Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Obama Ready To Lock Up Nomination

In this never ending Democratic primary, Obama is set to take the Democratic nomination for President. According to Politico.com:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9968.html

Capitol Hill insiders say the battle for congressional superdelegates is over, and one Senate supporter of Barack Obama is hinting strongly that he has prevailed over Hillary Rodham Clinton.

While more than 80 Democrats in the House and Senate have yet to state their preferences in the race for the Democratic nomination, sources said Tuesday that most of them have already made up their minds and have told the campaigns where they stand.

"The majority of superdelegates I've talked to are committed, but it is a matter of timing," said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.). "They're just preferring to make their decision public after the primaries are over. ... They would like someone else to act for them before they talk about it in the cold light of day."

Obama currently holds an 18-13 lead among committed superdelegates in the Senate, while Clinton holds a 77-74 lead in the House. Asked which way the committed-but-unannounced superdelegates are leaning, McCaskill -- who has endorsed Obama -- said: "James Brown would say, 'I Feel Good.'"

Even though I hate the idea of super-delegates, under the current rules both candidates would need those delegates. In all likelihood, Obama will end up with the most pledge delegates when all the primaries are concluded on June 3rd. The super-delegates would be extremely foolish to overturn the pledged delegate count, especially if Obama has the popular lead also (most likely he will keep his lead in that arena also). At least Obama is getting a little bit of good news today...

Obama Cuts Ties to Reverend Wright

Man, after the show Rev. Wright put on at the National Press Club on Monday, many had to wonder what he was trying to do. Was he purposely trying to sabotage Obama's campaign? Did he want to bask in all the media attention? Whatever he was trying to prove, he's done Obama no favors in putting on his little show on Monday. So finally on Tuesday, Obama once and for all cut ties to his former pastor. Here's excerpts from the story ran by the AP (linked through HuffingtonPost).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080429/obama-pastor/

Barack Obama angrily denounced his former pastor for "divisive and destructive" remarks on race, seeking to divorce himself from the incendiary speaker and a fury that threatens to engulf his front-running Democratic presidential campaign.

"I am outraged by the comments that were made and saddened over the spectacle that we saw yesterday," Obama told reporters at a news conference Tuesday.

"What became clear to me is that he was presenting a world view that contradicts who I am and what I stand for," Obama said. "And what I think particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing. Anybody who knows me and anybody who knows what I'm about knows that I am about trying to bridge gaps and I see the commonality in all people."

The Illinois senator said of Wright's statements Monday: "All it was was a bunch of rants that aren't grounded in truth."

"Obviously, whatever relationship I had with Reverend Wright has changed," Obama said. "I don't think he showed much concern for me, more importantly I don't think he showed much concern for what we're trying to do in this campaign."

Obama said he didn't vet his pastor before deciding to seek the presidency. He said he was particularly distressed that the furor has been a distraction to the purpose of a campaign.

"I gave him the benefit of the doubt in my speech in Philadelphia explaining that he's done enormous good. ... But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS. ... There are no excuses. They offended me. They rightly offend all Americans and they should be denounced."

Obama did the right thing by severing ties to this person. His press conference should answer all the lingering questions anyone would have about his relationship with his former pastor. Obama was visibly angry and sadden by the turn of events. Throught this whole ordeal, what Obama did was courageous. First at his major speech on race in Philadelphia, he did what no other politician would have done: instead of throwing his pastor under the bus, he gave him the benefit of the doubt. But after his rants on Monday, Obama did the right thing by disassociating himself from him. Rev. Wright had the chance to quiet down and fully support Obama by not saying anything inflammatory. This controversy was already dying down but Rev. Wright had to reappear all over again.


Of course this will not be the last time we hear from Rev. Wright. He will most definitely reappear on the media somewhere, and most definitely the Republicans will use this as a fear-mongering tactic against Obama. But I guess this is better that all of this gets out now...

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Running the Campaign

We have heard (mostly from the Clinton campaign) about what it takes to become President. Hillary had the nerve to rank John McCain more prepared to become president than fellow Democrat Barack Obama. Personally, I think all this talk about what it takes to be President is all BS. I think a better barometer of what kind of President the candidates could become is how they run their respective campaigns. And boy, how the Obama and Clinton campaigns are ran differently. Politico has a great article today about how the Obama campaign has been solid under grave and pressure.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9891.html

Barack Obama
After primary losses and negative media, Obama campaign shows no signs of internal struggle.
Photo: AP

After Sen. Barack Obama’s third major primary loss and endless media coverage dedicated to dissecting the apparent weaknesses of his candidacy, one of the most striking elements of his campaign this week was what’s missing: any hint of internal upheaval.

At Obama headquarters in Chicago, hundreds of miles removed from the Beltway bubble, advisers held steadfast in their adherence to The Plan, a blueprint devised 15 months ago by the same inner circle that runs the campaign today, supported by the candidate and carried out by a tight-knit staff.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s operation could not be more dissimilar. Her campaign, ensconced in a Washington suburb, has experienced two major staff shakeups fueled by high-level staff rivalries, shifting strategies and an unusual degree of finger-pointing.

...

“In a parallel universe kind of sense, there are real similarities” between Obama and Bush, said Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who left the top post in Sen. John Kerry’s 2004 presidential campaign amid a shakeup.

“Intense loyalty to and belief in the candidate,” Jordan said, citing the similarities. “Simple, clear lines of authority with real discipline among the staff and consultants. Deep, talented teams. Maybe most importantly, candidates who trust their campaign, who understand what they’re doing, who deliver as well as demand loyalty, who intuitively relate to and handle their campaigns with just the right touch.

...

One of my favorite quotes from that article is from David Axelrod, political consultant for Obama. Talking to Obama's would-be media consultant Jim Margolis:

“There are no assholes,” Axelrod responded. “There are going to be no assholes on this campaign.”

There are many reasons why Obama has ran such a successful campaign, but that quote by Axelrod shows what type of campaign it is. In the article, they mentioned that many of the top brass in Obama's campaign are colleagues and close friends. From the beginning, Obama's campaign has not been plagued with infighting, bickering, and existing rivalries. More importantly, there has been no major shakeups in his campaign, minus Samantha Power resigning due to her 'monster' comment towards Clinton. Other than that, it has been relative calm from Obama headquarters.

What is important to note is that Obama has surrounded himself with people who share the same values as him. Obama and his top aides knows who are the line of power runs through and a strong intolerance towards infighting. I truly believe that how he is running his campaign is a prelude to how he would run the white house. He would not tolerate infighting and would want to make the White House run as effectively as it can. How would Hillary run the White House? Just look at her campaign.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Couple Steps Closer to Nomination...

Two stories emerged today that shows the confidence the Obama campaign has in locking up the nomination and laying down plans for the general election. First, from The Page's Mark Halperin:

http://thepage.time.com/obama-dnc-fundraising-deal/

After a series of discussions, the Obama campaign and the Democratic National Committee have decided to file papers with the Federal Election Commission establishing a “joint fundraising agreement.” Under the law, such a committee can accept up to $28,500 from individuals, most of which would go to the DNC.

Presumptive Republican nominee John McCain has already formed such an alliance with the Republican National Committee. Their group — called Victory — was created in March after McCain clinched the GOP nomination and is headed by McCain adviser Carly Fiorina.

Sources say the DNC has also held talks with Hillary Clinton’s campaign about forming a separate vehicle with her, but that no deal has been struck.

The fact that the Obama campaign is moving forward and Clinton is not at this time reflects certain important realities: Obama’s team is more confident that he will win the nomination than is Clinton’s — and Obama’s campaign has the necessity and luxury of thinking about and planning for the general election to come.

As part of that preparation, the campaign is thinking about how to divide up roles and responsibilities between the campaign’s Chicago headquarters and the DNC in Washington.

The DNC has stood out during this election cycle as the one major party entity that has not been raising money like gangbusters, and officials in both camps hope the joint agreement can allow the DNC to tap into Obama’s extraordinary leverage and popularity with donors, particularly after he secures the nomination — assuming he does.

The committee formed under the agreement is still in search of a final name.


Again, this shows the confidence the Obama campaign has in winning the nomination. By fund raising with the DNC, Obama can help the DNC rake in cash to spend during the general election. This election will be crucial not because the Democrats are on the verge of nominating the first African American to be President, it is because the Republicans know that they have an uphill climb this year in winning the White House. And because of that, the Republicans will throw EVERYTHING and use EVERYTHING to deny Obama the White House. The Dems will need all the money to combat the GOP machine.

And this story from the Chicago Tribune

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-campaign_fri.1apr25,0,2850297.story

Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign is planning to unveil a "massive" voter registration drive, one that will reach all 50 states and seeks to boost confidence in him as a potential general election candidate.

A senior campaign official is expected to provide details about the effort in a conference call Friday.

But the candidate himself — or his speechwriters — apparently slipped up and included a reference to the effort in an address to a union group Thursday in Chicago.

"That's why I'm so proud that today our campaign announced a massive volunteer-led voter registration drive in all 50 states to help ensure every single eligible voter takes part in this election so we can take back Washington for the American people," Obama said at the Hyatt Regency McCormick Place.

This is extremely important mainly to show the remaining undecided superdelegates why Obama would be the strongest candidate in the general election. Because unlike the other two candidates, who will try to shore up their bases and try to win 1 or 2 so-called battleground states, Obama, for better or worse, will try to put as many states into play as possible. We have seen Obama capable of winning in the South and Midwest, thus putting fear into the GOP in these states. Obama just doesn't want to win the traditional Democratic states, he wants to change the electoral map, a new coalition of states that will help him to the presidency.







Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Hillar Loses by Winning

I love the headline that Drudge has on their front page (as of 11:17pm)

http://drudgereport.com/

ALL THAT FOR TEN DELEGATES?

Clinton needed to blow out Obama in Pennsylvania and substantially cut into his pledge delegate count. Some see her 10 point margin of victory was significant. But after all that work in Pennsylvania, she wound up with a whopping...10 delegates. She lost the day by winning. even with her winning Pennsylvania, she would need to win all the remaining states by 65-70%, depending on what who is doing the calculations. Here's some calculations by MSNBC's Chuck Todd



According to Chuck Todd, they would call the delegate race for Obama like they would do for states. He said that Clinton would need to win roughly 69% of the remaining delegates. And if they split the delegates 50-50 in Indiana and North Carolina, then Clinton would then need to win 85% of the remaining delegates. 85 freaking percent.

And another great point brought up in the video. Now Clinton is trying to lie her way to claiming the popular vote lead. According to the way she counts, her votes include Florida and Michigan, which of course that's the only way of her getting the popular vote lead. But remember, both candidates agreed before the primary season that these two states would not count. Hillary was even caught on air saying that "Michigan does not count for anything." More importantly, Obama's name was not even on the ballot. In Florida, Obama did not have a chance to campaign in the state, with Clinton enjoying early name recognition.

Again, the next battleground is moved to May 6th in Indiana and North Carolina. Because of the stubbornness of the Clinton campaign and their failure to see that their campaign is indeed finished, they're going to waste more time fighting each other rather than the person they should be fighting: John McCain. More time and money being wasted. Someone please tell Hillary that she cannot win and drop out now... That's to you Nancy Pelosi and Al Gore...

Monday, April 21, 2008

Whose Irresponsible Now?

Hillary Clinton never ceases to amaze me. I would never have thought that a Democrat could've been equally or more hawkish on war than John McCain. The perfect example was the debate last week on ABC regarding a question on Iran. Barack Obama said that he would take necessary action against Iran if they were to attack Israel. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, said that she would respond with a "massive retaliation" against Iran if they were to attack Israel. And I just read this on ABC News:

"I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran," Clinton said. "In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

http://www.abcnews.go.com/WN/Vote2008/story?id=4698059&page=1

Now I have to ask this question: Which one is worse, McCain saying that we should stay in Iraq for 50-100 years, or Clinton saying to "obliterate" Iran of they attacked Israel?

Both statements are highly irresponsible, but Clinton's statement (from the debate and the interview on ABC News) is truly shocking coming from a Democrat. At least Obama's stance on Iran is less hawkish than Clinton's. Clinton's statements would just inflame the already starined tensions between Tehran and Washington. What we need to do is to engage Tehran, along with surrounding countries in the region, into diplomacy. What we need is another conflict in the Middle East. The more we irritate Iran, the more they will likely enrich uranium and the higher possibility of them attacking Israel. The only reason I see Iran attacking Israel is to draw the United States into a larger conflict in the region. They know our military is already stretched. It would be foolish for them to attack us directly, so their only option is to attack our allies. We don't need any more enemies in the Middle East. We need stability and the only way to do that is through diplomacy and deterrence.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

40,000 strong... and a random march

Barack Obama's rally in Philadelphia on Friday drew an estimated 35,000-40,000 people in Independence Park. Here's the story from the AP:

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - Barack Obama was greeted by the largest crowd of his campaign Friday night in Philadelphia. Some 35,000 people jammed into Independence Park to see the Democratic presidential candidate, four days before this state's crucial April 22 primary.

Frank Friel, director of security at the Independence Visitor Center, made the official estimate.

The crowd exceed the 30,000 who greeted Obama and Oprah Winfrey in December in Columbia, S.C.

Obama told the crowd the United States is at a crucial moment in its history, much like what the founding fathers faced in Philadelphia.

"It was over 200 years ago that a group of patriots gathered in this city to do something that no one in the world believed they could do," Obama said. "After years of a government that didn't listen to them, or speak for them, or represent their hopes and their dreams, a few humble colonists came to Philadelphia to declare their independence from the tyranny of the British throne."

The Illinois senator called Democratic rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a "tenacious" opponent but said it was time to move beyond the politics of the 1990s.

"Her message comes down to this: We can't really change the say-anything, do-anything, special interest-driven game in Washington, so we might as well choose a candidate who really knows how to play it," Obama said.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080419/D904LCA01.html

Of course this is expected from an Obama rally. People shouldn't even be surprised by his ability to attract tens of thousands of people. But what was amazing was what happen following the rally. From The Atlantic reporter Marc Ambinder...

PHILADELPHIA -- It wasn't so much that Barack Obama had real fight in him tonight, or that more people attended his rally in front of Independence Hall than any other event since he announced his candidacy. It was the spontaneous demonstration of support that happened when it ended.

5,000 people (at least) had nowhere to go but up Market Street. Obama's charge of the night: "Declare independence!" was with them. They started with the familiar "O-Bam-A." By 7th and Market, they had graduated to "Yes we can!" By 10th and Market, with hundreds streaming in between cars on the road, they were just cheering. At first, a few Philly cops, killjoys, tried to rough the crowd to the sidewalks. It didn't work. The cops retreated to the sidewalks. By the time I ducked into my hotel, a full mile away from Independence Park, the Obama crowd was still marching.

s%20075.jpg

The headlines Obama intended to generate were as follows: first, the secondary point, so reporters can write that Obama looked forward to the general election: John McCain is man who deserves respect. "But the change this country needs will not come rom a third George W. Bush term. And what is exactly what his campaign is offering. John McCain is offering four more years of a war with no exit strategy, a war with no end in sight, a war that is sending our troops on their thid, fourth and fifth tours of duty." Four good measure, Obama repeated the disputable claim that McCain saw "great progress" from seven and a half years of George W. Bush's" economic program.

The main headline was -- is -- a series of non-wimpy, crisply delivered, very direct digs at Hillary Clinton. Obama started this riff, but aware that the crowd was still thinking about McCain, paused, then said,"Listen up you guys."

Quiet.

Hillary Clinton "is a tenacious campaigner and is a committed public servant," he began. (Boos. I mean, Obama could have said the same thing about Brownie.) But her message, he said, is "that we can't really change the say anything, do anything special interest game of so we might as well choose a candidate who knows how to play the game." He mocked her "kitchen sink strategy." Then he said, "I'm not running to be the president who plays the same old game. I'm running to end the game."

"This year we can’t afford the same old politics. This year we can declare our independence from this kind of politics."

The metaphor was labored, but, I mean -- how could you not use it? (To those of us who're watching John Adams on HBO, we can envision George Washington giving his second inaugural addresson on the second floor balcony of Independence Hall -- all of this visible to Obama and to the press, it was -- sorry VandeHarris, a little eerie.)

An Obama aide sized the crowd at about 40,000. It was probably was a little bit less, but a senior campaign official said it was the biggest the campaign had ever seen.

As usual, about 3,000 guests directly in front of Obama were sent through magnetometers and enclosed by metal barriers. Another 25,000 crowded Independence Park; some even listened from a good three thousand feet away, well behind Independence Hall.

I counted at least a hundred Philadelphia police officers. There were state troops. TSA personnel magging the crowd. A helicopter hovered over the square. The fire department set up a command post with extra medical supplies. It was some way to start Obama's final Pennsylvania push.

http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/04/philly_ignites_for_obama.php


Now this is what I call rabid supporters for Obama. A spontaneous march through Philly for Obama? That's amazing. It is events like this (especially the march) that makes me have hope that Obama can actually win Pennsylvania. Multiple polls have shown a tightening in the race the past few days. And remember, Obama is doing this in a closed primary, meaning only Democrats can vote in Tuesday's state primary. Imagine if this was an open primary? Then there would be no doubt Obama could pull off a victory. Tuesday will be the big day....

Friday, April 18, 2008

"Dirt Off Your Shoulders"

I saw this yesterday on 'Countdown with Keith Olbermann' and today saw an excellent diary entry on DailyKos by turneresq. Check out this response from Obama following the aftermath of the horrendous ABC debate...



This video is already a hit on YouTube. Do you see why Obama has such strong support among the younger demographics? That response right there is a perfect example why. Obama, with all his eloquence and intelligence, knows how to talk to the young generation by interweaving pop culture. Him "brushing his shoulders" gesture was made famous by Jay-Z in his hit song "Dirt Off Your Shoulders" in 2003. The crowd knew what he was doing, hence for the big roar of approval. Here's a Youtube mashup of Obama's gesture paired to Jay-Z songs...



Also from the Dailykos entry, check out Obama's knowledge about hip hop



It's pretty safe to say that Obama is "in touch" with the young generation.

Thursday, April 17, 2008

A Travesty of a Debate

What in the world was ABC thinking? Is this a presidential debate or a "tabloid debate?" (thanks to Keith Olbermann for that characterization) Anyone who saw the first 50 minutes of this crap knew what a boatload of crap this debate was. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos should be ashamed of themselves. I mean, was there ANY substantive questions pertaining to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? Healthcare? The current state of our economy? Trade? ANY OF THESE THINGS?

The first 50 minutes was devoted to topics that could've been found in tabloid magazines. I mean, these "controversies" the moderators brought up against Obama have been already discussed and beaten into a pulpit. Here's a question from George Stephanopoulos that is totally stupid:

"Does Rev. Wright love America as much as you?"

What kind of question is that? Are you guys serious?

More questions about him not wearing a lapel pin. Huh? Is it required for a candidate to wear one? Absolute crap

Even more questions about Rev. Wright. I had thought Obama's speech on race had already answered many questions that critics had. Apparently ABC thought there was more to the story when Obama had already discussed this numerous times.

And the doozy of the night, the question about his association to former Weather Underground member William Ayers. It has now been widely circulated that the question about William Ayers that Stephanopoulos posed to Obama came from the right wing media, most notably from Sean Hannity, in which Stephanopoulos was a guest on his radio show. Obama's association with Ayers is slim at best. The first time he meet Ayers was when he was 6 years old. Doesn't that remind you of the Clinton campaign rummaging through his kindergarten papers?

By the way, George Stephanopolous was a former aide to former President Bill Clinton, Conspiracy of a total coincidence? You decide...

One last note, I just wanted to mention how embarrassed I am about the mainstream media last night, all directed towards ABC. And thank god the crowd booed Charlie Gibson at the end. Here's the video on HuffingtonPost...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/abc-hosts-heckled-after-d_n_97124.html

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Are the Clinton's Really for the Working White People?

Found an interesting article on HuffingtonPost today regarding Hillary Clinton. What hypocritical thing can Hillary Clinton say now? Back in 1995, her message to the working class whites in the South: "Screw 'em."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

This is the same Hillary who is accusing Obama of being an elitist for his remarks regarding small town America. This is just one of many hypocritical statements from the Clinton campaign. I find it extremely interesting to see a state like Ohio, a state ravaged by NAFTA, would support a candidate that had championed NAFTA when it was signed. Are the Clintons really for the working class? Is she just pandering to the working class because it will be better for her? Legitimate questions to ask...

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

The Reporter That Started "Bitter-gate"

As I was reading the newspaper (LA Times) this morning, I found an interesting article regarding the reporter who published the now infamous "bitter" remarks Obama had made during a fund raiser in San Francisco last weekend.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bitter15apr15,1,5024574.story

'Citizen journalist' at center of Barack Obama 'bitter' words

template_bas
template_bas
The woman's Web post prompts charges of elitism against Obama, and exposes her to waves of vitriol.
By James Rainey, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
April 15, 2008
Mayhill Fowler grew up with a mother who didn't like her talking politics in the home. As an adult, she faced publishers who wouldn't put her writing in print.

She found an outlet for her twin passions of writing and politics last year in the Huffington Post, the left-leaning website. But Fowler conceded that her early reports from the Democratic campaign trail didn't produce anything particularly newsworthy.

That all changed last Friday, when her report on Barack Obama's statements about the "bitter" feelings of small-town Americans thrust the 61-year-old Oakland woman into a political storm that continued to rage Monday.

The story prompted charges of elitism against Obama by his presidential election opponents, and exposed the neophyte "citizen journalist" to waves of vitriol.

The furor is the latest reminder of how untraditional reporters and news outlets have changed the nature of journalism and politics. Fowler, a supporter and contributor to Obama's campaign, gained access to an event deemed "closed" to mainstream journalists and the resulting story forced big news outlets to take notice.

"We have entered new territory and the rules are not all clear," said Larry Pryor, a USC journalism professor. "You have to assume that everything is on-the-record. There's no getting around that anymore."

Fowler said Monday she had received about 200 e-mail messages that ranged from "creepy to threatening," including a few death threats from purported Obama supporters. She said about 25 e-mails praised her...

This story would not have been so controversial had she not reported it. But I believe that she is just being a good reporter. As stated in the article, she has been an admirer of Obama for quite some time. She has also donated the maximum of $2300 to his campaign. I think it is outrageous that some people are giving her death threats and the such. Of course we can disagree with what she had reported, but threaten her? That's a little bit over the top. I'm an Obama supporter and i lamented the fact that his remarks have stirred such controversy. Candidates are going to make gaffes. That's a given. When one is reported, we can't go around threaten to kill people is the report on something we don't like. We need to be adults, act like adults. Had Ms. Fowler taken Obama's words and reported them out of context, then that would be another story. However, she provided the whole transcript of what he had said, so it was in context and legitimate. We can argue and discuss this like adults, but not go crazy and threatening to kill someone who is just doing their job.

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Angry, Bitter People

The press just got hold of this story about Obama making seemingly controversial remarks about small town Pennsylvania. From the HuffingtonPost reporter Mayhill Fowler:

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). [...]


But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Read the full transcript here...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html

Obama made these remarks nearly a week ago at a San Fransisco fundraiser. He's gotten a lot of flak from rival Hillary Clinton and Republican nominee John McCain. Clinton called the remarks "elitist" while a McCain spokesman called it "condescending" and "out of touch.". This story began circulating the media late afternoon/early evening.

Here is Obama's response to the criticism of his comments and CNN pundits weighing in...

This is the reason why I support Barack Obama. Not because I totally agree with what he says; it is because he tells people what they need to hear. He's honest. Clinton and McCain jumping on Obama about his comments about small town America is just them grapsing at the bit. Yes Obama could have worded it differently in a way that could have avoided controversy. He regreted the way it came but won't apologize for it. I think that is very brave and bold for him to do.

What Obama said was true in one aspect or another. These people in rural America have seen their jobs shipped overseas for the past 20-25 years. Has any President done anything to help these people? Did the Bush and Clinton Administrations do anything? These citizens are angry and use government or something else as scapegoats. Sometimes it is hard for people to hear the truth. For Obama to be punished for saying what is true is an absolute shame. Does Hillary and McCain really think it is a rosy picture out there?

What struck a nerve on me was the reaction by Hillary Clinton and John McCain regarding Obama's comments. It is truly amazing for them to label Obama as "elitist and out-of-touch". This comes from the Clinton's who just reported they made nearly $109 million from 2000-2006. This comes from John McCain who flip flopped on the Bush tax cuts for the rich. Before he was the Republican nominee he was against the tax cuts. But after he became the nominee, he flipped and started supporting it, mainly because it was politically correct for him to do so. And this also from the same person who admitted not knowing much about the economy.

Compare that to Obama, who grew up in a modest household, living in Indonesia for part of his childhood. He never got wealthy until he was elected to the Senate and sales of his book The Audacity of Hope became a bestseller. Obama worked in the southside of Chicago helping out people who were just laid off from a recently closed factory. This is the same person who worked as a civil rights lawyer. And now because he made a comment that is true, and somehow he's an elitist?

And could the Clinton campaign be any more hypocritical? Take a look at comments made by then presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1991 (thanks to HuffingtonPost):

"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.

Couple months later, from columnist Joe Kline:

"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

Remarkable...

Now Bill Clinton is Lying

Does the Clinton campaign know how to muzzle Bill? Just when Sniper-gate was winding down, Bill had to bring it up again. What was worse, he too also lied about what had really happen. Watch for yourself...



MSNBC reporter David Schuster mentioned this, and I believe that this is quite important. If Hillary Clinton is 60 years old and tired at 11pm (as Bill and some in here campaign have said), how can she handle a crisis at 3am?

Wednesday, April 9, 2008

Tibet: Free or Not to Free?

I'm of Chinese ancestry. Ever since China was picked to host the Olympics, I knew many Chinese-Americans would be proud. But then came some nagging questions. First, how would their human rights record affect the Olympics? Second, probably the most important, is how China would deal with Tibet. In the last few weeks, Tibet has erupted in turmoil and protests have arise throughout the world. The torch relay throughout Europe has been marred in disruptions and occasional violence. Just today in San Francisco, city officials had to change the route of the torch relay to avoid demonstrators.

I'm a typical liberal-thinking college student. Regarding the issue of Tibet, I'm indifferent to either side. I'm reluctant to support the cause to free Tibet mainly because I don't want to be a hypocrite. Yes it would be ideal for Tibet to be able to govern itself. But I just want to point a few things out:

  • China is the second largest holder of nation's debt, right after Japan. Now, do we really want to alienate the Chinese?
  • Most of our consumer goods are made in China. The same protesters who are anti-China most likely have goods that were 'Made in China'.
All I ask is that these protesters examine all aspects of China, not just protest blindly. It is easy to protest against something. However it is no that simple.

Monday, April 7, 2008

National Polls

Two new polls released regarding the Democratic match up between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. First, from Gallup (4/4-6):

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106282/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Moves-9point-Lead-Over-Clinton.aspx

Obama: 52%
Clinton: 43%
MoE: +/- 4%

And Rasmussen:

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

Obama: 51%
Clinton: 41%
MoE: +/- 3%

Take polls for what they are, but I find this to be worth noting. Both polls showed a gradual rise of support for Obama starting from April 4th. What is the significance of April 4th? That was when the Clintons had finally released their tax returns dating from 2000 to 2006. Maybe some people did not like the fact that they had made nearly $109 million (most likely blue collar folks).

As noted from both polls, neither candidate has held a statistically significant lead for a prolonged time (more than a couple of days). If Obama can sustain a significant lead for more than a week or so, then that should put to rest any lingering jitters about Obama and who the nominee should be. If we see this, then super delegates will start flodding to Obama. We'll see what happens in the next couple of days....

Saturday, April 5, 2008

Hillary Clinton's Lies and Exaggerations

She either has a bad case of amnesia or loves to exaggerate (or lie). I'll take the latter. How many times can she misspeak? I mean, someone in her campaign should be doing fact checks before she goes out and gives a speech. That would be the smart thing to do right? For her campaign, I guess not. First she came under "sniper fire" in her trip to Bosnia when she was First Lady.



Looks ominous, doesn't it?

Now, a story has emerged where she falsified a health care story. I found this on Huffington Post per the New York Times...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/05/clinton-under-fire-over-f_n_95218.html

"The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O'Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.[...]"

Here's the video of where she told the story:


Now whose right, the hospital who treated the patient or the version that the sheriffs deputy told, which Clinton took and retold? Her campaign claims that it tries to vet these types of stories when possible. Was it really that hard to ask the deputy where he heard the story? Apparently he had heard it from close relatives. Couldn't he then ask those same relatives to confirm of debunk the story?

And now she claims that she, not Obama, was first to oppose the war. From ABC News Jake Tapper:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/in-oregon-clint.html

Clinton on Saturday told Oregonians, "when Sen. Obama came to the Senate he and I have voted exactly the same except for one vote. And that happens to be the facts. We both voted against early deadlines. I actually starting criticizing the war in Iraq before he did."

It's an odd way to measure opposition to the war -- comparing who gave the first criticism of the war in Iraq starting in January 2005, ignoring Obama's opposition to the war throughout 2003 and 2004. (And Clinton's vote for it.)...

This shows, once again, Hillary trying to diminish Obama's stance on the war from the start. She is now trying to take credit for being the first to oppose the war. She will never win this argument. She already lost credibility when she voted for the war in 2002. Obama, while running to become U.S. Senator, ran as the anti-war candidate. Now during that time, was it popular for him to do that? He was taking a major risk by being anti-war when the nation was supportive for the war.


We have all heard from her campaign what it takes to be commander-in-chief. She, along with John McCain, had passed the "commander-in-chief" test." Her assuming that John McCain would be more prepared for the presidency over a fellow Democrat was outrageous. Can we afford to have a president that exaggerates or lies about her experience? We need a president who will be honest with the American people. That has been absent from this president the last 8 years. Which candidate will be honest with the American public? You decide...