OBSERVATION: The stupid politics of evil

As an Illinois resident, I have bipartisan disgust.

There is a saying that America is governed by two parties – the evil party and the stupid party. This was always a good insider joke for political gatherings. In the Land of Lincoln, the joke has become a reality. Given the number of indictments and convictions of mistitled “public servants,” there is no doubt that the Democrats have the clear advantage in taking the gold medal in the evil contest. It is equally clear that the clueless and inept Republican leadership has secured the gold with world record breaking stupidity.

Now there are exceptions. Republican Governor/felon George Ryan is most certainly a strong contender in any evil event. After all, his corruption killed a bunch of people, including six little kids, while sparing heinous murders their call to justice. How evil is that? While Democrat Governor/soon-to-be-felon Rod Blagojevich and his team are gold medal winners in evil, who can deny Blago an individual gold for stupidity?

Notwithstanding occasional personal exceptions, the Democrats have a lock on evil in Illinois, and the Republicans dominate stupidity. The evil of the Democrats is seen all over the judicial system. Scores of indictments and innumerable media expose over scores of years layout the intimate details of their evil. It covers every branch and level of government. The Dem leadership gives life to such sayings as … power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely … and … money is the root of all evil.

To their credit, evil makes more sense than stupidity … in fact, it trumps stupidity. That is why the Democrats hold all the major power in Illinois – and now nationally -- while the doofus GOP looks like the Keystone Kops in a Mack Sennett comedy.

The elephant party can take comfort in the fact that stupidity rarely gets a person indicted. Of course, it does not get a person elected, either. GOP stupidity cleared the path for Barack Obama to travel from the obscurity of the Illinois State Senate to his historic world hero election to the presidency. The U.S. Senate campaign of millionaire Jack Ryan collapsed due to the bumbled handling of a “sex scandal” that had no sex.

But this was just the precursor of what might be considered the most incredibly stupid political tactic in American history. The Illinois GOP gave the winnable Senate nomination to a black out-of-stater on the theory that a black Republican trumps a black Democrat. Worse yet. The black right-wing, out-of-stater, Alan Keyes, was a perennial lunatic candidate who has unsuccessfully run for a number of public offices, including the presidency, to the great embarrassment of the Republican party and us normal conservatives.

Keyes is a Bible quoting, homo hating gadfly with some of the most outrageous public policy proposals conceived by man. Think of the ramifications of this stupidity. Thanks to the failure of the loco … oooops …. I mean local … GOP to stop Obama when he was merely another ambitious, but undistinguished, Illinois politician, he led the Dems to an unprecedented victory on the national scene.

Of course, the Obama juggernaut could have been stopped at the national level, but the stupid party proved its calling with the nomination of John McCain. He, in turn, ran a stupid race.

Three times Obama came to office against all odds because the GOP handed him the victory through applied stupidity. The danger for the GOP is that Obama may turn out not to be evil and not to be stupid. In which case, the Republicans will be relegated to a long era of stupidity in the kiddie pool of politics.

(Click on pics to read inscriptions.)

OBSERVATION: Smiling all the way to the White House

As a long time political consultant and advisor (no, I was not the guy how suggested that Lincoln take an evening off and go to the theater), I have come to the conclusion that one of the most important factors in a successful candidacy is rarely analyzed in the post-election punditry. Sure, we get all kinds of thoughtful opinions on issues and strategies, but not much on one of the biggest factors -- likeability. Yeah. Likeability. Frankly, I think it is more important than issues and strategies -- although they play a role.

We often use the word "like" when we mean prefer. I preferred John McCain, but Icannot say I liked him. In fact, I did not like him very much at all from the first time I met him privately in person.

Does anyone doubt that Barack Obama was more likeable than the strident and intense Hillary Clinton or the grumpy and testy McCain. You can disagree with Obama on issues, and even wonder about his dubious past associations, but it is damn near impossible not to like him. It also extends to his family. They look like a magazine advertisement for Better Homes and Gardens.

One of the reasons Obama could score high on the likeability scale is that he is a non-scary black guy. This is the reason those other black presidential candidates -- Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm -- did not fare so well. Can you imagine ... President Jesse Jackson? It would be a cross between Halloween and April Fool's Day.

Then there is that smile. Obama has the best presidential smile since Dwight Eisenhower – who was so likeable that his campaign slogan was simply "I like Ike." Ike was the first president to make the smile a political asset. Most of his predecessors posed for portraits or photographs with haughty seriousness. I mean ... have you ever seen a smile on Thomas Jefferson or a clear look at George Washington's fabled wooden teeth? I recall a photo of Abraham Lincoln with a slight grin, and Franklin Roosevelt sometimes held his fancy cigarette holder clenched between his upturned lips, but grins don't count. You have to show teeth.

If you project the likeability factor across the political spectrum, you can see why the GOP took a drubbing. Can you name the Republicans who are just plain likeable? Oh sure, Ronald Reagan, but he's dead. (But can you ever forget that smile?) Issues/shmissues. If the GOP hopes to do better next time, they need to find likeable candidates with big ear-to-ear smiles.

OBSERVATION: How to spell Obama? D-A-V-I-D- A-X-E-L-R-O-D

When looking at the making of the president 2008, the most important single factor has been largely overlooked or under appreciated by the press. David Axelrod.

Sure, he has appeared on a few interview programs and taken the podium at some press conferences, but for a guy in his position, he has maintained a surprisingly low profile -- at least before Election Day. That is the Axelrod style.

As political consultants in the same Chicago political arena for many years, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have had modest association with him on various campaign trials. I have known him, and of him, since he was a reporter. We have been counterpoints on any number of talk shows. Can’t say I know him well personally, but I do know him professionally.

David is probably the most determined and aggressive political guru in America, but he has almost no desire to be a celebrity in his own right. He keeps his total focus on his clients, and he has impressive ones – Mayor Daley, Bill Clinton and a number of leading Democrat candidates across the country. He does not confuse celebrity with success, as many political advisors do.

I would argue against anyone who says that Barack Obama could have made it to the White House without David. Frankly, without David, I think Obama would still be a community-based activist. Don’t get me wrong. Obama is brilliant, articulate and ambitious, and he brings a lot of natural candidate talent to the table -- but so do a lot of other people.

Obama is a great raw product, but with many distasteful features. David is the genius who could not only package and sell Obama by highlighting and playing on his strong points, but who to make the other products unpalatable by comparison.

I never thought Obama could make it to the White House without a major crises and an inept opponent (and he got both). He has run for office four times. With more ambition than brains, he took on Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush in a Democrat primary. He didn’t win against this seasoned and savvy opponent, but he did get noticed. Lowering his sights, Obama went for the Illinois State Senate. Rather than risk a competent opponent, Obama, with the help of the fabled Chicago Democrat machine, used aggressive technical challenges -- and the cooperation of machine election officials -- to remove all his opponents form the ballot -- including the incumbent. He ran unopposed.

His jump to the U.S. Senate was a bold endeavor for a neophyte state legislator. Again, it was ambition over brains, but this time he got lucky. He signed up David Axelrod. Then he got even luckier. The hapless Illinois GOP first floundered with millionaire businessman Jack Ryan, a worthy opponent until it was revealed that he and his movie star wife (Jeri Ryan) had visited sex clubs in New York and Paris.

The Republicans, in an effort to advance their reputation as the stupid party, imported conservative gadfly Alan Keyes, a kooky black perennial presidential candidate. After only a couple undistinguished years in the Senate, Obama succumbed to the siren call of the presidency. Again it as a precocious move – challenging the all but certain nomination of Hillary Clinton. This time Obama was facing real competition, but he got lucky again. The Early primaries featured a bunch of moderate white candidates to divide up the vote – leaving Obama with a unified black/progressive core.

Once he secured the nomination, he was just another unelectable Democrat … unless … unless there was some seismic political event or the GOP opponent screwed up. Again, he was lucky. Instead of “or,” Obama got “and.” The economy tanked at just the right time – as the Republicans were experiencing the beginning of a post-election surge. AND … the Republicans offered up maverick John McCain, who proceeded to run one of the worse campaigns in American history.

But, what about David Axelrod?

NONE of this would have gotten Obama elected had it not been for the genius of Axelrod. Conversely, I am convinced David would have guided Clinton to the Oval Office had he accepted her invitation to be part of the Clinton team, as he was in the past.

No defection cost Clinton more than David Axelrod. David IS strategy. You hire him, you get the Axelrod method -- and a winning one it is. The Clinton campaign should have made him an offer he could not refuse. The decision to let him go doomed her candidacy, as it turned out.

David never believed in the conventional political wisdom that you do not respond to negative attacks. In fact, David takes the position that no attack, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should go unchallenged. Without this aggressive and effective strategy of refutation, Obama’s candidacy would have sunk early on under the weight of mini-scandals, questionable associations, a cloudy, if not shady, past and a political philosophy far too liberal for mainstream America.

Rather than allow his past to be discovered by others, like his one time opponent, Jack Ryan, Obama laid out most of it in his books. As the political jargon goes, he “inoculated” against criticism. This is classic Axelrod.

David knew that to become the President, Obama had to look and sound presidential. Orating like Jesse Jackson was a kiss of death. Obama's Harvard education and artidulation were natural tools. David created and controlled the visual and verbal imagery. He treated Obama like an actor, and he, David, would show him how to play the part of President of the United States. The clothes, the staging, the photos, the gestures, the oratory. All very carefully crafted and scripted.
Just as important as David’s craftsmanship was Obama’s willingness to stick to the script. He played the part to perfection. In an amazing turn-about, the first black candidate for the presidency actually looked, acted and sounded more presidential than the classic gray-haired white guy.

More than any consultant I know, David understands the issue of credibility. Having taught college-level course in credibility, and having invented a credibility management concept, I have always been in awe of David. He never took one of my courses, but he is a natural. He knows, that if you destroy an opponents credibility, there is nothing they can say or do to convince the public of anything.

If you look at the Obama campaign through the credibility lens, you can see how the campaign used every possible technique to strip first Hillary Clinton, then McCain, and finally the whole Republican Party, or their credibility. Every time McCain changed his mind, or said something that seemed at odds with an earlier statement, the Obama campaign trumpeted it. These “inconsistencies” were then elevated to lies. McCain lies. Palin lies. Bush lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Republican = lies.

The success of this strategy was even more impressive since McCain came into this campaign aboard the “straight talk express.” HE was the straight talker. HE was the man good as his word. HE was the tell-it-like-it-is guy. Thanks to Axelrod, the straight talk express got derailed, and McCain limped into town with the reputation of a snake oil salesman -- or more specifically, the third term of the unpopular George Bush. With the very credibility of the Repbulican brand damaged, Obama's every word became gospel and McCain could say nothing believeable to the electorate.

David also has a great talent for generating discipline. Rarely will one see a campaign were the entire team worked so well together. Through his own example, David was able to get the team to set aside the usual political differences and prima donna attitudes and focus on two things -- candidate and message.

Wherever Axelrod lands in the coming months – White House aide, outside consultant – he will play a major role in guiding the entire Democrat ship as its guru-in-chief. He will be the strategy connection between his President, the Democrat National Committee, and the Senate and house campaign committees. He will be issuing the guidelines to the state parties and candidates. David could well be the most powerful political figure in America next to President Obama. He is the personification of the Chicago machine coming to Washington. He is Karl Rove on steroids.

Just you watch.

AFTERMATH: Please pass the crow.

I spent the better part of a year explaining why Barack Obama was unelectable. I made my prediction despite my longstanding belief that John McCain was the least electable Republican candidate (see blog: Is McCain able?). In terms of Obama, boy, was I wrong. Well ... only partially. I quote from my blog of February 20, 2008:

Okay, I will risk being made the fool. I don’t think Barack Obama can win a general election, short of some catastrophic political event or campaign stupidity that would wipe out McCain. (Hmmm! Perhaps I should not be so bold in my prediction)

Well, Obama was the benefactor of BOTH a "catastrophic political event" and "campaign stupidity" by McCain.

As soon as the economic meltdown reached atomic levels, I surrendered to the notion that Obama was electable (see blog: President Obama? Arrrrrrgh!). In terms of "campaign stupidity," the list of examples is far too long to delineate here -- but you do not have to go much past Sarah Palin to identify self-inflicted mortal political wounds. Yes, Sarah got roughed up by a very biased press, but that still leaves a lot of room for justifiable criticism.

Given the closeness of the popular vote, I stand by my original analysis that Obama could not have been elected without both of the aforementioned conditions. Even the pollsters say the rush to Obama came at the time of the bailout. Oh yeah! The bailout. Major stupidity number two for McCain.

Having made my excuses, I will now admit that the scope of Obama’s victory was impressive. Even before the polls closed on the west coast, he was already the winner. Since I preferred his opponent without much enthusiasm, I am not overly chagrined by Obama's victory.

Outside of the black vote, it was pleasant to see that America is not nearly as racially prejudiced as those politically correct liberals like to contend.

Bottom line ... Obama won ... and I get a serving of humble pie a la crow.

MORE TIDBITS: A surprisingly tranquil election night.

1. Barack Obama ran one of best presidential campaigns in American History. The strategy was brilliant, the tactics uniformly effective, and the implementation flawless. Conversely, John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in modern times.

2. The late New York Senator Patrick Moynihan once advised President Richard Nixon: “If you are going to act like a Tory, speak like a Whig, and if you are going to act like a Whig, speak like a Tory.” Obama understands this concept. The Dems stole the rhetoric of the right. Middle class values. Tax cuts for most Americans. A call for individual contribution. Coming to the campaign as the most liberal senator in Washington, Obama gave speeches that could have comfortably flowed from the lips of Ronald Reagan.

3. Despite the historic breakthrough, the heated rhetoric of the campaign, and the paranoia about vote fraud, election night was remarkably devoid of controversies. It was a BIG election, with highly volatile issues, but even the television talking heads noted the absence of any vote stealing or major “machine malfunction” stories to report. By 9:00 p.m. eastern time, the nation had a President-elect. There was a gracious concession speech and an inspirational acceptance speech.

4. In a previous blog is predicted that the pollsters would be wrong as usual. Gallup gave Obama a ten point lead. The results were way outside their margin of error. And those who now claim to be correct chose a more conservative spread with Obama on top. Of course, given the margins of error, their accuracy was no better than an educated guess.

5. It is amazing how quickly the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich – the party of values, ideas and issues – has descended into a party of greed, incompetency and divisiveness.

6. In his concession speech, McCain said the GOP's poor showing was his fault. His hometown crowd considerately shouted their disagreement with that assessment. However ... he was right. It was his to lose, and he did. His sinking coatails dragged down the Repbublican brand all over America.

7. For a lot of reasons, right and wrong, Sarah Palin did not sell well to the voting public -- including a lot of conservative Republicans. The wise guys in the GOP as saying she is the future of the party, and the heir to the presidential nomination in 2012. Apparently the Repbulican wise guys have learned nothing. Why not Dick Cheney, while they're at it?

REACT: Only in America ...

There are a number of interesting things to analyze in the amazing path of Barack Obama from community organizer in Chicago to President of the United States. In the days to come, I will reflect on some of these. For the moment, however, the bell has rung on the final round of the 2008 presidential bout -- and we the people have scored the victory for Obama. Maybe a split decision, but no lingering doubts. Like it or not, he is our president.

On election night, the candidates respectively gave the best concession speech and acceptance speech in my memory. Had John McCain been able to articulate himself so eloquently during the campaign, he might have been more successful. If Obama lives up to the spirit of his speech, his place in history could be more than breaking the color barrier. He has the potential for true greatness.

In the months to come, the world will witness the high point of democracy as political adversaries undertake a peaceful and cordial transition of power from one party to another. More than just a change of political party, Obama led a peaceful revolution in the tradition of Reagan, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

At the core of our continuing experiment in democracy is our bipartisan efforts to make the Obama administration a success -- both by supporting its good works and opposing its mistakes. We will not all see those from the same perspective, but in a democracy, the majority is usually right.

If we cannot celebrate the victory of our candidate, we can still celebrate our system of government. So, before I go to bed on this election night, I say congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama ... and may God bless him ... and this great country.

TIDBITS: What do the polls really show?

1. If you believe in polls, the latest news from Michigan is that Barack Obama is ahead of John McCain by 53 to 37. So sayeth the Detroit Free Press/WDIV-TV poll. The so-called "margin of error" is plus or minus 4 percent. The poll shows non-blacks dividing evenly and all blacks voting for Obama (except a few undecideds). Yep! According to the poll, no black voter is casting a ballot for John McCain ... not one in the whole state of Michigan. If there is any validity to this poll ... and I would give it precious little ... you can draw one conclusion. Blacks are a lot more racist than non-blacks.

2. This bring up another point. Almost all national discussion on the Bradley Effect centers on non-blacks lying to pollsters because they don't want to sound like racists if they vote for McCain. Up until now, it has been a black and white issue. However, this year we have a new wrinkle. Little has been said about the awesome intimidation of black voters who prefer McCain. The Michigan polling shows the black side of the Bradley Effect very clearly. McCain will get black votes from those who are pro-life, pro-gun ownership. Affluent blacks have the same concerns as affluent non-blacks over taxation. If the poll shows McCain at zero, some people are lying -- and you will see it on Election Day.

3. Gallup just released a poll (Sunday evening) that gives Obama a ten point lead, 52 t0 42. Just four days earlier, Gallup called the race for Obama 49 to 47. This latest would mean that at least 5 percent of those who were voting for McCain a couple days ago changed their minds. I say "at least 5 percent" since it is likely higher to offset some undecideds who have decided for McCain in the meantime. Gallup can call it a shift, but basically, one of these polls is just ... wrong. Maybe both. We'll find out in a couple days.

4. About the same time Gallup was showing Obama breaking away in a romp, the poll that claims to have been the most accurate in 2004, the IBD/TIPP poll, claims the race is closing in with Obama's lead shrinking to 46.7 to 44.6. While Gallup has the undecideds stampeding to Obama, IBD/TIPP has them flowing to McCain. If they are right, the 8.7 percent undecides will put McCain over the top. Stay tuned.

5. They say that there maybe be around 130 million voters this election. The typlical poll registers the opinion of between 600 and 1000 of them. Using the higher figure, this means that each person being polled stands for 130,000 voters. So, when I fib and say I am voting for Obama, but I actually go in and vote for McCain, my impact on the election is a 260,000 vote difference --- the 130,000 I take away from Obama and the 130,000 I add to McCain. (If I use the 600 sampling, the impact is more than 430,0000 vote difference.) If you have a 5 percent error in the sample population (including fibbers, like me), the projected error is between 13 and 22.5 million votes.

6. Wonder why pollsters usually say an election is closing in at the end? Because you can't be wrong in predicting a close election. If you give both Obama and McCain 50 percent, with a margin of error of 4 percent, the election can go to 54 percent to 46 percent either way and the pollster will pat himself on the back for an accurate prediction. And how many presidential elections are outside the 54 to 46 range? Damn few.

So ... you can see why I think polls are a bunch of hogwash.

OBSERVATION: The polls are wrong ... as usual.

We soon will have completed voting for the 2008 Presidential Election. There is a reasonable chance that we will know who the next President of the United States will be sometime on Wednesday. There is also a chance we may be in a prolonged 2000-like ballot counting tug-o-war right up to the time the Electoral College convenes to settle the matter to the satisfaction of the law, if not the satisfaction of the voters – at least half of them. We are, after all, a “house divided.”

As I write this, a flurry of pollsters are attempting to justify their existence by predicting the outcome.

Before we address the current numbers, there is something you should know about polls. They are all bullsh*t. Yep! They are about as accurate and scientific as newspaper horoscopes. If you think I am being too harsh, ask your self these questions.

Why do different polls taken at the same time get such widely different results? Where is the “science” in that?
Why are the results of an election often outside the “margin of error.” That should be impossible. Obviously, the margin of error is as bogus as the poll itself.

You also have to keep in mind the tricks pollsters use to allow them to claim legitimacy.

First, there is the margin of error, itself. If you have a poll showing the candidates at 52 and 48 percent respectively, with a margin of error of 4 percent, the pollster can claim accuracy if the race is 56 to 44 – or even 48 to 52 with the “other” candidate winning. Even I can predict elections within that range without getting anyone else’s opinion.

You don’t believe me? Okay. I think John McCain will win 49 to 48 with 3 percent going to other candidates. My margin of error is 4 percent. So, if McCain wins 53 to 44, I’m right. If Obama wins 52 to 45, I’m right. Check back with me on Wednesday.

Also, pollsters often claim to have missed the mark due to a major last minute change of heart by the voters. Now … ask yourself: How many people do you know who change their mind the last weekend before an election? I have been involved in elections for more than 40 years, and I find very few undecideds in the last month. Rather than say their last poll was WRONG, pollsters invent this fake phenomenon of last minute voter switches.

You see, pollsters always claim their polls are right at the time they are taken. They can do this because they are comparing them to an unknown – the REAL sentiment of the electorate.

Another trick is the “undecides.” Now place close attention. After the election, the pollsters will say that most of the “undecideds” broke for McCain. They almost always break for the Republican. You know why? Because the polls are almost always erroneously biased in favor of the Democrats. So to explain the wrong prediction, the pollsters say that the “undecideds” all went to the GOP. Again, based on my experience, there are very few “undecideds” at this stage. Those who say they are, are lying. They may tell the pollster they are undecided, but they know damn well who they are voting for. Hmmm. Maybe more Bradley Effect.

To more fully appreciate the uselessness of voting surveys, take a look at the exit polls. There are no undecideds in exit polls. If there is any validity to the “science” of polling, then these should be spot-on predictors. But noooooo! Based on exit polls, the media gave the 2004 election to Democrat John Kerry in their rush-to-judgment early reports. When the votes were counted, George Bush won by a wide margin. Even in exit polls, the science is flawed and the public fibs. I mean ... if you decided to lie about who you are going to vote for, why would you 'fess up who you did vote for?

(Die hard liberals like to say that the 2004 election was stolen, but there is no evidence that GOP shenanigans tipped the scale – and of course, they overlook the counterbalancing Democrat shenanigans. Yeah folks, the Dems are gold medalists when it comes to stealing votes. I come from Chicago, the Harvard of vote fraud.)

Now that we know opinion polls are nothing more than semi-educated manipulated guesses, let’s take a look at this year’s offerings. Since even a good guess requires reliance on past experience, we can conclude that the polls will be based on more b-s this year than usual.

There is no history to draw upon. We have never had a black candidate, a woman candidate, the oldest candidate. Never before has one candidate had such enormous financial resources. The economy has tanked. Though biased, the media has never been so determined to influence the outcome. Can they? These issues cut in all directions.

At this moment, the pollsters mostly give the election to Barack Obama. This has led liberal Democrat pundits and partisans to express optimism to the point of anticipating a blowout or landslide. Methinks this is not sound thinking.

There are some things that may not have changed in this historic year. Polls are almost always wrong, and the GOP almost always does better with the voters than the pollsters. Since polling bias is driven by media bias (the pollsters’ clients), and since the media bias is particularly acute this year, the polls maybe be much to generous to Obama than even past Democrat candidates.. If this is still the case, then this election is very close indeed. It is also true that black candidates poll better than their final vote totals – that old Bradley Effect. Will this again be the case?

The great assumption in this election is that a huge turn out the voters clamoring for Obama's promise of change. The campaign and its supporters have so idolized the candidate, that they project their rabid enthusiasm on the general public. They also site some early election exit polling as evidence of this trend – not appreciating that those lying to the pollsters last week will lie on their way out of the polling booth.

I expect there to be a Bradley Effect in this election, and it may become quite significant. I say this because the media has so glamorized Obama, and demonized John McCain, that a lot of people don’t want to wear their vote on their sleeve. Right or wrong, people worry about there cars being vandalized or windows broken for supporting such a seemingly unpopular candidate as McCain.

Hey! I’m one of them. I usually put on a bumper sticker and display a window sign for my candidate, but this year I don’t feel comfortable doing that. Keep in mind, I live in Illinois. If a pollster calls me, I will say I am voting for Obama just because I think undermining the pollsters is a patriotic duty. Now I figure, if I am doing that, there are probably a lot more like me out there. Conversely, there is little reason or evidence to suggest that Obama voters are lying to pollsters.

I recently attended a Chicago Democrat fundraiser. Sure … the speakers spoke well of Obama, but the more intimate chat around the room revealed a surprising number of white Democrats – even some office holders – who were not voting for their “favorite son.” You can bet this folks would be lying to pollsters for sure.

So … what does all this mean? For me, it means that the polls are untrustworthy in general, and more so this year. It is impossible to know who is winning this race at this moment … and I would not completely rule out a McCain/Palin victory. The theory right now is that McCain needs to win all the so-called “battleground states.” But, what if one or two of those perceived solid blue states, like Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Mexico, etc., comes in red? Remember, they are only solid blue becasue the pollsters say so.

Always remember what it is called when a pollster is right. Luck.

OBSERVATION: Obama's Jewish problem

Obama has a Jewish problem. They are not voting for the Democrat candidate in traditional numbers. Some say it is this Muslim myth. Well ... get real. Barack Obama NOT a Muslim. However, that silly debate takes away from a more serious issue. Okay, Obama may not be a face-the-East, pork rejecting, dress like and actor in a biblical movie Muslim but he IS the most pro Arab candidate for President since the creation of Israel.

Though he pays lip service to a strong and secure Jewish state as a political necessity, and has notable Jewish personalities on his team (including key members the powerful Pritzker family), there is not doubt that Obama is more comfortable with and appreciating of the Arab ambitions in the Middle East.

His popularity in the Arab world is not without justification. From his earliest days, he was surrounded by Muslim influences. He was raised in a Muslim environment. He have visited the Arab enclaves, and conferred with its leaders. He has given encouragement to Arab causes. What little record he has created in his remarkably undocumented life shows his sympathy of Arab aspirations.

His maladroit offer to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right) was indicative of Obama's own belief that he can be a persuasive "friend" to achieve concessions. Of more concern to Jewish-Americans are the concessions Obama is willing to make for "peace in our time."

Next to African-Americans**, Arab-Americans support Obama in the highest percentages. World Arab leaders have expressed their hope in an Obama victory -- even the Arab terrorist factions. Arab money, both domestic and international, legal and illegal, have flowed into the Obama coffers. In this day of world communication, Middle East phone banks have barraged U.S. Arabs with get-out-the-vote calls.

While Obama says he would defend Israel from an unlikely Arab invasion or all-out attack, it is his view on the source of the problems and the complex negotiations required to bring about evenutal peace in the region that is most relevant. Most alarming to the Jewish community is the almost certainty that Obama will change the long-standing American view that
Arab terrorism is the primary problem, with Israel as the victim. Obama's pre-campaign views are more sympathetic to the hopes and apirations of the

All this has led to an understandable anxiety and concern on the part of American Jews -- especially those with deeper emotional commitments to the preservation and security of Israel.

**Whether it is because they share the African continent or due to historic prejdices against Jewish merchants in the inner cities, or both, African-American leaders have been among the most consistent ethnic groups in supporte of Arab positions. If not anti-Semitism, there is certainly a pro-Arab bias in the black culture. This was reflected in Jesse Jackson's derogatory reference to New York City as "Hymietown."

OP ED: Skinheads and William Ayers

Thanks to good police work, it appears that two racist skinheads were arrested before they would unleash their heinous terrorist attack on the black community and on democracy, itself, by murdering more than 100 African-Americans, including Senator Barack Obama.

One should keep in mind, however, that the only difference between these degenerates and William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is that the latter actually implemented their deadly plans. Their bombs went off, and people died.

I wonder if these hate monger skinheads will also wind up as “distinguished college professors” at prestigious universities one day.

REACT: McClellan endorses Obama ... figures.

After publishing a shameless back-stabbing book about his patron and employer, former George Bush Press Secretary, Scott McClellan (left ... oh ... that's a weasel. An honest mistake.), has poked both his faces out from under the rock to endorse Barack Obama.

Why is it that Obama seems to attract the support of such low lifes? I mean ... Louis Farrakhan, Bill Ayers, Tony Rezko, et al. What do these people see in him?

If you have already forgotten who McClellan is ... or was ... he is the guy you saw explaining George Bush to the press. He was a shoe-licking lackey. Once his fifteen minutes of fame expired, he published an embellished account of his days in the White House. If his harsh criticism were even half true, you have to wonder why he hung around the place until he was booted. Well ... now he found a way to add a couple more minutes of fame.

Let me make it clear that I do not think every cross-party endorsement is political treason. Joe Lieberman and Colin Powell have both endorsed the candidate of the "other" party. These are part pragmatic and part heartfelt. McClellan is just a sleaze.

OBSERVATION: The Chicago-izing of America

If elected, will Barack Obama save the Chicago Democrat machine? Duh! Of course.

The oldest and arguably most racist and corrupt political machine in American history has been showing signs of a death rattle these days. Thanks to a crusading U.S. Attorney and a growing disenchantment with the point man, Mayor Richard Daley – and the Daley clan, in general – it seems that the political institution launched in the 1930s is tottering.

Most critical has been the loss of patronage leverage. Thanks to the courts and something called the Shakman decree, the Chicago bosses can no longer use government employees as political and personal lackeys. They cannot impose the historic indentured servitude that forced underlings to work precincts and raise political dough. They can no longer safely re-sell government services for campaign contributions.

However, for many years, the law was simply ignored, and monkey business in City Hall continued as usual. That was until a one-term Republican senator, Peter Fitzgerald, refused to play go-along politics in the appointment of a new U.S. Attorney. Over the objections of the good ole boys of both parties, the Senator picked the untouchable Patrick Fitzgerald (no relation).

Now with hundreds of indictments and convictions under his belt, including one governor, a smattering of high profile influence peddlers and Mayor Daley’s closest aides, the machine mischief of the past has come to a screeching halt. In a complete reversal of polarity, the endorsement of an alderman today will most likely kill a job applicant’s potential for a city job.

In addition to the structural problem, Chicago is transforming from a “city that works” to a community beset with critical financial, social and infrastructure problems. What is knows locally as “the corruption tax” has placed Cook County and Chicago in the stratosphere of taxing municipalities. Yet, to the chagrin of the public, children still go uneducated and potholes go unfilled.

Enter President Obama. The irony in having an African-American (even half) breath life into the white-controlled political machine of Chicago is not lost on the locals. Obama would not be the first “window dressing” black political figure to provide a measure of politically correct diversity to the racist machine – gaining a personal piece of the political pie while keeping the greater black community in perma-subservient underclass status.

Despite promises to the contrary, you can rest assured that Obama will most certainly dismiss Patrick Fitzgerald and appoint a patsy recommended by Illinois’ strident partisan U.S. Senator Dick Durbin. Daley, who some believe could be indicted, himself, will breath the loudest sigh of relief. Once again, the effect of reform laws and court decisions will be thwarted by lack of investigation, enforcement and prosecution.

The city’s and state’s financial problems will be provided financial opiates from the federal vault which will temporarily mask the surface symptoms of the mismanaged local economy. Obama & Co. will open the federal treasury to whatever his political padrones need. Chicago’s inefficiencies and costs of corruption will be plastered over with cold cash courtesy of the national taxpayers.

Like Lazarus, an Obama presidency could raise Chicago’s 2016 Olympic bid from the dead. While there would be some entertainment value for the people of Chicago – offset by the frustrations attendant to extreme overcrowding – the real winners would be the political insiders who would not only get the best seats at every venue, but would pocket enormous amounts of money from every imaginable skim and scam.

Whatever the Chicago machine has lost in terms of the power over local patronage will be more than made up from the mother lode of jobs available on the federal payrolls. Chicago cronies and family members will be filling moving vans heading east within days of an Obama victory. At least two Cabinet positions will be handed to Chicago Democrats.

With the trifecta of Obama in the White House, Dick Durbin one step away from the top job in the Senate and Rahm Emmanuel as heir-apparent to the speakership of the U.S. House, there is no doubt that the Chicago Democrat machine will be the proverbial kid in grandpa’s candy story.

OP ED: It's not racism, stupid

Barack Obama’s standing in the poles is testimony to the fact that non-black America is not nearly as racist as the Jesse Jackson’s of the world would contend to maintain their relevancy. Having now shown the significant racial tolerance of the non-black communities, it is time to focus on Barack Obama, the man. Should HE be the next president? (<-- The "he" is capitalized for emphasis, not for the purpose of deification, as many might assume.) Had it not been for the economy tanking, and panic running amok, that answer would have been a decided “no.” The non-racial reasons for rejecting the Obama candidacy are still valid, however. He possesses five qualities that are totally wrong for America.

1. Despite the sweet talk and pleasant demeanor, Obama is among the most radical left-wingers to be seriously considered for the presidency. His proposals for massive government programs, here and abroad, and redistribution of the wealth from the productive sector to the non-productive community is a socialist agenda by any measure. It sets America on the terminal path most recently traveled and abandoned in failure by the old Soviet Union and cold war China. His redistribution of wealth comments are distrubingly akin to the language of Karl Marx -- and why not? The policies are disturbingly similar pure communist ideology.

2. He is a radical internationalist, who would realign our foreign policy toward greater accommodation with the America-hating Islamic fundamentalist at the expense of Israel, yield elements of our sovereignty to international agencies and withdraw from the Reagan-launched era of dedication to world democratization. There is a reason why those who wish to ring down the curtain on "the American era" have expressed universal hope and encouragement for an Obama presidency.

3. Obama’s personal history of associations with radical anti-American extremists, from childhood to just before his pole numbers started rising, is significant to understanding what drives his thinking. From the early education at the knee of his proclaimed American-loathing Communist family and childhood mentors, to the racist political foundation of liberation/revolution theology preached by his father figure pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and to the propaganda-as-education philosophy of unrepentant terrorist William Ayers, Obama has been consistently cradled and influenced by the haters of the successful American capitalist system – those who would rather wage class warfare on the rich than bring a just war to the doorsteps of murderous tyrants.

4. He brings to office, albeit in a polished form, the lust for raw power exemplified in the Chicago political machine -- the wellspring of his political life. He is a graduate of arguably the most corrupt political environment in America. The support he has received from, and the support he has given to, friends and allies wallowing in local political chicanery strips away the flimsy mask of reform he dons on the national stage and belies the scripted lines in his stage role as a small "d" democrat. The Chicago way of political control is to constantly change the rules to increase partisan power and advantage, and if that is insufficient, to simply break the rules to maintain power. Obama’s arrogant radical liberalism -- characterized by a twisted sense superiority and noblise oblige -- coupled with a Chicago-style contempt for citizen participation, gives him an already discernibly unhealthy lust for personal power -- and the instinct to pursue it.

5. Obama would come to the presidency as the most woefully inexperienced and untested candidate in American history. His simplistic idealism is at once charming and dangerous. In addition to his misguided instincts, Obama brings a naïveté to the presidency that makes America more vulnerable -- politically, diplomatically and physically -- to the advances, actions and assaults of our avowed adversaries. Voting for the recordless Obama is an act of faith. He is the proverbial “pig in a poke” – lipstick notwithstanding.

6. Finally, there is a matter of integrity. With enormous financial advantage, Obama has been able to undermine the credibility of the Republican team. Yet, much of his image is founded in lies. He would have us believe that after 20 years of intimate association with Trinity Church, and the fiery Jeremiah Wright, he had never “heard a disparaging word.” His latter day answers, on such matters of abortion and taxation, stand in stark contrast, yet he is not challenged on these discrepancies. He denies his days as a slum lord in partnership with the now indicted Tony Rezko. Obama is not what he appears.

Hillary Clinton got it right when she said that Obama’s national launch was on the basis of one skillfully crafted and presented speech. He has remained aloft on the same vacuous propellant. He is a spellbinding orator, as any snake oil salesman must be. A President Obama will undoubtedly be a great disappointment – either to those who did not fully appreciate his commitment to a radical world socialist agenda or to those who will watch the malleable Chicago machine President again re-invent himself to accommodate the moderating influence and pragmatism of the American system. Is he a Roosevelt or a Clinton? Stay tuned.

REACT: ACORN - another left wing nut?

The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) was where Barack Obama plied some his community organizer talents. Alas, it seems this is just another relationship that requires more ‘splaining. Apparently, the mission of ACORN is to advance the flagrantly corrupt election practices of the Chicago Democrat machine to the national stage.

Never in American history has there been a better funded and better organized effort to pack the voter roles across the nation with fraudulent “voters.” The audacity (to use the word of the day) of the group in filing phony voter registrations is beyond belief. Their efforts are clearly coordinated with the Obama key states strategy. And why not? The Obama campaign have this so-called independent group $800,000 directly.

NOW GET THIS!! Obama also supported legislation that would exempt ACORN from Truth-in-Lending laws to protect homeowners from unscrupulous and crooked mortgage "middlemen" SUCH AS ACORN!!!

Just in case you missed the point: These are the people and the liberal Democrat policies that created the housing bubble that recently burst, triggering the worldwide credit crisis.

ACORN has become nothing less than the vote stealing wing of the Obama campaign -- paid for by the illegal contribution wing of the Obama campaign, a cadre of liberal fat cats and YOU, the victimized taxpayer.

All this comes at a time Democrat lawmakers throughout the nation have unhinged ballot protections to every extent possible through legislation that they claim was designed to make it easer for more folks to vote.

Well … there is some truth to that. Thanks to their efforts, it is now easier for dead people to vote. Fictional people (yes, even Mickey Mouse) can now vote. Illegal aliens can vote. Under aged children can vote. Prisoners can vote. Those locked-up in mental institutions can vote. And even nonexistent people can vote. Not only can these ineligibles vote, they can vote as often as they please. The can vote at the same time in different polling places. They do not even have to go to the polling place. In fact, they do not even have to be aware of the fact that they voted. All thanks to the efforts of ACORN.

Opening the door to this new opportunity for election tampering is ACORN. By most counts, they have registered, or attempted to register, hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of the aforementioned ineligibles. They are to elections what bootleggers were to prohibition.

Under Obama’s starched white shirt is the heart of a true Chicago machine Democrat.

Time to be afraid again. Be very afraid.

OBSERVATION: Will Obama fail to win?

Like the race between the tortoise and the hare, Barack Obama can out sprint the lumbering John McCain any day of the week. Thus, McCain was right when he said that the media had now written him off. Aside from a few columnists, the news corps, entertainment-as-news comics and left-wing talk show jabber mouths are back to gloating over their vision of Obama hopping over the finish line by a wide margin.

I have reluctantly surrendered to the possibility that Obama can now win, but I have not written off McCain just yet – not by a longshot.

The most interesting bewilderment about this election is why Obama is not slamdunking McCain into some neo-Goldwater status. McCain is portrayed as a geezer – and a cranky one at that. The economy has tanked. The war drags on. George Bush continues to be the increasingly unpopular dunce-in-charge. McCain and his campaign cannot seem to maintain footing on the slippery ledge of the political chasm. The veep candidate is made out to be a dizzy blond slapped with a pseudo-scandal. It even appears that the less-popular-than-Bush congressional democrats are poised for gains in both chambers.

Then there is the money. Obama, by virtue of flip flopping on public funding, is proving that his devotion to campaign finance reform is as fragile as anything and that the entire concept is fatally flawed. However, his Machiavellian switch-a-roo, augmented by some very questionable money bundling schemes, means the Illinois senator enjoys a substantial financial advantage.

Finally, there is Obama himself. A gifted speaker. Tall. Movie star handsome, with an engaging smile. Kennedyesque. He can sell anything – or more appropriately, nothing. McCain, but virtue of his age and handicaps, has the movements of a hand puppet, with a voice like the mad scientist in a horror flick.

Yet … there are those polls. No matter the situation, Obama cannot seem to breakaway from McCain. They are still sweating heavily in the Obama camp – and well they should. First, the polls are probably inaccurate. The current 10 point lead Obama sees in Ohio, for example, is just bad polling. That state will not be a blow out for Obama, if he even carries it at all.

Then there is the tendency for the Republican candidate to pick up the lion’s share of the independent votes. The notion some have, that “independent” is synonymous with “liberal,” is just wrong.

This election may see the nationalization of the Bradley Effect, which suggests that African American candidates (at least at the gubernatorial level) enjoy significantly higher polling numbers than vote totals. There is every reason to assume that this will be even more dramatic in the presidential campaign, since there has been so much accusation of racism against those who do not support Obama.

From the get-go, everyone assumed that this would be another in our modern series of close presidential elections, where anything can happen. That has not changed. Give McCain a couple good days and/or Obama a couple bad days, and the dynamic of this race completely changes.

There is always talk of an “October Surprise.” Maybe we have seen it, but cannot recognize it at the moment. Perhaps the October Surprise with how far off the current polling is. I can only say… if the polls are proven to be way off base, the truth will not be to good news for Obama.

OBSERVATION: President Obama? Arrrrrrgh!

For those following my writings, you know I have consistently indicated that Barack Obama was not electable. In most cases, I added an escape clause – a great big “UNLESS.” The “unless” came in two versions. First, unless John McCain commits an enormous blunder, which is always possible. Second, unless there are dramatic events that alter the anticipated normal voting patterns.

Well … now I am nervous. Yeah, I would consider the economy dramatically tanking on the eve of the election an event that can shatter the “anticipated normal voting patterns.”

Events of recent days are shaking up the foundation of my theory that Obama is unelectable. First, we are in the grips of a true financial crisis. The long anticipated housing bubble burst has arrived and the over extended credit markets are grid locking.

Now add to this mix that the dive in the economy is due to greed and financial shenanigans by a lot of office holders, and you can see why the electorate is running scared – and angry. Sure, a lot of blame rests with past Democrat policies and the current Democrat Congress, but the knee-jerk blame is easily affixed to the encumbent in the White House -- and his political party.

This is never a good situation for the “ins.” While the crises is significantly short of the Great Depression, the willingness of the “outs” to draw the comparison for political advantages is both despicable and understandable. It is the equivalent of falsely yelling “fire!” in a crowded theater.

Like most economic crisis, fear is as damaging as reality – and can become a self-proving prophesy. The crisis creates a Hobson’s Choice for the electorate. Truth be known, they would probably prefer to scratch off both Obama and McCain as their choice to lead us out of the economic chaos of the moment. But … the voters must pick between the candidates at hand.

Which is perceived as the less bad choice? Common sense would say Obama. Troubled times are the fertile ground for the glib salesman who just arrived in town with a wagon load of snake oil as the cure for the maladies the town doctor was unable to cure. He is flash and dash -- style over substance.

The economic crisis has warped the campaign universe. At the very time the traditional GOP surge was rising, and the “Palin effect” was kicking in, the economic sputtering reversed the polarities, and suddenly Obama has moved ahead. This is significant at this stage of the game. State-by-state, Obama garners enough electoral votes to be the next President.

This does not mean the game is over for McCain. The economic crisis will not be over by Election Day. In fact, it may be worse. There is no “good news” scenario that will restore McCain’s momentum.

However, Obama is a guy the majority of the electorate would like to vote against. McCain must show the nation that despite his membership in the blamed party, he has both the will and the ability to address and resolve the economic mess. He has only days to show the American public that has the experience, the resolve and the right solutions to revitalize the economy. So far, he is not making made a convincing argument.

There is lies the other issue. McCain is screwing up. If you have read past blogs, you know I never thought he was the best candidate for the GOP by a long shot. For me, he has only become the best option between two very bad choices. He has proven to be as bad a candidate as I feared.

Seventy-six years ago, this nation descended into economic hell. In their fear, the people turned to a great orator, Franklin Roosevelt, an urban political machine politician who believed in the pre-eminence of government as the source of personal freedom. This man brought America as close to dictatorship as any time prior or since. He infused the neo socialism that continues to this day as a virus in the body politic. Upon is death, the Congress, recognizing the danger, swiftly passed a Constitutional amendment limiting the terms of presidents to eight years. It took thirty-five years for this nation to largely recover from what was known as the “New Deal.”

Now we again stand on the precipice of seeping socialism – driven by the same kind of fear that brought us to the paternalistic socialism of Roosevelt. George Bush, the democrat Congress and our two presidential candidates have found common cause in applying the feel good socialist band aid rather than the more painful but effective free market cure. We have choosed to treat the symptoms of economic and political cancer while ignoring the spreading disease.

All this has changed the game. For the first time in more than a year, I have to admit that Obama is now electable. It is not a foregone conclusion, but it is now very possible. I do not think it will be as overwhelming as the current polls show, but it is possible.

OBSERVATION: Time to muddy up this campaign

Hold on to your seats, ladies and gentlemen. The 2008 Presidential Campaign Roller Coaster is about to get wild.

As we head into the last weeks of this historic and close election, you can bet that both campaigns will play pretty rough – while pointing the finger of blame at the other side. Self-serving claims to the contrary, both candidates have slung some mud and volleyed a few hand grenades at the opponent. Still, that was mild stuff compared to the bombardment of negative campaign ads about to pop up on your television screen – not to mention inundating radio and the Internet.

Personally, I like negative ads. They are among the most cleaver, the funniest and in many ways, the most revealing of underlying truths. Oh! I know. We’re not supposed to like them. We’re supposed to be offended. Folks … that’s all pretense. We all love them. If so many of you were truly repulsed by those ads, they would not be effective.

The best of them will not come from the campaigns directly – in order preserve their official “above it” claims. They will come from the various and sundry issue committees and independent political operations. But … it is still all part of the campaign strategies.

While Barack Obama will be respectful of you will see an unusual negative attention focused on John McCain’s pick for veep. McCain’s age, health and mental stability will be distorted to scare the hell out of the electorate. He will be portrayed in Halloween-esque ads as either feeble or deranged – or both.

If you think Obama’s friends, such as William Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Franklin Raines, Tony Rezko, are old news, just wait. I expect to hear a lot more about Obama’s family ties – his America loathing mother, his impoverished brother, and his Muslim dad.

Those negative ads in the past were just test sample, we are about to get on to the real thing. And just remember, while the pseudo sophisticated are feigning chagrin, I will be loving ever one of them.

BRING ON THE MUD, AND LET THE PRESIDENTIAL WRESTLING BEGIN!!!

REACT: Biden wins debate ... Palin wins the voters.

Who won? That is the ubiquitous question. I guess a lot depends on your criteria of success.

If you go by strict rules of debate, Joe Biden’s formal style and handling of the issues would probably get him more points. If you question who gained the most personally from the debate, Sarah Palin had a huge victory. If you want to know who touched the audience the most, and perhaps shifted votes in their favor, I would say Palin gets the gold.

I know some post debate poles give Biden the edge as the winner – as they gave Palin the edge as the most likeable. However, that still leaves the question of voting preference. We commonly assume the “winner” of the debate gain votes, but that is not necessarily the case.

By most measures, including polling, Jimmy Carter bested Ronald Reagan in their debate. He was smoother, more articulate and had a stronger command of factual information. The only thing Reagan won was the hearts and minds of a lot of people who decided to give him their vote.

I can agree that Biden was the academic victor, but I think Palin got the net gain in the all important vote count. One sign of that is the likeability victory. People tend to vote for the candidate they like the most.

FOLLOW UP: Maybe not so funny

As I considered my pervious blog on the Obama Cabinet choices, I had a chilling thought. Even though my picks are supposed to be a bit of political satire, I suddenly realized that all these god-awful choices ARE Barack Obama's friends and confidantes -- with the exception of the senator's impoverished brother. Scary stuff.

INSIGHT: Obama's Cabinet -- God help America!!

A number of people have suggested that Barack Obama can assuage some of the concerns about his incompetency to be President by revealing the names of his Cabinet. (Ooops! I think I was supposed to say “inexperience.” Same thing, just sounds better.)

Since it appears he is not going to take that advice, I thought I would help him out and leak some the names of his likely Cabinet members. Keep in mind, Obama comes from the Chicago School of politics, which means he will look to his closest friends and family to dole out the spoils of victory. This will not be easy for poor old Obama since there are only of few Cabinet positions, and he has a lot of cronies to reward. Also, some folks are multi-talented and could be logical picks for more than one post. But let’s give it a go.

First, there is Obama’s pal, William Ayers. He could serve in a number of positions. Of course, he could be a good choice for Attorney General. Having avoided the criminal justice system on murder charges due to some technicality, he can well appreciate the plight of criminals. I am sure he would do a lot to alleviate jail overcrowding – especially by pot heads and terrorists. In fact, he would make the entire Gitmo problem go away immediately by releasing all the inmates to go back to the Middle East, where these can resume their careers.

Then I am thinking … Ayres has spent more recent years introducing left wing, anti capitalism indoctrination into the curriculum of our public schools by teaching teachers to be radical activists in the classroom. He is currently terrorist-in-residence at the University of Chicago. This could land him as Secretary of Education.

Of course, as a former terrorist, who makes no apologies for his deadly rampaging in the 1960s, he is a natural for the head of Homeland Security. This is sort of a fight fire with fire appointment. Who can know the mind of a terrorist better than … a terrorist? So, Home Security it is.

We should not discount Ayers’ wife and fellow radical, who did do time for killing a few people. Of course, she claims that any bomb she does not personally detonate doesn’t count. Not sure how the dead feel about that. At any rate, Bernadette Dorn, is not only out of prison, but is a respected professor of law at Northwestern University. This could give her a shot at any of the three offices I mention for her hubby. Think about it. If he gets Home Security and she gets to be Attorney General, they could be Obama’s most prolific agents of change – with more impact than all the bombs they blew off in their days of rage. So, seems like AG is the spot for her.

Moving on … (no pun intended) … there is George Soros, the Hungarian gazillionaire who is spending a chunk of his fortune on left wing proselytizing through such groups as moveon.org and what I like to call (hot) Air America, the radio voice of socialism -- not to mention the money he pours into independent campaign expenditures trying to get Obama in the Oval Office. Usually these types of money bags wind up as Secretary of the Treasury or Secretary of Commerce. But, I think he would be the perfect guy to head the Federal Reserve Bank, where he can continue their trend toward a controlled economy. On the other hand, he may demand the Treasury job where he can get control of all the mortgage bailout money being donated by Congress on behalf of the taxpayers. (I know this is not one of the official Cabinet positions, but if Obama tried to exclude him from Cabinet meetings, he would just stomp off and buy the Congress -- in which he already has a fifty percent stake.)

In attempting to resolve conflicting ambitions, Obama would likely give the Secretary of the Treasury job to Alex Giannoulias. He is currently the very young Illinois State Treasurer. See, he’s already a treasurer. Also, he has had a lot of experience helping his daddy run a bank that provided much needed money for down and out mobsters and high clout customers. If this is not enough to qualify him to head the Department of the Treasury, bear in mind he and Obama are long time pick-up basketball buddies.

For Secretary of Commerce, I see the frontrunner to be Jim Johnson, the former head of Fannie Mae. He is an Obama confidante, and even headed the search committee that brought Joe Biden the vice presidential nomination. Since housing and credit are the central issues in the business world today, who can be better suited to the job than the guy who saw the crumbling of the American economy from the inside. Even though Fannie Mae had to be bailed out as part of the biggest taxpayer financial rescue in American history, I am sure Johnson did a good job. Why else would they give him a $20 million severance package when he resigned?

For some reason the word “godfather” just popped into my head … and that reminded me of outgoing Illlinois State Senate President Emil Jones, who is widely recognized as Obama’s political godfather -- and a guy how never saw a reform he liked. (Godfather? Hmmmmm. Now that I think about it. Put Jones in a tux and he does conjure up the image of a black Marlon Brando – even the gravelly voice. But, I digress.) If Obama can talk Jones out of spending his retirement years as the Ambassador to Jamaica or Aruba, he could be the odds-on favorite for one of the welfare posts – Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health and Human Services (HHS) and Agriculture (think food stamps). My inside information has it as HUD, because he has a lot of friends, like Tony Rezko, who know how to do the public housing real estate deals. Hmmmm. But they are also good at hospital licensing. NO. (Oh! Scratch Rezko. He’s going to jail. But there is no end of other influence peddlers Jones can look to for project management.)

Jones could be pushed aside if Franklin Raines, formerly of Fannie Mae, wants the job. He knows housing. Not only did he get paid more than $90 million dollars while presiding over the collapse of the housing market, but he knows how to negotiate a good loan. He was able to obtain millions of dollars in personal loans in what are being called “sweetheart deals.” If Obama wants experience to go with loyalty, this is the guy – and he’s a brother. While he is under federal investigation, I think Obama can put him in the ceremonial job of Treasurer of the United States. Having skimmed almost $100 million from the taxpayers, he SHOULD have his name on the money. He thinks it is all his anyway. (Again, not an official Cabinet position, but who would tell a guy with such audacity to get out of the meeting?)

I think Veteran Affairs is a slam dunk for Massachusetts Senator John Kerry. He has an ability to understand, and take, both sides of an issue. He boasts of his active duty combat experience in Vietnam (okay, some dubious claims), but he returned to America and gained attention for ratting out his follow soldiers for a massacring innocent civilians. I know his stories turned out to be bit … shall we say … counter accurate, but any one can make a mistake. (You will recall Hillary once mistook a bouquet of flowers from a 12-year-old girl as bullets from a band of terrorist.) More recently, Kerry has become an outspoken critic of the war in Iraq, which he voted to start and supported the funding. Given Obama’s get-out-at-any-cost policy, Kerry is a natural to handle the return of the troops.

While so-called organized labor (unions) controls only about 8 percent of the work force (and declining), they do control the Democrat party and the Obama-Biden team. This means a small group of union heads will name the next Secretary of Labor – saving Obama the problem if vetting anyone he might otherwise wish to choose. Given the labor leaders’ presumption of the right to name the secretary in Democrat administrations, we should call it the Department of Organized Labor. Well, I see this going to Jimmy Hoffa – the one that has not gone missing. He’s broke with his GOP friends to support Obama, and as head of the Teamsters, he has a lot of members Obama should want to keep happy. Nothing worse than an angry trucker.

Health and Human Services maybe the most humanitarian Cabinet post. I say it goes to Oprah Winfrey. The issues handled by HHS reads like a schedule of her upcoming shows. Of course, she maybe not want to take the downgrade from her show. I mean, what Secretary of HHS is remotely as popular as her – and as well paid? If she declines, I put my money on Dr. Phil or Dr. Oz.

Another easy call is Secretary of Energy. This is one confirmation away for Al Gore. From this position, he can reduce American man-made carbon emissions to levels not seen since the Jurrasic Era (because mankind was not around. Duh!). He will reduce our bio fuel dependency by developing such innovative resources as flatulence fuel. His Oscar and Nobel prizes will look great on his credenza, although not so easy to see in his dimly lite office. He will become the national spokesperson for the new “dim bulb” policy.

Then there is the Department of the Interior. Since no one has any idea what this agency does, and since every Cabinet needs to be bipartisan, this is where Obama buries the sole Republican. Who would that be? Who cares?

For the Department of Transportation I think Obama picks Chicago's former transportation guy, Frank Kruesi. He is a pal of Mayor Rich Daley and Obama has a lot of quid pro quo for machine support. I mean, what good is bringing the White House under the wing of the Chicago Democrat machine if you cannot take care of your friends in the spirit of good old fashion Chicago cronyism.

Finally, there is the most prestigious position of all, Secretary of State. I see that going to Bill Clinton. He is the perfect choice. Anyone who can finagle those highly profitable deals with the potentates of the Middle East has the negotiating skill to solve any world problem. Some suggested Hillary, but she is not about to be the second or third woman anything. She is still looking for a glass ceiling to break -- not rise through a previously shattered portal. This will allow Bill Clinton to move beyond his well known affinity for domestic affairs and into the more exotic world of foreign affairs.

That's not all folks. Here are a few important miscellaneous appointments.

In England, the national department heads are called "ministers." Well, Obama his own version in the personages of not-so-reverend Jesse Jackson, Jeremiah Wright, Al Sharpton and Michael Pfleger. The sometimes Reverend Jackson covets the SOS job (among other things), but the simple truth is that Obama doesn't like him at all. I see Wright as Congressional Chaplain, where he can beseech God to damn America in front of the men and women who are doing a good job of it already. Sharpton as head of the Employment and Equal Opportunity Commission, where he can organize demonstrations agains himself. Pfleger? Hmmmm. Oh. Pfleger becomes U.S. Envoy to the Vatican, where his imitations of black preachers will keep the Pope in stitches. The are both Aryans, you know. Jesse Jackson? I mean, you have to do something with the guy. Maybe ambassador to Zaire to get him out of the country.

Since Obama is sure to fire U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, who is cleaning out the corrupt Chicago machine of a lot of Obama friends and supporters, we should consider the replacement -- which will come at the recommendation of Illinois' strident paritsan hack senator, Dick Durbin. I am thinking the new U.S. Attorney in Chicago will be Mayor Daley's brother, Michael Daley (no photo available).

Speaking of brothers ... Obama needs to help out is own, who is living on one dollar a month in Kenya. With his knowledge of the ravages of poverty, I think Obama's brother makes him head of the Food Stamp Program.

Correction: I originally had George Soro identified as a Greek. An understandably outraged Greek blog reader corrected my error. Soros is a Hungarian. My apololgies to the Greeks ... and the the Hungarians, for that matter.