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.

Political Robocalls from Hillary

Just a few minutes ago, I received a phone call at my home from 703-637-9323. I immediately recognized the area code as coming from Northern Virginia, and so I answered the call--thinking it might be a friend from the Washington, DC area. I answered but there was no one on the other end. I hung up but curiosity got the best of me so I called back the number that had shown up on my caller ID. I got the voice mail of a young lady explaining it was the campaign headquarters of none other than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The young staffer explained that if I wanted my number removed from their list that I needed to leave my number and the state I was calling from. I did so and left an unkind message explaining that no one in my household would be voting for Hillary Clinton anytime soon.

Apparently, many disgruntled voters from around the country have received unsolicited calls from the same Hillary number. And to paraphrase one the posters at that above link, Hillary and her associates are truly nuts if they believe that these unsolicited calls at 8:30PM on a Sunday night will lead to more votes.

The other curious aspects of these unsolicited Hillary calls is: where did her campaign get my number? I am proud to say no one in this household has ever voted in a Democratic primary (despite my own temptation to contribute to this year's defeat of Dennis Kucinich). And as we all know, the Ohio primary is closed. Independents and Republicans cannot vote in the Democratic primary. It's been this way for a while here. My home phone number has been on the Federal Do Not Call Registry since its inception (of course politicians in Washington conveniently excluded themselves from the ban). So, how did Hillary get my number? It was likely purchased from somewhere or taken out of the phone book. Either way, Hillary isn't helping herself with unsolicited phone calls.

These political robocalls have recently garnered the attention of the U.S. Senate. The proposed Senate bill would not allow political robocalls to mask their identity on caller IDs, make more than one call to a number per day, or call before 8AM or after 9PM local time. The restrictions would only be in place 30 days before a primary (60 days before the general election). The bill is being sponsored in the Senate by Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Arlen Specter (R-PA), and Daniel Inouye.

No word yet if Hillary will be taking a break from her flourishing Presidential campaign to co-sponsor the bill!

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.