As if anyone could be surprised, the New York Times editorial board wrote its official endorsement piece on Friday, "Barack Obama for President." And I could not help myself: at first, my blood boiled. But about halfway through the piece, all I could do was laugh.

The same paper endorsed Hillary Clinton and John McCain for their respective parties last spring. They had substantial arguments both for John McCain and against Barack Obama. These arguments were blatantly ignored and in some cases reversed for the sake of this endorsement. Some of their justifications behind electing Obama are just plain amusing. So let's start from the beginning. Unless otherwise noted, quotations mark direct excerpts from the piece.

The keystone of the Democrats' campaign is that the country is in absolutely wretched and horrible shape. The Times agrees: "The United States is battered and drifting after eight years of President Bush's failed leadership." Battered and drifting? This reminds me of the way Obama ads say they desire to "rebuild America." As if we just suffered some nuclear holocaust and second Great Depression that requires us to "rebuild."

The first and foremost justification to elect Obama is stated in the piece's thesis: "After nearly two years of a grueling and ugly campaign, Senator Barack Obama of Illinois has proven that he is the right choice to be the 44th president of the United States." I suppose a grueling campaign outweighs a 26-year Senate record and about a decade spent in a Vietnam torture facility. My mistake.

"Mr. Obama has met challenge after challenge, growing as a leader and putting real flesh on his early promises of hope and change." Wait a minute. Is this a newspaper or www.barackobama.com?

They go on to say that John McCain has run a campaign based on "partisan division, class warfare and even hints of racism." I would love some examples of this. I have examples of all three of these things from the Obama campaign. Partisan division: Obama has been constantly blaming one party and one party only for this country's shortcomings. Class warfare: It is Obama that is stirring up jealousy and rage of the upper classes by promising to "share the wealth," and Joe Biden who has stated he will go after CEO's pensions first. Hints of racism: It is Barack Obama who stated that Republicans will bring up the fact that he "doesn't look like those guys on the dollar bills" and who associated with a bona fide racist for over two decades.

"Mr. McCain offers more of the Republican every-man-for-himself ideology, now lying in shards on Wall Street and in Americans' bank accounts." I seriously think the extent of this ed. board's research was Barack Obama's website. It was three Republicans, one of them John McCain, that introduced a bill in 2005 that would create a federal oversight agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Democrats killed it in committee. It was Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., who stated that "we don't have a crisis at Freddie Mac and in particular at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines," while again killing an important oversight bill in committee. Bush brought up the risks in the mortgage market 17 times in 2007 alone, and has been sounding the horn on it since 2002. The reason American bank accounts are "in shards" is the fact that the government thought it could spend it more wisely. And it failed. This is not change, and this is what Obama wants to continue once elected.

"Mr. McCain, who once opposed President Bush's tax cuts for the wealthy as fiscally irresponsible, now wants to make them permanent." This is clearly for two reasons. (1) Now that taxes are at this point, it is "fiscally irresponsible" to raise them in a time of economic recession. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire would raise taxes on everyone. (2) Since the Bush tax cuts, government revenue has increased by $1 trillion, even in the midst of an expensive war. That sounds fiscally responsible to me.

On national security, the Times states that "Mr. Obama was an early and thoughtful opponent of the war in Iraq." Who cares? Why is his opinion five years ago relevant? Now that we're in this war, it is our duty to see it through. It is despicable that people in Congress are playing political games to get elected at the peril of our troops and Iraqi stability. Furthermore, why is Afghanistan so much more important, even after bin Laden himself states that Iraq is the central front for the war on terror? Why not send troops to both countries and make sure both are successfully rebuilt?

Continuing the obsession with our "image," the Times says, "Both candidates talk about repairing America's image in the world. But it seems clear to us that Mr. Obama is far more likely to do that -- and not just because the first black president would present a new American face to the world." Is the Times telling us to elect him because he's black? That's what that sentence means. Also consider this. Since Bush irreparably tarnished our international image, we have been completely safe from terrorist attacks, and pro-American, conservative leaders are winning elections all over the world including Canada, France, Germany, and potentially Great Britain. Let me make this clear: I don't want Iran, North Korea, or Venezuela to like us! Because if they do, as Obama wants them to, then we have sacrificed that which makes this country great.

"[Mr. McCain's] righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians." Let me translate: Republicans chose Bush due to racism in 2000. Now, Americans are voting for McCain because of racism. Incredible!

On judges, "Mr. Obama may appoint less liberal judges than some of his followers might like," (really?) "but Mr. McCain is certain to pick rigid ideologues." That's fine with me, if the ideology they are so rigid upon is the U.S. Constitution! When four Supreme Court justices, whose ideology is shared by Mr. Obama, tried to make the Second Amendment to the Constitution unconstitutional, I'd prefer rigid ideologues to those who see a "living Constitution." I'd also prefer those who don't see the right to life guaranteed by our Constitution only applying to those who are completely out of the womb.

By only consulting the Barack Obama campaign's "fact" sheets, the New York Times has spit out lie after lie and misconception after misconception. They have not only been blatantly in favor of Barack Obama on their editorial pages, but also in the "objective" news pages. It is no wonder to me that their circulation is falling drastically as it sacrifices its credibility in the name of elitism and partisanship.

No honest endorsement should be free from criticism. For example, the New Orleans Times-Picayune devoted several sentences of its Obama endorsement pointing out "concerns" they have with the man's policy. The New York Times's senseless worship of a man with no qualifications and dangerous policy is, while unsurprising, quite unbelievable.

In the end, consider what these candidates honestly stand for, and how their record compares to their rhetoric. (Yes, I stole that from McCain.) And this will present to you the clear choice for election day: John McCain.

During the summer "lull" of the 2008 presidential election year, the candidates are beginning to, as they always do, shift their focus away from locking up primary votes to locking up general election ones. Historically, this has involved a move to the center, away from the more polarized voter base that participates in the selection of a party's nominee. But, as in many respects, this year has some exceptions.

John McCain's shift to the middle begin the day he entered politics. Since he was elected Arizona senator nearly 30 years ago, he has been both hailed (by Democrats and the media) and cursed (by Republicans and conservatives) as a "maverick." More recently, he has teamed with Democrats championing anything but conservative causes: campaign finance reform and amnesty for illegal immigrants. While unquestionable on the Iraq War and our soldiers, he used the New York Times to combat Bush's domestic surveillance program that has been an integral part of our national security. I have not seen him shift at all this summer: even in the midst of cries for cheaper gasoline, which conservative policy could easily provide, McCain is offering hundreds of millions of dollars for a battery! He has shifted on one thing I can find: tax cuts, where he has been proven wrong by a strong economy and an actually increased share of tax revenue by the wealthy. (Tax cuts for the rich? I think not!) The point? McCain is in the middle, and always has been.

What of the other? Barack Obama's shift to the center has come startlingly quickly and clumsily. It was so hasty that the New York Times cried for his head in an editorial titled "New and Not Improved." He is offering to "revise" his position on troop withdrawal in Iraq and contemplate offshore drilling. He is agreeing to continue allowing government grants flow to faith-based initiatives, a Bush policy deemed a violation of the separation of church and state by liberals. He expressed favor for the Supreme Court's overturning of the D.C. gun ban, while previously expressing his support for this very ban. The point here? Obama is now shifting to fight McCain for the middle.

Both candidates are now fighting over a single group of voters. But this battle is based on a fundamentally flawed concept, i.e., this group is the one that picks the president.

The polar ends of the electorate choose the president, not the idiots we see on NBC after a debate labeled as the "undecided voter." And this is historically true, even back to Carter. According to polling data, moderates have been forming a small and decreasing percentage of the general electorate since the early 70s, a key fact for Bush's campaign strategy. But more on that in a bit.

Jimmy Carter was elected for two main reasons: he was a liberal (and thus was voted for by liberals), and he was from the South, arguably the most important region for a candidate to win. (We can all agree that the South is right of center and will choose the Republican. After all, only two of the past seven presidents have been Democrats, and both were from the South.)

Ronald Reagan campaigned as a far-right conservative, and was able to inspire all Americans to vote for him. His conservative base guaranteed his victories; his Great Communicating that inspired moderates and liberals gave him his 44- and 49-state landslides. George H.W. Bush was elected on Reagan's immense popularity only.

Bill Clinton is a moderate, but on the left side of center. The reason he was able to win (never with a majority of popular votes) was by weak opponents: the unpopular tax-hiker George H.W. Bush and the lame Nixonian relic Bob Dole. His acceptance of conservatism from the Republican Congress and fallout from the Reagan tax cuts gave him a strong economy, and his ignorance of foreign threats gave him a peaceful decade. This resulted in his extensive popularity, almost enough to get his veep elected in 2000. But in that case, deep-pocket campaigning won again.

George W. Bush won in 2000 against nearly every single statistical odd possible (even the popular vote itself!). Bill Clinton was popular, despite the stains (no pun intended) of the Lewinsky scandal. Al Gore was heavily identified with the success of the 90s, not the kook global warming alarmist fringe he is today. Bush was a bold-headed Texas cowboy with an embarrassing past, little experience, a "threat" to the success of the Clinton legacy, and did I mention his daddy was a bad pwesident?

How does one change the White House's party after eight years of peace and prosperity? Karl Rove knew the answer: deep-pocket campaigning. Go for the base. And in 2000, it worked brilliantly.

Bush campaigned as an uncompromising conservative. He fought for nearly everything the GOP's base stood for, with minor exceptions like education and immigration reform. His conservatism was further contrasted with the "maverick," John McCain, his only serious contender for the nomination. The reason it was so close in the general was the remnants of Clinton's popularity. The base, however, overcame that deficit, albeit in an unconventional way.

2004 was textbook. Had Bush possessed Reagan's communication skills, he could have won by a much larger margin. But even with a minority of Americans approving of his job as president, he won re-election with 51% of the popular vote, the first time since his father's 1988 victory that a candidate got over 50% of the vote. And according to exit polls, the reason voters chose George W. Bush was "moral issues." His base, and thus his voters, identified with his idealogy and values as a conservative.

What does this have to do with 2008? Since 2004, the Bush administration's ideology has been marred or lost. Bush has approved budgets nearing and exceeding $3 trillion, wiping out the gains made in reducing the deficit by his 2003 tax cuts. His nomination of Harriet Miers, support of amnesty, and stubbornness on Iraq policy have caused his conservative base considerable grumbling and disdain. Right now, because of one man and certain circumstances, it is uncool to be a conservative.

This is why a moderate is on the GOP ticket. McCain coudl not be further from a Bush third term (I wish he were; I'd vote for Bush in a second if I could) and still be a Republican. But Obama knows that liberals cannot get elected as liberals, so he has to shift to the right.

Voters claim to be moderates, but I believe they are conservatives at heart alienated and confused by a poor three years of the Bush administration, which so heavily associated itself with conservatism. It is guilt by association. The middle is a ghost, and the sleeping giant of a conservative ideology will require only one man of charisma and patriotism to awaken it. Who is that man? I believe our first chance is Mitt Romney, our second Bobby Jindal. But it really doesn't matter who it is. He or she just needs to appear.

This election is void of a conservative. That means it will be a referendum on Obama and his ideology, which is decidedly liberal (as the electorate knows and will learn as the campaigns continue). Anyone can find common ground with a moderate, but a liberal will alienate a lot of Americans. If Obama cannot successfully fool voters into thinking he is a moderate, he will lose. This ghost of a middle is why Hillary Clinton was (or is) the more viable candidate for the Democrats. She, too, can easily get its vote, a senator with a very moderate voting record.

The phantom of a middle will decide this election, but will re-discover itself as conservatism once again with the right man as it did in 1980 and 2000. And we faithful few are waiting for that day with great anticipation.

I am growing more and more frustrated with my party as golden opportunities to gain public favor slip past each waking moment.

Gas is averaging about $4.10/gal right now. Drilling here in the US is a plain and simple solution, a win-win for everyone. It will create jobs, reduce our dependence on geopolitical enemies, and most importantly, greatly reduce the cost of gasoline. Why do Democrats insist on punishing the oil companies, the only group of people trying to get gas into our cars? And why do people support Democrats in their endeavor to keep gas out of our cars? For all their posturing of saying they are "for the poor," it is the poor that are getting hurt the most by these prices. I guarantee you that the wealthy aren't batting an eye as they pay $80 to fill their tanks. The guy making $50,000 for his family of four is in serious trouble. And the Democrats claim that they care about these people? Pathetic!

If the GOP could expose how worthless the Democrats are, and how incredibly beneficial to everyone a domestic drilling initiative would be, we could be sailing into a newfound majority in November. The RNC has plenty of money; it should be spending it on commercials and campaigning for any congressman that can go out and convince people that it is the Republicans that want to solve the energy crisis! The days of $2.00/gal gas and no more checked baggage fees are right around the corner if someone would please draft some legislation and force a vote. It doesn't help that McCain is out there offering $300 million of taxpayer dollars to someone who invents a battery. Jesus, Mary, and Joseph.

Another exposure of the McCain campaign's inadequacy and lack of grapes (pardon the expression) has to do with one of McCain's advisers making a very true and accurate statement: A terrorist attack would help Republicans in November. Of course, Obama is out there using his favorite substitution for the word truth: "disgrace," and the McCain campaign is apologizing left and right. In my mind, this is a golden opportunity to turn it around on the Democrats. First, say that it is a true statement. Second, explain why. McCain should say the following:

"Mr. Obama has called Mr. Black's comments regarding terrorism a 'disgrace.' But why? Why is it a disgrace to point out the truth? Perhaps it only is when it implicates your own party. Mr. Black did not express his wish for a terrorist attack. He simply stated that were one to happen, my party would benefit. This is unquestionably true, and the only way Mr. Obama can combat this comment is by slandering it as a disgraceful statement. He cannot address the meat of the issue, despite his claims to be 'only about the issues,' because he knows that the Democrats, his own party, has been attempting to undermine every attempt Republicans make to stop terrorists in their tracks. The past 7 years have been the longest time in nearly three decades without a terrorist attack on our soil, all due to Republican policy and initiative and no thanks to Democratic stalling and obstruction."

Or something to that affect. In a USA Today/Gallup poll, in all major issues, McCain and Obama virtually tied, except for terrorism, which had McCain leading by over 20 points. That sentence can be scientifically proven to be true!

And finally, a quick note on campaign finance. McCain devised the famous (or, in my case, infamous) McCain-Feingold Act, which hacked away at the First Amendment like George Washington at a cherry tree. That aside, it provided for public financing. If a candidate chooses to use public financing, they can only privately raise up to $80 million. Another provision is the limit on personal donations, setting the cap at $2300. However, so-called Political Action Committees (PACs) can donate as much as they want.

Obama is raising a great deal, and has decided to forgo public financing to avoid the $80 million limit. (This, by the way, after a pledge to use public financing back in the beginning of his campaign. In fact, when he announced this decision, he said he still "supports the concept of public financing." Just not when it limits his ability to raise money, I suppose.) However, in the same speech in which he announced this, he derided McCain for raising money from PACs (which have no limit) and other private means that aren't regulated. Let me get this straight. Obama is accusing McCain of raising money from groups that don't have caps on their donations. But at the same time, he is using a loophole of sorts to avoid capping his total fundraising, a cap that McCain still has to abide by. This is textbook hypocrisy, and textbook liberal. "I have decided to forgo public financing, even though I support the concept." Translation from liberal-speak: "Government intervention is great! Just not when it hurts me."

Where are the Republican guns blazing? Where is the inspiration? There is so much there for the taking. All it takes is a little education to the American people and this country would re-ignite in conservatism and against the knucklehead running on a campaign of tricks and lies.

In one of the Democratic debates, Barack Obama brought up the 2000 election and added a quick aside, saying "Which I believe Al Gore won, by the way."

Al Gore lost the election because of the electoral college. This discrepancy has occurred no more than five times in history, and is extremely rare. He did, however, win the popular vote. Does this mean he should have won the election, regardless of the representation rules the Constitution has in place?

Obama was nominated on a very similar technicality. The delegates were assigned to him and he has won the nomination, even though he lost the popular vote. According to his logic, Hillary should have won because popular vote should supercede representation technicalities.

Just another moment of hypocrisy from a liberal.

We now have two candidates: John McCain for the Republicans and Barack Obama for the Democrats.

Or has it?

Here's a quick discussion of the Democratic battle. Obama has accumulated the majority of delegates, thereby technically clinching the nomination. However, it is well within Hillary's rights and capabilities to challenge the 59 delegates he received from Michigan (4 from her) and still make the case that she is the better candidate to the superdelegates (who can still overturn the decision). But will she? It was hard to read her tonight. It looked like she was waving her accomplishments in Obama's face as a reason to accept her as his running mate, which could happen ("18 million 18 million 18 million!!"). The only snag is Bill, who is not welcome in the Obama camp.

I want to look at all three candidates' speeches tonight. Let's start with McCain.

John McCain is not a good speaker. He is very old, and looks it. He is not charismatic. His awkward smile reveals a mouthful of rotting teeth, while a crackling voice repeats Obama's own slogan with a sarcastic twist. The content was classic McCain. While middle-of-the-road voters will eat it up and think it brilliant, I was not happy listening to much of it. There were several points that made me unhappy:

1. George W. Bush. One of McCain's advisers today started the distancing from George W. Bush today on a talk show pointing out the many instances McCain has differed from Bush. McCain expounded on this tonight. This is an example of McCain only targeting the middle, assuming the right is in the bag. Well I have news for you, Senator: It's not! The right is greatly dissatisfied with the GOP nominee, and will stay home if much of this continues. George W. Bush is very popular among these circles; over 30% of Americans still aprove of him, and this are all the right wingers that McCain thinks he'll win. He will continue to alienate them with comments throwing Bush under the bus. If you want to distinguish yourself from Bush, fine. And he should do so to address this mantra that is the only one Obama is throwing at him for the time being. But he should take the following approach: "I greatly respect George W. Bush, his patriotism, and his indubitable love for this country. But I am not a third term of his administration, and here is why." Stating that he was the only one campaigning for a change in Iraq policy, energy policy, spending, etc., and how he took heat from Republicans is not the way to win adoration of Republicans. He should take the advice of his own speech and look to the future, not the past, on his differences with George W. Bush.
2. I am already sick and tired of hearing this alternative energy business, and I can't stand it. I thought I was listening to a Democrat for a moment. He wants to make alternative energy more viable, pumping more government money into it. He is, however, against an energy bill that gives tax breaks to oil companies for research and development. This R&D is primarily in the area of progressive fuels. Why is McCain voting against a capitalist solution to the energy crisis? And why is there no cry to drill here in the US? There is a vast amount of oil sitting underneath our own borders, both in Alaska and in the continental states, and until we have a viable alternative we should be drilling immediately. This is such a simple solution to the energy crisis. It won't even cost the government any money: just allow the oil companies to drill here and build new refineries. Gas will be down to prices we remember from the good old days in a year's time.
3. This segues into my next point, and that is the populist tone McCain's speech took in many parts. Populism resonates on the surface with middle class voters, but does not appeal to true conservatives and further right-wing voters. Saying he will take on the oil companies and use the government to make life better for the common man is not appealing to me. It isn't the government's job. I want the government to guarantee my right to life, liberty, and property. Anything else is too much intervention. Sure, certain amenities like infrastructure are certain things a country of our wealth can afford, but to control any part of my life or the operation of a private company via government intervention is not okay. Populism belongs in the Democratic Party, along with all the other falsehoods and fake ideas.
4. I was shocked to see "A Leader We Can Believe In" behind McCain. What is that? Why would you mockingly use your opponent's slogan? It looks sloppy, childish, and defensive. Not only was that on the board behind him, but he kept repeating it as he jabbed Obama: "That's not change we can believe in! (snicker snicker)" It is just plain silly. Come up with something on your own, for Christ's sake. How about "Real Progress for a Better Tomorrow"? Anything implying real change and a new future. But not Obama's own retarded gimmick.

So that's McCain's speech. Decent, but full of holes. His raw content on Obama's lack of experience, his extremely one-sided voting record, his desire to be a liberal and increase government control of our lives, and his desire to dangerously withdraw from a stabilizing military situation even at the behest of soldiers on the ground are good and necessary. Hopefully he can develop these themes and more effectively attack Obama in the coming months.

Hillary Clinton's speech was very interesting. Following today's statement that she is "open" to being Obama's running mate, it made sense. It was difficult to read her and to see what she was thinking. There were basically three ways this speech could have gone. Either: a) She would have come out guns blazing, shouting "Denver, Denver, Denver!" and promise to take the fight to the convention and challenge Obama's delegate count; b) She would concede, or at least show some level moderation and state her reluctance to duke it out in the name of party loyalty; or c) None of the above. She chose option c). She specifically said that she will make no decisions tonight. She thanked everyone in her campaign, and pointed out all of her many victories, both from the beginning and recently. The 18 million votes figure popped up numerous times, and rightly so: she does have more votes than Obama does. It definitely looked like her, as I said above, pointing out her accomplishments to force Obama's hand in running with her. There is much animosity on the Clinton side towards Obama, and a Unity ticket may absolve the strife. But who's to say? She will discuss her options with her supporters, officials, and party leaders to determine the best course of action.

Obama's speech was nothing new. It contained a few more jabs at McCain as the general election begins, but the same soaring rhetoric and constant glancing from teleprompter to teleprompter remained the same as always. He said "I am respectful of Senator McCain's accomplishments, even though he is unwilling to recognize mine." May I ask which accomplishments he is referring to? Maybe he means the bill he supported in the Illinois state senate dooming babies that survived abortion via a bad procedure to the garbage can. No, that can't be it. Voting for or against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq? Oh wait, he wasn't in the Senate then. Maybe he meant the numerous bills he has written with members of both parties. But there are no such bills. Decades of military service? Years in a Vietnam prison of torture and death? No. Hmm...Wait! I think I have it! Sticking it to the white man (or, in this case, woman) to be nominated for the presidency!

Obama compared himself to the great presidencies of Roosevelt (I'm assuming Franklin), Truman, and Kennedy. Would Obama have dropped a nuclear weapon on two major Japanese cities? I know the answer is no; he has already stated his determination to remove America's nuclear arsenal and turn our ICBMs off "ready" alert. Would he take a tough stance if Russia plants 50 nuclear warheads just a few miles from our coastline in the socialist stronghold of Cuba? I know the answer is no here, also; he wants to negotiate with Russia regarding our missile nets that are currently protecting Europe from annihilation by Putin and his quest to bring back a new USSR, a safety net opposed by Russia but not by the rest of NATO. Wonder why that is? Would Obama start a war with a country that presented no direct threat on the US, as FDR did with Germany? I know the answer is no yet again; he is against the operation in Iraq and is ready to pull out after five years even as success is becoming visible and after 4000 deaths. Ten times that number were killed in Germany and decades were spent repairing Europe. We're doing this in a mere few years in a job that is just as important, yet no one questions our involvement in WWII. It is despicable and offensive for him to compare himself to these three great presidents. They did all they could to combat socialism and protect America from it; modern Democrats embrace socialism.

So we'll see what happens in November. I believe it is McCain's to lose. And he definitely can: a poor campaign could quickly allow Obama to sneak in. But an effective one involving a touch of conservatism, patriotism, and respect for right-wingers like me will result in a landslide to Obama's disrespect and disgust for normal Americans. The middle is McCain's for the taking (assuming Clinton is out), and coupled with the right he can win. The fun has just begun. I'm just sad that I can't get excited about anyone until 2012. And it may take four years of absolute liberal failure to jolt this generation of voters into action.

Let the race begin!

Just when I thought the 2008 RNC was the worst-run political organization in America, the DNC decided to have a meeting of the Rules Committee and determined not to be outdone. The DNC has proven itself, yet again, to be one horribly managed and bloated example of Democratic irresponsibility, stupidity, arrogance, and ultimately failure.

Let's take a moment to look at the current political landscape of the presidential election. The current president is a Republican, a very conservative one at that. Our economy is in a "recession," at least according to MSNBC. Inflation is increasing. Gas prices are obscenely high. An unpopular war drags on. Never in a situation like this does the incumbent party even have a chance for another term. But McCain is polling extremely well. He is neck-and-neck with both Obama and Clinton, several polls pegging him in the lead. Rasmussen Reports has him with 10 more electoral votes than John McCain, with a hundred electoral votes too close to call.

How can this be? How is it that, as Paul Krugman said, (I love this quote) the Democrats are going to "snatch defeat from the claws of victory"? It is due to 2 things: bad candidates and bad party organization.

Today, the DNC Rules Committee met to discuss the seating of the delegates from Michigan and Florida. Because the primary season moved up this year, these two states decided to follow New Hampshire and Iowa (which are exempt from party punishments from either side...I don't understand it, don't ask me). To punish them for breaking the rules, the DNC stripped them of all of their delegates. Zero. None. Two extremely important general election swing states completely alienated from the party's nomination process. For comparison, the GOP faced the same problem. Several states moved forward as well. But the RNC voted to strip half of each state's delegates. This way, they were punished for breaking the rules, but the voters still had a voice in the nomination. Problem solved.

The DNC's meeting today decided to allot the delegates between the two in the following manner: 87 to Clinton, 64 to Obama. I will not go into the math or process; read about it here. But in short, this is an absolute outrage. If I were a Clinton supporter in Michigan or Florida, of which there are many, I would be furious with my party. This was not a "compromise," an agreement designed to mollify both sides. The pure and simple motivation behind this decision was to squeeze as many delegates as possible out of the contests for Barack Obama. An unelected group of 27 party leaders heard arguments, then, behind closed doors, decided on how to best count the votes from the two states. Casting math aside, a conviluted mathematical formula was developed to give Obama a delegate victory.

Fallout? Hardly a rally behind Obama's cause. According to the above-linked article, angry supporters had this exchange:
Obama supporter: See you in Denver!
Clinton supporter: See John McCain in November!
Clinton supporters are furious over the way the party and the media is absolutely screwing their candidate. Whether this is true or not, feel free to argue, but in their minds it most definitely is. Votes are not being counted for the sake of a quick Obama victory! And now, Clinton has the ammunition to take the case all the way to Denver, even if Obama accumulates the majority. She can contest that these 64 delegates were unfairly assigned.

This is an absolute mess. Democrats can tell themselves that it is good for their party: record registrations, more excitement for the party; but deep down, the smart ones know that this is bad. A weak McCain campaign is being completely ignored due to crap like this, and it will continue to be until August. It will be a bitter fight to the death, and John McCain will triumph (unless Clinton manages to steal the nomination, which I see about a 10% chance of happening).

This isn't a presidential campaign. This is a chaotic scramble to the finish line. And a man not even in the race is going to benefit the most.

As the returns come in from Kentucky, Clinton has yet another massive victory. Currently with 93% of precincts reporting, Clinton has trounced Obama 66% to 30%. While the Oregon returns are still 2 hours away, we can expect a double-digit Obama victory. But "exit" polls (phone polls conducted among Democrats who claim to have mailed in their mail-in ballots) show such a victory being in the vicinity of 14%, not even half of Clinton's 36-point victory here or her 41-point victory in West Virginia.

So, fallout.

Despite Clinton's incredible performance over the past 6 weeks, Obama will still most likely garner the majority of pledged delegates of the party tonight. Nearly 300 superdelegates have yet to speak, but they say they will follow the pledged delegate allocation. In all honesty, Barack Obama will still most likely receive the nomination. I believe this is a huge mistake for the Democratic Party to make. And it is a perfect opportunity to prevent Obama from becoming another McGovern, which is why the superdelegate system was created in the first place: nominate Hillary Clinton.

I am not going to list the reasons why, because I have repeatedly on this blog. Tonight continues to prove my point. The exit polls in Kentucky are extremely disturbing for Obama.

One poll in particular caught my eye. Of Hillary Clinton supporters, only 50% would vote for Obama in the general. 32% would vote for McCain instead. 15% would stay home.

What it boils down to is that Obama is a left-winger. Clinton and McCain are moderates. When Reagan and Bush 43 ran, they were able to win the middle by appealing personably to the common man. Their incompetent opponents helped as well. Neither of them sacrificed conservatism to get elected. McCain has. He is a total and complete moderate, barely right-of-center on the political spectrum. Clinton, too, is moderate. She is barely left-of-center. The two of them would have one hell of a battle for the presidency. Obama, however, is a left-winger. He is very liberal, voting on the left of issues 97% of the time in the Senate. Clinton and McCain have done a great job of exposing him as the liberal he is. As I've explained before, this does not appeal to the majority of Americans, which is why he just can't get rid of Clinton. She is a bastion of moderation in a sea of anti-Americanism (embodied by Obama and his media followers).

There is a slim chance that Clinton will steal the nomination. If she can use the recent contests, her votes in Michigan and Florida, and the fact that Obama has lost 300,000 votes to her since Wisconsin and all but one state since March 1st, to convince the superdelegates that she is the more electable, then who knows. But this is unlikely. And a McCain landslide is in store for November.

I think it is safe to say that Barack Obama has an 85% chance of being nominated for the Democratic Party. It is going to be a close race, and the superdelegates will be split very close down the middle. After all, even now it is only a difference of 1-2 votes, and only about 2/3 of them have checked in. But they will follow the delegate count and nominate Barack (even though I still believe this to be a mistake). I also believe that if this happens, Hillary will be his running mate; this is the only solution I can come up with that could speed up the healing of the wounds from this ridiculous nomination process.

So what is the deal with Barack Obama? Today's sermon in Church brought up the Rev. Wright. It wasn't what we have been hearing on the tube, however; the priest actually quoted Wright's NPC speech from a couple weeks ago. He used a short excerpt regarding the need for a radical change in the way society elevates some and denigrates others; how some are "more equal" than the rest. Today being the Christian feast of Pentecost, celebrating the Holy Spirit's descent from heaven, the priest emphasized this need for change toward a better world.

But where must this change originate? Here is where the interpretations differ between my priest and Rev. Wright. This change comes from prayer and a call for the Holy Spirit's presence in our lives. Real, radical, positive change is inspired by God. And here is where Barack Obama comes in. He believes that he is God. He is the source of change. He can make this world a better place! His silver tongue has gotten people to faint over the way he presents his ideas to radically alter the way society thinks and acts. But the problem is, this change cannot originate with him. It cannot originate with anyone. It has to be inspired by God.

Granted, not everyone in America is a Christian. There is even a sizable population that doesn't believe in any type of higher power. But a belief in something greater is innate in our government system. The Founders, while not necessarily Christians and some even atheists, gave the government legitimacy by stating that its power is derived from "God." Our currency says "In God we trust." Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence refer to God frequently. While separation of church and state is important, the government has to admit that its government comes from something else. Once that principle is abandoned, the government becomes all-powerful and replaces God. This results in socialism and tyranny.

The problem with Barack and many liberals is that they have no problem with this. They want the government to control everything. It's not about success, it's about power and control. Tax hikes, healthcare, social security, welfare: all programs to make you more dependent on the government rather than on yourself. The Founders would be shocked to see what we're wasting our money on right now. It is sad and unfortunate that it has reached what it is now, and it will only get worse if a liberal is elected.

Barack Obama does not seem to believe in America. He has never once made a statement one can claim is truly patriotic; his appreciation of the American dream is a narrow view of his own success from a lower class. He overtly refuses to wear a flag pin; while many liberals may tell me this is irrelevant and a stupid argument, I will disagree. Our flag is revered here more than any other flag in the world is revered by its people. It is a symbol of freedom, democracy, justice, righteousness; it reminds us of that incredible story of the Revolution. By not wearing it, many Americans (including myself) are confused and slightly offended by his disregard for a country we believe in and hold dear. Only 45% of voters believe Obama shares their values, while 55% believe John McCain does.

I do not like John McCain's policy initiatives because they compromise with liberalism far too much. I do not want him elected because of the redefinition my party will suffer. But compared to Obama, he is a far better choice. He loves this country, nearly losing his life for it. He believes in it and understands what it's about. I believe Hillary Clinton does as well, which is why she is the one I want to win.

Obama has friends that overtly hate this country and its ideals. His mentor of decades is on video for saying some of the most horrible things you can imagine about the U.S., and he is very close to a known terrorist who has bombed government buildings and wants to bomb more. His wife has stated that she is only proud to be an American now that voters are choosing Barack, and she claims Americans are "ignorant" when it comes to race relations. Hamas has stated that they support and respect Barack Obama, to which one of his staffers offered thanks! He himself has stated that middle Americans cling to guns and religion and antipathy towards people different than themselves to help guide them through times of economic trouble. I see no evidence that he is in this for America; he is in this for himself. It is just a job promotion to a post of more power.

This scares me. I believe the voters will see this and flock to John McCain. It happened in 2004: even the exit polls had Kerry winning handily. But people knew that Bush loves America and wants it to succeed. McCain is the one who wants this country to do well. While I disagree with his methods, he is the lesser of evils.

We have to keep this man out of the White House.

Tonight's two contests fulfilled virtually every prediction. Clinton is winning a narrow but decisive victory in Indiana, but losing by a very large margin in North Carolina. It is still early in the returns, but it is no question that he wins NC, and by a larger margin than he loses in Indiana.

What does this mean? Let's first look at how the Obama camp will spin it.

Obama's victory means that he is the more popular. He was able to win big in North Carolina and lose small in Indiana. The pure math is in his favor and indicates him as more electable, and thus more appropriate for the nomination. It is just another in his long list of states that he has racked up and indicates a will among the electorate for his nomination.

This is what the campaign will say, and most likely what the Democratic leadership will take into consideration. It is now extremely difficult for Hillary to steal this nomination, even though I still believe she is the one who should run against McCain. Why do I think this, even after this night that looks so good for Obama?

What I think tonight really proved was Obama as the race candidate. He won over 90% of the black vote, and in NC this is over 1/3 of the electorate. This allowed every network to call the state the second the polls closed. In Indiana, he did just as well among blacks, but there simply weren't enough to counter Clinton's popularity in the other groups. Clinton won, in both states, both white men and women, seniors, uneducated citizens, and working class voters. This is the majority of America and the majority of voters.

Tonight should prove to the superdelegates that Barack Obama cannot win outside of the "black belt" if you will, such as the south. He won other states early on because of a wise campaign strategy that focused on caucus states and his messianic speeches about change and hope. But he lost that magic. He looked like an absolute idiot at the debate in Philadelphia, is on record for insulting the religious beliefs and gun ownership of the majority of Americans, is close to a pastor that has repeatedly insulted his country and associated Obama with him, is close to a terrorist who has attempted to bomb multiple government establishments, and is married to a woman who has never before felt proud to be an American. This will all come out again in the general election.

Clinton carries baggage as well. But she is doing an incredible job lately overcoming these negatives. She looks vibrant, looks happy, looks friendly, and looks like she's having fun. Her interview with Bill O'Reilly was smart, and she looked on her game and intelligent. She is down to earth and has a clear set of solutions.

Barack Obama seems to have a golden road to the nomination because of the thick-headedness of Democratic party leaders. But he cannot beat McCain. He will get eaten alive by not only McCain but by independent groups that will do everything they can to keep him out of the White House. He just claimed, in his NC victory speech, that Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat! Watching this speech, he sounds like he is trying to rejuvenate the magic that got him through the string of states after Super Tuesday. That is what it was: magic. Barack Obama is a complete moron with no qualifications whatsoever for president. He will absolutely destroy this country for every American, rich and poor. His policy is unwise, unsound, and poorly thought out. This will be proven when McCain spars with him and shows that this guy just doesn't have a clue.

Barack Obama is change we can't believe in. He hasn't done a thing in the name of change for his entire career. He is in it for a promotion; if he really cared about the party and the country, he would drop out and throw his support behind Hillary. Same goes for her. They are selfish and only in it for themselves. I want Hillary Clinton to win the national to avoid the redefinition of the GOP while still maintaining some semblance of a successful America, but if Obama gets in there is no avoiding the disasters he will incur.

Tonight means that Obama is the race candidate. He cannot win in the general election, where blacks don't make up 1/3 of the electorate. McCain will win the south, and Obama will get creamed in the swing states. So who knows: maybe a few smart Dems will realize it's Clinton's chance. But I doubt it. And the Democrats will, as Paul Krugman said, "snatch defeat from the jaws of victory."

What a night for Hillary Clinton! Her nearly ten-point victory in Pennsylvania Tuesday night over Barack Hussein Obama put her back in the race, and in no small way. Make no mistake about it: this was a blowout. The polls were predicting a five- or six-point margin, and Obama spent nearly three times as much as Clinton did in the Keystone State. She still massacred him by a near double-digit lead. This is not only bad news for Obama, but also for the Democratic Party and its leaders.

By winning Pennsylvania, Clinton has called into question one of the most hailed qualities brought up about Barack Obama: his ability to unite. Obama still cannot beat her; Tuesday night wasn’t even close! My question to Obama supporters is this: How do you expect a man to unite the entire country when, after three months of primaries and nearly a year of campaigning, he can’t even unite his own party? Yes, he has a slight delegate majority, but in the popular vote that includes Michigan and Florida, he has virtually no lead. The magic that got him through several major primaries and caucuses is gone: we don’t hear the “change, hope, future” mantra like we used to.

His electability is also becoming a serious question that the superdelegates have to address. And that is what matters: the superdelegates. Neither of these candidates can get the 2025 delegates needed to secure the nomination. If you look at the general election, Clinton actually has the better chances. Out of the past seven presidents, two have been Democrats. Both have been from the south, and have thus won the south. But now, as in 2000 and 2004, it will be swing states that decide who gets the majority of electoral votes. These states are Ohio, Florida, and Michigan. Clinton is the one who can beat McCain here, not Obama. They are classic Clinton demographic, just like Pennsylvania: mostly white, older populations, lower incomes. She gets 60+% of each of these groups virtually every time. Obama did well in states that are going to go Republican in November anyway.

The debate in Philadelphia last Wednesday night didn’t help Obama much either. The majestic image of strength, hope, and unity just fell apart when his script got taken away. He can barely string two words together without an “umm” or “uhh,” and clearly has no idea what the capital gains tax is or how it works. His socialism was blatant when he claimed that he would raise taxes on the rich not for economic gains but for the sake of “fairness.” He wouldn’t take a stand on the D.C. gun ban, even after he claimed that people in middle America “cling to guns, religion, and antipathy towards those different from themselves” because of their economic frustrations. (In Pennsylvania, Clinton won 60% of gun owners and Church goers.)

At the same debate, Clinton had her act together. Her clear, concise answers to many of the economic questions made Barack look incompetent and foolish. She also didn’t stutter, and her references to the economic prosperity of the 1990s (of which she wishes to appear involved with) reminded people of the great times of that decade. It is a winning strategy for her: Elect another Clinton for another 8 years of economic success!

Clinton’s campaign has also been extremely successful in the recent weeks. While the debate was I think a stroke of luck (way to go Charlie Gibson for holding him accountable to the facts about taxes), Clinton is the one who has torn Obama off the pedestal that he was on. She is attacking him relentlessly on his inexperience and lack of substance. Her husband is saying that his victory in South Carolina was the same as Jesse Jackson’s in the 1980s. Gerry Ferraro is saying that he is only successful because he’s black. And they will not apologize for anything they are saying! They’re tougher on Obama than McCain has been. And how does Obama respond? He whines about negativity. He is being wimpy and more of a woman than Clinton ever was. As I mentioned above: the magic is gone.

Compared to McCain, however, I believe both of them will be greatly disadvantaged. While McCain isn’t the best of speakers, he’ll look fine in a debate setting. When he lays out the facts of his economic plan that have proven plans to help the economy and lower gas prices, he will pick up a lot of support. He will garner a huge number of center and even center-left voters, leaving either Democrat in the dust.

I do not know which candidate will be nominated. But it is unquestionable that Clinton is the more electable than Obama in the general contest. If the superdelegates are smart, they’ll nominate her. But as evidenced by the past thirty years, Democrats don’t know how to nominate a candidate. So in conclusion, while it is glaringly obvious to anyone with a brain stem that Clinton has a better chance than the moronic pretty-boy Obama, the Democrats still may not make that smart decision. And if they don’t, McCain is assured a seat in that White House on January 21, 2009.

Charlie Gibson and George Stephonopoupoppolis (spelling?) have left me shocked and awed, in the best way. Last night's debate on ABC, moderated by both these two ABC news anchors, exposed Clinton and Obama for the true liberals and, quite frankly, morons they are. Both proved their incompetence, lack of knowledge, disdain for America, and socialist initiatives that I am sure turned off the 10 million people watching last night.

Let's start with Obama. This man cannot string two words together without and "umm" or an "uhh" if his life depended on it. He is not articulate or a fluent speaker unless he has a teleprompter or transcript in front of him. I'll be the last to argue Bush is articulate, but at least he admits it. Obama is made out to be one of the best speakers in the history of presidential candidates, on par with JFK. Well I'll tell you, he is no Jack Kennedy.

He also is clearly oblivious to the way the economy works at all. The argument of whether or not income tax cuts or hikes help the economy is one that can be argued intelligently from both sides. Historical numbers can indicate the success of both cuts and hikes of the income tax. However, last night Gibson pressed Obama on the issue of the capital gains tax, a tax applied to companies on their profits. This tax trickles down to any stockholder that owns a stake in this company. During the Clinton administration, this tax was reduced from 28% to 20%. Bush then cut it further to 15%. Both cuts have resulted in revenue increases from this particular tax. It is agreed by any economist: cutting the capital gains tax will increase government revenue. More people invest in stock, and thus that 15% of a greater number becomes a larger amount of money than 20% of a smaller number. But Obama either doesn't understand this or doesn't care. When Gibson explained to him that a) cutting the capital gains tax increased revenue both times and b) 100 million Americans (that's about 1/3 of our nation's population) own stock and thus would be affected by a hike, Obama was oblivious. He was clueless. His response was virtually I don't know. (Quote: "It might or it might not. We'll just have to see how things are on Wall Street." Does he get that the capital gains tax can directly affect Wall Street's condition?)

His inability to defend his "patriotism" was also blatantly obvious. He was asked why he doesn't wear a flag pin. He claims that he has "never said that he wouldn't wear one." YOU DO NOT WEAR ONE, MR. OBAMA. He stated that he wore one recently at an event, but only after a disabled veteran asked him to. Last year at an event, he explained that he didn't want to wear the flag pin because he wanted to show "true patriotism" by stating his opposition to the war. So in effect, he isn't wearing it to cater to the kook left that is screaming "Bush lied, kids died" and blames America for everything. His ties to extremists were also brought up. He is "friendly" with a man who set bombs in the Pentagon and, after 9/11, claimed that they "didn't do enough." He served as a paid board member with him even after 9/11 and these comments. Obama tried to sidestep the issue saying it isn't important. But it is, and people have to understand this. Obama is unknown, and the people he is involved with are crucial to judging his character. No one will disagree when I say that the word of a politician is no good, especially a liar as skilled as Obama. When he is found "friendly" with a terrorist, "family" with a man like Jeremiah Wright, his wife calling America ignorant and that she hasn't been proud to be an American until now, a pattern of hatred and anti-Americanism emerges. He does not love this country. His comments in San Francisco display his dislike of the common man, the gun-toting God-fearing NASCAR fans in the heartland that make this country work.

Hillary's performance was equally amusing. Her approach, however, was probably much smarter. Will it pay off? I don't know. But she did the right thing. She knows she has Pennsylvania. She knows that it is unlikely she can change the minds of the people who really don't like her. Her job is to get the superdelegates to realize she is the only one with a real shot in November. She referred often to the "1990s," and how she would basically return our economic policy to those years (which were, we all agree, years of great economic prosperity). She dodged a bullet, not having to defend her husband's pardon of several terrorists of the group she accused Obama of fraternizing with, but I can explain it: it was to get the Puerto Rican vote in New York for her Senate race in 2000, not because of their ideology. (Not that I condone it, but it speaks to her character (or lack thereof) more than to her ideology.) She really didn't present anything new or revolutionary, and did not exhibit any ghastly lack of knowledge. She, like Obama, agreed to raise taxes on incomes over $250,000 but cut taxes on lower incomes, and also promised not to allow the capital gains tax go over "what it was in the 1990s" (i.e., 20%).

Both were either pandering or just again pandering to the left when their plans for lowering gas prices involved looking into price manipulation by the oil companies. Of course there is price manipulation, but it is by the Middle Eastern nations in OPEC that control our supply! And there is nothing we can do about that. But we can lower gas prices by either drilling our own oil or simply cutting gas taxes, as McCain has promised to attempt. He suggested a tax-free gas day on Memorial Day. Can you imagine tax-free gas? It would be over 50 cents cheaper in some states! That would also prove where the majority of the gas money goes: the government, not some CEO's wallet.

The Democrats are in crisis mode, and the party leaders have no idea what to do. Neither of these candidates can beat McCain. McCain is smart, has character, and has definite plans for our future. He clearly cares about America and our international interests. He has what it takes to win. Neither Clinton nor Obama do. It is McGovern all over again. The superdelegates were created after the McGovern fiasco, and this is exactly when it is time for them to hit code red. They have to choose a third nominee. I have no idea who. In fact, I don't think they have anyone. But if they don't they're definitely screwed. I don't think the DNC has the intelligence to make this move, but it's the only way they're going to win. Over 10 million viewers watched two idiots make complete fools of themselves on broadcast television. Not something the Democrats can be too happy about.

So all in all, a great night for John McCain. And a bad night for the Democratic Party as the sun sets on their presidential prospects.

I have openly stated in previous posts my opposition to John McCain. But I want to make it clear that these oppositions are purely based on issues. McCain has the most character and integrity of the three current presidential candidates; it's just a shame that he happens to be a liberal.

McCain believes what he says and has acted on it in Congress. For example, Barack Obama claims to be a unifier that will cross party lines and work with Republicans on issues. In his two years in the Senate, Obama has never drafted legislation with Republicans and has voted with his party 97% of the time. He has skipped "tough" votes that could come back to bite him in the campaign. If you really want someone who will work with both sides, vote John McCain. (This is, in fact, one reason I dislike him.) He has drafted controversial legislation such as the immigration bill (which was more pro-immigrant than Obama's "yea" vote on a border fence, even after he criticized conservatives for being too anti-immigrant) and McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform, both of which have been extremely unpopular among his party's base.

McCain has refrained as much as possible from negative attacks on the two Democrats. While I am sure that will change once a nominee is chosen, he is not attacking Obama's idiotic comments about the U.S.'s China policy or Clinton's lies about Bosnia. Obama, however, has ridiculed McCain and said it was "about time" when McCain called for greater government intervention in the pay distribution of companies such as Bear Stearns. McCain even called Obama "qualified to be president." This shocked and disturbed me, but again, goes to his character. There is no need to say that; in fact, it is unwise to say that about your opponent even if it is true (which it most definitely is not).

He served in Vietnam, and actually believed what he was doing was right. He survived as a POW and didn't return to stomp on his own medals. He has been a man for the troops and for our noble venture in Iraq ever since it began over five years ago. His goal is success, regardless of the political circumstances.

The long and short of it is that I believe McCain is in this for America. He honestly thinks that he is making this country a better place, and as president can do so. While I disagree with much of his ideology, and do not want the failures of liberal policy being attributed to a newly defined Republican Party, I respect that America's interests are at heart, not his own. Clinton and Obama do not care about their party or their country; they are two selfish politicians fighting over a promotion. If either of them did care, they would step down for the sake of the voters. The fact that they haven't, and most definitely won't until the party votes, proves what is really important to them.

I am greatly disappointed that McCain is the nominee, and I am worried about the possibilities his presidency could bring both in our diplomatic relations and domestic policy initiatives. But one thing is for sure: he is by far the most qualified of the three to run this country, and has more character than the other two could ever have. And when he's sparring with one of these Dems in front of Tim Russert in the fall, this may be a big factor for the voters.

Happy April Fool's Day! I just want to make it clear that this post is not humorous or satirical in any way. I actually attempted to write one about how Obama is the second coming, but realized that too many people already believe it to be true for it to be effective. But I digress.

As the poll numbers begin to take shape in the two situations for the general election, Obama's prospects are darkening by the day. While McCain has a very good chance of beating either candidate, he has not yet been touched in general election campaigning which could turn the tables. The real question is which Democrat can do better in the electoral college, the thing that really matters as we have seen in both 2000 and 2004.

There are certain states that either party always win (except for the presence of an extraordinary leader, such as Ronald Reagan). In fact, if you look at the only 2 Democrats to be elected of the past 7, the only way they could accumulate enough electoral votes is by garnering southern states (which, in both cases, were because of their home states: Carter of Georgia, Clinton of Arkansas). Every other election, the Democrats have only gotten votes from the urban, liberal strongholds of the Northeast and West Coast, with major cities like Chicago and Minneapolis delivering a few states in between. Other than that, the Republican can be relatively safe in assuming that the South and the majority of the Midwest will go red. This election is no exception in this regard, both Democrats being from traditionally left-leaning states anyways.

What does any of this mean for the battle between Clinton and Obama? Let's look at the primary results. Clinton has done very well in the two swing states: Florida and Ohio. She has won virtually all the states that Democrats need in November: New York, Pennsylvania, California, and much of New England. Obama has won more states, yes, and therefore more delegates; these states, however, are going to go to McCain anyways.

Now we have to decide which poll numbers are the most important. National polls are more like a gauge of popularity as opposed to a legitimate predictor of election results. Obama has been ahead of McCain nationally for most of the election, until recently when McCain has pulled ahead narrowly. McCain has been ahead of Clinton for most of the election, and remains so by a greater margin. However, this does not truly show whose chances are better in the general election. The three most interesting states I want to mention are Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Here are the numbers, according to the RCP average of all major poll data:

Florida:
McCain-Obama: McCain +6.8
McCain-Clinton: McCain +2.8
Ohio:
McCain-Obama: McCain +7.0
McCain-Clinton: Clinton +0.3
Pennsylvania:
McCain-Obama: McCain +2.2
McCain-Clinton: McCain +0.4

These are very bad indicators for Obama, because it shows why Clinton is the more electable of the two. She can accumulate electoral votes more easily, and is more popular in the Democratic states. The superdelegates will see this and will vote for her. I find the Democratic nomination process hysterical in its confusion, especially after some of the comments of some prominent party leaders. Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Bill Richardson are all supporting Obama (and are all superdelegates themselves). And they claim that superdelegates should reflect the popular vote (which favors Obama). They conveniently forget, however, that the states they represent (Massachusetts and New Mexico) voted for Clinton! So they are completly ignoring the will of their constituents, but yet they want all the other superdelegates to do the opposite? Which popular vote do you wish to reflect? In fact, even the regular delegates can vote unbound for whomever they want! The party is in madness.

The reality is, now, that Obama is the less electable of the two. The polls and electoral college show this to be true. As Clinton gears up to win Pennsylvania in exactly three weeks, the superdelegates can decide to run Clinton (who has a moderate chance) or Obama (who will get destroyed by McCain). Knowing the Democratic Party and the geniuses running it...


the choice is not so obvious.

The Obama campaign has finally proven why they are going to have a hard time winning the superdelegates this summer and possibly even the election this fall. He is an unknown quantity.

To sum up recent events, videos have come to light of Jeremiah Wright, Barack Obama's pastor of 20 years and extremely close friend and mentor, making extremist and frightening anti-American and anti-white sermons. His message is one of hate and racism, claiming such things as:

• 9/11 was simply America's chickens coming home to roost;
• "God bless America? God-damn America!"
• The U.S. of K.K.K. A.
• America created HIV/AIDS to start a genocide in Africa

The list goes on, and it is painful to even listen to. You can look them up for yourself on YouTube; I, for one, do not wish to embed such horrible videos on my site.

But what does this mean for Barack? Whatever it means, it is not good. In fact, this could single-handedly tank his campaign. Barack has been campaigning on "change we can believe in" and "yes we can." These bumper sticker slogans sound great...until we learn that they are quotes from Rev. Wright. He quoted an entire speech of his in one of his books, which included the line "Where whites breed, troubles seed." Wright was the first man he called for thanks after winning his Illinois State Senate seat.

The idea that Barack was unaware of such outrageous statements is preposterous. He would not allow Wright to deliver the invocation because he knew that this would simply turn the public eye on him, revealing these sermons that have scared so many Americans.

I will say this: if my own father were a pastor and began making statements like this from the pulpit, I would walk out and never come back to that church. And I expect every self-respecting American to do the same. Barack Obama is an unknown quality, with no track record to speak of or back him up. When you are an unknown, these seemingly little things are very important to who you are and what the public should think of you. We all know what kind of man Hillary married. We all know the types of tactics they use in their campaigns. These all go to her character (or lack thereof). But Obama has no such public record, and this is a major addition to that resume.

But what is really important here, at least to the Democrats, is not what was said, but the sheer surprise it has provoked. This is exactly the type of thing the superdelegates would fear in an Obama nomination, and why they would stay with the safe choice of Hillary Clinton. Obama will not come from this unscathed by any means; in fact, for the first time in a while, McCain has surged past the declining Obama in the realclearpolitics.com poll average since these videos have aired.

His speech today was supposedly brilliant, but it was about race and the deep divisions of America. While these are important issues, the president is not some type of cultural healer. We have major economic and national security problems to deal with right now; frankly, I'd take someone with the public face of Richard Nixon if I knew he could take care of these. Maybe in ten years we can handle a Barack Obama to close our cultural gaps, but right now we need an economic and military leader. Obama is not it.

Furthermore, I would like to know how Obama unites. He can't even get half of his party to support him, much less half of the country. That's because most of the people in this country realize he is full of crap, and a pretty picture on the wall may look nice but is only that: a pretty picture. Geraldine Ferraro was half-right: his success is due to his great ability to communicate (albeit nothing) and to his race.

While his speech today might put a band-aid on the wound so deeply inflicted, not by Wright himself, but by Obama's foolish and despicable maintenance of a close relationship with this horrible individual, it will not help to convince the superdelegates that he can win in November. In fact, it will only prove that this mystery man is exactly that, and nothing can change that between now and election day. Now more than ever, Hillary is going to be the safe vote. It will be close, but she will win Pennsylvania in a few weeks, and she will win the nomination in a couple months.

God BLESS America.

The Obama-Clinton battle is getting more furious every day, and is causing chaos and confusion among the entire Democratic Party. It has come to a point where no matter who is nominated, a significant number of Democrats will be greatly alienated; the question now is which candidate will create a smaller one of these groups.

Hillary Clinton wants this win more than anyone can imagine. This has been the plan of the Clintons since their aspirations began, and she is not going to let some junior senator newbie from Illinois ruin it because of a bunch of crazed lunatics that support him. Her gloves have truly come off.

Over the past few weeks, especially since the rejuvenation of her campaign on March 4, we've heard the bitter words being bounced around by these two candidates. Clinton especially has been noted as being extremely vicious toward Obama's campaign.

The most recent wave is Democratic Party relic and Clinton supporter Geraldine Ferraro, who was the first woman on a presidential ticket as Mondale's VP in 1984. She basically claimed that if Barack Obama weren't black, he wouldn't be anywhere near as successful in this election as he is.

First a quick aside as to the validity of this statement. It is curious. What are his merits? He is an excellent speaker, very personable, and says what we all want to hear. Are these really the only qualities that have led to his success? I'm not so sure. There are plenty of white politicians with the same qualities. Why aren't they leading a cult of delusional followers?

That being said, in the days since she said this statement, she has been bombarded by attacks from the media and the Obama campaign calling her a racist. Obama on the Today Show told Matt Lauer that he would never say Hillary has gotten to where she is because she is a woman. But Ferraro, being a tough and loud-spoken individual, is not backing down. Instead, she is stating how offended she is to be called a racist. All she did was make an observation about Obama's success and its relation to his skin color; she never said she preferred black or white, etc. etc.

The way Ferraro was pounced upon sounds awfully familiar to me...oh, that's right, that happens to every single Republican who even mentions race. "Macacca," which was used by the Democrats to tank a very successful and viable Republican Senator; many of Ann Coulter's comments; and even Rush Limbaugh when he claimed on ESPN that McNabb's success is due in no small part to his skin color.

It is fascinating to see the Democrats being shocked at the tactics that they have employed towards Republicans for so many years, but only when they are employed at each other. Articles pop up every day about how Clinton is doing some sneaky this or tricksy that, how she is throwing cheap shots or low blows. But we Republicans knew this would happen; we experienced them completely unleash their tactics on us for nearly a decade.

This, of course, is highly beneficial to the GOP, for multiple reasons. For one, McCain has no grapes, and his campaign has even issued "talking points" about what can and cannot be said about Barack Obama so as not to set off the sensitive issue of his race, middle name "Hussein," and other things. It appears that even Hillary is more readily going after Obama than McCain will, which is dangerous considering Obama's possible (if not likely) nomination.

But also, as the Democrats tear each other apart, the rift in the party will be far more damaging than the rift on the Republican side. Yes, many Republicans have their differences with McCain; but in the end, the party wins us over. (Who am I kidding, I don't think I'll be flicking that Clinton lever in November, regardless of my feelings about McCain.) We've been grappling with this party battle for decades. But the Democrats have never experienced such a split, and it should be interesting to see how this nominating process pans out for them, for us, and for the country.