Obama's Pastor Creates Tough Spot for Frontrunner

Barack Obama's longtime Chicago pastor, the "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, has come under intense media scrutiny for comments about whites in America and claiming that his primarily black congregation should support Obama over Hillary Clinton because Hillary has never been called the n-word. Right.

Obama has attempted to distance himself considerably from Wright and he posted a halfhearted defense of Wright while condemning specific comments that have been posted across the Internet.

Then in an interview with Fox News, Obama again tried to distance himself from Wright yet again but that supposed distance does not jive well with Obama's history of supporting Wright's church and having Wright serve on a spiritual advisory board for Obama's Presidential campaign. This 2007 New York Times piece details how close Obama and Wright really are--including the nice little tidbit that Obama had tape recordings of Wright's sermons on cassette tape and brought them to Harvard Law School with him.

Given Obama's political past, it's not surprising Obama would be closely aligned with someone as radical as Jeremiah Wright. When it suited his political fancy, Obama also rallied against white Americans for the sake of rallying black voters in his State Senate district.

And even media outlets that are generally friendly toward Obama's candidacy, such as The Atlantic, are worried about how Obama and his campaign team have handled this issue. In his Fox News interview and in his written response, Obama claims that Wright's bigotry and radical views are news to him. Really? As he readily admits, Obama has been a regular member of the Trinity Church since 1991 or 92. And at no time in all those years attending Trinity Church, this bigoted pastor never once railed against whites, conservatives, Republicans, Israel, Jews, or any other group in his line of fire? The Atlantic points out the obvious answer, that just isn't credible at all.

It's not credible because certain evidence points to the idea that Obama did in fact know of Jeremiah Wright's racist views and bigoted past. Wright was, after all, de-invited from Obama's official 2007 Presidential campaign kickoff event. Now the question is why. There is a sense that Obama is not being completely honest as he tries to spin his way out of the thicket but Obama's less than candid response could become a story in itself.

Michelle Obama Delivers Another Gaffe

My God, when will the Obama campaign finally realize that they need to stuff Michelle Obama's mouth with a sock. Apparently at a campaign stop, she described us (the America n people) as downright mean. She also described us as a nation of nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents." Now that's certainly going to bring us together!

Hillary's last stand in Texas and Ohio last night not withstanding, it still appears that Obama will win the Democratic nomination. With the amount of miscues committed by Michelle Obama already in this campaign, she's gearing up to be a bigger liability than Teresa Heinz Kerry was to John Kerry!

Obama Observer Sitting in on Rezko Trial

Well, for someone who didn't do anything wrong ever and is the most ethical politician in the history of the world, it's interesting to see Barack Obama send a campaign staffer to the jury selection of the Rezko trial. Keeping tabs on his old real estate buddy, I suppose.

Also worth noting that the Obama observer in question didn't what to reveal her affiliation.

A Closer Look at Obama's Record in Illinois

This article, by a journalist named Todd Spivak who worked in Barack Obama's State Senate district when he was an unknown entity, has shed some valuable light on the man who is on the verge of becoming the Democratic Presidential contender.

The picture he paints is very underwhelming, especially when contrasted with the media darling Obama has become today. Obama worked his way up the chain of command not through hard work and community activism, like his recent television campaign commercials would have you believe but through hiring a Harvard Law buddy to comb over Illinois election laws and find loopholes to ensure he was the only candidate on the ballot and all the other Democrats (including the longtime incumbent) were kicked off the ballot.

The story also shows an incredible lack of leadership on Obama's part. He refused to get involved in community redevelopment and eminent domain abuse by the city of Chicago within his own district.

Crime, quality of life? Obama usually silent.

Obama's main objective appeared to be a constant rise in position and prestige. He ran for U.S. Congress against incumbent Congressman Bobby Rush but was portrayed as an Ivy League elitist who was out of touch with rank and file South Side Chicagoans.

And all the bills and passed legislation that Obama constantly rattles off as proof that he is experienced at passing laws and working across the aisle? They were bills originally authored by various other members of the Illinois State Senate. Obama's name was attached to the legislation by Illinois Senate President Emil Jones, Jr. Obama's role in actually crafting the legislation and negotiating the eventual passage is cast in an uncertain light here.

Emil Jones is responsible for Barack Obama's rapid rise in national politics. Much more so than Obama is responsible for it himself.

And Obama's squeaky-clean image is tainted by his endorsement of Chicago Alderman Dorothy Tillman who once brandished a gun and was involved in serious corruption allegations months before Obama's endorsement came.

The bottom line here is evident. Obama wasn't the courageous community activist who rejected a lucrative career on Wall Street. He was an ambitious, well-educated young man who was intent on advancing into national politics. Leadership, clean government, etc. all came second to ambition.

That's not to demonize Obama. McCain and Hillary are both guilty of that same offense to some extent. But the problem here is that the mainstream media is allowing Obama to cast his own image of himself. When he says he will clear out the Washington lobbyists and power brokers, no one challenges him. No one, most especially Tim Russert or Brian Williams, are willing to do the research and visit Chicago's South Side.

They appear unwilling to accept the fact that the Obama hype isn't what it's all cracked up to be.

Obama's Sweetheart Land Deal Grows Deeper

Barack Obama has criss-crossed the country proclaiming himself as a new kind of politician who refuses contributions by lobbyists and will bring change to Washington.

There's just one snag to this rosy picture--Obama has been long involved in the rough and tumble game of Chicago politics. After being elected to the U.S. Senate and scoring a book deal that landed him millions in cash, Obama went on to buy an estate in an upscale Chicago suburb in 2005 for $1.65 million. The owners of the property at the time claim that was the best price they could secure then.

On the same day (June 15, 2005) that real estate deal went through for the Obama's, the wife of Chicago developer Tony Rezko purchased an empty plot of land immediately adjacent to the Obama mansion. She purchased that lot for $625,000. How she came up with that money has been anyone's best guess.

But now The Times of London has added a new twist the plot. A British businessman by the name of Nadhmi Auchi had loaned Rezko millions just days prior to Rezko's wife purchasing the land.

Barack Obama ended up buying a 10-foot parcel of the land from Mrs. Rezko in order to expand his garden. Obama has maintained his involvement in the land deal was "boneheaded."

But does anyone seriously buy the idea that Obama bought the 10-foot plot of land for his garden? Come on. Even Obama admits he paid his landscaper to cut the lawn on the land owned by Mrs. Rezko. Why did he feel compelled to take care of the property? And why did Mrs. Rezko jump at the empty plot of land the same day Obama purchased the mansion right next door? That's a coincidence of immense proportions. The usual argument offered by the Obama camp was that Rezko was in the business of developing properties and jumped at the chance of buying an empty lot in an upscale residential neighborhood. But it's not at all clear that the property was even on the market on that particular day. Also, The Times of London article linked above says the plot of land is only accessible through Obama's estate. How could an empty plot of land have any potential development value if it was blocked in by Obama's new house?

Even the most fervent of Obama supporters admit that Rezko was obviously trying to curry favor with a sitting U.S. Senator and possibly influence federal legislation. But this whole episode calls into question Obama's sense of judgment. After all, he is thin on a public service record. While McCain has major dents in his armor like his involvement in the Keating 5 Scandal and the recent flap that was mismanaged by The New York Times, he does have significant legislative accomplishments to fall back on when discussing ethics and the effect of money on national politics. Obama certainly doesn't have that luxury. Plus, unlike the Keating 5 scandal or the standard lobbyist connections that most Congressmen have, Tony Rezko was already being investigated by a federal grand jury at the time Obama purchased this estate. Why would Obama event want to be loosely associated with such ilk?

Obama Dressed Up as a Somali

The Drudge Report first picked up on a photo of Sen. Barack Obama dressing up as a Somali elder, which included a traditional turban. Drudge has reported that the photo has been circulated via e-mail by the Hillary campaign. If this is true, perhaps the shame should be on the Hillary campaign and not the Obama campaign for some health care mailing that is basically true (see below).

In response to the Obama's camp condemnation, the Hillary campaign engaged in its usual spin that made little sense.

Another curious photo from that trip to Africa made by Obama can be found here.

These photos are meaningless but as they say, a picture is worth a thousand words and the Hillary campaign is undoubtedly exploiting that. A nuanced explanation of wearing traditional garb when visiting a foreign country is drowned out by the fact that Obama is wearing a turban. Think Michael Dukakis in a tank all over again.

Analyzing the Obama Health Care mailings

In Cincinnati over the weekend, Hillary went sharply on the offensive by criticizing the Obama campaign for mailing out fliers that was highly critical of Hillary's universal health care plan. Before we get into the substance of the attack by Obama's camp, it's worth noting that Hillary's sincerity here should be questioned. These fliers are not new to the scene. During the debate in Texas, Hillary fawned over Obama and commented on how proud she was to be sharing the stage with Obama. By then, the "Karl Rove-like" mailings had been widely circulated by the Obama campaign. Earlier this month, on Feb. 2nd, Hillary was asked about Obama's mailings on ABC's "This Week." There was no shame put on the shoulders of Barack Obama and she certainly compare them to *gasp* Karl Rove. So this feigned indignation on Hillary's part may have more to do with her disappearing leads in both Texas and Ohio and little to do with the substance of Obama's attack on Hillary's health care plan.

But I digress.

Hillary has long been unwilling to compromise on universal health care coverage. In 1993, her health care proposal died in Congress in large part due to her unwillingness to compromise. David Brooks of the NY Times had an interesting piece on that 1993 health care debacle. The gist of it is Congressman Jim Cooper (D-TN) proposed an alternative health care plan to Hillary's not did not call for universal mandates. Cooper's plan had a much more realistic chance of passing through Congress but Hillary and The Clinton White House made sure it was dead on arrival. Without addressing the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country, Hillary wants (yet again) to mandate that all Americans must be covered--without much regard to their willingness or ability to pay for it. This is the substance of Obama's attack and it is essentially true.

Aside from the fact that Hillary has not developed any viable enforcement mechanism to ensure that everyone buys into her health care system, it's inevitable that everyone will not be able to pay for it. On ABC's "This Week," Hillary admitted that garnishing the wages of hard-working Americans is a definite possibility.

In that network interview, Hillary implicitly admitting that the substance of Obama's attack on her health care plan is exactly correct. People will be forced to join her massive health care bureaucracy, even if they cannot afford it or don't want it.

Hillary is making the same mistake she made as First Lady in the 1993-94 health care debate. For her, everything hinges on universal health care. Why that nebulous goal is her primary concern is difficult to ascertain. If her 35 years of experience was a learning experience, she'd drop this universal coverage mandate immediately.

Is it really progress when the federal government forces every single person to pay for health insurance? Perhaps individuals should make their own choices on health care, free of any government interference and massive bureaucracy.

Ohio Poll: Clinton up by 8 (or 11) Points

A recent poll released by the University of Cincinnati shows Hillary Clinton leading her rival Barack Obama by 8 points, 47%-39%. A new Quinnipiac University poll shows Hillary with an 11 point lead over Obama, 51%-40%, down from a commanding 21-point lead that she held on Feb. 14.

The moral of the story here is clear. The more time Obama has to campaign in a given state and spread his "hope" or "excitement" or whatever it is he markets, the closer he makes the race with Clinton.

The same phenomenon is also being witnessed in Texas. The state was long held to be a Hillary stronghold but recent polls directly contradict that. One poll even has Obama with a commanding lead over Hillary, 57%-40%. If that poll is even half-true, Hillary is obviously in big trouble. She must win both states, Ohio and Texas, on March 4th. Anything less than commanding wins there will damage her campaign beyond repair. Remember, Obama has been winning all the states after Super Tuesday with decisive double digit margins of victory. If Hillary can't pull off that feat in Ohio and Texas, she'll be done in the delegate count. Not even the superdelegates will save her then.

And it doesn't look like double digits in either state will happen for Hillary. Hopefully the Democratic campaign wages on far beyond March 4th because that only helps Republicans in the end but everyone has to start wondering how much longer Hillary can last without many recent victories in her column.

Ohio Republicans Are Rooting For Hillary

No real surprise here. Ohio GOP Deputy Chairman Kevin DeWine and others are openly admitting that they are rooting for Hillary Clinton in March 4's Democratic Presidential primary because they believe she can unite the Republicans like no other opponent and be ultimately defeated in the general election due to her high negative ratings. As evidenced by the recent USA Today numbers that gave her a negative rating of 49%.

I'm not so sure this conventional wisdom is completely accurate. Obama appears to be a big gamble for Democrats. There is real hesitation among Hispanics toward Obama's candidacy and Obama is polling weakly in some key states, including Ohio. Here in the Buckeye State, SurveyUSA has Clinton leading McCain by 10 points, 52%-42%, while Obama only has a three-point advantage over McCain, 47%-44%. Obama fares far worse against McCain in places like Florida and mind-bogglingly, Obama is only two points ahead of McCain in....drum roll...Massachusetts!

Obama will either win big or lose in a landslide. It seems unlikely he can win in a fairly close election scenario. While Obama and his rhetoric are playing well among independents for now, the real test will come in the fall. Obama has been mediocre thus far in his debate performances against Hillary. Not that McCain is a collegiate debater with a cabinet full of trophies, but he is a better candidate than Hillary ever will be. And I still maintain Obama's numbers are bound to drop. The current love affair the media has with Obama now will end once Hillary is out of the picture for good.

So, Ohio Republicans may be supporting Hillary in the hopes of drawing the weaker candidate but be careful what you wish for. Hillary is still polling well among seniors (the most reliable voting bloc) and union voters. As Pat Buchanan has pointed out more than once, those are exactly the kind of usual Democratic voters McCain can peel away to win The White House--especially in a state with a demographic makeup like Ohio.

Quinnipiac: Clinton Maintains Healthy Lead in Ohio

Quinnipiac University has released its latest round of polling in the wake of Hillary's big losses in the Potomac states this past Tuesday. And despite Hillary's recent campaign woes, she is maintaining a healthy lead in Ohio and Pennsylvania.
Among Ohio Democrats, women back Clinton,
56 percent to 30 percent for Obama, while men
back Clinton 52 percent to 42 percent, the poll found.

The Quinnipiac poll is basically in line with the previous SurveyUSA poll (see below). Quinnipiac has Hillary with a 56%-30% edge over Obama.

The pollster pointed out that Ohio possesses the perfect demographic for Hillary Clinton: blue collar Democrats with no college education.

In an Ohio general election matchup with the presumed Republican nominee Senator John McCain, McCain has a very slight lead against Clinton, 44%-43% and McCain had a bigger lead against Obama, 44%-40%. Both set of numbers are good news for McCain. His ability to win The White House is obviously strengthened if he manages to keep Ohio in the Republican column. Plus, the Quinnipiac poll also found that McCain is polling very well in neighboring Pennsylvania. McCain only trails Obama by one point in PA, 42%-41%, but does trail Hillary by a 6-point margin, 46%-40%.

This set of polls from battleground states like OH and PA should serve as a wake up call for Democrats. While Obama may be leading McCain in national polls by a slightly better margin than Hillary, he's performing considerably worse against McCain in these key states. It should be warning sign for Democrats everywhere, but I hope not.

Plain Dealer Endorses McCain, Obama

No big surprise here. Practically every major U.S. newspaper has endorsed John McCain and Barack Obama.

The big question is of these major newspaper endorsements will translate into increased support. The endorsement of every relevant newspaper in California certainly didn't help Obama secure that state in his column. Media endorsements provide good bragging rights against your opponent but that's about it. Voters are unlikely to base their individual vote on how many newspaper endorsements some candidate was able to rack up in a given state.

As for the Ohio Presidential primary itself, Hillary appears to still have the edge. Between now and March 4, however, Obama has the clear advantage. This Tuesday, Feb. 12, the Potomac Primary (Maryland, DC, Virginia) will hold their primaries and Obama is favored to sweep all three states. So, the momentum could clearly shift between now and March 4. Hillary's strategy should be to build up Texas and Ohio as firewall states to halt any momentum Obama has racked up sweeping the primaries/caucuses last night (Saturday, Feb. 9) and his likely sweep this Tuesday. If Hillary can win the big states of Texas and Ohio, she's back in the thick of it. If not, Obama has likely won the nomination.

As for the varying calculations of the delegate count, superdelegates (Congressmen, Governors, big city Mayors, union leaders, etc.) should not be counted in at this point. Whomever wins the most votes and goes into the Democratic convention with the most votes and/or delegates will secure the nomination. Superdelegates are purely political creatures who fully realize that nominating a candidate who received less votes than another is tantamount to political suicide. Plus, the party that felt cheated out of the 2000 Presidential election in Florida is unlikely to give their nomination away to someone who was beaten at the polls.