John McCain was all for talking with Hamas two years ago before he started running for president.  Now the Arizona senator has flip flopped on the double-talk express.  A pattern is developing here.  This was written in response to McCain’s outrageous statement yesterday in support of President Bush’s outrageous and unprecedented comments regarding “appeasement” that Bush made about Sen. Obama on the 60th anniversary of Israel’s independence.  Bush also violated 60 years of uninterrupted american foreign policy in that you do not criticize american foreign policy on foreign soil.  See interview with James Rubin:

RUBIN: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCAIN: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Joe Andrew, who Bill Clinton appointed Chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1999, has just switched his support from Hillary Clinton to Barack Obama.   Andrew has been a supporter of Sen. Clinton since she first announced her bid for the presidency.  Andrew made is announcement at a press conference in his hometown of Indianapolis, Indiana Thursday morning.   During the press conference Andrew encouraged his fellow Democrats and Hoosiers to end this madness and unite behind Barack Obama for Tuesdays primary.  In his telephone interview with the Associated Press Andrew said “I am convinced that the primary process has devolved to the point that it’s now bad for the Democratic Party.”  Andrew also cited additional reasons for his switch in a letter to superdelegates.  In the letter the former DNC Chairman says ”a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote to continue this process, and a vote to continue this process is a vote that assists (Republican) John McCain.”  Andrew went on to say  “[w]hile I was hopeful that a long, contested primary season would invigorate our party, the polls show that the tone and temperature of the race is now hurting us,” Andrew continued. “John McCain, without doing much of anything, is now competitive against both of our remaining candidates. We are doing his work for him and distracting Americans from the issues that really affect all of our lives.”  Andrew said that teh Obama campaign never asked him to switch his support but he did so after witnessing the principled way that Obama has handled two recent issues that have challenged his campaign.  The Wright controversy and the gas tax holiday qestion.  Andrew praised the fact that Obama stuck to his guns with respect to the gas tax holiday even though the politically expedient thing to do would have been to go along with Clinton and McCain on this issue.  And, he also praised Obama’s handling of the Jeremiah Wright controversy saying that Obama “has shown such mettle under fire.”  Andrew’s decision also increases Obama’s superdelegate count thereby clossing in on Clinton’s current lead.  The current count for superdelegates 247-263 Clinton.  However, Obama leads in the delegate count overall 1735.5 to 1597.5 for Clinton.  Last count, 230 superdelegates remain undecided, and about 60 more will be selected at state party conventions and meetings throughout the spring

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.

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.

Congressman Emmanuel Cleaver of Missouri, Clinton supporter, made several statements about his candidate Sen. Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning the democratic nomination.  In a very candid interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Congressman Cleaver said bluntly “if I had to make a prediction right now, I’d say that Barack Obama is going to be the next President.”  Uhhh…aren’t you a superdelegate for the opposing candidate?  Cleaver explains, “[e]ven though I don’t expect the Kansas City Chiefs to beat the Indianapolis Colts, I cheer for the Kansas City Chiefs[.]”  Cleaver clarifies further his support for Clinton using words like loyalty and friendship.  When asked about taking this nomination fight to the convention, Cleaver aswered  “I’m suppose to say that taking the fight to the convention is good for America”…..the truth is that it would be a “tragedy of tragedies.”  This is in direct opposition to Sen. Clinton’s vow to take this all the way to the convention if necessary.  Wow!! 

Top Clinton campaign surrogate and Governor of Pennsylvania, Ed Rendell, said yesterday on Meet the Press with Tim Russert, that even if Obama is ahead in the popular vote, ahead in elected delegates, and ahead in states won, Clinton should still win the nomination.  In other words, okay kids (electorate),…go play in the romper room and let the grown ups take it from here.  Russert asked Rendell again…even if Obama is ahead in ELECTED delegates, should Obama win the nomination?  Rendell answered…no, Clinton should still be the nominee.  Rendell then said something to the effect of,  the voters don’t really understand what is going on so it’s up to us to make their decision for them..i.e. thank you kids….the big boys will take over from here.  It is the height of insult and condescension to the American people, who are more informed and engaged and have come out and participated in greater numbers than any other election in history.  That inescapable fact seems to be irrelevant to the Clinton campaign.  According to Campaign Clinton, the will of the voters is immaterial.  The campaign’s attitude appears to be that the voters don’t matter….us politicians (meaning the Clinton campaign and its surrogates), know what is best for America.  The campaign also continues to make the disingenuous argument that because Clinton won some of the big states that she somehow has an edge over Obama in a general election.  Does the Clinton campaign really expect the American people to believe that because she won a few LARGE states, by a small margin, that are ALWAYS won, with the exception of Ohio, by the democratic candidate in the general election, that hers is a stronger case than Obama’s double digit wins in both LARGE states and red states, therefore putting in play such republican states as Virginia, Missouri, Minnesota and Iowa for the general election???  Obama’s wins effectively enlarge the democratic electorate/base dramatically and demonstrably thereby significantly increasing the party’s chances of victory in the fall.  Just to put things in perspective, John Kerry won PENNSYLVANIA, New York, Rhode Island, New Jersey, California, and Massachusetts in the 2004 election against George W. Bush.  So all the states that the Clinton campaign claims as ”better” wins than Obama’s, are solid blue states that have been won by the democratic candidate in the general election for the last several decades.  Therefore, it stands to reason and logic that Obama will also win such states in the fall.   Enough with the empty and false arguments.  The latest Clinton campaign strategy, at least in Mississippi, is the Jedi mind-trick strategy.  Clinton, behind in the popular vote, behind in states won, and behind in elected delegates, is attempting to offer Barack Obama the vice president position.  In other words, the person in the number two position, is offering the person in the number one position, the number two spot.  The Clinton campaign pushes this option in hopes of gaining votes by, what can only be described as, hoodwinking the American people into believing that such a ticket is possible.  Obama has flat out said that we will not see him as a vice presidential candidate on any ticket.  The offer is also illogical and inconsistent with Clinton’s assertion that Obama is not ready to be President.  Because every vice president has to be ready on “day one” to assume the presidential role, how then can you argue out of one side of your mouth that Obama is not ready to be President and out of the other side endorse him as vice president?  Either you believe that he is ready to be President or you do not.  We the voters are not so easily fooled as to accept both arguments as valid.  Luucy…you got some splaining to do.  Obviously, the campaign did not think either strategy through before putting it out there. To top it off, Clinton essentially said that John McCain is ready to be President, she is ready to be President, but Barack Obama is not.  Clinton actually argues that the republican candidate is a better option than the leading candidate in her own party.  In this writers opinion, Clinton has officially become the suicide candidate.  As she detonates herself, she plans to detonate the entire Democratic party along with her, thereby gifting the White House to the republicans in the fall.  It seems that Clinton’s loyalty is to herself first, to the Democratic party second, and to the the voters….a very distant last.  Viva Clinton!!!

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton had their final debate, before the Jr Tuesday March 4th primaries, in Ohio.  Both candidates held their own.  There were a couple of tense moments where both candidates accused each other of negative campaign tactics and clashed over Healthcare, NAFTA, Iraq, and foreign policy.  Clinton mentioned the Saturday Night Live clip and attempted to rehash the joke by asking whether the moderators wanted to offer Obama a pillow.  I don’t think that she got the response from the audience that she hoped for.  Clinton also mentioned that she is always being called on first for questions but doesn’t mind, however, did want the moderators to be aware of it.  Some predict that the statement was an attempt to garner sympathy from voters regarding her alleged unfair treatment by the press.  I also think that Clinton was trying to find an opening to use the Saturday Night Live skit, and when one didn’t present itself soon enough, she created an opening.  Unfortunately for her, again, the attempted joke fell flat.  Maureen Dowd writes an article in the New York Times regarding the alleged Obama favorable press charge by the Clinton campaign.  The gist of the article is that the charge is silly because of the special treatment that the Clinton campaign has received.  As an example, the article offers as proof of the openmindness of the press, the fact that no other candidate could lose 11 contests in a row by such large margins and still be embraced and touted by the press as a major contender.  We have all heard it, “don’t count a Clinton out,” “Hillary could come back.”  Does anyone actually believe that if the situation were reversed and Obama had lost 11 contests in a row by such wide margins that the press would still be touting him as a contender?  Visions of Mike Huckabee comes to mind.  Democratic party leaders would be asking him to fade out so that the party can began moving toward the general election.  Clinton also finally said that she regrets her vote on the Iraq war.  Unfortunately for the Clinton campaign, the debate was not a game changer.  The Clinton campaign went in hoping for a major blunder by Obama, or at least a big moment, that will somehow turn the tide in its direction.  That moment didn’t come.  Both candidates performed well and the debate seemed to this writer to be a draw.  However, current MSNBC post-debate polls show that 70% of the people watching the debate thought that Obama won, while 30% thought Clinton won out of the 97,000 people who have voted.  Latest national polls released before the debate also revealed that Obama is now leading Clinton by double digits.  The latest Rasmussen poll shows Obama closing in on Clinton’s lead in Ohio with Clinton at 48% and Obama at 43%.  According to the latest CNN poll, Obama is leading in Texas with 50% to Clinton’s 46%.

Ralph Nader has again decided to attempt to be the spoiler for the 2008 election.  Even though in the 2004 election he only won .03 percent of the vote. This is Nader’s third run for the presidency as an alleged consumer advocate. Nader has criticized the candidates from both political parties for disagreeing with him even though voters have shown that his interests are not necessarily in line with those of the average American or even in some respects his supporters.  Nader believes that unless you buy in on his agenda hook, line, and sinker….you are somehow lacking.  He claims to be against everything that McCain stands for, yet through his bloated sense of self-importance, he has actually become his ally.  If history is anything to go by, Nader is hoping for another 2000 election.  The “consumer advocate” candidate has refused to take any responsibility for the 2000 election but continues to blame the results on Katherine Harris, the Supreme Court, and Jeb Bush.  The final tally of the 2000 Florida showed that Nader received over 97 thousand votes, Gore lost Florida by a little over 500 votes.  Therefore, had Nader not been on the ballot, Gore would probably be finishing off his last year as President.  Not to mention the different position that the country would be in had Al Gore become President instead of George Bush due to a very contrasting style of governing.  Last year, Nader said that he will only run if he received $10 million in campaign funds.  When asked whether he had raised the $10 million, his campaign declined to comment.  So even though he does not appear to have the public support, as evidenced by his inability to reach his fundraising goal, he has decided to indulge his narcissistic tendencies by making a third run for the presidency.  Nader’s self indulgence is his chief priority regardless of the fact that only his “supporters” bear the risks and costs of his actions. It is clear that the only people that will benefit from Nader’s run for president are those supporting John McCain. Therefore, if Nader is your candidate and you do not mind having at least another four years of the republicans in the Executive Office, then by all means roll the dice and vote for Nader.  Just stay informed.

After 50 years in power, Fidel Castro steps down as leader of Cuba.  The Communist leader has been ailing since November 2006.  Castro, in a statement released during the night, has officially resigned and will not seek a new term.   The question in Washington is who takes the reigns next?  The U.S. has hoped for the demise of the communist leader for decades.  Castro has outlasted nine U.S. Presidents.  Many will speculate as to Cuba’s new role in the world.  Will Cuba go democratic?  Will their be anarchy due to the return of exiles seeking power?  Castro began his rise to power on January 1, 1959, when the revolutionary forces overthrew the Batista dictatorship in Cuba.  On Feb 16, 1959, Castro officially became Prime Minister of Cuba and has been ruling the island every since.  On April 17, 1961 the Bay Of Pigs happened when 1300 Cuban exiles armed U.S. weapons landed on the island and were killed or captured after the U.S. cancelled air support.  During the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, the Soviet Union secretly installed bases in Cuba that included missiles and nuclear war heads.  After finding this out, JFK ordered a quarantine of the island bringing the U.S. and the Soviet Union to the brink of nuclear war. Eventually the Soviets agree to remove missiles in exchange for the U.S. removing it’s missiles from Turkey.  The U.S. also gave it’s word that it would not move against the Castro regime.  From April to September of 1980, there was a mass exodus of 125,000 Cubans who immigrated to the U.S., such exodus was labeled the Mariel Boatlift.  In 1999, Elian Gonzalez is picked up off the Florida coast after his mother died at sea.  Even after a very public campaign by members of Elian’s family to keep him here in the United States, Elian Gonzalez is returned to his father in Cuba.  In July of 2006, Castro undergoes intestinal surgery and temporarily hands over power to his brother Raul.  A spokesperson from the White House has confirmed that the United States has no intention of lifting its embargo on Cuba as result of this new development. 

Georgia voters have spoken and Barack Obama is definitely on their mind!  The results are in and Obama wins in Georgia by double digits against his chief rival Hillary Clinton.  The Senator from the Windy City will receive a proportion of the 86 delegates available from the southern state.  Obama received  43% of the white vote in Georgia, this is up significantly from South Carolina where he only received 23%.  Maybe the Senator of Illinois is on to something…what do you think?  The republican race is still too close to call.  The contenders in the tight 3-way race for the republicans are Huckabee, McCain, and Romney.  McCain be very careful about what you wish for.  Huckabee may turn into a serious contender for the republican nomination.

Many of the same arguments being leveled against Obama’s candidacy were made against JFK by the democratic party establisment during Kennedy’s run for president in 1960.  The experience argument, the national security argument, all of same arguments were used during the Kennedy-Johnson primaries of 1960.  Kennedy was dubbed too young and inexperienced to be trusted with the Presidency.  Kennedy was asked by Truman to “be patient” until he had more seasoning.  Kennedy responded with winning the nomination and then the Presidency in November of 1960.  Just like in 1960, the democratic party is resisting change with tooth and nail.  Unfortunately, for those political veterans who have been in Washington for too many years,  change is coming.  Those who expect the usual rules of old school politics to dictate the outcome of this election will be sorely disappointed.   Just as most voters must have felt on November 7, 1960…..it is a new day in Washington.