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.

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: 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.

OPINION: America (On Line, at least) gives debate win to McCain

Looking at the current** (Saturday, 5:30 p.m.) results of the AOL Hot Seat (unscientific) poll, John McCain won the first debate by a 57 to 37 margin, with about 6 percent who are clueless. The state-by-state break down confirms my impression of this year's presidential race. Barack Obama is the clear choice of blacks and left wing loonies. I draw this conclusion because McCain was declared the winner in every state of the Union (including Obama's home state of Illlinois) except Washington, D.C. and Vermont.

**Results may change as more voters express their preferences.

Now we all know D.C. has the highest proportion of black population of any place in America. The apparent propensity of blacks to vote skin color and even (partial) ethnicity over any and all issues is racist, by definition. So, when the Obama whiners talk about how he will suffer unfair disadvantage due to non-black racism, remind them that he is gaining an offsetting advantage from black racism.

Less known, but easily provable, Vermont is like that candy bar -- chuck full of (left wing) nuts. It is the home base of the only truly socialist senator in Congress, Bernie Sanders (left, of course), and the headquarters of Ben and Jerry, who dole out left wing propaganda with ever scoop of their ice cream.

You may recall from past blogs, it is also famous for the alien village of Brattleboro, which voted to have President Bush arrested for violating the U.S. Constitution if he set so much as one toe across the village boundary. The irony that their action is ... ah ... unconstitutional is lost on the good people of brattleboro.

I have said it before, and I will say it again ... the American part of America would glady let Vermont slip out from under the Union if it was not for thier maple syrup.

So ... there you have it. The bedrock of Obama's support are racists and nuts.

DISCLAIMER: In these days of uptight politics and anal attitudes, I find it necessary to note that the above blog is offered as a tongue in (my) cheek commentary. It is not meant to be reverse reverse racism or mean spiritedness. If you cannot see the good natured jest then you don't get it -- or you are uptight with an anal attitude. Lighten up!

LMAO: What ... and give up show business?

You know it's always my desire to bring you valuable behind the scenes information that is often overlook by the major media. Here is one such example.

I am sure you have not read any reports about the guy in the photo just finishing up his important work. This unheralded hero is responsible for cleaning up the bullsh*t after each presidential debate. He claims to be able to determine the winner of the debate by the amount of refuse he has to remove around each podium.

So ... how did he judge this debate? After cleaning up the stage, he is reported to have commented, "I've seen a lot worse. This was pretty evenly spread around both podiums."

He tells friends that nothing compares to the Reagan/Carter debate, where he says the entire stage was knee deep in bullsh*t. He regrets not being around for the historic Nixon/Kennedy debate. "I hear stores that the bullsh*t overflowed the stage, but no one kept records in those days," he said.

When asked why he is assigned to this mission after each presidential debate, he simply replied, "I'm the duty officer." (No pun intended).

REACT: Who won? It's debatable.

If you think of the first of the four presidential debates as the first quarter of a football game, I say no touchdowns ... no fumbles ... and minimal yardage gain -- mostly John McCain recovering lost yardage due to economic set back and dropping the ball on the pre-debate strategy (as in threatening not to show up for the game).

Despite a lot of attempts, Barack Obama could not get control of the ball. The best sacks of the quarterback were McCain's remark that he does not have a (presidential) seal yet -- alluding to Obama's past unveiling of HIS seal, which was pretty much trash canned due to negative public reaction to the obvious (execpt to Obama) arrogance and presumptiveness of the gimmick -- and McCain's cleaver comparison of Obama's persistence in the face of misjudgement to the governing style of the unpopular George Bush.
I think the contest suffered from some bad ref'ing. This game was to be played on the foreign policy field. However, for almost the entire first half, Jim Lehrer, of PBS, had them over on the economic field. This was an inappropriate call, and cannot be explained other than Lehrer's desire to be the celebrity questioner on the pressing domestic issues of the week. He made a very lame attempt to justify the call by saying the eocnomy impacts on foreign policy. I would call for an official protest on the ruling.

OBSERVATION: Obama sucker punched by a lady

It is an ancient saying that "whomsoever the gods would destroy, they first make insane." I prefer to think the gods just make them stupid. Apparently, the imminent implosion of the Barack Obama campaign is preceeded by sudden stupidity.

To fully appreciate this, one has to appreciate the excellence and percision of the campaign to date. They have taken brilliant strategies and executed the flawlessly. They crossed the finish line in the preliminaries with the "dark horse' candidate (<-- For all you paranoid leftists, who see racism in every utterance, "dark horse" is a political term in use long before African American presidential candidates were even possible.)

John McCain is using Sarah Palin to set up the sucker punch, and Obama is falling for it. Suddenly the campaign is a contest between Obama and Palin. In taking on Palin directly, the Democrat nominee has now lowered himself to the vice presidential level, he his basically neutered Joe Biden, his own vice presidential pit bull, and has taken all the pressure off of McCain. For the time being, McCain and Biden are in the audience in the match of the oratorical Titans.

For the past two days, the top newsmakers in the presidential race have been Obama and Palin -- and it appears this will be the case for some days to come. I have said before, in our culture a male candidate cannot beat up on a female candidate. It rubs the electorate the wrong way. NOW ... make that a black male beating up on a white female, and the negative response is significanly more intense. I am not saying it's right, just recognizing the reality of it.

By what leave of their senses the Obamacans have allowed this stupidity to happen, I do not know. If they do not figure a way out of the obvious trap they have so willingly entered, the poll numbers will tip to McCain even more.

READT: Post-convention polling? I told you so!

John McCain goes over the magical 50 percent mark in a major national pool, and leads Barack Obama by anywhere from 4 to 10 points. The top story on AOL declared Obama now to be the "under dog."

For those who have been tracking my unwavering prediction -- a McCain win (even when few believed that possible) -- this is precisely the trajectory I outlined. The only chance Obama has is the success of a massive registration effort and a very, very lopsided turnout.

For sure, there is massive registration going on on the Democrat side at the moment, and the GOP is lagging. However, expect the Republicans to close the registration gap before November (with Sarah Palin being part of the stimulus), and the pachyderm party holds an edge historically in being able to get their folks to the polls.

The hard line progressives are NOW claiming that these polls do not mean much. There basic position is that these are national polls and you reall have to look at state-by-state polling to see what happens in the Electoral College. The irony that they would be hoping for an electoral victory even if not a popular vote victory should not be overlooked. However, most independent polls show McCain with a win at the electoral level too, if, as the say, "the election were held today."

Despite Lincoln's admonition, we are a nation divided, so you can expect the lead to go back and forth a bit, and vary from poll to poll. But barring any major screw up by McCain (always a possibility), this election is over except for the official tally on Election Day.

OBSERVATION: McCain/Palin capture middle America

The elite liberal establishment disparagingly refers to it as “fly over America” – that portion of our nation that exits between Martha’s Vineyard on the east and Tinsel Town on the west. Former vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferrraro once snobbishly posed the rhetorical question, “What is this country without the east and west coasts?” For most of us, the answer is simple -- America.

The political value of this meat and potatoes region is reflected in John McCain’s naming Sarah Palin as his running mate. She exudes middle America values, and connects with the heartland constituency like no one since Ronald Reagan.

Granted, Bill Clinton has a bit of the common touch. However, he would never have been elected President had the GOP put up a populist candidate. George Bush and Bob Dole were the consumate elite D.C. insiders. Whenever an elitist is up against a populist in the quadrennial presidential election, it is the populist who usually wins.

Both sides know this, and that is why the Barack Obama people are trying to hard to avoid having the “elitist” tail pinned on his Democrat ass. (<-- Maybe I should have said "donkey.") Which means, all that effort to make Obama look more presidential, more intelligent, more sophisticated, more cosmopolitan may have been misspent. The efforts to compare him to the quintessential elitest, John Kennedy, is turning out to be a huge miscalculation.

The addition of Palin creates a crisis for Obama. No doubt about it. He and his advisors are back to drawing board, and maybe the dart board, to come up with a new game plan. The fact that they know the problem is reflected in Obama’s almost conciliatory response to the Palin pick. He knows attacking a woman is never good, and he has had the advantage of 18 primary elections to learn, as the song lyrics go, “how to handle a woman.”

Should McCain get a lock on middle America -- and it appears he is now making significant advances toward that objective – a portion of the credit will have to go to his upset-the-applecart selection of Palin. However, most credit goes to the Obama supporters.

Obama’s problem, and McCain’s windfall benefit has been the ham-handed and mean-spirited hysteria emanating from the hard core liberal establishment. While the viciousness of the left wing attack infuriated the fair-minded, the greater effrontery was the mocking of almost everything that represents the culture of middle America – religion, recreation, speech patterns and accents, entertainment, dress, sex, and home life.

In their zeal to capsize the newly launched candidacy, they published and promoted an array of personal, political and professional accusations – and many false accusations, as it turns out. They failed to appreciate that Palin instantaneously became personification of middle America, and an attack on her is an attack on them. This hysterical overreaction is driving voters to McCain.

There are still two more months for this campaign to pitch and yaw. As of today, however, fly over America is McCain land. The Palin selection maybe looked back upon as the beginning of the momentum that carries McCain/Palin to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

REACT: Palin panics the progressives

As a political tactic, McCain’s selection of Alaskan Governor Sarah Palin is working out better than I could have imagined. The now apoplectic progressive democrats are positively in panic. They are piling on. Frankly, I am stunned with the meanness and viciousness of the first round of attacks. Barack Obama must feel like a general attempting to keep his troop under discipline command as they break ranks – running helter skelter across the political battlefield firing verbal assaults at every shadowy target.

They seem to have settled on a Dan Quayle comparison, referring to the young guy selected by George Bush the Elder to be his new-generation running mate, as their best option. Dan who? Right. The problem is, most of the general public have no real specific recollection of Dan Quayle. So, whether the compassion is justified or not, it is rather ineffective.

I am surprised that they did not find a better comparison in Spiro Agnew, the county exec from Maryland who was the surprise pick of Richard Nixon – making “Spiro who?” a political cliché. The allusion is more negative because Agnew was forced to resign in scandal ahead of Nixon. (I still have my Spiro Agnew watch.)

In irresponsible meanness, left wing bloggers, such as Kos, are floating claims that her Downs Syndrome child is really the offspring of her 16-year-old daughter, Bristol, and is only being raised as her child. First, there appears to be too much evidence that that is not the case – so much that Kos (and others) publishing the rumor can only be describe as scurrilous to the extreme.

But even if it were true, Palin might gain from the story. It is a human story to which most non-elitist families can relate. Consider this. A teenager gets pregnant. The child in the womb is determined to have Downs Syndrome. The family comes together to work out the best solution for all concerned. Most importantly, there is no abortion. Not for the benefit of the young mother. Not for the benefit of the family’s public reputation. Not because the child is less than perfect. Instead, the Palin family lives their pro-life values – as the story would go.

If this were the case, the anti abortion crowd will flock to the polls for this woman. Of course, the story appears to be ugly rumor advanced for misguided political purposes by those who accuse Republicans of cruel tactics. Just how low can they go?

In attacking her status in life, a hockey mom without experience on the world stage, the Democrats reveal their true elitism – one of the more serious chinks in the Obama armor. If they want to challenge the experiential credentials of the GOP vice presidential candidate, they will soon discover that she – point by point – supersedes the credentials of the Democrats PRESIDENIAL nominee. Her executive experience is infinite compared to Obama’s none. Her personal story is every bit as compelling.

As an agent of change, she has an impressive record of courageous and successfully confronting the entrenched corruption in her own state AND in her own party. Conversely, Obama never made any attempt to confront and reform the incredibly corrupt Chicago and Illinois political machines. Far from it. He rose with their support. He took money from the most sleazy of their benefactors. He endorsed the worst of them. He played their crass political game with taxpayer money. His poverty-stricken, crime-ridden Illinois senate district shows no signs of hope or improvement from his stewardship. In terms of reform, Obama cannot hold a candle to Palin.

The Democratic attack team proffers that the Palin pick is cynical. She was not chosen for her intellect, political philosophy, position on issues, experience or good judgment. It was simply broad over brains. If you believe the left wing rhetoric (and how could you?), the progressives and feminists are basically saying that this highly intelligent and successful woman is … well ... a bimbo. That’s the feminist equivalent of and “uncle tom.” Methinks this tactic is going to backfire.

They say the Palin pick was to shore up McCain’s weaknesses. We used to call that balancing the ticket – and it was considered a smart thing to do. However, if that is the measure to be applied, what does the Joe Biden pick tell us. Hmmmm. That Obama knows nothing about Washington … nothing about foreign policy … lacks experience. He needs to fill in much more substantial gaps than McCain.

In picking Biden, Obama may have boo booed. When you look at the two of them standing side-by-side, the very presidential looking Biden diminishes Obama’s political stature. Biden looks like the real thing. He looks presidential. Obama looks like an actor playing a black president in a television mini-series.

Looking at it another way, why did the candidate offering “change you can believe in” pick a good old boy for a running mate? Maybe it is because Obama is more interested in gaming the system than changing it. Maybe his rise in Chicago’s smarming politics is a better indicator of his passion for change than are the eloquent words he spews on the campaign trail.

More and more, the public is beginning to recognize the thinness of the Obama façade. Beyond a spellbinding speaker and a very lucky candidate, he seems to have nothing to offer. His substance is as ethereal as his words. I once referred to him as the “cotton candy” candidate. After you consume the billowy mass and savor the sweet taste, you realize that there never was much there.

OBSERVATION: More bad news for Obama

At the conclusion of the Democrat convention, Gallup took a pole. As expected, after the flawless staging with each key speaker hitting a home run (according to the progressive media crowd), Barack Obama gained in the national polls. Most refer to this as a post-convention "bounce." I think that is too strong of a word in Obama's case. Maybe a "bimp" (as the movies' fumbling Inspector Clouseau would say) is more appropriate.

Whatever you call it, it is more bad new for Obama. He only moved up a couple points -- reinforcing my contention that this election is already over. Even more surprising, Obama did not even move temporarily over the 50 percent mark.


I do have a disclaimer. The poll was after the convention, but before the grandiose acceptance speech, which got universal acclaim -- at least in terms of style and delivery. I suspect Obama may enjoy a few days in the majority end zone of popular opinion after that speech -- depending on how much wind John McCain zapped out of Obama's sails with the GOP vice presidential announcement. McCain cleverly cut in front of Obama in the media line for the widely read and viewed weekend news.

LMAO:The politics of Hollywood

Most politicians seek major Hollywood endorsements. The folks with stars on the door function like barkers at a carnival -- to get the crowd in the tent for the main show. Celebrities, however, often start to think they are being solicited for there opinions and knowledge. It is a little like a guy hired to play a doctor on television starting to give out medical advice at cocktail parties.

Whenever we think that movie star endorsments should be taken seriously, something happens to remind us that their opinions are formed in a world fantasy more often than not with the help of reality distorting drugs. To wit: At the recent Democrat convention, actress Dana Delany (right) was asked who she hoped to meet as she traveled the cocktail party circuit. She was hoping to run into Mayor John Lindsay (left) of New York. Uh. Hmm. Maybe someone should tell her that -- and break it to her gently -- John Lindsay (A) was a Republican, (B) was the FORMER mayor of New York (by many years - 1966-1973), and I say "was" because (C) he has been dead since 2000.

Maybe she remembers Lindsay from some movie portrayal. It isn't all that easy for those folks to distinguish fact from fiction.

REACT: Obama speech rings hollow.

For those not overtaken by “Obama Ardor,” the speech in Denver clearly established three things. First and foremost, Barack Obama is without question one of the premier orators of our times. Buoyed by his natural handsomeness, engaging smile and carefully tailored presidential appearance, he offers a powerful and commanding stage presence. His delivery is flawless. He is the Michael Phelps of public speaking – an awesome and skilled performer.

The second obvious thing was that unvarnished liberalism won’t sell. For the most part his I-love-America, family values, strong defense rhetoric could have been more convincingly and credibly delivered by Ronald Reagan.

Third: For who how are not hopelessly partisan, or overtaken by oratorical twinkle dust, the speech was without much substance. Obama can certainly sell it, but there was no “it.” From his Corinthian coronation staging, Obama basically promised to solve every problem affecting the American people without the slightest hint of wherewithal. It was an impossible, and sometimes conflicting, litany of change.

He will end the war that is on schedule to end. He will devote more resources to Afghanistan, without an objective or end date. He will naively negotiate-only to keep Iran out of the nuclear family. He will provide massive cut taxes while delivering devastatingly expensive social programs. He will end the economic downturn … lower gas prices. Parting the sea is stage magic compared to his self-implied abilities. If you personally have a problem, Obama, personally, will solve it.

Once you strip away the well executed pretty words, you are left with an inexperienced executive looking to get hired for the most important executive job in the world. Once you remove the “I love America” sheep skin, you find that same old fanged wolf of big government liberalism, with its nanny state agenda, trade protectionism and social Balkanization..

Should he be elected, Obama may have foredoomed his own administration. Like the democrats who took over Congress in 2006, Obama has clearly promised more than he can deliver. As the saying goes, “he is a very promising candidate – promising everyone everything.

The history of the world is replete with charismatic leaders who could move audiences to a frenzy of passion. The results of their ascendency has rarely been good. In speech-making, substance without style is boring. Style without substance is dangerous. Obama offed hope without much hope – and change we can believe in, but will never see.

Maybe the public expected too much of the man who, by Hillary Clinton's assessment, got on the road to the White House from the thrust of one good speech.

REACT: Obama's tour de farce.

Was the Barack Obama world tour as successful as his media boosters claim? And … will it resonate and sustain with the voters?

Answering the last question first … probably not. By the time the election comes around there will be two major conventions and a lot of attention grabbing campaign issues and events. The only residual benefit appears to be raw footage for future television advertising – and how much will be aired on this theme is questionable, since most pros think the economic issues will be driving the election.

As far as success, the bar of achievement for this foray was set very low. Since this was purely a public relations tour, without any substantive issues to be addressed and resolved in the various meetings, it was a fail safe gimmick. If you look at the tour, it was nothing but a series of photo-op meetings.

They say there were no major gaffes. How in heaven’s name can a reasonably intelligent (and Obama exceeds that standard) person screw up a social call. His carefully crafted remarks were well delivered.

Some of the John McCain-ites nitpicked a few things – such as Obama’s failure to meet with wounded troops in Germany – but they miss the big picture. The fairer and more substantial criticism of his tour was the superficiality of it all – and the ruse that it was NOT a political junket. (You should remember that he claims he was only part of a Senate delegation [wink wink] that included another Democrat senator and, in the interest of bipartisanship [wink again], included Republican apostolate Chuck Hagel – who is on Obama’s short VP list.)

The “success” of Obama’s tour was a forgone and inevitable conclusion. As long as he did not pee on the Wailing Wall, Obama was assured the acclamation of the predisposed media.

There are two sides of a candidate – actor and policy wonk. So far, Obama has proven himself to be the consummate actor. He has stage presence. Charisma. He delivers his lines perfectly on cue. What is lacking is the policy wonk. To resurrect an old advertising slogan, “Where’s the beef?”

His so-called “plans” for education, healthcare, Middle East wars, gas prices, etc. are vague approaches lacking the specificity by which they can be judged objectively. If his cavalier tendency to promise expensive solutions to every problem were implemented, it would add trillions to the already beleaguered budget. He is, by all measure, a “promising candidate” – promising just about everything to everybody.

After months and months of a highly contested primaries, and a short one-on-one run with McCain, Obama has been able to sustain almost solely on notoriety, uniqueness and personal charm. His world tour is only the latest and grandest example of the “elect me because I am … ME” strategy.