REACT: A message for Obama

Now that all the result are in and certified, the Obamacans are saying their guy won Texas. Here is their reasoning.

In the inexplicably screwy Texas system, Hillary won the popular vote. In accordance with the Democrat rule for the proportionate distribution of delegates, she gets 65 delegates to runner-up Barack Obama’s 61. However, Texas also has a tandem caucus system, which allots another 67 delegates – God knows why. Obama took those by a 38 to 29 margin, giving him the total lead in Texas delegates of 99 to 94.

This election line dance prompts me to send Obama a quickie note.

Dear Barack,

Hope you do not mind me calling your by your first name, but since we both come from Illinois, I feel I know you.

I see where you took the lead in delegates thanks to the strange primary/caucus in the Lone Star state. I know your party worries a lot about making sure every vote counts. You guys sure heaped it on Florida and the Supreme Court when President Bush got a TKO over Al “The Weathman” Gore. And you have your surrogate, Jesse Jackson, running around demanding that the super delegates vote for the person with the most elected delegates or the most popular votes, which he assumes will be you, of course.

Keeping in that tradition, I think you should give your caucus delegates to Hillary. After all, caucuses are totally undemocratic. I am not even sure why we allow such a system in the primary process. We surely would never allow caucuses in a general election – unless you think of the Electoral College as a super caucus. But, I know how you hate the Electoral College.

So, why not be a gentleman, and give the lady your 38 Texas caucus delegates. THAT, would be a real change. You would prove that you are no duplicitous, business-as-usual candidate – bending rules this way and that way to serve your selfish ambition.

And while you are overcome with affection for democracy and the will of the voters, announce your support for the seating of the Michigan and Florida delegations. Surely those voters should not be disenfranchised. Show the world you are a stand-up guy when it comes to true democracy.

I fear if you do not do these things, people will think you are just another crass political animal, shifting from one position to another solely on the basis of your personal desire to be President. Rising from the bowels of the corrupt Chicago Democrat machine is already making people wonder about you. That organization does not produce too many “Mr. Cleans.”

If you don’t do something dramatic, you are going to start to look like more of the same thing. Not a good thing for a candidate who offers change we can believe in.

Hope this is helpful.

Larry

P.S. Your friend and padrone, Tony Rezko, would like to be more helpful, but he’s a bit tided up at the moment – actually more like handcuffed. I am glad they are allowing him to wear his Armani suits to his trial. Prison orange does nothing for him.

REACT: Missing the point in Mississippi

As expected, Barack Obama cruised to an easy victory in the Mississippi Democrat primary, picking up about 20 of the states 33 delegates, with the remainder going to Hillary.

His victory, however, is more evidence that he will be an extreme underdog in the General Election. Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any state in the nation. They represented and overwhelming 70 percent of the voters in the Democrat primary. They gave Obama more than 90 percent of their votes as an expression of racial solidarity. (Dare we call it racism?) Conversely, Hillary took the vast majority of white votes. (Dare we call it ethnic pride?)

And yes. There is irony in the fact that the Mississippi flag (pictured) incorproates the old confederate "stars and bars." Even more so when you consider that a new flag proposal was soundly defeated by two-thrids of the voters in 2001. That referendum could foretell Obama's future in a general election. His impressive victory in the Democrat primary may be counterintuitive in terms of November.

Whatever you call it, racial voting has floated Obama’s campaign to the top – and it will sink it in a general election if he is the Democrat standard bearer.

As I have previously written, as soon as Obama picked up the racial cudgel in South Carolina, he began to position his campaign on the great American racial fault line. Race -- not the audacity of hope or the promise of change in the White House, other than skin color -- is the underlying defining issue.

It is not unheard of for a candidate to do what is necessary to win a nomination, only to find the winning formula in the primary is a receipe for defeat in the general. Obama finds himself in that position. After running as the son of his father in the primaries, can he run as the son of his mother in the General Election? That takes a lot of hope --- and more change than one can believe in.

Footnote: I have been hearing a lot of my conservative compatriots a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ for a Clinton nomination in the belief that she is the more beatable of the two candidates. I disagree. Without a monumental disaster in the McCain camp – never to be discounted --
I think Obama is predestined to be an also-ran. I think it is dangerous to underestimate the Clintons, just as the Democrats always underestimated Ronald Reagan when they were a’hopin’ and a’prayin’ that he would be the opposing candidate.

OP ED: The Dems heading to a super converntion

Oh my! Oh my! Oh my! The Democrats seem to have created quite a problem with their politically correct rules governing the nomination of their candidate for President. It was supposed to all be “super” – Super Tuesday and super delegates.

The powers that be, mostly the Clinton folks, gerryrigged the primaries to create a Super Tuesday. It was supposed to be the day of Hillary’s coronation. In hindsight, the folly of their thinking is obvious.

The leaders of the party also punished Michigan and Florida for having the temerity to move their truly significant primaries ahead of Iowa and New Hampshire – states were being first is their only relevancy. Banning Michigan and Florida was no big deal. By the time the convention rolled around, Hillary would be the pre-determined candidate. The errant states could then be seated as a courtesy, without any impact on the outcome.

This did not work out as planned, either.

Suddenly Michigan and Florida can play an enormously important role. Since Hillary carried both states without a contest, the Clintonites are all for seating the delegations. Having originally agreed to respect the ban, they belatedly discovered the spirit of democracy and think those voters should not be disenfranchised. The Obamacans are in a bit of a quandary. Of course, they are not about to hand over all those delegates to the candidate breathing down their neck. But, they also do not want to seem to be … well … undemocratic. Getting the voters in such key states in a hissy fit may have repercussions in the General Election.

There is lots of talk about a re-do. Neither the candidates, nor the Democrat party is willing to cough up the do-re-mi to pay for another election. The leaders of Michigan and Florida have made it pretty clear that they are not about to stick their constituent taxpayers with a bill for a second election because the Democrat wise guys in Washington screwed up. This could mean a very ugly credentials fight on the eve of the National Convention. With the presidential nomination at stake, this will not be a pretty fight.

But even after they settle that feud, neither Obama or Clinton may have enough elected delegates for a first ballot victory. Now comes the question of the super delegates.

Jesse Jackson is beating the drum with the idea that the super delegates simply cast their votes for the candidate with the most elected delegates rather than steal (his word) the election for the other candidate. Of course, he is betting that the “other” candidate will be Clinton. Despite that, there is a hint of democracy that wafts through Jackson’s obvious self-serving intent. What his suggestion lacks, however, is practicality.

Keep in mind that the super delegates are all the party bigwigs who did not want to risk being aced out of the convention by the voters. These are wheeler-dealers – and to wheel and deal for a presidential nomination is political nirvana.

It is also true that these leadership types were given these positions to exercise good political judgment, just in case the voters did not. There is always the chance that the votes may wind up giving the lead to the less electable candidate. These pros can easily distinguish the “less electable candidate.” That’s the one who offers the poorest deals.

The Jackson et al plan would basically neuter the super delegates. We would probably have to refer to them as the “meaningless delegates.”

If Clinton snatches the prize from Obama on the basis of seating the Michigan and Florida delegates and taking a majority of the super delegates, there will be a whole lot of healing needed. But such an outcome will at least silence the incessantly gripping echoes of 2000, when Bush won a technical, albeit fair and square, victory according to the rules if not by popular vote.

How sweet it is.

REACT: Hastert loses his seat.

Anyone who has every watched classic Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy flicks is familiar with Stan’s oft stated lament, “It’s a find mess you got us into this time, Ollie.”

Well, I say to Denny Hastert, “It’s a fine mess you got us into this time, Denny.”

You will recall from my earlier blog, I am not a great booster of the accomplishments of the former Speaker Hastert. Or shall we say, the lack there of. His allegiance to the corrupt and ineffective Illinois brand of good-ole-boy, backroom politics cost the GOP the Phil Crane seat way back when, and his own speakership along with the whole dang Congress more recently.

As if that was not enough for one career, now cometh the special election in Illinois’ 14th Congressional District –a race to replace himself. In an all too clever ploy, Hastert resigned to force a special election and presumably give a “leg up” to his anointed success. In a much more clever ploy, Governor Blagojevich called for the election to be held on a Saturday when everyone knows Republicans are at the country club playing racquet ball and debating martini mixology.

In promoting … nay … ramrodding Jim "The Milkman" Oberweis as his personal choice, Hastert must have assumed the 14th District was a “Mickey Mouse” seat for the GOP – a reference that suggests any Republican, even Mickey Mouse, would be elected. And why not, the pachyderm party has held that seat since Moses descended from Mount Ararat … uh … Mount Sinai. Ararat is where Noah beached the ark, right?. No matter. You get my point.

Actually, Oberweis is a great guy personally, but an abysmal candidate. For a variety of reasons, he has less personal shelf appeal than his ice cream. Candidates are supposed to be charmers in public and jerks in private. Oberweis has it backwards.

What makes former wrestling coach Hastert’s Olympic arm twisting on behalf of Oberweis so egregious is the fact that everyone else seemed to know that the guy is not candidate material. The previous three successive election day drubbings should have been a clue.

Looking at the numbers, it appears that defections from the GOP were as responsible for the loss as much as the advance of the Dems. He lost in the GOP precincts, including his own. Ouch! (<-- I stand corrected. Bill Pascoe, of the Oberwies campaign informed me that his candidate carried his own precinct quite handsomely. My error. Ouch!)

Some say a fair share of blame has to go to the campaign team and the National Republican Congressional Committee for a poorly strategize and executed campaign. Many viewed the last minute desperation television ads as counterproductive. They seemed to seal Oberweis’ public image as a strident and pugnacious bully. There is not much worse in a campaign than spending tons of money to lose votes.

I cannot judge the culpability of the on-the-ground team and professional advisors, but those ads ended with the statement, “I am Bill Oberweis, and I approved this message.” So, I guess that is where the buck … millions of them … stops.

Because of the way this special election was (mis)handled, there is an automatic rematch in the November General Election. You know the old adage, if you do the same thing, you get the same result. There seems to be only two ways not to do the same thing. You either have Oberweiss step aside for a new candidate, or you credibly change the Oberweis persona. Note the word “credibly.” This is no simple task in the short time between now and November.

If there is to be a new candidate, it has to be a N-E-W candidate. It is not out of the realm of possibility that Hastert and Associates will use their influence to put a new brand name on the same can of peas.

When Denny left Congress, he said he would still stay active in Republican causes. I take that more as a threat than a promise. If he really wants to help the GOP, he might consider a more complete retirement.

As for Oberweis, he is a good and decent person, a great business man (love the ice cream) and a savvy investor. As far as politics is concerned, he can have a great future and do a lot of good for America… as a funder of good candidates and good causes. He can be the producer, not the leading man.

Footnote: Check out the photo of Oberweis and Hastert again. Don't ya just love the angelic face and the halo effect? How can a face like that lose an election?

OBSERVATION: Polling and voting ... nothing in common.

Funny how many pundits were writing Hillary Clinton’s political obituary just a few short weeks ago. It was over, and time for her to throw in the towel.

These are the same pundits who counted McCain out of the running a month or two before he took an all but unstoppable lead.

Well, if you think the pundits are the big losers in all this, just consider the pollsters. After all, they use scientific means to predict outcomes – not just educated guesses. I remember they awarded New Hampshire to Barack Obama on the eve of the election. Clinton pulled off what they called an “upset victory.” I think the pollsters were the only ones upset.

Just before Ohio and Texas, we were told that Clinton’s lead had slipped away. Obama would take Texas for sure, and maybe even Ohio. Of course Clinton won Texas and crushed Obama in Ohio.

After 40 years of watching and running campaigns, I have become a polling skeptic. Skeptic? No! I really think it is all voodoo and bull stuff. They are almost never more correct than an educated guess. I know a lot of political groupies who can predict an election outcome with a 3 to 5 point margin of error every time. (If you cannot read the cartoon, click on it for larger version)

I always wonder how the polls can wind up being wrong beyond the margin of error, as they often are. That makes the “margin of error” nothing more than empty words.

Every time the pollsters are egregiously wrong, they hid behind an unprovable claim. A “last minute shift by the voters,” they say. To which I say, “Bah humbug!” Unless there is some unprecedented occurrence in the last week, voters do not change their minds. Most are decided loooooong before Election Day, and the rest are usually locked in on a candidate at least two weeks ahead of time. The only reason polls are wrong is because they are wrong.

REACT: Mother Nature has the chills

Get out your long johns and earmuffs!! It appears that Mother Earth is come down with the chills. According to scientists, record cold is hitting all over the earth and that disappearing polar ice cap that was melting away is re-freezing at a record pace.

You may recall my recent blog item highlighting the work of David Deming, geophysicist, adjunct scholar with the National Center for Policy Analysis, and associate professor of Arts and Sciences at the University of Oklahoma, who said we should be worrying about global cooling as much as global warming. Now, the Al Gore “deniers,” who were given little credibility in the media, are streaming out of the laboratories and think tanks to give the hot house crowd a big “I told you so.”

We now have three groups of scientists. Those who reject the global warming panic based on scientific findings. Those who bought into it and are now very confused. And those who still cling to the theory – much like their ancient predecessors clung to the “flat earth” belief a thousand years after the Egyptians proved old terra firma was a ball, not a pancake.

I had previously predicted that, within twenty years, global warming would be placed on the junk heap of scientific silliness along with the “population explosion” and the eminent depletion of natural gas. However, I did not expect Mother Nature to give the other guys such a swift rebuke.

I have to admit, I am getting quite a kick out of watching the Gore-ites in the scientific community buzzing around like spooked bats in an effort to salvage their reputations. I am sure they will re-calculate their theories to accommodate the sudden shift in the climate, but rest assured, this is the beginning of the end of the global warming panic mongers.

They say we should not look at this year as relevant. It is only an anecdotal anomaly. That was not what they said about Katrina and every other anecdotal anomaly to which they pointed in their campaign to promote public panic – and to secure billions of dollars in grant money for their faux scientific projects.

Is that egg on Al Gore’s face? Nope! Its frozen custard. Well, the crusade did get him a Nobel Prize and an Oscar. We should keep in mind that the former award was NOT in one of the scientific categories, but was their left-wing political award, and the latter is almost always given for good fiction -- and “An Inconvenient Truth” was no exception.

While it was not entirely scientific, I thought the AOL poll was interesting. According to the respondents, only about one-third of the public worries about global warming. Two-thirds responded “not at all” or “a little.” This reaffirms my belief that no matter how much you pile propaganda on the public, they have an innate common sense. My uneducated grandfather put it a bit less elegantly when he would say “I know bullshit when I see it.”

Well… time to throw more salt on my frozen sidewalk.

OBSERVATION: Vermont ... stranger than fiction.

I seem to be having a fixation with Vermont. You will recall, I previously have written about the effort but the good people of Brattleboro to have President Bush and Vice President Cheney arrested for “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the sacred U.S. Constitution. Never mind that such an arrest warrant would be … uh … unconstitutional.

Item #1: Prisons trump schools

Well, now I understand their zeal to incarcerate the Commander-in-Chief and his sidekick. Seems like bucolic maple syrup center of the world is also one of only four states that spends more money on imprisonment than they do on education. That’s right. That sappy (how ever you wish to interpret the word) New England state would rather see their future generation behind bars than behind books.

Since lack of education is a major contributor to criminal behavior, you can see why the leaders of Brattleboro would do something illegal in the hopes of adding to their prison population. For them, it’s a win-win.

Item #2: Ben and Jerry are from Vermont … figures!

I must admit, in my past writing about the quirky state of Vermont, I failed to connect the state with Ben and Jerry, the quirky ice cream-as-politics duo. I should have guessed.

They recently donated an Obamamobile (picture) to the Illinois senator’s campaign. The idea is to drive around handing out their frozen products in an effort to induce citizens to vote of Obama. In my amazingly corrupt home state of Illinois, we used to give derelicts (now known as” the homeless”) a pint of cheap booze to influence their vote. I guess ice cream is more acceptable to the gentle folks of Vermont. While Chicago was famous for “saloon politics,” I guess Vermont is building its reputation on “ice cream parlor politics.”

The Obamamobile is a variation of their "cowmobile." I guess they are hoping Obama catches fire, which is exacly what happened to their cowmobile ... literally. Yep! Ice cream flambe.

All this stuff ties together. Ben and Jerry, in there roles as left-wing political activists, were responsible for 70,000 postcards being sent to Congress in support of the national Children's Defense Fund. Now ... see the connection? Of course they focus on children's defense since their fellow Vermonters spend more money on incarceration than education. In Vermont, the kids need lawyers more than teachers.

Item #3: Ice cream soda versus scotch and soda.

Vermont wants to lower the drinking age. I am not kidding.

State Senator Hinda Miller sees it this way. "Our laws aren't working. They're not preventing underage drinking. What they're doing is putting it outside the public eye. So you have a lot of kids binge drinking. They get sick, they get scared and they get into trouble and they can't call because they know it's illegal."

If I am understanding her reasoning, Hinda thinks it is better to see a lot of intoxicated kids in public rather than deal with only those who would imbibe illegally in private.

This would certainly cut down the crime rate in Vermont. Perhaps they could use some of the savings to fund education. Better yet, they could send consolation money to the families of the highway accident victims. Did they forget that a lot of carnage on the interstate is due to teen drinking? It is of little consequence to the victims and their families to know that the teenager behind the wheel was drinking legally.

I wonder what Ben and Jerry think about all this. After all, the mint swirl will give way to the mint julep, and rocky road will be the real highway and not a chocolate treat.

----------------------

Honest to God! There must be something in that maple syrup that interfers with cognitive thinking.

REACT: Campaign has reached its nadir... oh... Nader.

"Stop the presses!!!" Hmmm. I need to be more modern. "Download the story!!!" Ralph Nader has announced his intention to run for President of the United States ... again.

Now we truly have history in the making. We can choose from the oldest white guy ever elected President, or the first guy who looks more African American then he is, or the first female who looks more butch than she is, or now the first left winger who looks more sane than he is.

If New York Mayor David Bloomberg gets into the melee, we would have the first Jewish guy AND someone how could promise to pay off a significant portion of the national debt from his personal checking account. And with Nader mucking up things (as a good muckraker should), maybe Bloomberg will take a look. I mean, it is better to have been at least a presidential candidate than end your political career as mayor of the Big Apple. Even Rudy Giuliani knew that much. Look where he is in the fame game compared to John Lindsay, Ed Koch and David Dinkins. Who are these guys? Exactly! (I pictured David Dinkins because I doubt anyone remembers the poor chap).

But ... this is Nader's day. Already the Democrat political handlers and candidates are reaching for the aspirin or the gin bottle. They're still pretty perturbed over what they consider Nader's gift of the presidency to George Bush in 2000 -- a least when then are not heaping venom on the Supreme Court. Without Nadar, they say Florida and the White House would truly have gone to Al "The Weatherman" Gore.

Nader does not care. He is a bipartisan hater. There is no redeeming value to either the GOP or the Democrat party. Only HE can save this nation from the clutches of corporate America. He is the candidate of the labor-acracy. His only problem is that while he champions the causes of the barons of organized labor, they, too, think he is more than an annoying nut case. If he loathes both political donkeys and elephants equally, one can wonder why he always goes out to kill the donkey. He must be more like the donkey since all my Democrat friends refer to him as a jackass.

If Nader's constituency were as big as his ego and arrogance, he would be ending his eight-year residency in the White House. Maybe not. I suspect by now he would have scratched out the Twenty-Second Amendment that limits presidential terms.

The only thing that makes Nader at all interesting is the fact that in all probability this will be another close election. We are a nation divided. While most voters will shun Nader, as they did in 2004, a razor thin outcome could ... just could ... make Nader a two-time spoiler.

I say "spoiler" because it is the term of art, but frankly the Nader campaign of 2000 did not spoil MY election day. Yes, he is a nut. And yes, I think his whole platform sucks. And yes, I do not think there is a snowball's chance in Hades that he can even come close to winning. If he can get past two percent, however, he could be up for the 2008 Ross Perot Award. So, I say to Ralph Nader. "God speed and good luck."

OBSERVATION: President Obama? I think not.

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)

Obama has a powerful message, which resonates with the Democrat voters. However, his rise to front-runner status is also due to the unique demographics and sequencing of the Democrat primaries. He gains momentum, in some measure, because the early primaries were his turf to begin with, and his brand of politicking is especially effective in caucus situations. He also gained by having the “white guys” (including Hillary) divide up the white vote.

With fully one-fifth of the democrat primary voters being African-American, Obama had a solid core of dependable votes. Oh sure, there was a lot of speculation about Clinton’s potential strength in the black community – after all, she was married to the first black president according to some agonizingly twisted logic. Bottom line, black candidates generally get 70-plus percent of the black vote. Spare me the “ethnic pride” baloney that somehow does not apply to whites. At the theory goes, blacks vote FOR a black candidate out of racial pride (a good thing). Whites vote AGAINST a black candidate out of racial prejudice (a bad thing). Forget the bogus theory. It is racism, pure and simple. I won’t even buy “reverse racism,” as if it is only reactive to a more malignant white racism. A rose … is a rose … is a rose.

Some commentators note that Obama even did well in the “southern state” of South Carolina – failing to mention that the Democrat vote in the Palmetto State is 50 percent black. The also noted that he “crushed” Clinton in the District of Colombia, Maryland and Virginia. Again the black percentage is high (overwhelming in D.C.) and the high percentage of federal bureaucrats again gave Obama, as the big government programs candidate, the edge. The more liberal states, such as Minnesota and Wisconsin, are good ground for Obama. He gets Illinois by virtue of being a “favorite son.”

So, Obama is now the front runner. He is the glamour boy of the press. He is sold to the public in almost messianic fervor. Television opinionator Chis Mathews talks about the feeling that rises in his legs when he hears Obama speak. (Oh, the things we could say about that. Nope! Not going there. Too freaky.) Former hippie Senator and presidential candidate bad boy Gary Hart sees Obama as a transcendent personality. Maybe he meant “transcendental.” A lot of pundits, especially the far left variety, talk about Obama as an inevitability.

So, what shunt will side track Obama in his quest for the Oval Office? Just about everything.

While the sun shines brightly on Obama at the moment, Clinton can still wrestle him to a draw for elected delegates, and secure the nomination thanks to her fragile advantage with the so-called super delegates. Or, maybe she loses to the Illlinois senator because of the super delgates. Either way, it could be a Pyrrhic victory. Such a scenario would mean that Obama and Clinton will spend several months blooding up each other in a serious of primaries, while McCain stands outside the center ring goading them with verbal prods.

Then there is the messy convention fight should neither one of them seal the deal before the convention. Instead of the convention being a grand public relations launch for the Democrat nominee, viewers will watch a bitter credentials fight to restore the Michigan and Florida voting delegates stripped away by the national party for moving up their primaries. Debates will rage of the role of the super delegates. Should the simply endorse the candidate with the most popular votes or delegates (presumably Obama), or should the vote their prior commitments (presumably Clinton).

Obama will show his crass political undergarment by arguing for the endorsement of the super delegates based on democratic principles, while arguing to disenfranchise the Democrat voters in Michigan and Florida. It doesn’t wash.

To see the party which so sanctimoniously condemned the Supreme Court, the Electoral College, the entire state of Florida and half the people in America for allowing George Bush to “steal” the 2000 election shred their party over similar issues is the most entertaining of political theater. God invented irony for just such moments.

Obama could be what I like to call the “cotton candy” candidate. As delicious as it seems on first lick, by the time you get down to the paper cone, you discover that there really was not much there – and your sort of sick to your stomach from the sugar-only diet. Because of the uniqueness of his candidacy, a carefully crafted charisma, and a rather pleasant personality, Obama gets away with platitudes. Sure, he alludes to fixing everything from world poverty to my computer, but there is no substance, no detailed program and no legislative initiatives. Just nice words, well delivered. His campaign offers the “audacity of hope,” and audacious it is. The empty rhetoric will not hold up in the more intense evaluation of a general election campaign.

Primary election combatants tend to play by their version of the overly polite Marquise of Queensberry rules. This is partly due to the fact that it is a family feud. Underlying is always the understanding that unity is going to be needed after the victor is crowned. Also, candidates in a primary often represent similar views – offering up differences without distinctions. Once the General Election begins, the gloves come off and the contest is more like kick boxing. Obama is not tested for such a battle.

Because of the nature of the Democrat constituency, where all the candidates are slightly different hues of liberal, Obama’s extreme leftist record and rhetoric has not been challenged. “Too liberal” is not an effective Democrat campaign mantra. McCain will, no doubt, define Obama as far left as credibility will allow. Despite self claims to the contrary, issue by issue Obama is beached on the port side bank of the political mainstream.

Many of the tarnishes on Obama’s media buffed shining armour that have been minimized in the primary could become significant issues in the general election. Does the name Tony Rezko (right) come to mind? In all likelihood, his political padrone will be on trail during the campaign, and the Obama name will come up in testimony. There is a lot more to be said about Obama’s early rise in the thoroughly corrupt Chicago political machine. And said, it will be.

Another major obstacle on the road to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is race. With addressing the morality of racial voting (read that “prejudice”), it is a reality. Within the Democrat party there is a pretty significant strain of racism – on both sides. Obama will receive at least 80 percent of the black vote, and that is not an outcome that can be explained by anything other than racial prejudice.

However, in the general election, a lot of those white Democrats who prefer a white candidate will be crossing over to the GOP. Since the black community is almost totally in the donkey party all the time, there is hardly a black Republican who will cross over the other way. Furthermore, blacks in the Republican party are so conservative that they will vote their philosophy a lot faster than their race. That is obvious by their very presence in the pachyderm party.

Even with the angst over McCain, those who think conservatives will let Obama be president by default (not voting) are about as silly as those Republicans who think they can appeal to the black vote based on issues. Helloooooooo! Race is the ONLY issue.

Because of party rules and skewered demographics, the Democrats are engaged in a fight between the least likely candidates to win a general election. Because the conservative vote was divided, giving the relatively unpopular McCain a plurality victory, the Republicans have all but nominated the candidate with the lesser general election appeal. This means that November will be a contest to determine who is truly the least popular of them all, with the second least popular person becoming what I predict to be a rather contoversial president.

At this moment, it appears to be McCain’s to lose. But then again, he is a Republican, a party with a long tradition of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

REACT: Can Obama knock off Clinton before the convention?

With Barack Obama's victory in the Wisconsin primary, it appears my slumber induced visions of a Clinton nomination maybe be no more than the stuff of which dreams (or nightmares) are made. I looks like Obama can not only snatch the nomination from Lady Hillary, but maybe, just maybe, lock things up before the convention. Should he win a critical number of delegates, and convince enough super delegates to endorse, he could preclude a bloody convention fight. He has the lead -- and the "big mo" is definitely on his side.

An Obama candidacy makes sense. More often than not the Democrats tend to nominate their least electable candidates. I call it the "McGovern effect." That gives the edge to Obama. More about that later.

REACT: Handicapping the candidates

Oh my God! I woke up this morning with the thought that the General Election could be a race between Hillary Clinton and John McCain. For any conservative, this is a Hobson’s Choice.

If this is the case, the Democrats will have nominated the stronger of their two leading candidates, if not the most personable. The Republicans will again have blown a Presidential Election with a Dole-like nomination – a man too old, too accommodating (read that liberal) and too much a Beltway insider. I can almost see McCain in plaid bermudas, brown socks and tennis shoes trying to look “kewl.”. I just cannot see the bedrock conservatives wasting gas money to get to the poles to choose between Clinton and McCain.

Or course, it is still possible the Democrats, with their inordinately liberal (and minority) voting base, will bubble Barack Obama to the top as the most left wing of the candidtates. It is what they mostly have often done since the radical left took over the nominating process with the 1972 reforms. They barely beat Jerry “I beg your pardon” Ford for one term for Jimmy “empty suit” Carter, the peanut farmer from Plains; and they knocked off the incumbent squishy middle roader George Bush with a relatively moderate Bill Clinton.

The Dems do better when they nominate to the right of there ideological epicenter, while the Republicans flounder when the move to the left of what is right. So, the most competitive race would be Romney-Clinton – where conservatives have more of a champion and the donkey party has a salable candidate.

McCain-Clinton would likely doom any GOP surge in 2008. McCain-Obama gives the GOP a chance, but nothing for conservatives to celebrate – maybe a big stay-at-home, none-of-the-above vote. A Romney-Obama campaign is a slam dunk for the GOP, and Romney-Clinton would be the Massachusetts former governor’s to lose.

Now, I know a lot of folks think the GOP is facing further humiliation this year. Only if they ignore the American middle-class, good politics, core values and common sense. Not hard to imagine, unfortunately.

REACT: Brattleboro gunning for Bush and Cheney

Just when you think the folks in Brattleboro, Vermont cannot get any nuttier, they out do themselves. You will recall from my earlier blog that the Kurt Daims is leading a movement to have the town issue an arrest warrant for George Bush and Dick Cheney for crimes against the Constitution. In most communities, I suppose he would qualify as the proverbial "village idiot." But, not in Brattleboro. In fact, he is a bit of a community leader, now having persuaded the Selectboard to buy into his fantasy.

Of course, the Brattleboro town attorney has no authority to write up the indictment and arrest warrant. The police have no legal authority to pick up the Prez even if he were to get lost on the highway and wind up in Brattleboro by accident. The whole idea is unconstitutional, according to the Vermont Attorney General.

I sort of like the irony of the disregarding the Constitution to file a petition against the President for … disregarding the Constitution. So, if it passes, should the people of Brattleboro go arrest themselves?

Showing that Brattleboro is without a firewall of sanity anywhere to be found, the selectboard (photo) has voted to put the measure on the ballot. I suspect that the vote was mostly intended to get little lost Brattleboro some national attention – like a child acting badly.

According to AOL News, Brattleboro is getting a lot of nasty emails and phone calls sprinkled with suchs words as “nuts” and “wackjobs.” The emailers wonder if the good people of Brattleboro have been standing out in the cold too long, or if something has seeped into the town water supply. Personally, I am betting on a bad crop of maple syrup.

No all this reaction has some town’s folk mighty worried. Town Clerk Annette Cappy said that they “have some concerns about safety. After reading some of these emails, you can’t help it.”

Of course, no one can overreact like a town constable with very little to do. Police Chief Eugene Wrinn promised that any threats against the town or people of Brattleboro would be taken seriously. Fortunately, Wrinn can keep his pistol holstered since no threats have been received. Whew!

Because it is a meaningless insult to the President, Vice President and common sense, I suspect the media will enjoy giving Brattleboro’s referendum more publicty than a Paris Hilton fashion mishap.
I think this is one of those situations where the President looks better by the character of his enemies. But, ya gotta love a country were a guy like Daims and the people of Brattleboro can parlay nothing but cold winters, nice scenery and succulent sap into 15 minutes of fame on the national stage. In their case, maybe only three and a half minutes.

REACT: Obama's race card could be a joker

Barack Obama wins an impressive victory in South Carolina. No doubt about it. His victory assures that he will never be putting his feet up on the desk in the Oval Office – at least not his season.

What, you say? Since when does a big victory portend defeat? Answer: In the other-side-of-the-mirror world of politics. Remember, this is the Democrat primary and South Carolina is not a typical state – southern or otherwise.

Obama played the reverse race card brilliantly. The campaign that was alleged to NOT be about race was all about race in South Carolina. Why not? He learned the advantages of the race card in arguably the most racist political machine in American. He saw how it was used to advantage to bring in Harold Washington victory in a three-way primary race – with two white candidates (ironically, a man and a woman) to split the vote. And, he was there to witness the restoration of white supremacy in Chicago by making all issues a matter of black and white.

With more than fifty percent of the Democrat voters in South Carolina being black, this was more of a slam-dunk than an upset victory for Obama. Jessie Jackson, in hopeless pursuit of the Democrat presidential nomination, came out on top in South Carolina in both 1984 and 1988.

Having released the rabid dogs of racism from their cages, Obama has made race an issue – more than just the obvious fact that he is running as a black man. Dividing blacks and whites in South Carolina may have been good hardball politics for the day. However, as the Democrat primary moves to other states, there is likely be a backlash against Obama, who has shifted from the promise of a president of all the people – the uniter – to the activist representative of the black community. To some degree, he morphed himself a bit into the type of black candidate (a la Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton) who get rejected by the broad base of voters.

In this latest primary, Obama got three-quarters of the black Democrat vote, leaving Hillary and Edwards to divide up the remaining 25 percent. The white vote was the reverse. Only race (read that racism), as the number one issue, could have produced that result.

These figures also show that Democrat voters a quite, shall we say, racially driven. The racism card would be a useless deuce if it did not win the hand. The South Carolina Primary was a black verses white contest. So much for the party of inclusion.

The backlash from South Carolina’s racist vote, and Obama’s pandering, is so significant that several left-wing bloggers accuse the Clintons of putting the race card face up – cynically surrendering South Carolina for gains in the big states coming up in a matter of days -- sort of anticipating the racist response of white Democrat voters. Okay, I said it was cynical, and I am just reporting what some of the more liberal bloggers are saying.

Considering the black community votes disproportionately – way disproportionately -- in the Democrat primary, Obama’s pleas for racial solidarity provide an edge. If he were to make it to the general election, he will have to somehow undo his black activist message. South Carolina now makes that a little more difficult.

REACT: Is McCain able?

I rarely take political recommendations from movie stars, and other uninformed celebrities. So, when Chuck Norris said John McCain is too old to be president, I could care less about the action movie actor’s opinion. However, if posed as a question, it is a whole ‘nother thing.

Is a guy 71 years old too old for the rigors of the most powerful office in the world? After due deliberation, and slipping over 60 myself, I have to say a definite “maybe.”

I can already hear the AARP chorus bellowing “ageism!” and trotting out some genetic oddity who is an 80-year-old pole-vaulter. We are just not supposed to suggest that an older person is incapable of taking on any task – except maybe driving a car – even though we know getting up after falling down can be a challenge for a lot of folks McCain's age.

Two issues that should encourage us to at least examine the question. We know that as even healthy people age, they change. They lose memory and some strategic thinking ability. As we age, we simply do not have the same energy level to maintain the mental and physical activity we did at 40. I have seen younger candidates become zombie-like at the end of a long busy day of meetings and speeches – their brains and bodies unable to function.

Another age factor is temperament. Stereotypically, we refer to older men as “grouchy” and older women as “cranky.” This is not without just cause. The pressures of aging, and the chemical and psychological changes, often make older people more short-tempered.

With McCain, the behind the scenes whispers already suggest a man with a volatile and sometime irrational temperament. I can speak from some experience with this. The only time I met McCain was when I was asked by a friend to pick him up at his hotel and bring him to a private fundraiser.

At the time, as a total McCain fan, I relished the thought of meeting him. For about forty-minutes I had the wannabe president in my car along with two of his aides. At about the half way point, I was ready to pull over to the curb and invite the senator to walk the rest of the way. His maniacal self-serving rant, his mistreatment of his aides, and his incessant gibberish was enough to turn my opinion of him 180 degrees.

I cannot say if he suffers from age-related issues, the affects of his Vietnam War confinement or just your run-of-the-mill mental issues, but from that day forward I could never feel comfortable with the thought of him in the Oval Office. (Least you make an erroneous assumption, his behavior toward me was normal. I did not draw my opinion from anything personal between us.)

Second is the issue of future health. McCain can look as vigorous and energetic today, but at his age, he is in the red zone of life. It is a time that you notice that most of the people in the obituaries are younger than you. Those in the 70-plus group are at high risk for heart attacks, strokes, cancer, Alzheimer’s, and other debilitating diseases. The prospect of an incapcitated president is even worse constitutionally than a dead president. In this age, we are not likely to allow a near dead president to govern through the First Lady, as was the case with Woodrow Wilson. The chances of McCain completing two terms in office without a major health crisis is on the slim side. Based on most calculations, his odds of surviving the office for eight years are less than 50-50.

He can get all the “permission slips” in the world from his spry 95-year-old mother. But her longevity has little bearing on McCain’s own prospects. It is a cute and charming campaign ploy, but tells us nothing.

Pointing to Reagan as an example is equally useless. The age difference of three years can be viewed as insignificant if they were 45 and 48 years old on Inauguration Day. But once you hit the seventies, a LOT changes in three years. Some, even fans, would argue that Reagan was starting to show signs of mental deterioration in the last years in office. A dotting staff and momentum kept it from showing in public – much like Franklin Roosevelt’s crippled legs and declining acuity. (Some argue that the Cold War was the result of Roosevelt’s lack of mental acuity at Yalta). And just because we got lucky with Reagan, does not mean we should tempt the fates a second time.

I know each individual is a unique case, and it is possible McCain will live to be a healthy 100. Just not likely. The only good thing about a McCain presidency is that he at least he would not be driving on the highway.

OBSERVATION: Life and death in Camelot

Within two seemingly unrelated events, I found an interesting common thread.

The first was the highly coveted endorsement bestowed on Barack Obama by the distinguished senior senator from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy. Media affection for all things Kennedy assured this event would receive maximum publicity of the most favorable kind. The second event was the tragic death of television anchorman, Randy Salerno.

What possible connection?

Salerno was accidentally killed while riding on a snowmobile driven by his best friend, Scott Hirschey. Hirschey had been drinking. The badly injured and overwhelmingly remorseful life-long friend was charged with a number of civil and criminal offenses, the most serious of which is vehicular homicide – murder, more simply put. He faces the potential of decades in prison.

Kennedy did far worse. The inebriated playboy senator, carrying an expired drivers license, drove his car off the Chappaquiddick bridge in Martha’s Vineyard late one night, abandoning a potentially still alive young woman, named Mary Jo Kopechne, to the last breath of oxygen in an air pocket just inches below water. Testimony suggested that she may have survived up to two hours on available air. Uninjured himself (forget the “for show” neck brace), Kennedy left the scene of the accident to confer with family and aides in an attempt to escape both the scene and responsibility. When that was impossible, the Kennedy machine went into action, making the Watergate and Lewinsky cover-ups look like an episode of True Confessions. Every step of the way was marked by fabrications, payoffs and terminated investigations. Kennedys are never brought to justice in Massachusetts.

One man’s life in ruins and another is formally addressed as “the honorable and distinguished.” I just ain’t right.

Obama expressed great pride in the endorsement from Kennedy. Perhaps the deadly philandering sot of a senator is in good company with Obama's indicted wheeler-dealer pal, Tony Rezko, who helped launch the Senator's career with jobs, money and introductions. They both put themselves above the law.

OBSERVATION: Abortion: Death takes no holiday

(NOTE: This blog item contains graphic photographs of aborted fetuses. I provide this alert not to discourage your viewing them, but to draw your attention. No discussion of abortion can be complete without such compelling graphic evidence of its wrongness.)

Today is the 35th anniversary of the infamous Wade v. Roe decision that allowed the promotion and practice of abortion as an acceptable means of terminating more human lives than THE Holocaust – and a few lesser genocides added on. I prefer to think of it as the yet unnumbered year until humanity regains its moral, ethical, civil and common sense equilibrium and bans the arbitrary procedure that is currently based solely on the simplistic idiocy that it is merely “a woman’s RIGHT to choose.”

My personal aversion to abortion is not religious based. I am far to poor of a Christian (if at all) to rely on church decrees. It is a matter of a secularly moral, just and civil society. Healthy cultures do not just go around torturously slaughtering their progeny. I oppose abortion, not from dogma, but from the fact that I love children and respect the enormously miraculous (in both the secular and theological sense) means by which they come into life. Once conceived, their humanness is caste. The pairing of the DNA establishes all the criteria that defines humanness. The new life's unvoiced rights exist regardless of the opinion of society in any particular millennia.

To provide the woman with exclusive right over the very life, or death, of an unborn child requires legal, ethical and logical blinders. The fetus is among the most precious “commodities” of life. It is clearly the “product” for two individuals, both with well established legal liabilities. Even if you do not accept the inalienable right to life of the fetus as a human person, it is irrefutable that at least two individuals have legitimate claims.

Most offensive of all claims is the mantra that it is the woman’s body to do with as she pleases. The fetus is not a necessary or natural part of the female anatomy. It is a host function, with codified responsibilities and liabilities. Ironically, if a woman desired to have her healthy kidney removed (no question a part of her own boy), it would be unethical and, in some cases, illegal for a doctor to perform the requested operation.

The feminists’ claim to legal and biological authority and superiority, simply because Providence or evolution placed the early stages of development within the female body, is a preposterous and arrogant fallacy – but a necessary fraud if one is to attempt any justification for abortion on demand.

It is also important to keep in mind that humanness is not something we, as a society, are ever to determine. Humanness is inalienable. It exists as its own reality, not by the opinion of society. It cannot be granted or taken away by the edict of a despot, the opinions of scientists, the vote of a democratic majority, or the judgment of nine justices. It is not our moral obligation to make a determination of the moment of humanness, but to discover it through knowledge, logic, belief and general enlightenment.

Thanks to medical science, a fetus that was once too premature to be “viable” now survives. Only human ignorance allowed those earlier “viable” fetuses to be destroyed.

We should never think of abortion as a right. It is not. It is an infamous privilege. In reality, abortion exists as a selfish convenience – for the woman (or man), for a powerful segment of the medical community, and, to large extent, for our current society. Like all the other horrors of human history, it places convenience over life. In all cases, some humans must be dehumanized, become chattel, for the benefit for the ruling class. They are to be owned or controlled like lesser animals, or slain for their benefits to medical science, their perceived threat to the “superior” culture, to be eaten as game prey, or eliminated as a threat to the resources of a theoretically overcrowded society.

No matter how pathetic the claim -- poverty, immaturity, stress, etc. etc. etc. – the so-called woman’s RIGHT to choose is an argument of convenience. Or inconvenience, if you will. The only “right” involved is the pervasively ignored right to life, itself.

We know it is wrong, theologically or civilly, to kill another human. We know that our protectable humanness begins BEFORE birth. But, at what moment in the human gestation period does the newly conceived acquire the civil rights and protections to which all humans are entitled, if not always granted? That is the essential question.

Apart from conception, there is no moment, no event, that can be cited as the transition from a worthless growth to a protectable human. Since there is no clear moment in pre-natal development when we can persuasively declare the commencement of humanness, we should err on the side of life. While we demand to be assured of guilt “beyond all reasonable doubt” before the execution of a criminal, we do not apply “reasonable doubt” as a protection against the wrongful killing of a guiltless human at its earliest stages of life.

Abortion is not our connection with an enlightened future, but some lingering barbarism from our primitive past. I am confidant that future hindsight will reflect on the era of abortion as a hideous era of an ignorant culture -- no matter how sophisticated it may appear to so many intelligent people today. It will take its place alongside the other horrors of human decadence, such as cannibalism, human sacrifice, slavery, Nazi medical experiments and periodic outbreaks of genocide. All were justified by the influence leaders of the cultures in which they existed. All were seen as beneficial to the perpetrating society.

Today is significant, not as a national day of celebration, but as yet another Memorial Day – a day upon we should sadly reflect on the loss of so many lives cut short by surgeons with disregard to the basic elements of the Hippocratic Oath. Unfortunately, we have no great cause to declare that these poor souls have not died in vane. There are no heroes yet, only victims.

REACT: Iowa caucuses are quaint, but un-American

I almost made huge embarrassing blunder. Yes. It is true. I almost made a mistake … but only almost.

You see, I checked the Iowa returns on Google. I was stunned to “discover” that Barack Obama only got 4688 votes, while GOP winner, Michael Huckabee, got 40,000. Noting the apathy on the Democrat side, I hastily sent off letters-to-the-editor.

Then my brain kicked in. There is no way Obama could have gotten so few votes. The press kept talking about “record turnout.” Then I recalled that the Republicans and Democrats play a completely different game. The sensible GOP tells you the vote count, while the Dems have some convoluted formula to express the results in delegate count.

In my investigation, I also noted that there is another very telling difference in the Iowa caucus methodology. Republicans rely on a secret ballot – you know one of the most important and most basic of our essential freedoms as set forth in the Constitution by our really smart founders. Not so the donkey party. In the Democrat caucuses, every person has to publicly profess his or her choice. (This is the same concept that congressional Democrats support when they want to eliminate the secret ballot in union elections – a measure opposed by 9 out of 10 Americans.)

Now, I can go on and on about how publicly declared voting can subject the participants to intimidation and corruption, but go check out the opinions of the founders who put it into the Constitution. They are pretty articulate on the subject.

That is not the only un-American feature of the Iowa caucuses. Consider this. All the caucuses have to take place in a fixed two hours. Hardly enough opportunity for broad participation. There is no provision for absentee balloting, so travelers and all the Iowa troops overseas are disenfranchised. That’s right. The good soldiers, who arguably have the most at stake in terms of the presidential election, have no say in Iowa.

Even with a bumper crop of caucus participants, as was the case this year, the voting base is so small and so unrepresentative of the general population that the grandiose conclusions drawn from the results are mere ethereal hype. The Iowa caucus exists like the wizard in the Emerald City. Behind the big, bellowing voice we hear in the media is a very puny, and deeply flawed, institution. Put another way, Iowa is a very small tail wagging a very large dog.

Oh yeah. I had to sheepishly rescind my letter to the editor least my ignorance be too well publicized. You know, I do everything possible to keep it hidden.

REACT: Children's museum or mausoleum?

Even after 9/11, I have not been one to cower in fear. On the other hand, it is prudent to take whatever precautions seem reasonable.

I was reminded of this when officials of the Chicago Children’s Museum announced a new location for the facility. They would move it from Navy Pier to the north edge of Grant Park, near the Harris Theatre and Millennium Park.

Given the congestion in that area, and the Chicago tradition not to clutter the park (as Daniel Burnham advised), my initial reaction was negative. Seems to me that there are a lot better locations for this very excellent museum.

These concerns pale when you consider that the new site is just a bomb’s throw away form the Aon Building – an edifice that law enforcement officials often designate Chicago’s second mostly like terrorist target. The first is the Sears Tower, of course.

Gads! Had those good folks at the Museum even given this a thought? I think not, or the proposed location would have been eliminated at the onset. Fortunately, it is not to late.

I know. I know. The likelihood of a devastating attack on the Aon Building maybe be rather low. Maybe. Not sure how to even calculate that. But, it doesn’t matter. In a worse case scenario, Aon is close enough to come down on the Museum like a sledgehammer. Mayor Daley, himself, believes that section of the city has potential as a terrorist target. He said so when he demolished Meigs Field. Look at how the Aon Building has been fortified and security pumped up dramatically since 9/11. The Aon folks obviously recognize the danger. Since there is no compelling reason to put the Children’s Museum at what could be Chicago’s ground zero, why take any risk at all. Like I said, there are plenty of even better places to put it.

You may recall in my blog item of September 21, 2007, I proposed that the Museum be put on the south end of Grant Park, where there are no serious terrorist targets. But hey, that’s only my opinion. I am sure the Mayor and the people at the Museum can come up with any number of better, and safer, locations than in the shadow of that Aon Building.

Least you think I am making too much of the terrorist thing, let me tell you. My family was living in the Loop on 9/11. I still vividly recall the high anxiety (you might even say terror) my wife and I felt as we raced to retrieve our son from his school near the Sears Tower – even as we listened to news accounts (inaccurate, thank God) of a possible hijacked jet liner flying towards Chicago’s tallest building. It is not the kind of experience one forgets, and I see no reason to put other parents needlessly in that situation – ever.

I hope the good people in charge of relocating the Museum will not be so ego committed to their plan so as to put the children in harm’s way. Chicago’s children need a first-class museum, not a childen’s mausoleum.

OBSERVATION: Iowa and New Hampshire (yawn)

Well … finally we are in the home stretch of the Iowa caucuses, to be quickly followed by the New Hampshire primary. Like Paris Hilton, they seem to enjoy an enormous amount of publicity solely because they exist.

The “first in the nation” status gives them unique advantage. First, the start off position provides them with disproportionate publicity for many weeks leading up to the votes. Succeeding primaries have to wait to receive press attention until the results of earlier votes. In some cases, the national media spotlight does not hit a state until a week or two before the vote.

Secondly, they have an appearance of importance that is belied but hindsight. Rarely do the outcomes of these states provide any real insight or advantage to the future candidacy. In fact, they are venues in which the most obvious front runners do well or where the future losers seem to look like winners for a very short time. In either case, the impact of Iowa and New Hampshire on the race is dubious at best.

This may be due to the fact that, despite chest beating to the contrary, the folks in Iowa and New Hampshire are not representative of the American fabric. For one thing, they don’t have any big city, urban citizens. Their “opinion” of the candidates does not carry much weight in the rest of the country. These two small states produce warm homilies and pretty imagery – classic Americana – but little political capital.

After all, what is the importance of a win in Iowa and New Hampshire if a candidate is going to take a drubbing in states like California, New York and Illinois? Conversely, what is the importance of a win in Iowa and New Hampshire if a candidate already is poised to carry states like California, New York and Illinois? We tend to give a lot of importance to Iowa and New Hampshire prior to the vote, and then completely ignore the results as the contest heads to the big delegate states.

Iowa and New Hampshire are like the coming attractions at the movies. No matter how interesting they try to make them, you’re glad when they are over and you can move on to the main feature.