On "The Audacity of the Democrats"

It figures that Rush "Windbag" Limbaugh would have been impressed with "The Audacity of the Democrats". It must be the pain killers. I left a comment on The Radio Patriot blog under Andrea's post on the topic. Then, I felt compelled to do a post of my own. I respect Andrea and we share many of the same views on various political topics. However, I'm not sure we share the same view here.

Honestly, I couldn't bring myself to read the whole 'The Audacity of the Democrats' post on American Thinker. However, what I did read was disturbing. Disturbing because I disagree with some of the points made and I am shocked that Rocco believes what he has written.

I agree that Barack Obama is bad news. He was completely media generated. Yes, I also agree that neither the media nor the Democratic party took his connections with the likes of William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, MoveOn.org, and many other people and organizations seriously. Had the media dug into Wright's sermons and played them in heavy rotation 24/7, Barack wouldn't be the Democratic nominee today. If they had also dug deeper into his connections to a horde of questionable characters and displayed that information in heavy rotation 24/7, Barack wouldn't be the Democratic nominee today. That's what really pisses me off! I seek truth in my blog. I dug deep to find what I could on Barack Obama. And I found and posted information that the media should have broadcast relentlessly. They did a couple of blurbs and then buried the information. Meanwhile, they continued to broadcast the "Pied Piper" playing his beautiful song.

I don't think it's the Democratic party that has changed so dramatically in the past 8 years. That's not to say they haven't changed. However, I think that the problem is more deeply rooted than that. I think the problem is at the citizen level. There's so much apathy and hopelessness out there that when the 'Pied Piper' came playing his beautiful song, everyone was mesmerized. They had tunnel vision and only saw the good in what Barack Obama was saying and not the bad in his voting history, associations, etc. So, that answers the question as to why Bill Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a blowjob and Barack Obama became the Democratic nominee despite all the "dirt" available on him.

What is NOT explained though is why GWB has not been impeached for doing things that are unconstitutional (also see this article). Heck with the treatment of POWs. I could care less. I'm talking about murdering 4000+ U.S. citizens by forcing them to go to war with a nation that was not an imminent danger to us. I'm talking about illegal wiretapping. Rocco says that the Democratic party has become Communists. I say that the GWB administration has become a fascist regime (see recent remarks of MSNBC host Keith Olbermann)! This administration is no better than Francisco Franco was for Spain from 1936 to 1975. It's absolutely unbelievable to me that President Clinton was nearly impeached for getting a blowjob yet we have not impeached GWB for the atrocious things that he has done. I'm ashamed to say that I think my generation, Generation 13, is much to blame for GWB still being President. Many of us are just too apathetic to take a stand.

I voted for Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004. So, you can't blame me for 8 years of GWB. Nor can you blame the Democratic party. What you can do is blame FL and the Supreme Court with the fact that he ever became President. In my opinion, all Rocco is doing is bringing back the fear of Communism. There's nothing more evil about Communism than Capitalism. In fact, Capitalism encourages greed. We don't need another "Cold War". It was never really a war anyway. I firmly believe that Russia was never as big of a threat as we made them out to be. I put that last part in bold because I'm not saying that Russia was not a threat. I'm saying that our fear of Communism greatly exaggerated that threat. In reality, I think that Russia was just as afraid of us. They saw what we did to Japan and said "Oh $#@%!!"

In closing, I don't equate Barack's nomination with the corruptness of the Democratic party. Yes, Al Gore was "cheated" out of the election in 2000. However, I don't think that this is the Democrats plotting to put an extreme "leftist" in office. I think the media was mesmerized by Barack's speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention. Ever since, they've put this man on a pedestal and treated him like the next messiah. If it weren't for the media, Barack would not have had a snowball's chance in hell at becoming the Democratic nominee. In fact, he probably wouldn't even have run for president. Thus, Hillary would have easily won the nomination and kicked McCain's arse in the general election!

McCainomics vs Obamanomics: Which one will get America back on track?

I watched News Hour with Gwen Ifill last Tuesday because she discussed the differences between the McCain economic plan and the Obama economic plan with the campaign advisers of the respective candidates. The interesting thing was that I supported both plans at different points in the debate. However, McCain's plan seemed to prevail in the end.

Barack Obama supports an oil windfall profit tax. The senate recently blocked a bill that included legislation that would increase windfall profit taxes on oil companies. On the surface, an oil windfall profit tax certainly seems reasonable. This would allegedly prevent price gouging like oil companies having been doing for at least the past 4 years. The question is: Would it work? Raymond J Learsy of the Huffington Post seems to think it's the right plan, but it uses the wrong language. Raymond suggests that it should be called the Cartel Profits Tax. He has a good point. OPEC certainly seems to fit the description. However, it is obvious that senate Republicans objected to the bill. They argue that imposing such a tax would not provide "relief at the pump". In light of that rejection, Democrats plan to work on a new bill that will increase oversight of trading by the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Democrats also propose regulating U.S.-based transactions on the Intercontinental Exchange in London and imposing rules on the London exchange's American parent Intercontinental Exchange Inc., which is based in Atlanta. Only time will tell how Republicans will react to this new legislation when it is introduced.

Here's a word that makes many people cringe: Taxes. Barack Obama says that he wants to raise taxes for the richest 2% of the population. John McCain thinks that is a horrible idea and wants to lower the corporate tax rate. As I see it, there is a subtle difference here that one has to be careful not to overlook. The difference, as I understand it, is that Barack wants to increase taxes on individuals who make more than $250,000 per year; however, McCain wants to decrease taxes on corporations. While it is true that many people who make over $250,000 per year own corporations, individual and corporate tax returns are separate entities. Barack says that lowering taxes will be giving a huge tax break to companies like Exxon. That may be true, but McCain says that our high corporate tax rate prevents us from being competitive on the world market. I can also see truth in that statement. McCain also says that he wants to cut "pork-barrel" spending and declare Washington DC a "no earmark zone". In addition, he wants to put a freeze on non-defense discretionary spending for one year and conduct a complete top-to-bottom review of the federal government. Barack Obama calls this "Bush-onomics on steroids". I disagree. I think it's about time government spending was evaluated. The last time there was a real evaluation on government spending was when Clinton was president. The outcome of the evaluation was that we had the first surplus in decades!

Back to gas tax for a moment . . . McCain, like Hillary, suggests a gas tax holiday. Barack thinks this is a gimmick and would rather send out a second stimulus rebate as a short term solution. Honestly, I don't think either idea is good. A gas tax holiday wouldn't work because it would just give Big Oil a larger profit margin. A second stimulus rebate wouldn't work because the first one didn't work. I don't know about anybody else, but the rebate that my family will receive is just enough to make one mortgage payment. While that is helpful to a very small degree, it's not near enough to encourage us to spend money on things we do not need. Therefore, a second rebate, unless it is 3 or 4 times the amount of the first, still won't be very helpful. A family vacation, something that many people desire, can hardly be paid for by that tiny rebate by time you take transportation (air fare, rental car), hotel expenses, food, and attraction costs into account.

In summary, although both have some good ideas, I like some of McCain's ideas more than Barack's. Does that say that McCain has got my vote? No. We still have 4.5 months until election day. A lot can happen in that time. That said, both are going to have to do quite a bit of convincing in order to earn my vote.

Obama vs McCain - The race is on!

Best viewed full size! (click image)

Sure, McCain says he wants civil forums, but we all know it's not going to work out that way. McCain will end up attacking Obama any way he can and Barack will strike back. The one with the least mud on them will win the election. After all, who wants to sit an watch 2 candidates discussing topics across a table? Right? Hillary just might have the last laugh after all.

Since I currently cannot take either candidate very seriously, I thought a little political humor was in order. Sometimes you just have to be happy with what you have to be happy with (wink, wink). So, let's wait to see what the second verse is going to be and then there might be something more serious to discuss.

BOOM!! Barack Obama's secret weapon detonated!

Our democratic hypocrites are handing out their trash, but it was Hillary's in the first place so she'll burn it to ash*!

As many of you know, the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee made a decision regarding FL and MI last Saturday. In summary, the delegates of FL and MI only get half of a vote each and 4 of Hillary's MI delegates were awarded to Barack since he was an idiot and took his name off the ballot. I expected them to make a decision that no-one would be happy about. BOOM!! The secret weapon was detonated. Instead they made a decision that favors Barack Obama. I hate to say it, but I told you so.

Political Editorial Comic**

Had the Rules and Bylaws Committee met on March 31 instead of May 31, Hillary would have had much more momentum than she currently does. More than likely, she would have held the majority of superdelegates. Plus, there would have been 9 democratic primaries after the FL/MI decision rather than 3. While it is true that she still won 5 of those 9 primaries so far, there is no doubt that she would have received more campaign funds and been backed by more superdelegates. Howard Dean's 3+ month delay of a solution for FL and MI is both criminal and appalling. He has single-handedly guaranteed Barack Obama the nomination. Meanwhile, common sense, the democratic process, and justice have been thrown out the window!

Words cannot express how truly aggravating the 2008 presidential election process has been. I thought that the 2000 and 2004 elections were bad. They pale in comparison to the 2008 election process. If you think our country is corrupt now, you haven't seen anything yet! All I can say is "welcome to Jamaica" if Barack Obama becomes president.

*Modified quote from the Genesis song Back In NYC from their album The Lamb Lies Down On Broadway.

**Although this comic was created using a real photo, the words within the comic are completely fictional. Furthermore, to the best of my knowledge, Barack Obama did not have a gun in his possession during that interview. The words are a modified version of famous lines from the movie Total Recall.

Barack Obama's Secret Weapon Seeks Cash

Related post: Howard Dean - Barack Obama's Secret Weapon

During the week of May 19, I received something called the "2008 Presidential Campaign Survey" in the mail. At first, I had high hopes that this survey was sent out to get a feel for a fair solution to the FL and MI democratic primaries debacle. However, I soon discovered that this was merely a sneaky way for Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee to ask for contributions. To make matters worse, the questions asked in the survey had nothing to do with the fates of FL and MI. The cherry on top of the whipped cream is the URL (www.democrats.org/survey) at the bottom of the last page of the survey. As you can see, it gives you the impression that you could actually take the survey online. However, when you plug that address into your favorite browser, you are sent directly to a "contributions" page! No survey found at that link or anywhere else on the www.democrats.org site --an official Democratic Party site.

Aside from a return postage-paid envelope and the survey, you can also find a message from Howard Dean as well as a message from Hillary Clinton in the envelope. The message from Howard Dean is no more than spam begging for money. On the other hand, the message from Hillary was more meaningful. Honestly, I don't remember whether or not she asked for contributions. I just remember being more impressed with her letter. Alas, I threw everything away except the survey and the return envelope.

For those who did not receive the survey and are curious, here are all of the questions (along with my personal answers):

1) Age: [] 18-30 [x] 31-40 [] 41-50 [] 51-64 [] 65 and over

2) How often do you vote for Democratic candidates? [] Always [x] Most of the time [] Rarely [] Never

3) How likely are you to vote in the 2008 election? [x] Very Likely [] Somewhat Likely [] Not Likely

4) Have you participated in any of the following campaign activities? [] Volunteering time at a local campaign or Party headquarters. [] Making phone calls from a phone bank. [] Organizing an event or fundraiser in my home or community. [] Going door-to-door in my neighborhood. [x] Actively blog about the election.*

*I wrote in this option

5) How closely have you been following the 2008 presidential campaign? [x] Very closely [] Closely [] Somewhat Closely [] Not at all

6) How optimistic are you that a Democrat will win the White House in 2008? [x] Very optimistic [] Optimistic [] Not very optimistic [] Pessimistic

7) Do you believe that John McCain's pledge to keep troops in Iraq for another 100 years will be a liability in the General Election? [x] Yes [] No [] Unsure

8) Which issues would you like the Democratic presidential nominee to focus on in the campaign? Please rank the following issues from 1-14 based on their importance to you, with "1" being the most important.

NOTE: I am listing these in the order of importance that I chose.

Jobs/Economy, Health Care, Education, Iraq, Energy Policy, Homeland Security, Ethics In Government, Immigration, Social Security, Environment, Civil Rights/Liberties, Stem Cell Research, Reproductive Rights, Taxes.

9) Thinking about our Party's plan for the 2008 campaigns, which of the following strategies do you think is the key to electing more Democrats in November?
[x] Investing in grassroots efforts like canvassing and get-out-the-vote drives.
[] Devoting more resources to radio and television ads that reach the most voters.
[] Ensuring a fair election process so that every vote counts.
[] Democrats need to invest in all of the above strategies to win in November.

Note: This was a tough one because the 3rd option is important too.

10) With our 50 State Strategy, the DNC has been strengthening our Party in states that have traditionally been GOP strongholds. What is your opinion of this strategy?
[x] I support it. Our Party needs to compete in every part of the country and make the Republicans spend campaign money in states they have taken for granted.
[] I oppose it. Our Party should focus its resources in those states where we have the best chance to win, and not waste money in solidly Republican states.

11) How likely do you think it is that John McCain and his Republican allies will launch a "Swift Boat" style smear campaign against our presidential nominee? [] Very likely [x] Somewhat likely [] Not likely

12) How concerned are you that Republican voter suppression schemes will disenfranchise Democrats and impact the outcome of the presidential race? [] Very concerned [] Somewhat concerned [x] Not concerned

13) What is your main source of news and information about the presidential campaign and the 2008 elections? [] Television [] Newspapers [] Talk radio [x] Internet/blogs [] News magazines [] Other

14) Do you think mainstream news organizations are biased in favor of Democrats, biased in favor of Republicans, or do you think news organizations have been fair in the way they have covered the presidential election? [x] Biased in favor of Democrats [] Biased in favor of Republicans [] No bias in favor of either party [] No opinion/Not sure

NOTE: The real answer here is that the media is, perhaps unjustly, biased toward Barack Obama.

15) If you could offer one piece of advice to the Democratic presidential nominee, what would it be? Please use the space below to write your comments.

First, I have a message for Howard Dean. You need to quickly and fairly resolve the FL/MI primaries issue. I suggest that you either let the vote stand as is or force a re-vote in both states. Either way people will be unhappy, but these are the most fair choices.

Finally, a message to Hillary. Stay focused. Run a strong, positive campaign that focuses on the issues. Let McCain bury himself. You don't need to do it for him. Let his comments and insults fall on deaf ears.

The above were the "legit" questions. The DNC then has the audacity to ask:

16) To help our Party win the White House and score victories up and down the ballot in 2008, will you join the DNC as a contributing member today? [] Yes - go to the next question [x] No

17) If you answered "Yes" to question 16, please indicate the membership level at which you will join the DNC today. [] $25 [] $35 [] $50 [] $100 [] Other: $______

As you can see, none of the questions are very meaningful except, perhaps, #8 and #15. I am quite disappointed with the DNC for not asking more important questions. Furthermore, the fact this is really a document asking for contributions makes me angry. Being that the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee made a very undemocratic decision on May 31, I am definitely happy that I didn't give money to them. I have already donated to Hillary's campaign. She is the one that deserves the contributions.

Hillary Clinton vs Barack Obama - Progressive Thinker primary predictions

Below, are my state-by-state predictions for the remaining primaries. These predictions are subject to change as we get closer to each primary. So, keep an eye on this post.

These predictions are based on data both from Real Clear Politics and U.S. Census Bureau. My predictions will likely become more accurate as more data becomes available from polls that are done in states which haven't had their primaries.

NOTE: Although I will be using Real Clear Politics as a source for poll data, my predictions may not agree with their poll averages.


West Virginia - May 13 (Updated May 14)

Hillary Clinton: 62% (actual 67%)
Barack Obama: 30% (actual 26%)
Undecided: 8%


Oregon - May 20 (Updated June 2)

Hillary Clinton: 44% (actual 41%)
Barack Obama: 49% (actual 59%)
Undecided: 7%


Kentucky - May 20 (Updated May 20 - 10:25pm)

Hillary Clinton: 54% (actual 65%)
Barack Obama: 37% (actual 30%)
Undecided: 9%


Puerto Rico - June 1 (updated June 2)

Hillary Clinton: 63% (actual 68%)
Barack Obama: 37% (actual 32%)
Undecided: 0%


Montana - June 3 (updated June 2)

Hillary Clinton: 47%
Barack Obama: 45%
Undecided: 8%


South Dakota - June 3 (updated June 2)
Hillary Clinton: 50%
Barack Obama: 44%
Undecided: 6%

Oregon - Potentially the biggest voting disaster since Florida

According to the Multnomah County, OR site, voters passed a ballot measure directing all elections to be conducted by mail in 1998. No doubt, some people will say, "OR has been doing Vote By Mail for 10 years. It must be successful." Well, let me break things down for you a little bit. That's 2 presidential elections (not including the current race), 3 gubernatorial elections, and 3 U.S. Senate elections (not including the Class 2 election this year. Digging a little further we find that: 1) In the 2000 presidential election, only approximately 17,000 OR citizens voted for Gore over GWB and only approximately 76,000 OR citizens voted for Kerry over GWB in the 2004 presidential election; alas, this did not matter because GWB "won" both elections, 2) OR has had the same governor since the 2002 election (he's currently serving his 2nd term), and 3) The northwestern state has had the same 2 senators since 1998. To summarize, only 2 presidents have been in office since 1998, only 2 OR governors have been in office since 1998, and the same 2 OR senators have been in office since 1998. In my opinion, that's not much of a proving ground for the success or failure of Vote By Mail elections.

Proving ground aside, all sorts of problems can arise when using a 100% vote by mail election process. The Multnomah County site expresses some legitimate concerns in their FAQ:

1) What if a mistake is made on the ballot? While they explain what to do, the only way to assure that the ballot is not misinterpreted is to get a replacement. Honestly, how many people do you think are going to do that (i.e. call for or pick up a replacement ballot)?

2) What If I forget to sign my return envelope and I have already mailed it? They state that they will mail the ballot back to you. However, there is a disclaimer: "unless there is not time to return it by mail." Yes, they say you can come to their office to sign it. Again, how many people are going to do that?

3) How do I know if my ballot was received? They say you can call the county election office for your county. Broken record . . . how many people are going to do that? Sure, there are some obsessive compulsives out there, but most aren't going to go through the trouble.

Another concern is raised by the Washington Post:

"Tens of thousands of Oregonians switched their registration from Republican or unaffiliated so they could vote in the Democratic primary. But many switched so close to the April 29 deadline that election officials had already prepared ballots to send to them under their previous registrations. Pulling out those ballots would have been too arduous for most counties, so 33,500 voters received ballots for both parties.

State officials insist this won't be a problem. The scanners that will be used to count the ballots -- all counting is done on the day of the election-- are designed to only count the ballots that are in accord with the voter's new registration status."

This might not sound like a big deal to some, but Oregon is a closed primary state. This means that registered Democrats can only vote Democrat and registered Republicans can only vote Republican. If you're an Independent or one of the many minor "3rd parties", you're screwed unless you register as Democrat or Republican before the deadline. What if the current registration status is not the "new" registration status? Those people are likely not mailed the appropriate ballot -if any ballot at all. Thus, tens of thousands of people who might have voted for Hillary might well have been unable to vote. And what about those voters who decided not to change their status from Independent to Democrat or Republican? As you can see, the vote by mail process is quite problematic and closed primaries only add to the issue.

I'm not claiming that Hillary could have easily won in OR. In fact, their process makes it highly improbable for the underdog to win. Even so, I have to ask why Hillary didn't do some heavy campaigning there? She did do some campaigning there, but considering Oregon's Vote By Mail system, it was more than likely too little, too late. While I have to say "shame on Oregon", I have to say "shame on Hillary" too. She knew, or should have known, their process. Yet, she didn't campaign there in early April before many people would have already mailed their ballots.

Yeah, Barack. You won in OR. Perhaps unfair and not very square, but you won. That's OK. According to my predictions, Hillary's got you beat big time in Puerto Rico. I'm showing her winning in Montana and South Dakota as well. Those wins as well as a fair (or even slightly "more than fair") division of the MI and FL delegates or even re-votes in both states should bring Hillary over the top. It was a great game, Barack. You had the lead for a while. But it's time to say goodbye!

Obama - The Great Deceiver: Redux (Truth in media . . . or not)

I said it in my Obama - The Great Deceiver post and I'll say it again. I strongly feel that Barack Obama is completely media generated. It started in 2004 when Democrats had him speak at the Democratic National Convention. Ever since, the media has run with Barack acting as if he's the Messiah or something. On one hand, I can see why. He's young, handsome, and capable of giving great speeches. Thus, I think that the media is treating Barack like a pop culture icon much like teen magazines and such treat Justin Timberlake. However, the truth is that Barack Obama is not a pop culture icon. He's 1 of 2 democratic presidential candidates. If he wins the nomination, Barack is potential going to be the face and mouthpiece of the U.S. to the rest of the world. Therefore, the questions we all need to ask is:

1) Can Barack Obama regain the respect of the NATO countries?

2) Can Barack Obama be a strong, effective leader among nations who despise the U.S.?

3) Can Barack Obama bring about real change in domestic affairs such as the economy, education, and health care?

4) Can Barack Obama accomplish what few, if any, have been able to accomplish since Ronald Reagan by improving our relationship with Russia and possibly even gaining them as a very strong ally?

Personally, I'm not so sure that Barack can regain the respect of NATO countries or be an effective leader among nations who despise us. I think that GWB, McCain and others might have a good point when they say that Barack might try to negotiate with terrorist sponsoring countries. Barack might be able to affect positive change regarding some domestic affairs. However, I am also quite unsure that he would be a leader that could strengthen our relationship with Russia. If we want to be less dependent on the Middle East, we need Russia as an ally. Why? Because there's a lot of untapped oil in Siberia.

Some of you might be asking, "what prompted me to write this article?" Well, I stumbled across an article on Politico over the weekend. It's an article about how the media is already claiming that Obama is the democratic nominee. I've seen the media reporting this garbage first hand. In fact, I have links in some of my recent posts to such articles. The truth is that Barack has not won the democratic nomination. Furthermore, Hillary has just won another primary in Kentucky --and by a large margin. Thus, she is still very much in the race. For Barack, his campaign, the media, or anyone else to say otherwise is both heinous and false.

What do I and other seekers and writers of truth have to say to make people realize that Barack is just another politician? He might be a pop culture icon, but he is certainly no Messiah and does not deserve the gratuitous votes that he's been receiving. I am writing this with sternness to all U.S. citizens: This is not a season of American Idol. This is not a pageant for Miss Universe. This is a presidential election. Again, this person, if elected, is going to be the face and mouthpiece for our nation. Do we want a pop culture icon or someone with the skills and experience to do a great job?

Barack is just as tainted and corrupt as any other Washington politician if not more so. Let's stop treating him like he's made of gold and can do no wrong and start voting for a person who can affect real, positive change . . . Hillary Clinton.

The DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee holds key to Hillary's fate

It's mid May and the May 31 meeting of the DNC Rules and Bylaws Committee is approaching fast. According to the New York Times, there is a panel of 30 people on this committee. The NYT article also states that 13 of the panel members support Hillary Clinton while only 8 support Barack Obama. That leaves 9 members that could tip the scales one way or the other. Let's make no bones about it people. This panel holds the key to Hillary's fate. The logic that they use to make their decision is very important. The ruling that this panel makes could effect future elections if, God forbid, states decide to break the rules again.

Here are a couple of rulings that I would consider bad judgment:

1) FL and MI remain stripped of their delegates and the popular votes in those states do not count.

2) Split the delegates 50/50 and the popular votes in those states do not count.

Then, there are a couple of rulings that might seem more reasonable but don't really make anyone happy:

1) Split the delegates 50/50 and let the popular votes count.

2) Force a revote in both states.

Hillary Clinton wants the delegates apportioned according to popular vote. That seems to be a fair choice as long as the panel allows the overall popular vote decide who gets the nomination. Being that the DNC will have waited about 4 months to make this decision when an early, fair decision might have given Hillary more momentum, I say that all MI and FL delegates should be awarded to Hillary. Yes, this might seem unfair. However, it is also unfair that the DNC has dragged this situation out for 4 months. This lack of decision has allowed Barack to enjoy momentum he might not have had if the DNC had ruled on this by the beginning of March. Need more reasons that I think my "ruling" on the situation is fair? Well, for one thing, Barack took his name of the ballot in Michigan. Until very recently, Barack had not campaigned in either state. Last but not least, Hillary won the primaries in both states.

I say that supporters of Hillary should gather in Washington DC and put pressure on this DNC panel to make a decision that's more than just fair. A decision that compensates for momentum lost due to their not dealing with the issue in a timely manner.

Barack - One presumptuous Democrat!

It seems that the past few days have seen Barack Obama getting busy with general election strategies. These strategies include the aforementioned trip to Michigan, a 'faith' flyer circulating in Kentucky, and John Edwards leading an establishment rally. Barack also seems to be "locking the party down". He is doing this despite the fact that he has only won 3 out of 9 primaries since February and the DNC has yet to make a final decision about Florida and Michigan. In racing or track, the sort of behavior would be considered a false start and can lead to disqualification. Unfortunately, it is extremely unlikely to happen in the realm of a political race. Why? Primarily because there is no rule against it. The DNC had the foresight to make rules regarding when states can hold their primaries. However, they seem to be myopic when it comes to making rules for prospective presidential candidates and when they can start campaigning for the general election.

Does anyone else see the injustice here? Does anyone else out there think that Barack is jumping the gun? What, if anything, should be done? I think, at minimum, the DNC should pull the reigns on Barack and say, "not so fast. there's no clear winner yet." Of course, then he'll claim that he's just doing this for the primaries. "Change We Can Believe In." Yeah, right. Face it. You're just another Washington politician.

Barack campaigns in Michigan - Why?

CNN gave me the hint that Barack Obama is in Michigan in an article regarding John Edwards' endorsement of the democratic candidate. So, I took the opportunity to dig a little further and found this article on the msnbc site. As I suspected, Barack Obama is in fact campaigning in Michigan. This leads us to ask the following question:

Why is Barack Obama campaigning in Michigan?

I stumbled upon this article on the Fox News site the other day. I was thinking that it's not the most fair solution; however, I was going to wait until Howard Dean and the Dysfunctional Nihilistic Committee (read Democratic National Committee) had their little meeting to discuss the issue. In light of the fact that Barack is now campaigning in MI, I thought it best to lay that proposal on the table now. This proposal was made just last week. Furthermore, Barack had already stated in March that he did not want a revote in MI. In fact, his campaign essentially blocked a MI revote. After all this, does Barack have the audacity to imply that he has already won the nomination by visiting Michigan as the Democratic presidential candidate?

I hope that U.S. citizens see this sly move for what it is. Barack showing his true colors as a two-faced, hypocritical candidate who is pulling every low blow and sneak attack possible to give him an edge. In other words, Barack Obama is Washington politics at its finest. Want real change? Give Hillary the Democratic nomination! Step up and give her a much deserved victory in Oregon next week. She already has an edge in Kentucky. Let's keep the momentum going! If Hillary can rise victorious in the OR and KY Democratic primaries, she can put pressure on the DNC to resolve the FL/MI debacle in a fair and speedy fashion.

Hillary wins big in West VA!

It's the evening of May 14 and 100% of precincts have reported their data. The final results of the West Virginia primary show that Hillary has a 41 point lead on Obama according to CNN! I predicted a big win, but a 41 point lead! Wow! Now, she needs to focus really hard on Oregon. I am currently predicting an Obama victory, quite an upset of my original prediction, by a very narrow margin. If Hillary can close that gap by doing some heavy campaigning, she might be able to pull off a slim victory in Oregon too. It would really help, of course, if Barack sticks his foot in is mouth between now and May 20.

That's the good news. Unfortunately, I also have some bad news. Despite a clear victory in WV, Hillary seems to be hemorrhaging superdelegates by the barrel. According to an article on the Yahoo News site, the shift in lead to Barack occurred over the weekend. I am hoping that there is a shift back to Hillary by the end of next weekend given the big win in WV.

If by some minute chance someone in Hillary's inner circle is reading this, please get her on a plane to Oregon tomorrow! She needs the victory in WV to be very fresh in people's minds so that she can keep her momentum and, with some hope and a few prayers, achieve a slim victory in Oregon. Please, no mishaps this time! Stick to the issues and let Barack dig his own grave!