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.

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.

As Hillary took the stage for her victory speech in Columbus, Ohio, last night, there was one thing going through our minds: "Welcome back." (Or "Crap, why won't you just go away, you witch!") After a long stretch of losses to the Magic Negro, Clinton's massive and surprising victories in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island have rejuvenated her campaign and put her back on the map.

What does this mean, and why did she need it?

The Democratic race is no longer about delegate count. It is about the unaffiliated superdelegates that get to decide the nominee regardless of popular opinion. Technically before last night there was a chance either could gain the 2025 delegates needed, but it was unlikely. It is now impossible; there simply aren't enough delegates to go around. This election is probably going all the way to the convention this summer.

These big wins are about showing the superdelegates who is the real nominee, and who the mainstream electorate wants to be president. She didn't pick up any significant delegate numbers last night; in fact, Obama may have come out with more in Texas. But the state still gets put in the Clinton column, and that's all the superdelegates will care about. She has won all the major states, while Obama has won the little ones. The next primary is Pennsylvania, but it's not for another 7 weeks, which will continue to bleed each candidate dry on the campaign trail. Clinton is all but guaranteed a victory there, with double-digit leads in the polls.

It is impossible to say who is going to get the superdelegates' votes. I think it will split very evenly down the middle. There is a valid argument for each side. For Clinton: She is a known factor, she's been around for a long time, her ideas are more concrete and logical. For Obama: He is a new face, his numbers are better for electability, he will be much prettier compared to the 72-year-old McCain, and he is a brilliant speaker.

As I predicted, crunch time is approaching and the party is fleeing from the unknown Obama to the safe Clinton. She demonstrated her "experience" over the NAFTA deal these past weeks, as she was in the White House for its creation. The SNL skit mocking the media's Obama-favor also definitely helped, especially because of its accuracy. (83% of "objective" news coverage of Obama was positive. That is ridiculous!)

A group of Democrat leaders were about to approach Clinton requesting her to drop out in order to maintain unity in the party. But there is no way she will now. She wants this more than anyone can imagine, and she has a real shot. She'd rather take her chances in the general election for her own benefit than drop out for the benefit of the party.

Congratulations, Mrs. Clinton. Welcome back.

Change we can believe in!

Yes we can!

Hope!

The chorus of support for Barack Obama, becoming more and more ridiculous and widespread over the past few weeks, sounds great. Who isn't against any of the 3 slogans above? But before Americans choose someone they want to be the leader of the free world, we must ask ourselves: what does he really mean?

I believe the support for Barack Obama is a religious, faith-based delusion. Somehow, a junior senator from Illinois is going to magically fix every problem this country has. Somehow, his mere presence will cause terrorists and foreign dictators to bow down to us and apologize, offering olive branches instead of bullets.

The problem with support for Obama is that it is not based in any logical thought process. When asked to name a legislative achievement by Barack by Chris Matthews, one of his campaign staffers couldn't! If a staffer can't, how can the millions who shout "yes we can" more fervently than terrorists shout "Allahu akbar"?

I was recently discussing this with a friend who supports Obama, and I expressed my doubts of his electability when I explained that liberalism is very unpopular in America. He says to me, "Liberalism isn't running though. Change is." So I asked him to define that change. He begins rattling off the typical clauses of universal health care, ending the war, re-initiating "diplomacy", and expanding social security/welfare. Then I proceeded to ask, "how is that not liberalism again?" Barack has voted with his party on 97% of votes in the Senate. That is higher than most of the Senate Democrats. The idea that he has (or will) "reach across the aisle" is unfounded. If you want someone who will work both parties, vote for John McCain, who has actually written major legislation with ranking Democrats such as Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy.

Obama supporters can't be turned from him through logical argument because there is no logical explanation for their support. Somehow, Barack found himself on the crest of a movement, and his campaign has wisely decided to play along. He has no legislative success or any experience whatsoever to speak of. He is a liberal, but is very well-spoken and articulate and careful to avoid this. (In fact, he stated his opposition to being termed a "liberal" recently.) It is because he knows that through his words, he can fool voters into thinking he is a man of the people, when he really is just another liberal Democrat politician trying to install socialism on this country.

Will Barack win? I cannot say. He may still not even get the nomination. But his entire campaign and candidacy are completely delusional, and so are the majority of his supporters. Hope and change are not reasons to elect someone; issues are. And when it comes down to the general election, hopefully McCain can expose Obama for the uber-liberal and socialist he truly is. It will not be easy to overcome the image, but it can be done.

Barack Obama has been campaigning on one thing and one thing only: Change. His posters proudly proclaim "Change we can believe in." He talks about change and how he is a new face to revolutionize Washington.

All this may be true, but what is the point of using the word "change"? Why not just explain your solutions to the problems with our government right now?

The answer is that he is afraid that these solutions are going to be unpopular. By using the term "change", he can effectively mask all of his ideas. His speeches sound great, as he hails himself as a new John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King. But after you hear them, stop for a second and think about what he said. There is absolutely no substance, it's amazing! In his speech after New Hampshire, he quickly repeats the typical campaigning Democrat mantra: healthcare for the unfortunate, middle class tax cuts, end the war in Iraq. But all of this pales in comparison to his cries for change and bipartisanship.

Recently I was having a pleasant debate with a liberal Obama supporter, and I explained that liberalism doesn't win in this country, which is why he will probably lose in November. But he stated, word for word: "Liberalism isn't running. Change is." So I asked, what does he want to change? This friend begins to rattle off the things Barack wants to do. And I stop him and say, that's liberalism! "Change" is just an alias for liberal "solutions" to the problems we face. I'm as ready to admit the problems with our public policy, but the difference is how we solve these problems.

Hillary and even Mitt Romney have embraced this concept, although Romney is saying "Washington is broken." This is at least more accurate, saying that we have problems to fix rather than go and change everything. I still have issues with it though.

A quick note on bipartisanship. On the Tonight Show, Huckabee said that we have to end "horizontal politics", vis a vis left vs. right. Instead we have to go "up", not down. This is not a conservative. Conservatives know that we can only take the country up by going right first. Furthermore, Barack's record is hardly bipartisan, voting with is party on some 97% of bills. I'm all for that, as I just made clear, but do not try to fool us or yourself, Mr. Obama, by claiming to be "bipartisan."