’ve taken care of that here, in the interest of accuracy:

Obama Says: “ uh ah I uh ah I’m letting our our uh our respective teams work out the details,” Mr. Obama said. “uh ah I I uh ah I don’t think uh we’re looking for catharsis. I think what we are uh looking for is uh energy and excitement uh about the prospects of changing this country, and and uh I think that people who supported a whole range of different candidates during the primaries are going to come out of that uuuuh convention feeling absolutely determined that we’ve got uuh to take the White House back.”

The above quote indicates to me that Obama struggles to give an answer which is what he assumes the questioner wants to hear while trying to word it in a way that avoids actually making any commitment while doing so.

Obama Plays Racial Identity Politics

I've been writing a lot about Barack Obama's "politics of racial identity." As I explained, I've approached the stage of my life where I can live dangerously and -- I believe -- speak the truth about race. The other day a fellow leader in the Mission NoBama Movement talked about the psychology of Obama's appeal, where he appeals to deep longing and nostalgia in the American people. Ronald Reagan did some similar things, although not at the level of sophistication used by Obama.

This is a campaign about character (McCain's) versus charisma (Obama's). In this campaign, NONE OF THE ISSUES TRULY MATTER.

If you want to read a brilliant analysis of what's really going on, read Shelby Steele's superb essay on Black moral leverage and white guilt as practiced by Jesse Jackson and Shelby Steele. I reprinted it recently on my: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.)

I hope everyone will think back to a commercial from many years ago, the one inviting tourists to "come to Jamaica." Actually, the key line was to "come BACK to Jamaica." In the deepest part of our being all of us want to go back to a kinder, gentler (imaginary) time, usually our childhoods. The people who most admire Obama are invariably the most childlike.

A guy in the liberal New Republic analyzed the commercial and why it might have been the most brilliant ad of all time. The whole "come back" leitmotif touched the common chord in American that things used to be "better." The idea exploited was that American was a fallen angel, that we would perhaps never be as good as we once were (except, of course, unless we went to Jamaica).

The commercial was full of happy white people and smiling Blacks.The surface message was to go take a vacation in Jamaica. The New Republic writer said the underlying message was this: "Come back to Jamaica . . . where Black people are still nice!" In that time, like our own, some inconvenient truths rarely got articulated. But the New Republic author broke the code. He told us truths that we in fact knew at some level, but that we pretended we didn't comprehend.

In Shelby Steele's great essay, he notes that John McCain is obviously a man of "character" and "principle." He then adds, "Poor guy!" Of course, the character and principle work against him in politics, where an Obama can easily become all things to all people/voters, Black and white.

Mrs. Clinton and her campaign got chopped up by the Obama buzzsaw -- and the deep psychological messages. One hopes the same doesn't happen to John McCain.

Clinton/Palin 2012 Presidential Race?

On my national blog [you're here now] about 6 p.m. Wednesday, I'll have a column up about two women who could be competing for the presidency in 2012: Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York and Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska, whose youngest daughter, Piper, age 7, is pictured jumping on a huge sealskin in a Native Alaskan area. Piper has to be one of the most charming children in America, and sometimes the TV stations want to interview her before they talk to her very popular mother. Sarah Palin is reportedly on McCain's short list for V-P choices. She has five children, including a newborn boy, Trig.

If you want to read more about Sarah Palin, there's an entire web site devoted to her at: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. See also http://palintology.com/. They're both dandies.

THE CASE FOR SARAH ON THE GOP TICKET

Sarah Palin may very well be John McCain's choice for V-P on the Republican ticket. Barack Obama apparently doesn't want Hillary to be his V-P choice, but for purely political reasons he may choose her anyway.

Why do Obama-types fear the presence of Sarah Palin on the Republican ticket? In part, it's her legendary toughness (they don't call her "Sarah Barracuda" for no reason). But her main strength is her strong appeal to critical groups of voters. Consider:

Married women: Sarah's marriage to Todd Palin gives every evidence of being a model relationship. Sarah and Todd were childhood sweethearts, and they eloped shortly after she graduated from high school.

Young people: Sarah is only 44, and she exudes youthfulness and energy. She has children ranging in age from 18 (son Track) to a few weeks (son Trig).

Military families: Sarah and Todd are a military family. Their son Track enlisted in the U.S. Army Infantry on September 11, 2007. It's extremely likely he will see combat duty in either Afghanistan or Iraq, or both.

Families with children: The Palins have five children, three of them teenagers (Track, Willow, Bristol), as well as daughter Piper, age 7, and baby Trig (a Norwegian name).

Reagan Democrats: Palin has the highest approval ratings of any major elected official in the U.S. -- in the 90% range. That means she's gained approval from the vast majority of Democrats. Like Ronald Reagan, she's a master communicator.

Women professionals (journalists, teachers, nurses, doctors, lawyers, and businesswomen): Sarah is the consummate female professional, having served as Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, and as governor of the state. Her college degree is in journalism. Her parents both served as public school teachers.

Working families: Sarah's husband, Todd, has labored his entire adult life as a commercial fisherman and an oil field production worker. The couple's links to working families go far beyond the usual political rhetoric.

Gun owners: Like many Alaskans, Sarah is an avid hunter and a life-member of the National Rifle Association.

Pro-Life social conservatives: When Sarah found out that her unborn son, Trig, had Down Syndrome, she and her husband elected to have the child. Her point was that God has a purpose for every human being. When Trig was born, the Palins' press release began with these words, "God has blessed us . . . ." The fascinating point was that they meant every word of it.

Evangelical Christians: Sarah is an evangelical Christian. However, she doesn't wear her religious faith on her sleeve. She is not anti-gay and does not scapegoat people who disagree with her.

People concerned about energy and the environment: As governor of Alaska, Sarah is among the best-informed elected officials on both issues. She's head of the energy committee at the Republican Governors Association and is a strong advocate of level-headed conservation of natural resources.

Overall, there's no other Republican that brings more to the table than Sarah Palin. She has exceptionally wide appeal. She would help John McCain with many groups with which he's currently weak (including young people and women professionals).

Of supreme importance: Sarah could be particularly helpful in battleground states with large numbers of working class voters, including Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan.

The Malicious Hillary Surfaces Again

"A tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (MacBeth)

"In her ferociously waged campaign, Hillary Clinton made many friends. Today, with one cynical -- and pervasively political -- speech, she lost a lot of them."

Hillary Chooses Party Over Country

Senator Clinton's address today was well-delivered but substantively empty. She reminded me a great deal of Roseanne Roseanna Dann (Gilder Radner) on the old "Saturday Night Live." She was the one who wildly misunderstood political concept and, when that was pointed out to her, would say, "Oh, never mind."

Today, Sen. Clinton gave us a tagline for her presidential campaign: "Oh, never mind."It was, as Shakespeare said in Macbeth, "a tale full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

Sen. Clinton's speech today was one that valued Party over Country, which is profoundly disturbing. In her campaign, she raised serious question about Barack Obama's fitness to be President. In today's speech, she did not deal with -- or resolve -- those questions.

In the campaign, Obama and his surrogates branded Senator Clinton (and supporters like Geraldine Ferraro and Bill Clinton) as racists, liars, and warmongers. Any comment on those points Mrs. Clinton? "Oh, never mind." I guess it's just all "politics -- i.e., meaningless, trivial, hot air.

Barack Obama characterized Mrs. Clinton's supporters as "bitter." He said they were people "clinging" to religious fanaticism, gun rights, racism, and xenophobia. Any comments, Senator Clinton. I guess not. "Oh, never mind."

Are we really to believe that when that 3 a.m. call arrives on the red phone that Obama has suddenly become ready to answer? Does she want us to believe that he has suddenly transformed himself into some who can deal effectively with great challenges? Is the man -- Obama -- that Bill Clinton said last week had "slimed" his wife through surrogates like Rev. Wright and Father Pfleger now a man of decency?

Mrs. Clinton told us this afternoon how great the Democratic Presidents of our lifetime had been. Oh really? President Carter with high inflation, high unemployment, a terrible energy crisis, and Americans languishing captive in Iran? President Johnson engaged in an endless conflict in Vietnam? President Clinton entertaining Monica Lewinsky in the Oval Office and ignoring the threat of terrorism? Those are not good memories, Hillary.

Presidents Johnson, Carter, and Clinton were all men who valued Party slightly more than country -- and they did great damage to their nation. In the campaign, Hillary Clinton spoke some hard truths about the inadequacies of her opponent. Today, she delivered a speech, one written by someone else, that was in total conflict with everything she said over the past two years. It was certainly not her finest hour.

The people who supported Hilary's historic campaign should be very dismayed at what she said today. If you want to read about a woman of real courage and toughness, you'll find one right below. She values country and family first, and she's a critic of her Party when it falls short of its obligations. Mrs. Clinton feels her Party is nearly perfect, and that's just one of the ways she fails to live up to the standards manifested by Gov. Palin.

Sarah is America's future. Hillary Clinton is a rapidly fading remnant of America's past.

In her ferociously waged campaign, Sen. Clinton made many friends. Today, with one cynical speech, she lost many of them.

A tough governor, Alaska's Sarah Palin, with some equally tough soldiers from her state. Gov. Palin's 18-year-old son, Track, is in the U.S. Army infantry. He enlisted on September 11, 2007. A lot high elected officials talk a great deal about how they "support our troops." Obviously, Gov. Palin's support -- and personal involvement -- goes ways beyond rhetoric.


Is this the woman who will face off against Hillary Clinton for the presidency in 2012 or 2016? A growing number of observers believe that will the case. Sarah is regularly called "America's most popular governor," a designation coined by Weekly Standard editor and FOX News commentator Fred Barnes. If you'd like to know why Gov. Palin is so widely admired, please read the Barnes article. http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/013/851orcjq.asp

This Saturday and Sunday, I'll be writing about Sarah Palin on this site -- with a separate piece on my Hillary Supporters blog. After Sen. Clinton's speech this Saturday, I'll discuss why Hillary Supporters (and others) should be urging Sen. McCain to put Mrs. Palin on the Republican ticket.


Today, on my Pennsylvania blog, I have a posting about the many qualities Gov. Palin brings to the table -- why she has broad appeal to many important groups. If you'd like read more right now about Sarah's many strengths, please visit that site.

The founder of the Draft Sarah Palin movement, Adam Brickley, writes almost daily about Sarah at his site: http://palinforvp.blogspot.com/. He's been receiving thousands of "hits" daily. Adam, a 21-year-old and recent college graduate, illustrates what one energized person can accomplish in today's America.

More to follow after Mrs. Clinton's speech at noon.

Obama: Decimating U.S. Military?

Bulletin Regarding Gov. Sarah Palin (who always puts her hand on her heart when the National Anthem plays):

First, the founder of Race42008.com, Kavon W. Nikrad, has backed Gov. Palin for VP. This is one of our biggest endorsements yet, and you can read why I think it is important on the blog. Second, several supporters have emailed to tell me that, according to CNN, the Governor will be featured on Monday's Glenn Beck TV program (7-9 PM EST on CNN Headline News). Details have not yet been posted, and I have received several differing tips; so I don't know that exact nature or subject matter of the feature (I'm hoping it includes an interview). I will post details on the blog if and when I find out more. Otherwise, just be sure to tune into Glenn Beck tomorrow night.-- Adam Brickley Founder, "Draft Sarah Palin for Vice President"palinforvp.blogspot.com

Barack, tell us how you really feel." (Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, and Mrs. Tom Harkin in Iowa)


"Obama plans to gut U.S. defenses."

If you want to know what's going on in the continuing debate over America's future, it's a good idea to avoid the national media, which -- on the whole -- remains as clueless as ever. Recently, some of the Black Conservatives (Yahoo Group) have been condemning Barack Obama's weakness when it come to defending America from its enemies. Frankly, Obama doesn't seem to recognize that the U.S. has enemies. Here are recent comments and links from Black Conservatives "Westloop" and "GhostPuppy911."

westloop@yahoo.com said the following:

In 2007, Barack Obama spoke before the Caucus for Priorities, which proposes re-routing defense spending to social causes.

He promised, "As president, I will end misguided defense policies and stand withCaucus for Priorities in fighting special interests in Washington. First, I'll stop spending $9 billion a month in Iraq. I'm the onl major candidate who opposed this war from the beginning -- and as president, I will end it.

"Second, I will cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending.I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems. I will not weaponize space. I will slow our development of future combat systems, and I will institute an independent defense priorities board to ensure that the Quadrennial Defense Review is not used to justify unnecessary spending.

"Third, I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons. To seek that goal, I will not develop new nuclear weapons; I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material, and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals. You know where I stand."

Read more:http://www.cnsnews.com/viewpolitics.asp?page=/politics/archive/200803/pol20080304d.html

See video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

In other words, Obama plans to gut US defenses. If the US ceases to defend itself, it will soon be overwhelmed; then who else would step-up to defend the world against Totalitarianism? France?

Posted on The Hughes Report: http://members.tripod.com/pneuma_music/hughesreport/

ghost_puppy_9_11@yahoo.com said: Obama will basically leave the U.S defenseless

Obama-Caucus4Priorities: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o84PE871BE

Hillary Supporters Equal McCain Voters?

I'm cross-posting the following column from my Hillary Supporters for McCain site, which I urge you to visit. Note: If you go to the Hillary Supporters site, you will see some remarkable comments (added noon, Wed.) about Hillary backers who are moving strongly toward McCain: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. Your thoughts on this subject are always appreciated. On my Pennsylvania site, I write about relatively simple policy steps that will dramatically improve education in the U.S.: http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blospot.com.


In Kentucky exit polls are showing that two-thirds of Clinton voters are saying they will not vote for Obama in the General Election. Forty-one percent are saying they will vote for John McCain. That's more than the percentage that say they would vote for Obama in the General Election.

Mrs. Clinton won the Kentucky primary by more than 250,000 votes -- an incredibly large number. That's a bigger number -- but not a lot bigger -- than her margin in Pennsylvania.

That's why I'm asking Pennsylvania congressional candidates and their supporters to say, "A vote for my opponent is a vote for Barack Obama." That is not the conventional wisdom, but the conventional wisdom is wrong in this case.

To my friends running for Congress, I urge you to tie yourself and your campaign to John McCain.All along, I have been asking some very good Republican congressional candidates (most in Pennsylvania) to ally themselves with -- and strongly endorse -- John McCain.

However, the other day when a reporter asked Senator McCain about Hillary's continuing her campaign, I didn't believe he exploited the opportunity. He made vague comments about the ups and downs of campaigns, pointing to the time when he was way behind, etc.

There's a fire raging in the Democratic Party, and McCain should experiment with pouring some "verbal gasoline" on it. If he doesn't believe they're stealing the nomination from her, he can note that many people do feel that way.

Specifically, they believe she's suffering from unfair actions by Howard Dean and friends, along with a media that's "in the tank for Obama." By the way, I agree with those Hillary supporters on that assessment.

John McCain and his entire campaign should be reaching out -- now -- to Hillary supporters. The Hillary-ites should know that they're very welcome in the McCain camp.One other step John could take that would keep most of those Hillary supporters (including the 41% in KY) in his camp is to name an outstanding female as his running mate.

I believe that female is Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska.The way to get women elected to the nation's highest offices is to put them in a position to run for vice-president and President. A woman like Sarah Palin has the toughness, integrity, and campaign skills to become a President of the U.S. She deserves the chance to run for that office.

We need those Hillary supporters, and we need strong support from women in general.

Hillary's WV: "Almost Heaven"

This morning (Wednesday) I got a call from a producer of "The Curtis Sliwa Show" on WABC-radio in New York City. He was looking for a guest who was a strong Hillary Clinton supporter. I didn't qualify because I will support John McCain in the presidential election. However, I did emphasize that I admired Hillary's grit, determination, and will to win. I also admire Curtis Sliwa, the founder of "The Guardian Angels," for his efforts to reduce crime in American cities. I hope to be on his show soon. If Sen. Clinton believes she would be the best President, and she obviously does, she should stay in the race.

Note: This is the Tuesday night/Wednesday morning column from my new "Hillary Supporters for McCain" blog. I hope you'll visit it and take a look at some of the many columns there. Go to: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. The blog's purpose is to establish a dialogue with Hillary Clinton supporters who may honor John McCain with their votes on Nov. 4.

"The one thing you know about Sen. Clinton is that she's a very determined person." (Ron Allen, NBC News)

"The Obama campaign spent twice as much money in WV as Clinton." (Lou Dobbs, CNN)

Wolf Blitzer: "Michelle Obama is going to be heading for Puerto Rico . . ."

My response: "Maybe she'll stay there . . . "


Let's see, it's now 7:30 p.m. Eastern Time, and the networks are falling over themselves to declare Hillary Clinton the winner. For a change, the networks are right. MSNBC is saying that exit polls are showing Mrs. Clinton will win by "a two-to-one margin."

I have a strong feeling that the margin of victory will be more than two-to-one. I wouldn't be surprised if Sen. Clinton hits the magic 70% number. If she can beat Barack Obama by, say, 71% to 29%, it will be an embarrassment for the Illinois Senator. It would probably be a good excuse for him to ignore West Virginia in the general election.

About those exit polls: Hillary supporters are not big fans of Barack Obama. In fact, most of them say they would not vote for Barack Obama against John McCain.The numbers for Hillary supporters are as follows: 36% of them -- presumably with many holding their noses -- would vote Obama if he's the nominee. However, an amazing 35% -- more than a third -- say they would vote McCain, and most of them probably would. The rest, about 29%, say they'd stay home on Election Day.

Tonight, there's much talk about the possibility of Sen. Clinton as a vice-presidential candidate. I believe the talk misses two essential points about the V-P nomination. One, she wouldn't accept it; two, Barack Obama won't offer it to her. In fact, the Republican campaign next fall will feature many Hillary statements about Obama. The famous one is: "I [Hillary] have a lifetime of experience. Senator McCain has a lifetime of experience. Senator Obama has a speech he delivered in 2002 [against the Iraq War]."

Translation: Sen. Clinton believes John McCain is qualified and able to be President of the U.S. (POTUS). She believes Senator Obama is not qualified -- and perhaps not able enough -- to be POTUS.

If Mrs. Clinton were to accept the vice-presidential nomination, what would she say about her previous comments regarding Obama? Could she say, "Oh, never mind" or "Fooled you, didn't I?"As the presumptive (and almost certain) nominee, Barack Obama comes into the election with some serious problems.

He recognizes them as we see in his new commercials. At one point, the narrator (not Obama) talks about the importance of "his Christian faith," a term I don't believe Obama has ever used. The main segment shows young Barack with his two white grandparents, both of whom he basically dismisses in his book Dreams From My Father.

As you'll recall, he referred to his grandmother as "a typical white person." His grandfather, whom Obama like to say "served in Patton's Army" is dismissed in the book as a man who "never saw combat." What are they, Barack? A couple of comical honkies or revered relatives? It all seems to depend on how they can be of best use to him.

By far the best candidate in the Democratic primaries is Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, and her Party is getting ready to throw her under the bus.

Obama: A Campaign Unravelling

Hillary Clinton giving advice to her door-to-door campaign workers in Philadelphia, April 19: "Well, I think, just knock on the door and say 'She's really nice,' or you could say it another way, 'She's not as bad as you think.'"

"Seventeen percent of Pennsylvania voters said they will either not vote if Mrs. Clinton gets the nomination or will vote for Mr. McCain; 25% said they will do likewise if Mr. Obama wins the nomination." (The Economist, April 26 - May 2, 2008)

If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee, he absolutely must prevail in Pennsylvania -- the nation's sixth largest state -- if he hopes to win the election. But the exit polls in the recent primary show that the Illinois Senator is unlikely to win the Keystone State.

Consider the views of Catholic voters -- about one-third of registered Democrats -- in Pennsylvania. Of the ones who voted in the primary, six-out-of-10 say they'd vote for Obama in the general election. However, more than two-out-of-10 (21%) say they'll vote for John McCain.

Among white voters, almost one-in-six (16%) said that race had an influence on their vote. And of those, nearly one-in-twelve (8%-plus) said they would not vote for Obama in November.

When Gov. Ed Rendell make a similar observation months ago, he was condemned as uttering racially insensitive comments. Insensitive? Perhaps. Correct? Absolutely.

In the Pennsylvania exit polls, many Democrats made sarcastic references to Obama's "bitter" comments (about people clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia). Some of those voters joked that they were much too "bitter" ever to vote for Obama. Others, according to The Economist, accused Obama of "clinging" to a religious figure (Rev. Jeremiah Wright) notable for hating America and white people.

Especially in Rust Belt States (including Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Jersey, and Michigan), Obama has a real problem attracting white voters. According to the Senator's campaign managers, that's because the the voters don't "know" him.

But whose fault is that? Many Caucasians are evaluating Obama on the principle that you know a man by the company he keeps. As long as that company includes Rev. Wright, terrorist William Ayers, and influence-buyer Tony Rezko, the electorate doesn't like what it sees.

Obama's problems run deep. For example, four weeks ago -- as the Wright controversy -- approached white heat, Obama delivered what his minders called "a major speech on race." I saw the entire speech and paid careful attention, but now -- less than a month later -- I can't recall a single phrase. Can you?

Calling Hillary Clinton's Big Win

Note: Wednesday evening on my "Hillary Supporters for McCain" site, I posted a piece with information you haven't seen before. It explains "Why Hillary Should be the (Democrats) Nominee." Yes, I strongly support John McCain for President, but I also support basic fairness, which is absent in the Democrats' process. Go to: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com.

Eric Dondero, a popular host on BlogTalkRadio and blogger at: http://mainstreamlibertarian.blogspot.com/ sent the following message today:

You all, please take a moment to visit the Blog this morning. I've got an article up praising our own Stephen Maloney of PA for getting the PA predication 100% correct.

Can you all believe this? Stephen bucked the conventional wisdom. Told us last week that Hillary would win by 55% to 45% contrary to all the Pro-Obama propoganda the MSM was pushing at the time, about a "late Obama Surge."

Stephen gave us the view from the ground. Stephen: You are now officially nicknamed "Nostradamus."

Good job my man! Good job!!

Steve adds: I hope you'll visit Eric's site today. Later today (Wednesday), I'll discuss some of the reasons for Mrs. Clinton's big victory. On my site with the most unusual title (http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com/), I'll give some powerful reasons why Senator Clinton should get the Democratic nomination. In November of this year, I'll be voting for John McCain for the presidency, but I believe his opponent should be Hillary Rodham Clinton. Thanks to everyone who honors me by visiting this site.

Why the Polls Were Wrong in Pennsylvania . . .

Why the Polls Were Wrong in PA . . .A week ago, I told Terry Madonna, who heads the Franklin & Marshall College poll (a good one) that I was right and his poll and (most) others were wrong. I said so because people (especially African-Americans) who are voting for Hillary sometimes say they're voting for Obama. It has happened before (Ohio) but the pollsters keep getting it wrong. Michael Barone on FOX said the same thing early last night, even before there were any real numbers out. The exit polls of voters said that Hillary would win by 52-48.

The point is that it's not fashionable in some areas for people to say they're support Hillary. However, when they go in the voting booth, they do just that. Thanks to everyone who honors me by visiting this site.

Hillary Winning in PA, Nationwide

NOTE: MY MONDAY (AND TUESDAY) COLUMN WILL COME UP ABOUT 7 P.M. THIS EVENING. I'M STICKING BY MY PREDICTION THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL WIN BY DOUBLE-DIGITS IN PA. GOV. ED RENDELL, A HILLARY CLINTON BACKER, IS PREDICTING A SINGLE-DIGIT WIN, BUT I BELIEVE HE'S ENGAGING IN THE TIME-HONORED TRADITION OF "LOWERING EXPECTATIONS."


The column below is reposted from my Pennsylvania site (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.com. In this year's election, Pennsylvania is going to be what the pundits call "highly competitive." Generally, the columns on the Pennsylvania site will be "states-specific," recognizing that PA is going to be a critical battleground state. Later today, I'll be putting up a new -- and extremely important -- blog called: http://hillarysupportersformccain.blogspot.com. When Obama wins the nomination, as he presumably will, many Hillary supporters -- perhaps one-in-four -- will be inclined to vote for John McCain, and the Hillary site will involve discussions about that development. I urge you to visit both these sites.

On Sunday, April 20, the results of the latest Gallup "Tracking Poll" were released. They showed Hillary Clinton leading nationally among Democrats by one percentage point. A week ago, Obama's lead in the Gallup Poll was about 11 points, so there's been a dramatic drop in his national support.

In Pennsylvania, the average of polls shows Mrs. Clinton's lead at about five points.Some analysts, including this one, believe it's entirely possible that Clinton will win in the Keystone State by approximately 10 percentage points. I've guessed it will be about 55% to 45%, although it could conceivably be by as much as 57% to 43%.

Senator Clinton is stronger in Pennsylvania than you might have been hearing on TV. Right now, she's tied or leading in every demographic except Blacks and the wealthiest of Democrats.If Mrs. Clinton has a double-digit win in Pennsylvania, look for to call on Super Delegates to support her. Presumably, she will point directly to the Gallup Poll as illustrating that she's the most electable candidate. She would have a powerful argument in her favor.

Clearly, Obama has been hurt by two factors: (1) his "bitter" comments about small town America; (2) his poor performance in the recent debate. The national media, many of whom obviously support Obama, have been slow to report on the dramatic changes taking place in the Democratic race.

Keep a close eye on those Gallup Tracking Polls. If Senator Clinton extends her lead, the Democratic race may become more chaotic than it already is. My own guess? That the battle will go right to the convention floor in Denver, an eventuality that will help John McCain.

In fact, McCain is looking like a probable general election winner in states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, and even New Jersey, usually thought of as a solid "Blue State." Mrs. Clinton had solid wins in Ohio and New Jersey, and she should have a similar result in PA. In today's complex political environment, that's good news for John McCain.

Jerry Bowyer: Pennsylvania Seriously Divided

This article originally appeared in The Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120796023090409503.html

Pennsylvania Divided

By Jerry Bowyer

As a Pennsylvania voter, I'm disheartened by the identity politics now playing out as both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama battle for votes among Democratic Party factions.

One in five supporters of Mrs. Clinton here say they won't vote for Mr. Obama should their candidate lose (and vice versa, according to pollster Terry Madonna of Franklin & Marshall College). Only 12% of nonwhite Pennsylvania voters support Mrs. Clinton. Only 29% of white ones support Mr. Obama. Gender and age cohorts break along similarly sharp lines, with women and older voters going for Mrs. Clinton, men and young voters trending toward Mr. Obama.
As a student of political history, I see these poll results as something deeper than a passing nomination squabble. For at least 40 years, Democrats have been playing identity politics and empowering factional blocs within their party.

Though others might pick a different starting point, I'd trace the start of that process to 1968 Chicago, where antiwar protestors rioted outside of the party's national convention and party leaders inside responded by creating the McGovern-Fraser commission. That commission went on to write presidential nomination rules establishing delegate quotas based on age, race and gender. State parties followed suit by structuring caucuses to favor organized activist groups such as unions.

And so now Pennsylvania Democrats, like their brethren around the country, are splitting along race, age, gender and geographical lines as they are forced to choose between Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. But then, why shouldn't they? Democratic voters are just doing what they've been trained to do – thinking of themselves in group terms.

I find all of this disheartening because allowing the narrow interests of political factions to force decisions and policies onto the whole is something that James Madison warned us against. In a pro-Constitution editorial (which history has come to know as Federalist 9), he described in prescient terms precisely why political factions are dangerous.

When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.

If that sounds a little like the Democratic Party today, it may be because the party of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison has come to be dominated by factions. In the Keystone State, those factions include African-Americans who dominate the inner-cities, upper-class white voters in the suburbs, working-class voters in the middle regions of the state, and Latinos, seniors and college students who are dispersed in geographic pockets. And of course, ubiquitous unions.

Voters head to the polls in Pennsylvania on April 22 in a process that is supposed to lead eventually to a Democratic presidential nominee. But in watching Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama traverse the state, it's hard to see how one candidate will emerge from the many Democratic factions slugging it out.

Mr. Obama is hoping to overcome Mrs. Clinton by energizing college students. And anecdotal evidence suggests that a surge of support among college-age voters may be helping him. Recent statewide polls show the race tightening. My mother, who is volunteering to help the Northampton County Department of Elections process new voter registrants, is watching the Obama surge first hand. Among the new registrants she sees, the vast majority are Democratic college students, most of whom, we can presume, will vote for Mr. Obama.

Mrs. Clinton is trying to turn out her own supporters, who include traditional working-class Democrats, middle-class suburbanites and, of course, women and seniors.

Last month, it appeared that Mr. Obama's campaign was to be split apart on the edge of growing fears among white Democrats over incendiary and, at times racially charged, comments his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, delivered from the pulpit over a 20-year period that Mr. Obama attended his church in Chicago. All the while, Mr. Obama hadn't raised an objection to Rev. Wright's sermons.

To save his campaign he showed up in Philadelphia – the city where Madison and the rest drew up the Constitution in 1787 – and gave what some called "The Speech" on race in America. In doing so, Mr. Obama likely saved his presidential campaign. And he did it, in part, drawing a line all the way back to "that group of men [who had] gathered" across the street in Constitutional Hall in 1787 to write one of the founding documents of the nation. In other words, by reaching beyond the factional politics of the Democratic Party.

Democrats might have once hoped that Pennsylvania would settle their nomination fight. Instead, it has shown how dangerous it is to put voters into factional blocs that can then be exploited along racial lines. To the extent that Democrats suffer this year for not learning that lesson earlier, well, to quote Mr. Obama's pastor (who himself was quoting Malcolm X): "the chickens have come home to roost."

Mr. Bowyer is chief economist of BenchMark Financial Network and a CNBC contributor.

Dear Pennsylvanians and others interested in Keystone State politics, please visit my blog focused on the state at: pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com. Occasionally, I'll cross post from this national blog to the PA one, but generally the columns there will be distinctive.

Obama & Clinton: "Demolition Derby"

"You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price."

If you want to see the best material about the American political scene, stay away from CNN and MSNBC -- and instead go to a London-based publication, The Economist. There are several good political writers on the magazine's staff, but the best one goes by the name of "Lexington." Here's what he says in the April 5-11, 2008 issue (page 39):

"It looks as if Pat Robertson and his cohorts were right all along: God really is a Republican. The Democrats ought to have little problem retaking the White House this November, given the unpopular war, the weakening economy, and the anti-Republican backlash. But instead of measuring the White House drapes, they are engaged in what Bill Kristol, a Republican commentator, has gleefully dubbed a 'rollicking demolition derby.'"

In the essay, Lexington adds, "The Democrats are all too aware that their civil war [in the primaries] could spell disaster. A cavalcade of senior Democrats, including senators Patrick Leahy and Chris Dodd, have advised Mrs. Clinton to retire to her room with a glass of whisky and a loaded revolver." In his piece, Lexington gives some very good reasons why Mrs. Clinton should NOT withdraw from the race -- and provides some insights you haven't seen before.

Why you haven't seen such analysis in America -- and especially, why the Clinton campaign isn't heralding it -- are the big questions.You've heard that Obama has won the most pledged delegates, the most states, and the most popular votes. All that is true (although it doesn't include popular votes from Michigan and Florida, both of which Clinton won), but it is one of those truths that may contain a larger falsehood.

Here's "Lexington's" unique analysis of Senator Clinton's situation: "She can . . . make a plausible case that she is the stronger candidate."How? "She [can make the point that] she so far [has] won 14 states with 44% of the country's population (16 states with 53% of the population if you include Florida and Michigan) compared with [Obama's] 27 states with 34% of the population. She has won Florida and Ohio, two battleground states, and will almost certainly win [another,] Pennsylvania."

Steve adds: The main mistake the Clinton campaign made was to pay little attention to the caucus states, starting with Iowa and extending to places like Wyoming and Idaho. Obama wounded her with a thousand cuts in the smaller states, and that's a major reason he's ahead in pledged delegates. Another element that hurt her was the bloc voting by Blacks in states like South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, and Louisiana.

Is Senator Obama going to win SC, GA, MS, and LA? He's not going to come close to winning any of them. In the general election, he's going to have real problems winning most of the large states Mrs. Clinton carried in the primaries (such as TX, OH, and PA). Obama will do better than Kerry in many of the "red states," but he looks unlikely to win any of them.

If Obama is the Democratic nominee, as looks likely, he will be a "sure thing" in three states: Illinois, Rhode Island, and Vermont. He's likely, though not a certainty, to win Maine, Connecticut, and perhaps Delaware. In every other state, McCain should be the favorite. As Lexington explains the poor position of Senators Obama and Clinton: "You cannot associate with an America-bashing preacher or invent a story about braving sniper fire while landing at a quiet airport in Tuzla without paying a price." Overall, things are looking very good for John McCain.

Over this weekend, I'll have additional material about how The Economist sees the emerging race for the presidency. A yearly subscription to the publication costs an imposing $99, but it's worth it.

McCain: Make Nice With Hillary!

Note: On my Pennsylvania blog (http://pennsylvaniaforjohnmccain.blogspot.com) I have a link to John McCain's superb new ad. I hope you'll take a look at it. As the following column suggests, John McCain has a great chance to pick up votes from millions of Hillary Clinton supporters. You can help him to that end by continuing to communicate -- respectfully and compellingly -- with friends and family members who support Mrs. Clinton. Help bring them slowly into the McCain fold.

John McCain needs to go after the Hillary Clinton supporters in much the same way that a wolf would a lamb chop. John is a sharp individual and he has many bright people around him (like Rick Davis, Patrick Hynes, and Carly Fiorina), and they can see that a big chunk of the Hillary voters, perhaps as many as one-third, are ready to go to McCain in the general election.

Mrs. Clinton has said nice things about McCain (and so has Bill), including the fact that, compared to Obama (who has a speech he delivered in 2002), he has "a lifetime of experience." Husband Bill said that McCain has done everything conceivable for his country "other than give his life."

It's time for McCain to reciprocate -- and make positive statements about Hillary Clinton as a Senator. That might disconcert charter members of "the vast right-wing conspiracy," but it would make a lot of sense.

On the other hand, McCain should restrict positive comments about Obama to the minimum possible. Obama is ready to be orator-in-chief but not commander-in-chief.

The Reagan Democrats of yesteryear (pro-life, pro-guns, pro-military) are voting for Mrs. Clinton, but iwthout enthusiasm. The more they find out about Obama -- everything from his support of live-birth-abortion to his rapt adoration of Rev. Jeremiah Wright and his support of the Chicago Democratic machine -- the less likely they will be to vote for him.

In short, John McCain, make nice with Hillary Clinton. It won't save her campaign, which now looks like a death-march, but it will attract millions of Hillary-ites.

Note: Click on the following link to an important article on how Barack Obama's (Democratic) poll numbers are up and Hillary Clinton's money numbers are way down.http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/hillarys_wrong_numbers_obama_p.html

Samuel Adams Confronts Hillary, Barack

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams, speech at the Philadelphia State House, August 1, 1776.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, please "go home from us in peace." We're tired of you and your vision of the a once-free people's dependence on government.

You can't have a free society when government moves in to pick you up every time you fall. No how, no way. When individuals make bad choices, such as buying a house they can't afford, they must endure the consequences of poor decisions. In contrast, people who make good decisions should be rewarded -- as they are now.

Those views are something Hillary and Barack seem not to understand.

John McCain and YOU

A photo surfaces of President Bill Clinton with the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. at the White House in 1998 at a breakfast meeting with religious leaders hours before the Starr report on the Monica Lewinsky scandal was made public.

Later today (Saturday, March 29), I'll be posting my comments for the weekend. I'll be pointing out what you can do to help ensure the election of John McCain. As someone who's active online, you can do a great deal. I hope you'll return to this site -- and, if you wish, leave your comments on what you're doing to assist John McCain. I invite you to read some of the columns I've alrady done (scroll down).

One thing you've not been hearing much about is the big lead Hillary Clinton has established in Pennsylvania polls. If Mrs. Clinton can get 60% or more of the vote in the primary, she could throw the Democratic race into chaos, because she would have clearly exposed Obama's weakness in state Democrats must win on November 2, 2008.

Thanks for visiting!

Note: One of my friends in the Black Conservatives Group (Yahoo) recently said that McCain should not be launching his campaign (at McCain Field) in Mississippi because of the state's said history during the Civil Rights Movement. Also, he said that Rev. Wright had become "a dead issue." I begged to differ, as follows, on both points:

John McCain is kicking off a tour based on HIS autobiography, not on the history of the Civil Rights movement. He is kicking it off at a field (McCain Field) named after a member of his family -- both his grandfather and his father were Navy admirals. McCain is focusing on his own distinguished military career, which contrasts with Barack and Hillary, whose families have no such careers.

On Rev. Wright: this is an issue that Obama hopes will go away but it won't. In addition to having no military career, Obama has almost no legislative career either. He's been a U.S. Senator for only three years, but half that time he's spent campaigning for President and has missed most of the votes in DC.

People are interested in Rev. Wright's anti-white, anti-American, pro-terrorist comments because they're trying to figure out where Obama stands in relation to his friend, "uncle," and "spiritual advisor."

Where does Obama stand on the issues Wright has raised? How much influence on Obama's views (and on his wife's dislike of America) has Wright had? Wright, Michelle Obama, and Barack Obama need to step up to the plate and tell the truth about what they believe and why they believe it.

In Obama's book Dreams From My Father he relies too much on racial stereotypes -- and he bases his views on very limited experience. He probably would not have won the Kansas Primary if his statements about that state (as loaded with white racists) had come out. (He based his opinions mainly on pictures of his grandparents and mother in Kansas.) Mostly white states that vote for a mixed-race candidate (Obama) are not exactly behaving in a racist fashion.

He even tells us how white farm boys smelled in Kansas ("stank like pigs") when he had rarely been within a thousand miles of such people.

Voters want to know exactly WHO Barack Obama is: what does he believe? what has he really accomplished (not much)? Why do he characterize himself as "post-racial" when he has felt comfortable for 20 years in an all-Black church that emphasizes nationalism rather than unity?

I realize he and Michelle don't want to answer any of those questions. But in that case, why on earth is he running for President of what his pastor calls "the KKK of America?"

Obama, Clinton Flunk Economics 101

Lorin and Randy, two members of the Black Conservatives Group on Yahoo have responded to the “economic plans” (if they deserve that term) of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Here are their reactions, followed by mine. They explain their sophisticated points simply and compellingly.


Lorin says: Raising taxes is bad for economic growth. It reduces the capacity of individuals or companies to spend, save or invest. These activities are critical for job creation, business formation,innovation, and risk taking.

As a result, Obama has recently begun to hedge about his plan to roll back Bush's individual income tax cuts for those making over $200K, in light of the economic malaise / recession. He is now saying that hemay not insist that they be rolled back.

He has blinked.

There is nothing like an economic downturn to test the validity of ones professed public policy prescriptions.If raising taxes on the "rich" indeed was a low risk strategy with negligible negative economic repercussions, Obama would be sticking to his guns.If Obama thinks 1+1 = 3 then he should stick to that nonsensical view irrespective of the economic climate.

In fact, we know, 1 + 1 = 2. All day, every day.

The same math is true of his proposals to remove the cap on income subject to social security taxes, make companies pay income taxes at the US rate (2nd or 3rd highest among developed countries) rather than the foreign rate, roll back Bush's reduction in taxes dividends, and sympathy for fellow math wizard Charlie Rangel's proposal to raise taxes on carried interests and capital gains.

I remain supportive of Obama's quest for the nomination, but not for the Presidency.His economic and tax policies don't add up.

LJC (Lorin J. Crenshaw)


Obama has no workable method for fixing the Social Security mess, since raising SS tax will not cure the long-term shortfall. This failure is ESPECIALLY harmful if the U.S. allows all the 30 million illegal aliens to collect Social Security benefits, including their older relatives (who come here under "family reunification" plans) who have never paid a penny into the system. Even the illegals who have worked in the U.S. often have contributed no taxes (wish I could have done that!) because their wages have been paid in cash.

Generally, private retirement accounts can be created at a 3-4% real growth rate, compared to 0-1% for Social Security.For blacks especially, the Social Security system is a form of theft, since any given black worker is statistically likely to die several years sooner after retirement, so he/she does not collect as much in benefits as Asians/Caucasians who typically live several years longer.

What is needed is some form of personally owned retirement account, so that if a black wage-earner dies earlier than his asian/white counterpart, the accumulated retirement fund can be passed on to his/her children, thus keeping the money in the family for education, home-buying, bill-paying or just enjoyment.The way things now work, the benefits end with death, and the money is returned to the SS pool to benefit other workers, or even worse, someone who may not deserve it at all.

I am not saying that we should scrap the SS system entirely, since some people are attached to it and feel that only government provides stability. If those people want to continue with the current system, they must have the option to do so.Randy


My response: Randy and Lorin show why this is one of the best groups (Black Conservatives) on the Internet. In one sense, national economics really is about making one plus one equal more than two in that it's about creating new wealth. It's not just about taking money from one guy's pocket and putting it another person's, which is the "economic plan" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. That’s called the "zero sum" game.

In the 1960s, President John F. Kenney made a sharp cut in taxes (as Reagan did later), with all sorts of people saying it would reduce tax revenues, etc. In fact, it did just the opposite, leading to very strong growth and HIGHER tax revenues. Well, there aren't any Democrats around like Kennedy (including the one named Ted) anymore.

Hillary Clinton gives her big "economic" speech, and it means she would like to take your money to bail out people who bought houses they can't afford. Punish the people who made good decisions -- and reward the people who made bad ones. In her view and Barack's it's not one plus one but one minus one. The Moveon.org types who can't stand America just love it.

If Clinton and Obama hired Randy and Lorin as their economic advisors they might be worth voting for. But don't quit your days jobs, Randy and Lorin, because those calls won’t come.

Nationally: McCain Building Huge Lead

Note: I put the following material up on three state pages (Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New Jersey). It applies mainly to Pennsylvania, but it's also applicable to just about every other state in the union. It's very, very good news. If you want to get up-to-the-minute information from the McCain Campaign, you can do so by e-mailing Patrick Hynes at: phynes@calypsocom.com. In politics, Patrick is as good as it gets.


In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.

Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/keystone-democr.html

ABC News’ Political Punch Blog: Keystone Democrats Set To Defect

By Jake Tapper

In the new Franklin & Marshall College Poll (read it HERE) some good news for Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and some troubling news for Democrats.

Clinton leads Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, 51% to 35% -- increasing her lead from February, when she was up 44% to 37%. She leads among young voters, wealthier voters...voters in virtually every demographic group, with the exceptions of Philly voters and non-whites.

In a sign of just how divisive and ugly the Democratic fight has gotten, only 53% of Clinton voters say they'll vote for Obama should he become the nominee. Nineteen percent say they'll go for Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and 13% say they won't vote.

Sixty percent of Obama voters say they'll go for Clinton should she win the nomination, with 20% opting for McCain, and three percent saying they won't vote.

Grim.

Note: I'll comment later today (Friday) on the above poll results.

ARE HILLARY, BARACK REALLY CHIHUAHUAS?

"A political gaffe occurs when a candidate inadvertently tells the truth." (John Fund)

"Hearing Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama debate about who has the most national security experience is like hearing two chihuahuas argue about who's the biggest dog." (Mitt Romney on March 12). Romney left no doubt that the "big dog" on the crucial issue of national security is John McCain.

Tomorrow's important column: "Obama's 'Spirtual Advisor' Hates America."

I like Mitt Romney as a person and a candidate. As most of my reader know, I hope John McCain chooses Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska as his vice-presidential running. In the campaign, Sarah -- relatively little-known in what Alaskans call "the lower-48" -- would take off like a cruise missile.

However, if John McCain chooses Mitt Romney, an expert on economic growth, as his vice-president, I wouldn't be disappointed. I don't at all believe McCain is somehow obligated to pick a hard-shell right-winger as a running mate. Romney is an articulate conservative who would eviscerate -- rhetorically speaking -- anyone the Democrats choose for the vice-presidency. John McCain needs to take a very careful look at Gov. Romney.

Romney's joke about the chihuahas is a good one. In the general election, humor can be a powerful weapon. Note the fact that "Saturday Night Live," a comedy show, is playing a significant role in the Democratic primary, in large part by influencing media coverage of Barack Obama. It's a sad situation when a satirical TV show has to remind the media what its job is.

In the general election, McCain-Romney (or McCain-Palin) will be able to use Hillary Clinton's questions about Barack Obama's ability to be commander-in-chief. As you'll recall, Mrs. Clinton said that both she and John McCain had "a lifetime of experience." In contrast, she said Barack Obama "has a speech he gave in 2002" (against the Iraq War).

If Obama is the nominee, as he probably will be, I can't imagine Republicans not using Hillary's remarks in a commercial -- one that shows over and over again. Senator Clinton has seriously questioned Obama's capacity to serve as President, and she's absolutely correct. Increasingly, the Illinois Senator appears to be someone who's all speech and no action.

Paul Begala, a media cheerleader for the Clintons, recently talked about his "concern" some recent poll numbers. They showed that 25% of Senator Clinton's voters said that, if their candidate doesn't get the nomination, they will be inclined to vote for John McCain. There's additional evidence that McCain will get a majority of the votes by the huge bloc of Independents.

Mitt Romney's witty comments about Hillary and Barack being "chihuahuas" make us smile. But the fact that it rings true with so many voters is not something that put a frown on the faces of many Democrats.