Iowa Rep. Bruce Braley announced today that he would be supporting Barack Obama.   Rep. Lois Capps (D-CA) also announced her support for Obama today.  Indiana Rep. Baron Hill will endorse Obama tonight.  One Senator also says that Obama has dozens of superdelegates lined up.  Hillary Clinton recently received superdelegate and North Carolina Governor Mark Easley’s endorsement yesterday.   Bill George of Pennsylvania also just announced his support for Clinton.  Obama is leading among committed superdelegates in the Senate 18-13, while Clinton leads in House superdelegates 77-74.

I disagree with the NYT article to the extent that it equates Reverend Wright with John Hagee because Hagee is a thousand times worst .  But it is nice to see that the main stream media has noticed this obvious hypocrisy and is in fact calling on McCain to explain himself.  I am including a couple more quotes from Pastor Hagee ending with the excerpt from the NYT article.

• “Right-wing pastor John Hagee says vile, despicable things about patriotic Americans…the worst being that Catholics are part of a church that is a “great whore,” that “all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews,” and that God damns America with hurricanes because gay Americans plan parades.”

• “Oh, and Hagee says God wants us to destroy Iran ASAP.”

New York Times 

It is an injustice, a legacy of the racist threads of this nation’s history, but prominent African-Americans are regularly called upon to explain or repudiate what other black Americans have to say, while white public figures are rarely, if ever, handed that burden.

Senator John McCain has continued to embrace a prominent white supporter, Pastor John Hagee, whose bigotry matches that of Mr. Wright. Mr. McCain has not tried hard enough to stop a race-baiting commercial — complete with video of Mr. Wright — that is being run against Mr. Obama in North Carolina.

If Mr. Obama is the Democratic presidential nominee, we fear that there will be many more such commercials. And Mr. Obama will have to repudiate Mr. Wright’s outbursts many more times.

This country needs a healthy and open discussion of race. Mr. Obama’s repudiation of Mr. Wright is part of that. His opponents also have a responsibility — to repudiate the race-baiting and make sure it stops.  Read entire article

CBS News reports: 

During the question and answer session, an 82-year-old woman encouraged Obama not to attack his opponents. “Don’t hit on Hillary, bring us all back, let her do that stuff,” said Jean Weiss, a Wilmington resident. “Leave her alone, you don’t need to do that, you are higher than that. Bring us up higher than that.”

“Will you be my running mate?” Obama asked as the crowd cheered. “That’s my running mate there, she got me fired up!”

As much as the media continue to act as if Reverend Jeremiah Wright and Sen. Barack Obama are the same person, they are not.  In the last 24 hours, the main stream media has given Rev. Wright a total of 15 hours of uninterrupted air time.  Newsflash:  Rev. Wright is not running for president!  Sen. Barack Obama is running for president!  Does anything that Rev. Wright has to say affect how we can solve the mortgage crisis?  Does anything that Rev. Wright has to say solve my problem with $4 a gallon gas?  Can anything that Rev. Wright says bring our soldiers home from Iraq sooner?  Can Rev. Wright do anything about our sinking economy?  I’ll answer those questions for you…..No.  So why is the main stream media giving him a national platform to indulge in his self serving, egocentric agenda?  Why?  I’ll tell you why.  It is the the mains stream media’s and the pundit class’ full frontal attack in trying to shape public opinion.  Rev. Wright is on a publicity tour  promoting his own agenda and his book that apparently will be coming out at the end of the year.  The traditional media continues to focus on Wright’s words as if they were the words of Barack Obama himself to the glee of Hillary Clinton.  Why you ask….ratings, lack of material directly from Obama himself, the illigitimate guilt by association argument, creating the illusion of a horse race.  Jeremiah Wright made these inflammatory comments, not Barack Obama.  But with the amount of media attention that Wright has received you would swear that he is the presidential candidate.  Alas, to the mainstream media’s disappointment, Wright is not the candidate, Obama is the candidate.  Last I checked, guilt by association is not a valid argument when attempting to impune a presidential candidate’s character.  Ask John McCain? 

Side question: Why has the the media refuse to focus on religious extremist John Hagee whose endorsement was heavily sought and enthusiastically accepted by John McCain?  Before announcing yesterday that Wright is fair game, and after emphatically promising not to use the Wright issue in his bid for the presidency, McCain had already broken his word when he used the Wright controversy to deflect attention from his Pastor Hagee problem.  Sen. McCain then used an explanation made by Obama to justify future use of the Wright issue in his bid for the presidency after-the-fact.  But Obama has rejected and denounced Rev. Wrights comments.  Unlike McCain who actively sought and continues to “appreciate” and be “very grateful” for Hagee’s support and  endorsement with full knowledge of Hagee’s bigoted and divisive comments and viewpoints.   How then does McCain have the unmitigated gall to come out and criticize Obama for his association with Rev. Wright?  Why….because the traditional media allows McCain to get away with it.  The same way that the media allows Hillary Clinton to get away with criticizing Obama for actions that she herself has engaged in to a much more substantial degree.  The same way the media accepts and gives maximum traction to a characterization made by two candidates, each of whose household income  last year was over 100 million dollars,  that an African-American male reared by a single mother that collected welfare is an elitist. And, one of those 100 million dollar candidates attended the elite institutions Wellesley College and Yale law school.  The media accomplishes this jedi mind-trick through the continuous looping of the same story ad nauseam.  Every single time that the media asks McCain about Rev. Wright, the very next question should be….what about your sought after endorsement and knowing voluntary political affiliation with Pastor Hagee.  That is called “fair and balanced” investigative reporting. 

A message to Rev. Wright: 

Why?  Rev. Wright sir, you accuse the media of reducing your 30 years in the ministry to three or four 30 second soundbites.  Now sir, after viewing your performance at the National Press Club yesterday, you are reducing all the good accomplished during your 30 year ministry to a 60 minute self-made mockery.  You claim to be a preacher not a politician but you give your latest performance in front of the National Press Club in the political capital of America, Washington, DC.  Is this a pathetic attempt to battle Obama for the spotlight? Even your ” longtime friend” Roland Martin of CNN, whom you referred to in your speech to the NAACP, has criticized your National Press Club performance.  And lets be clear, that is exactly what it was….a performance. The national stage can be an enticing seductress, its up to you to remember that your role is to minister, not to entertain.  It is being reported that many people close to you begged you not to go on this media tour now.  Your answer was to do it anyway.  Result, Obama is a a week away from two pivotal primaries and what is the media talking about….you.  They are talking about the self absorbed preacher who seems to want to sabotage Barack Obama.  But then that is exactly the way you wanted it.  Using this media blitz as a pretense to allegedly redeem the “black church” when such blitz possess all the trappings of a selfish, ego-driven, egomaniacal, narcissitic, tirade to fan publicity for a book to be released year-end is just disappointing and insulting.  This writer takes extreme pause as to your true motivation and your character.  It seems that your repayment to a friend, who stood by you during a time when most would have walked away, is to throw that friend under the bus in pursuit of your own personal gain.  Fame is fleeting….and your 15 seconds will be up soon.  You could have taken the high road and continued to advocate for your real and legitimate causes but you chose to yuck it up in front of a national audience.  Fame can also be a fleeting seductress.  The only ones remaining when all the cameras are gone…..loyal friends.  It seems that you are still heavily mired in and exploiting the battles of the 60′s and 70′s.  Some of your talking points are dated and from a different time.  Perhaps now is a time to pause and reflect.  Now would also be a good time to heed your mother’s advice, you know…”better to remain silent and be thought of as a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.”

For the last six weeks and post Ohio we have heard the following question asked by the main stream media…….why can’t Obama get the white, low-income or blue-collar worker vote?  Why can’t Obama close the deal with these voters?   Recently I was listening to a pundit panel when a viewer asked…..why so much emphasis on the blue collar vote in the general election?  What about the fact that if Clinton, by some miracle, wins the nomination…wouldn’t she have a significant problem with the African-American vote?  Why no questions as to how will Clinton ever be able to regain the support of one of the most significant Democrat constituencies in any general election?  Joe Scarborough dismissed the concern as not important because African-Americans are going to vote Democrat because they have voted Democrat for the last hundred years.   

Okay…never mind the insult to African-Americans that they mindlessly and automatically check the Democrat box without any thought about the candidate.   But, if you think that there will be no backlash against the Democratic party if they deny the first credible African-American candidate the nomination after such candidate has played by the rules and won by the rules,….you are in a fantasy world.  The backlash will not just be from African-American voters but from voters of every race who believe in a fair contest. This is a primary without a precedent.  So for those who are using history to conclude inevitability as the AA vote, think about how your predictions have played out in this race so far.  Remember, Hillary Clinton was once the inevitable nominee.  This is by every measure, an historic election that has deviated from the norm so much that the the abnormal is considered the norm when it comes to this race. 

As for African-Americans specifically, they may not be shouting in the streets….oh wait… I forgot about Al Sharpton…..okay, most African-Americans will not be shouting in the streets, but I am willing to bet money that they will not be in any hurry to get to the ballot box in November.  Especially not for someone who is widely perceived within the African-American community to have used race-baiting and dirty tricks to steal the nomination from the first contending African-American candidate. 

A significant segment of the African-American community have really been turned off by the Clintons….period.  Because of the tactics employed by the Clinton campaign in this nomination contest, the Clinton name no longer carries the cache that it once did within the AA community.  South Carolina Representative Jim Clyburn came out and said as much last Friday.  The statesman from South Carolina said that African-American leaders and many within the African-American community  perceive the Clintons as trying to destroy Barack Obama.  Though African-Americans will probably not come outright and cast a vote for Sen. McCain, they will certainly not be in any hurry to cast a vote for someone who they perceive to have stolen the nomination from their candidate. 

Most pundits use the exit polls to conclude that Clinton supporters are less likely to vote for Obama than Obama supporters for Clinton.  I’ll say this once…Obama supporters are happy to “say” that they will support Clinton because it is clear that Obama will be the nominee.  My prediction is that if there is a threat of Clinton getting the nomination after Obama has won by most metrics, the tide will shift significantly.  Obama supporters will not be so willing to support a party, let alone a nominee, that would let that happen.  Newsflash to Pundit Class:  politics as usual do not apply here. 

How does Hillary Clinton get elected without the African-American vote?  Given the fact that McCain will probably get many of those independents.  And, the very real and strong possibility that all those newly registered voters, who have been  motivated solely because of Obama’s candidacy, will probably stay home?  Perhaps a month or two ago, the party could have rallied such voters, even with a perceived unjust result.  Perhaps this could have happened by both candidates dawning the stage together in Denver and singing kum-ba-ya.  However, now voters are firmly entrenched in their preferences.  If Hillary truly believes that African-Americans are just going to fall in line with the democratic party just to get her elected…especially after denying an African-American this historic opportunity, she is truly living in a parallel universe.  Especially because she did so by marginalizing Obama among low-income white voters into the scary black man.  Good luck trying to explain that away.  Just stating the facts folks.  The Clintons have made this personal.  They have done so by quickly attempting to deminish Obama wins in states with significant African-American populations (South Carolina, Mississippi etc… ).   At “The State of the Black Union” Sen. Clinton offered as an apology for her husband’s words “you know his heart.” Actually, after witnessing the way he has conducted himself during this primary and his easy willingness to throw African-Americans under the bus when his viability is threatened, I do not think that any American knows either of the Clintons, let alone their hearts.   

Finally, Clinton continues to push the claim that the GOP will use the Rev. Wright issue in the general therefore making Obama unelectable.  However, does Clinton really believe that the GOP will not push the fact that Clinton stole the election from the one viable African-American candidate thereby incensing members of the African-American community even further.  Clinton probably thinks that most democrats will search out information on her policies and the policies of McCain  and come to the logical conclusion that she, as the democratic nominee, is the obvious choice.  This writer predicts that most voters will not be INSPIRED to do that however.  Voters are more likely to make their choice based on what they see in the 30 second spots put out during the general by both campaigns.  When the GOP starts running the “she unfairly stole the nomination from your candidate,” ads, I guarantee that they will have an effect.  Who is more unelectable Sen. Clinton? 

Given the current state of this nomination race, it is virtually impossible for the superdelegates to give this nomination to Hillary Clinton without it not looking unjust, unfair, disillusioning, and disheartening to new voters and the African-American community.

Former senator and Democratic presidential aspirant George McGovern says he sees some striking similarities when it comes to his run at the White House and that of Sen. Barack Obama. But ultimately, McGovern argues, Obama has organized a much wider political coalition and thus a greater chance of electoral success.

“I think that is his strength,” McGovern told The Huffington Post. “He has very broad appeal. He certainly is going to galvanize the black vote. But he has strong appeal to voters of all kinds. Some of the old buckaroos out here in South Dakota are for him.”

In recent days, following Obama’s loss in the Pennsylvania primary, concern has been raised in Democratic circles that the Illinois Democrat could not expand his political base beyond African-Americans and college students — a limitation that stunted McGovern’s candidacy.

But McGovern, who lost the 1972 election to incumbent Richard Nixon by landslide margins, doesn’t attribute his defeat to merely the contours of his political base. Indeed, he argues that his candidacy was damaged more by the infighting that occurred within the Democratic Party even after he had secured the nomination.

“After I had the nomination won and everything except the crowning at the convention, the other candidates that I had defeated in the primaries and the caucuses ganged up on me and spent the next month just bad mouthing me around the country,” he said. “And, of course the Nixon people used some of the quotes and threw them back at me in the general election.”  Continue reading

McCain allegedly told the North Carolina republican party not to run attack ads raising the Wright issue.  North Carolina Republican Party response…….not so much.  Sen. McCain, are you not the leader of the Republican Party?  If you can’t control your own party, what kind of leader are you, or more importantly, will you be?  John McCain and the Republican National Committee supposedly expressed outrage along with submitting a plea to the local GOP not to run the ad.  wink…nudge.   Flashback:  When a similar attack ad was run against Harold Ford during his U.S. Senate run in Tennessee, there was also mock outrage from the RNC and from the then republican nominee (now U.S. Senator).  Yet, the ad continued running…….now, Ford is a pundit for MSNBC.  Lucky for Obama, it does not seem that the Wright issue is hurting him like the Playboy issue hurt former Congressman Ford.  The problem that this writer has with the North Carolina situation is that McCain has played this both ways.  The Arizona Senator plays the good cop and gets credit for taking the high road by telling the local North Carolina RNC not to run the ad.  He also wins on the low road because the ad runs and possibly dings the Obama campaign after which McCain benefits.  Somehow, I think this ad will not be going away any time soon.  Even if the ad is not run in North Carolina, the main stream media has ran it 150, 000 times, accomplishing exactly what the GOP wanted to accomplish.  This is despite McCain’s continued, hmhmm…..protestations.  Something else interesting about rejecting and denouncing this ad.  When Hillary Clinton was asked to comment?…….crickets, crickets, crickets.  There has been silence from the Clinton campaign. As a matter of fact, Hillary Clinton has refused to comment on the GOP attack ad at all.  If this had come out against Clinton and Obama had refused to comment, Clinton would have been on every news outlet asking why the silence?  Word to Obama….I don’t know if a knife in a gun fight is your best weapon. 

Presumptive republican nominee John McCain has actively sought and accepted the endorsement of Pastor John Hagee, founder of Christian Zionist group, Christians United for Israel.  Rev. John Hagee has made controversial remarks about women, Katrina, African-Americans, Catholicism, homosexuality, and Islam.  Even so, McCain felt it pivotal to have this pastor associated with his campaign.   The Arizona Senator has refused to disassociate himself from Hagee or reject Hagee’s endorsement.  McCain had to address a few questions about Hagee ’s comments yesterday during his visit to New Orleans.   McCain’s response “it’s nonsense, it’s nonsense, it’s nonsense, it’s nonsense, it’s nonsense.”  Unfortunately Senator, Hagee’s own words (see below) disproves your comment.  When asked again about the Hagee endorsement, McCain responded “I didn’t attend Pastor Hagee’s church for 20 years.”   Well…so much for the impassioned letter that he sent to the North Carolina Republican Party imploring them not to run the Wright attack ad.  Not to mention that even though McCain continues to say that he is doing everything that he can to stop the NC republican party from running this ad, the head of the NC republican party said as of yesterday she had not heard a peep from McCain.  Coincidentally, the day the GOP attack ad comes out, McCain brings up the Wright issue unprompted and nonresponsive to a question regarding Hagee’s endorsement.  McCain also gave an emphatic promise to run an above the fray campaign and NOT to use the Wright issue.  I believe the exact phrase is “we will run a respectable campaign focusing on the issues.”  McCain must also account for his votes AGAINST Katrina legislation that would have given emergency health-care and unemployment assistance to Katrina victims.  His current tour is moniker-ed “the call to Action” or the “Forgotten America” tour.  I think that McCain FORGOT to ACT on the Katrina legislation. 

See some of Pastor Hagee’s very controversial remarks below. 

In 2006 during an edition of National Public Radio’s Fresh Air with Terry Gross, Gross said to Hagee, “You said after Hurricane Katrina that it was an act of God, and you said ‘when you violate God’s will long enough, the judgment of God comes to you. Katrina is an act of God for a society that is becoming Sodom and Gomorrah reborn.’ “ Gross then asked, “Do you still think that Katrina is punishment from God for a society that’s becoming like Sodom and Gomorrah?” Hagee responded:

HAGEE: All hurricanes are acts of God, because God controls the heavens. I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they are — were recipients of the judgment of God for that. The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believe that the judgment of God is a very real thing. I know that there are people who demur from that, but I believe that the Bible teaches that when you violate the law of God, that God brings punishment sometimes before the day of judgment. And I believe that the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans.  [Hagee has recently repeated his comments within the last few days]

Hagee also initiated a fundraiser for his church: 

Hagee, pastor of the 16,000-member Cornerstone Church, last week had announced a “slave sale” to raise funds for high school seniors in his church bulletin, “The Cluster.”  The item was introduced with the sentence “Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone” and ended with “Make plans to come and go home with a slave.”

A July 27, 2006, Wall Street Journal article about Hagee noted the incident:

To help students seeking odd jobs, his church newsletter, The Cluster, advertised a “slave” sale. “Slavery in America is returning to Cornerstone,” it said. “Make plans to come and go home with a slave.” Mr. Hagee apologized but, in a radio interview, protested about pressure to be “politically correct” and joked that perhaps his pet dog should be called a “canine American

“A December 23, 2007, Reuters news article on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s (R) visit to Hagee’s church reported that ‘some Catholics were angry about the visit.’ “ The article noted:

In his recent book “Jerusalem Countdown,” Hagee wrote: “Most readers will be shocked by the clear record of history linking Adolf Hitler and the Roman Catholic Church in a conspiracy to exterminate the Jews.”

In his book What Every Man Wants in a Woman, Hagee wrote: 

Do you know the difference between a woman with PMS and a snarling Doberman pincer? The answer is lipstick. Do you know the difference between a terrorist and a woman with PMS? You can negotiate with a terrorist.

Terry Gross of NPR’s Fresh Airalso asked if Hagee believed that “all Muslims have a mandate to kill Christians and Jews,” to which Hagee replied, “Well, the Quran teaches that. Yes, it teaches that very clearly.”

Why do you think that the North Carolina republican party is running an attack ad against Senator Barack Obama and nothing against Clinton?  Why do you think Clinton remains in this race even though she, being the very smart woman that she is, realizes that there is no way that she can win this nomination without ripping the democratic party apart?  2012 is the answer to the second question.  By prolonging the race, Clinton helps out her self described “very good friend” John McCain get elected in the fall.  Given McCain’s age, and the current state of the union, it opens up the possibility for another Clinton White House in 2012.  As to the first question regarding the GOP attacks.  The GOP has much more material against Clinton than they do Obama, yet they decide to release two attack ads during a democratic primary.  The GOP continues to spout that they think Clinton will be the harder candidate to beat in a general election….yet they are running attack ads against Obama.  Why not let the candidate that you (GOP) allegedly perceive as the weaker opponent win the primary thereby making a GOP win in the fall much easier?  If I thought that the weaker opposing candidate was about to become my opponent in a general contest, I certainly would NOT put out attack ads against that weaker candidate so as to get the person I view as a stronger opponent nominated.  If I were the opposition, I would try and destroy the stronger candidate before he/she becomes my opponent in the general.  Think about it.  The GOP has issued two attack ads against Obama in a democratic PRIMARY!  Unprecedented!  And please do not drink the kool-aid suggesting that Clinton has been vetted and that the GOP does not have a war chest of Clinton ammunition that has been built up since the idea of Hillary Clinton as President first surfaced six years ago.  The GOP is salivating over the possibility of running against Clinton.  An email was sent last night from Rick Davis, chairman of the McCAIN campaign, pushing Clinton’s candidacy and talking up what a better candidate she is in comparison to Barack Obama.  Clinton is a tremendous fundraising tool for the republican party.  The GOP knows that a Clinton candidacy is a unifier like no other.  What also seems to be a new hot topic for main stream media is the fact that a larger percentage of Clinton than Obama supporters say that they will not vote for Obama in the general election but will instead vote for McCain.  HEY MEDIA!!!……it’s called posturing!  Given the way Hillary has run her campaign, are you surprised that her supporters will consider false threats as a tool in this race?  In other words, use fear to scare up your preferred result.  I very seriously doubt that when McCain puts all his cards on the table with respect to Iraq, the economy, education, etc., that few voters will actually vote McCain over Obama.  Especially for those whose only issue with Obama is that he is not Hillary Clinton.  Give me a break.  Has Obama run the U.S. into a ditch like the Bush policies…which McCain has pretty much vowed to continue?  Really, lets be honest…for democrats, the most important thing is getting a democrat into the White House.  Perhaps initially there will be anger and discontent among some disgruntled Hillary supporters…but I guarantee you that once the plans of Obama and McCain are laid side by side, democrats will have a clear choice.  Not to mention that Obama has played by the rules and won by the rules.  If Clinton were somehow to get the nomination, it would be through favoritism and a subsequent changing of the rules just to give Clinton the nomination.  How do you stay angry because your candidate did not illegitimately gain the nomination when the majority of the electorate legitimately voted for the other candidate?  Supporters may be angry for a second, but there is no sustainable basis for such anger.  The opposite can be said of Obama supporters if Obama were to be denied the nomination at this point.   A real test to the voting public’s resolve in demanding a different kind of politics will be whether it will reject the attacks of Clinton and the GOP attack machine as the distractions that they are intended to be. 

Not a game changer but doesn’t put Clinton away.  Clinton cannot come close to winning the delegate count without winning all of the remaining contests by more than an 80% margin.  Her only remaining argument……the superdelegates.  Clinton will attempt to convince the superdelegates that for whatever reason Obama cannot close the deal and she will be a stronger general election candidate.  The only problem with her argument is that Obama has secured a very important voting block……the majority of the American voting public.  If Clinton is perceived to have stolen the nomination from Obama by way of a decision of the superdelegates, she will officially become unelectable after such decision is made.  The democratic party will have disenfranchised not only the african-american community, but the hoards of new voters who have been inspired by Obama’s message and candidacy.  No democrat since Franklin Roosevelt has won the presidency without the support of the african-american community.  Because Obama is winning in the delegate count, the popular vote count, states won count, the fundraising count, and the new voter count, it is hard to deny his superior electability.   These are all areas that speak to the progression of the democratic party.   Not to mention that Obama has run a magnificent campaign in comparison to Clinton.  It is amazing that the Senator from Illinois has been able to put together such a remarkable campaign considering how fresh he is to national politics.  He has put together an innovative  fundraising machine by concentrating on small donors as opposed to large VIP donors who usually contribute the bulk of funds in democratic contests.  He has an enormous history setting volunteer network.  He realized early how to organize caucus states to his benefit knowing that running against Clinton will be like running against “the first family” of the democratic party.  The ability to organize and rally such a diverse coalition is an attribute that is essential to any CEO of any company.  Such qualities speak volumes about a candidates leadership ability.  Obama decreased Clinton’s 25  point lead to 9 points in Pennsylvania even though the state is tailor made Clinton country.  Demographically speaking, Pennsylvania is the second oldest state in the country, blue collar, and catholic.  All voting blocks that have gone for Hillary throughout this primary season.  Also, women made up 47% of the vote in Pennsylvania.  However, these are older white women as opposed to younger white women where Obama usually does well in.  Older white women is Clinton’s most loyal voting block.  The shock is that the New York Senator did not win by at least 15 to 20 points.  Also with respect to fundraising, people tend to put their money where their mouth is…..if voters are not putting their money where their mouth is, then they are not really talking.  The Clinton campaign is running on gasoline fumes right now.  In contrast, democrats, republicans, and independents are contributing to Obama in droves, to the tune of 40 million as a matter of fact.  Why can’t Obama close the deal….the question should be why can’t Clinton close the deal?  Voters and supporters are not contributing the Clinton campaign with the same vigor.  The Clinton campaign is officially broke and operating in the red.  They were able to raise 2.5 million last night but they are still operating in the red even with that minor funding boost.  Even with a fundraising spike after the Pennsylvania win, sustainability is the problem facing the Clinton campaign.  Democrats are just not donating to Clinton’s campaign in the numbers that they are to the Obama campaign.  Clinton also started out this contest as the presumptive nominee, Obama came out of nowhere and threw a monkey wrench into her plans.  Why has Clinton not sewn up this nomination, and worse yet, why is she behind by all metrics used to determine victory?  That is a question that needs to be explored in more depth.  As mentioned above, Clinton’s win in Pennsylvania is not the significant win that it needed to be to make voters pause about Obama’s candidacy.  Clinton won in Pennsylvania by the same margin or less that she did Ohio.  Obama improved his numbers with older voters and women in Pennsylvania since Ohio.  Women voted for Clinton 59% to Obama’s 41%.  Clinton did maintain her stronghold with women, older voters, and catholics.  However, Obama also kept his stronghold on new, young, and educated voters, as well as african-americans.  Also, as a final point, 13% of voters in the exit poll said that race mattered in their vote.   Of that 13%,  3 out of 4 voted for Clinton over Obama.  There are a lot of white working class voters that may have a problem voting for a black candidate.  This was probably demonstrated in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  There are also a lot of older voters who are loyal to the Clintons because of their 20 year presence on the national political stage.  In which case, Obama may need to find a way to reach these two demographics.  Is it possible to do so within the remaining months in the election cycle?  Probably. If he can convince these voting blocks that he can represent them and talk to them on a level that makes them feel that he will be fighting for their interests regardless of what their beliefs are, then he has a great chance of getting their votes.

Clinton wins Pennsylvania.  As of Wednesday morning, according to the most recent tabulation from the Pennsylvania Secretary of State,  the current spread is 54.6% to 45.4% with 99.99% of the votes counted.  This is only a 9% spread which is much different than what the main stream media is reporting as 10%.  

Obama actually improved his numbers since Ohio, even though Pennsylvania is tailor made for Hillary Clinton.  In Ohio the spred was 10%, in Pennsylvania it is only 9%.  Pennsylvania has the second oldest population in the country, a demographic that is primed for a Clinton win.  This was also a closed primary where independents and republicans, two groups that Obama usually carries, were not allowed to vote.  Pennsylvania will divide 158 delegates proportionally between Obama and Clinton.  Turnout was 52%, double the turnout in 2004.  Exit polls reveal that voters whose primary issue is the economy are voting for Clinton 57 to 43.  Voters whose primary issue is Iraq are voting for Obama 57% to 43%.  There were 300,000 new voters in Pennsylvania, 35% of which are in Philadelphia and suburbs also known as Obama country.  17% of undecided voters made up their minds in the last three days.  Seniors vote to Clinton 61 to 38.  African-American vote to Obama 92 to 8.  White male to Clinton 55 to 45.  42%  says U.S. in a serious recession.  Less than 1% consider electability an issue.  Pennsylvania voters rated the following issues as most important: change 49%, experience 26%, cares about me 14%, electability 8%. 54% think that the economy is the most important issue, and 28% think that Iraq is most important.  1 in 5 Clinton voters feel that Obama will be the nominee.   64% of women voted for Clinton.  55% of white males voted for Clinton, 45% voted for Obama.  As for voters who thought that either candidate attacked the other unfairly, 67% thought that Clinton attacked Obama unfairly, and 48% thought that Obama attacked Obama unfairly.  Late deciders who decided within the last three days went to Clinton.  Newly registered democrats backed Obama.  In addition, 29% of those newly registered voters said that they would not vote for Clinton if she is the nominee. Clinton will probably net about 14 more delegates than Obama out of Pennsylvania, in addition to increasing her popular vote count by 200,000. 

The voters of the Keystone State make their voices heard today.  Pennsylvania reports that 156,ooo new voters have registered as democrats.  Also, 150,000 republicans have switched party affiliations to vote in the democratic primary.  A grand total of 8,328,123 have registered to vote for the Pennsylvania primary today.  Because there is no early voting in Pennsylvania without a valid excuse, candidates do not benefit from wide leads held in Pennsylvania six weeks ago.  The polls close at 8pm est.

Potential problems and solutions Pennsylvania voters may face at the polls today:

1. Voters without proper ID.  Voters need to bring valid identification.  New voters are required to bring identification, but all voters should bring id just to be safe.  Such identification can be a Pennsylvania drivers license or a picture student or employee id.  Acceptable non-photo ID must have a name and address, such as a current utility bill or current paycheck. 
2. Another potential problem is voters names not appearing in the poll books. If a voter’s name doesn’t appear in the poll book, Common Cause advises voters to ask poll workers to check supplemental voting lists that are sometimes printed up after the main poll books are printed, and ask the poll workers to call the county board of elections. As a last resort he or she should ask to vote on a provisional ballot. 
3. Voters arriving at the wrong precinct.  If a Pensylvanian voter shows up at the wrong precinct “their vote can still count as long as they cast their vote anywhere in the correct county, even if they are at the wrong precinct in their county.  To have their vote count, they need to complete a provisional ballot and have the correct ID.”  
4. Voting machine malfunction.  If a voter is at a polling place where voting machines have broken down or failed to start up, he or she should request an emergency paper ballot to vote. 
5. Voters arriving at the polls near closing time.  Voters who arrive at the polls and are in line before 8pm must be allowed to vote according to Pennsylvania law.  Voters cannot be turned away if they are in line by 8pm.

Voters who experience problems at their polling location should call Pennsylvania’s voter hotline: 1-877-VOTES-PA (1-877-868-3772) and/or the Common Cause national election protection line: 1-866-OUR VOTE (1-866-687-8683)

Public Policy Polling give Barack Obama a three point lead in Pennsylvania.  PPP predicted the most accurate results for South Carolina, Wisconsin, Texas, and Ohio.  This is PPP’s final poll before the Pensylvania primary.  PPP surveyed 2338 likely democratic voters on April 19th and 20th.  The marigin of error is +/- 2 points. 

President George W. Bush approval rating has dropped to a historical low of 28%.  During the course of the Bush administration the President’s approval ratings has averaged at about 52%.  These numbers reflect a very low approval rating from most democrats and independents and a mere 66% approval rating from his republican base.  According to the Gallup poll, the average approval rating for all prior presidents is 55%.  George Bush Sr.’s approval ratings during his last year in office also fell to a historical low of 29%.  Like father, like son.  It is widely reported that the economy, the unpopular war in Iraq, and gas prices, are reasons why a mere 85% of Americans are unhappy with the way things are going in the United States.

Barack Obama is currently being accused by Hillary Clinton and John McCain of being “out of touch with real Americans.”  Why are both campaigns jumping on the “bitter”  comment.  The media is their partner in crime.  Because there is a lull in the political environment, the media has jumped on this like bees to vinegar trying to make it stick.  Not to mention that the fourth estate (media) is taking its direction directly from the Clinton campaign.    The media is overplaying this and the funny thing is that they are admitting that they are overplaying it while they are overplaying it.  News Flash main stream media: U.S. Representative of Kentucky, Geoff Davis, recently made this statement “I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button…….He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.” Okay, a sitting U.S. Congressman just called a sitting African-American U.S. Senator a “boy.”  Are you kidding me?  Why is this not in a single news loop covering this election?  Even Clinton’s own surrogates see bittergate as a non-issue.  Governor of Philadelphia and Clinton supporter, Ed Rendell said yesterday that the ”bitter” comment is not a big deal and will disappear by the general election.  Even though his candidate Hillary Clinton is making the opposite argument.  Also, by saying that the media generated issue will disappear by the general election….is Ed Rendell saying that Barack Obama will be the democratic nominee? 
 

Apparently not everyone agrees with Sen. Clinton’s chracterization of Barack Obama’s comments regarding the frustrations of American workers.  Appointed as Secretary of Labor during the Clinton administration, Robert Reich sounds off about his native state of Pennsylvania and the role the mass media plays in this protracted political contest. 

I was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, 61 years ago. My father sold $1.98 cotton blouses to blue-collar women and women whose husbands worked in factories. Years later, I was secretary of labor of the United States, and I tried the best I could – which wasn’t nearly good enough – to help reverse one of the most troublesome trends America has faced: The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.

Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then — by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame “liberal elites,” to blame anyone and anything.

Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely “reported on” it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.  Continue reading

The Alliance of American Manufacturing shows displeasure when Clinton brings up “bitter” comment while speaking at its meeting in Pennsylvania.  The group wanted to hear about  manufacturing jobs and trade and how the candidates can affect their daily lives.  The crowd was not interested in hearing the back and forth between the candidates.  Clinton attempted to revisit the subject by saying “I know that many of you, like me, were disappointed by the remarks that he [Obama] made,”…the crowd responded loudly “no no no” and groans were heard throughout the audience.  There was no applause when the “bitter” comment was repeated by Clinton.  The general reaction from the group was not positive.  Clinton, without acknowledging the crowd reaction, continued her plan remarks but then moved on to other subjects.  Obama spoke in front of the exact same audience earlier in the day raising the subject of the “bitter” comment and was cheered by the audience.  Has Clinton overplayed this?  I think so.  Heads up to the Clinton campaign, voters want to know how YOU plan to make their lives better.

There is a battle of leverage going on in politics between the House and the Bush White House.  Pelosi said in a press conference yesterday that the House plans to change it’s rules in order to not vote on the Colombian Free Trade Agreement this year.  The Bush administration unilaterally sent the Agreement to the House without following proper rules set in place by the TPA.  Pelosi accused the Bush administration of attempting to force the bill instead of letting Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) fully do its job.  Pelosi insists that the Bush Administration is not considering the state of our economy.  The democrats also say that many American workers are losing their jobs and homes and the government is not doing enough to return American’s workers to their original position.  Pelosi insists that we need to address the economic insecurities of America’s working families who have been displaced by free trade.  Ways Pelosi believes that the Bush Administration can do so is with a good faith effort toward the passage of a Healthcare bill and a Housing bill that addresses the home mortgage crisis.   Pelosi says that she warned the President against this unilateral action, now the House will take it’s action today by changing House rules that will avoid a vote on the Colombian Trade Agreement this year.  I guess you have to play the hand you’re dealt.  This is the same Colombian Bilateral Trade Agreement that Bill Clinton and Mark Penn of the Clinton campaign were paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote and help get passed.  So much for  Sen. Clinton being the ”fighter” for the working class.

All three presidential candidates are in Washington DC on Capitol Hill today.  Two of which, Obama and Clinton, will have some probing questions for Gen. David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker regarding Iraq.  The hearings are before the Armed Forces Committee and the Foreign Relations Committee.  McCain is expected to praise Gen. Petraeus, while Clinton and Obama are expected to be far more skeptical about any alleged progress in Iraq.  The U.S. is trying to reduce troop presence in Iraq but the General is expected recommend a freeze on troop withdrawal.  In the past 48 hours, 11 of our troops have been killed.  The violence is down to a lower level than it was in 2004.   Still, 40 American troops are being killed per month, along with 400 Iraqi civilians.  Most say that Iraq needs a political solution rather than a military one.  John McCain has stated that his winning the presidency is predicated on the success or failure of the surge in Iraq.

Hillary Clinton’s chief campaign strategist steps down after it was revealed that he met with the Columbian government regarding promoting its bilateral free-trade agreement.  Oh, and by the way, his employer and candidate Hillary Clinton….she opposes it…”as far as I know.”  Penn’s firm, Burson-Marsteller has represented the Columbian government regarding this trade deal all while being the chief driver and archetect of Clinton’s campaign.  After meeting with the Colombian government and getting caught, Penn attempted to apologize for the blunder by calling it “an error in judgement.” The Columbian government, insulted by Penn’s apology, fired Penn soonafter he made it.  Penn’s firm signed a $300,000 contract with the Colombian government in March 2007.  Uhhhh…didn’t his firm collect $8 million from the Clinton campaign for work completed just through February 2008 alone.  That was a serious “error in judgement!”  Penn has been a walking, talking, conflict of interest since campaign Clinton’s inception.  Not just for this most recent conflict but also for other clients represented by the firm that are in direct contrast to positions held by his candidate and boss, Hillary Clinton.   The most glaring contradiction is Clinton’s current positing of a  pro-labor stance and pandering to the working class while Penn’s firm is advising numerous anti-labor corporations.  Penn is the person who crafted Clinton’s primary campaign message based on strength and experience.  He also was responsible for the 3AM phone call ad.  Representatives from the Clinton campaign says that Howard Wolfson will now “coordinate” the campaign “strategic” messages.  This past weekend, seven labor unions called on Hillary Clinton to get rid of Penn.  Which she allegedly did on Sunday night….kinda.  The Clinton campaign claims that he will  no longer be “chief strategist” but the campaign will continue to seek advice from him regarding the campaign.  Is he fired or not?  Because Clinton is trying to win Pennsylvania, a state disproportionately and adversely affected by free trade, she may be engaged in a game of smoke and mirrors.  Apparently only Penn’s title has been taken away but Penn will still be doing the job.  The campaign is saying that Wolfson will now be “coordinating” the message, not developing or creating it.  Who will be developing and creating the message?  I am guessing that when asked about the Mark Penn situation during campaign stops, Clinton will respond….well, he is no longer my Chief campaign strategist.  Yes, he did lose his title, but he is still being paid and is doing the same job.  Simply tweaking Penn’s title does not change the serious conflict of interest that Penn’s presence poses for the Clinton campaign.  If Penn is surrounding himself by various anti-labor corporations and governments, it is very difficult to understand how that fact does not affect the advice that he gives to Hillary Clinton.  It is also difficult to believe, given Clinton’s knowlege of this obvious fact, that Clinton is not complicit in this blatant conflict of interest.  Or even worst, believes the exact opposite of what she claims on the campaign stump.    Penn’s firm also represents Blackwater, a notorious private security company contracted by the State department who is accused of various illegal activities and atrocities during it’s tenure in Iraq.   Another of Penn’s clients is Cintas, a notorious anti-labor uniform and laundry supply company currently on an agressive mission to block 20,000 of it’s garment workers and truck drivers from forming a labor union.  Should a candidate claiming to be “AGAINST NAFTA  from the beginning” and currently CLAIMING to OPPOSE all future trade agreement deals, be employing such individuals to direct her campaign.  Probably not.  Simply changing the title of Mark Penn does not rectify the problem….you’re still employing him, and the American public, and more specifically, Pennsylvania voters, are not so easily fooled.

Barack Obama raised $40 million for the month of March.  Just during March!  The $40 million was raised from 442,000 donors, 212,000 of which were first-time donors.  The average donation was $96.  Total donors that have donated to the Obama campaign thus far, 1, 276,000.  Unbelievable!  It looks like the Senator’s strategy of partnering with the American people has paid off big time.  Not to mention that it is validation for his opposition to special interest groups.  It looks like when Obama says that he will not be beholding to the lobbyists in Washington, the American people has put their money where Obama’s mouth is.  Hillary Clinton raised a respectable $20 million, still outraising McCain by a substantial margin.  McCain has not yet released his numbers.  One important thing to note is that the Internet has truly been an equalizer in this election.  It has democratized the political process in a significant way.  Citizens are making their voice heard.  The candidates are raising record amounts of money through the click of an email.  I believe that this election will be a pivotal turning point in our nation’s history.  Not just because we will have either our first African-American, or our first female democratic nominee; but because of the unprecedented access that technology has enabled the ordinary citizen and the presidential candidates to have to one another.  The Internet has enabled candidates to reach out to their supporters in an instant.  Millions of dollars can be raised in a matter of hours.  Whether its for fundraising, damage control, motivation, or reassurance, all that is needed is a simple inexpensive email communication.  Long gone are the days were a press conference was the most effective way to reach out to supporters, the Internet is much more effective and further reaching.  The same cannot be said about traditional media.  Though, technology does supplement traditional media, e.g., youtube, VOD, etc..  Ordinary citizens have unprecedented access to the candidates via the technological advances of the last decade.  Such advances require elected officials to answer to their constiuents more readily and consistently.  Citizens have become more engaged and informed thus more likely to be involved in the process.  And, more likely to hold officials accountable through their vote, and their pocketbooks.  This new development decreases the liklihood of politicians being controlled by political action committes and special interest groups.  I suspect that corporations and lobbyists will be be looking for an alternative route to influence legislation and officials moving forward.  For example, by rallying support from the new power brokers………American voters.  This is campaign finance reform at its best.  With reformation of campaign financing in full effect, the deep pocket route of political influence may be on its way to obsoletion.  Replaced by the influence of the ordinary citizen.  It is a new day in Washington.  Technology has enable citizens to become much more aware of the power they harness.  Because of the Internet, constituents are seeking out information that is actually important to them, instead of being told by the media what is important.  We, as voters, have become a much more significant part of the process simply by listening, reading, and getting involved.  More citizen involvement leads to much more accountability, which leads to a much stronger democracy.  Technology has caused our country to truly become a democracy of its citizens.  A democracy where the will of the people will be done.  Progress.