Political Bandstand

When Bush decided to use national resources to wage a war against Iraq that was partially based on revenge against a dictator who had insulted his father and partially to route money from public and individual sources to the hands of himself , his cronies, and constituents, Bush had to first had to convince congress to fit him with unmitigated power. Next he had to convince a majority of Americans of sufficient cause. His strategy, if not in execution, was simple in concept. It was to pick two statements that would most disturb Americans. The first was the insistence that Saddam Hussein not only had direct ties with Al Qaeda, but also had helped to mastermind and execute the 9/11 disaster. The second was that Hussein was preparing weapons of mass destruction that he intended to use on western targets. Both were patently false statements, yet he was somehow able to convince millions of people that he was right. Bush’s simple strategy was the power of suggestion. In an episode of of Babylon 5, Captain John Sheridan said, “The problem with a big lie is that if you repeat it long enough people start to believe it.” That’s exactly what happened. Bush was able to convince enough people to go along with his plan that he secured free reign of national resources for five years before people began to get wise to his charades.

In 2008, Hillary Clinton has made the power of suggestion the definitive strategy in her campaign. At nearly every rally and in every campaign speech Clinton has included a statement insisting she’s the only candidate capable of ensuring victory against John McCain.

Hillary Clinton campaigned on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in South Dakota:

“What we have to do is determine who will be the best president and the stronger candidate against Senator McCain,” she told a couple hundred residents of the reservation. “I believe I am, and I believe the states I have won and the electoral votes I will win make a very strong argument for that.” - Clinton, I’m more electable, Daily Herald, 5/29/2008

In Montana she asserted:

“We have not gone through this exciting, unprecedented, historical election only to lose,” Clinton told several hundred supporters here. “You have to ask yourself, who is the stronger candidate? And based on every analysis of every bit of research and every poll that’s been taken and every state a Democrat has to win, I am the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall.” - Clinton Still Insists She’s More Electable Than Obama, Associated Press, May 28, 2008

Hillary even unleashed her campaign attack dog, Bill Clinton, to throw around charged accusations of an attempt by the Democratic party to cover up his wife’s strength against John McCain:

“She is winning the general election today, and he is not, according to all the evidence,” Clinton said. “And I have never seen anything like it. I have never seen a candidate treated so disrespectfully just for running.” - Bill Clinton: ‘Coverup’ hiding Hillary Clinton’s chances, cnn.com, May, 26 2008

Considering this has been Clinton’s favorite chant for the last several months, the two questions we have to ask ourselves are how much truth there is to Hillary Clinton’s claim and if there is no truth to it, is her ploy really working?

CNN’s Jack Cafferty says:

“There are polls that show Clinton in a close race with McCain, many within the sampling error. And more importantly there are polls that show Obama beating McCain by a larger margin than she does. Sometimes facts are very inconvenient.” - Clinton’s “I’m more electable” working?, Cafferty File, May 29, 2008

Perhaps the most surprising statement came from Rupert Murdoch:

Rupert Murdoch — Chairman of News Corp, new WSJ owner, and longtime torchbearer for conservative politics — said this about Barack Obama: “He is a rock star. It’s fantastic” “I love what he is saying about education.” “I don’t think he will win Florida…..but he will win in Ohio and the election”. “I am anxious to meet him.” “I want to see if he will walk the walk.”

About the presumptive Republican nominee, Murdoch said, “McCain is a friend of mine. He’s a patriot. But he’s unpredicatble. Doesn’t seem to know much about the economy. He has been in Congress a long time, and you have to make a lot of compromises. So what’s he really stand for?… I think he has a lot of problems.” - Rupert Murdoch Says Obama Will Win, The Huffington Post, May 29, 2008

Many Democrats have expressed suspicion at Murdoch’s motive for praising a Democratic candidate, considering his record for steadfast support of conservatism, however, his open criticism of John McCain may actually lend some weight to his credibility.

Another recent article by a leading Polling group, Rassmusen Reports shows Barack Obama with a health lead over Hillary Clinton with regards to a match-up against McCain. The poll was taken in New York, a state where Clinton trumped Obama on February 5, 2008.

Forty-seven percent (47%) of New York voters believe Obama is the stronger general election candidate. Forty-three percent (43%) believe Clinton would be better.

The survey also found that Obama is now viewed more favorably than Clinton in New York. Sixty-two percent (62%) of New York voters have a favorable opinion of Barack Obama while 55% give Hillary Clinton such positive reviews. For Obama, those ratings are up four points from a month ago while Clinton’s are down three points. - Election 2008: New York Presidential Election, Rassmusen Reports, May 29, 2008

The Rassmusen report seems to punch holes in what Hillary Clinton believed was an airtight argument that she was seen more favorably among big state voters whom she believed would determine the result of the general election.

When polled on specific questions pertaining to qualities seen as important in a candidate, Obama came out looking stronger than Clinton did according to the polls conducted by Pollster.com which were publishede on may 20th. The polls can be evaluated in detail here: Obama V. McCain (and V. Clinton): Beneath the Surface.

What we do know for sure is that not all polls agree, so it would be a serious miscarriage of the democratic process to overturn the results of the pledged and superdelegate counts based on one candidate’s insistence that she is the better candidate. It is also hard to tell whether or not her hard hitting propaganda engine is actually creating much difference among anyone except core Clinton supporters, although if New York is any indication of a greater trend, she is going to have to take the hint. Of course, the real test will be on May 31 when the DNC deliberates on the issue of the Florida and Michigan delegates. We are now at a pivotal point in the 2008 Democratic nomination, and it’s astounding the outcome relies on the re-examination of party rules that were already agreed upon and well-established as far back as September of 2007.

As we get closer to the wrap of the Democratic nomination Hillary Clinton has begun to push harder and harder for the Michigan and Florida delegates to be seated. The issue has been scoured to reveal that all candidates were informed as early as September 2007 that the two states would be penalized by disqualifying their delegates from application in the nomination process. The Democratic National Committee discussed this with the candidates and all of them agreed, including Clinton. They even informed the state officials in Michigan and Florida, yet the two states decided to jump the gun, ignoring DNC warnings. Officials from neither Florida nor Michigan want to admit they made a mistake, much less, face the citizens of their state bearing the fact that they squandered taxpayer money on an impotent session at the polls. Instead, they’ve chosen to point the finger at the DNC and chairman Howard Dean.

Now, faced with the reality that losing is more than likely, Hillary Clinton has chosen to stoke renewed controversy over withheld delegates. The argument that Clinton has most most forcefully delivered hinges on the concept that Florida and Michigan voters will be cast out of the process if the delegates are not seated. This argument has come up countless times:

“I think that it would be a grave disservice to the voters of Florida and Michigan to adopt any process that would disenfranchise anyone,” Clinton said. “I’m still committed to seating their delegations and I know that they’re working with the Democratic party to determine how best to proceed.” - Clinton repeats calls to seat delegates, United Press International, March 7, 2008

“…the former first lady stated, ‘that principle is not currently being applied to the nearly 2.5 million people who voted in primaries in Florida and Michigan.’ She claimed that the eventual Democratic nominee `will be hamstrung in the general election if a fair and quick resolution is not reached that ensures that the voices of these voters are heard.’”- Clinton pushes Obama on Michigan, Fla. delegates, The Hill, 05/08/08

“There are approximately 2.5million reasons to count Florida and Michigan and they are the voters who turned out in record numbers in those primaries,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “They have the right to be included in this process and we think their voices will be heard when all is said and done.” - Democrats May Drag Out Fight; Decision Time on Florida, Michigan Votes, U.S. New & World Report, May 28, 2008

Harold Ickes, hatchet man for the Clinton campaign even went so far as to push for delegates to be seated as they were allocated in the two offending states.

“On a conference call this morning, Clinton senior adviser Harold Ickes argued not only that Michigan’s and Florida’s delegations should receive full votes at the convention, but that the Michigan’s 55 uncommitted delegates should be seated as such, not given to the Obama camp.” - Ickes: Zero Delegates For Obama In MI, Newsvine, May 22, 2008

Given that candidates did not campaign in either state, Clinton was the more known candidate, so without any campaigning a premature vote was biased toward Clinton.  Also, considering the fact that Obama’s name was not even on the ballot in Michigan, it’s impossible to say there was a fair contest in either state. Therefore seating the delegates as they are would be a total disregard for voters from states that followed party guidelines, acted accordingly, and casted their votes in good faith. By crying for the voice of 2.5 million illegitimate votes to be heard, Clinton is trying to starve the parasite by killing the host.

Moreover, Considering Hillary Clinton has repeatedly asserted that her former agreement with the other Democratic candidates and the Democratic National Committee holds no weight. If she is willing to back out of a commitment made during the primary process, how can we trust her to maintain her word on anything she claims to support? This isn’t by any means the first time she’s gone back on her word. Clinton has been known to change her mind any way the wind blows. The Bush campaign’s labeling of John Kerry a flip-flopper in the 2004 may have cost Kerry the election, but somehow, through it all, Clinton has been treated with the kid glove.

We’ve all heard stories about how McCain did a face plant after four shots of vodka in a drinking contest with Hillary Clinton, but fewer people have heard about what happens when McCain overdoses on Parsley. Throughout much of the Bush administration McCain has served as a reality check to hard line conservatives with his outspoken candor. He butted heads with the Neo Cons on their policies in Iraq and their seeming favor of torture. Suddenly when rumors of McCain’s presidential bid began to circulate, he did a rapid about face. He began smooching at Bush’s boot heels on the Iraq war policy. Before long he was touting torture as if it were better than his granny’s hot cross buns. By doing so he’s been able to successfully gain the support of core Republicans. Bush, however, has lost footing among all but a very narrow group of voters as marked by an approval rating below 30%. So by aligning himself with Bush, McCain has chosen to fight from low ground.

Parsley represents another factor that threatens to pull mainstream support away from McCain. For weeks the media pummeled Obama over the Jeremiah Wright sermons. So much that it cost him several points in the national polls and may have even cost him the Pennsylvania primary. Meanwhile McCain’s connection to Rod Parsley, a spiritual leader who is even far more fanatical and influential than Jeremiah Wright, has gone almost completely under the radar. McCain showcased Parsley at his February 26 campaign rally in Cincinnati, calling him a “spiritual leader.”

Rod Parsley is the pastor of the World Harvest Church in Columbus, Ohio. World Harvest Church has an auditorium that seats 5200 people, and has a 122,000 square foot Ministry Activity Center. Parsley is known for his fervent sermons and forceful speaking style, which can be seen on the Rod Parsley show broadcast by several different television stations nationwide. Unbiased viewers know him for sprinkling truths with false information, assumptions, and misconceptions. His sermons have included some particularly charged rhetoric, including his statement about the religion of Islam: “The fact is that America was founded, in part, with the intention of seeing this false religion destroyed, and I believe September 11, 2001, was a generational call to arms that we can no longer ignore.” Parsley has written several books including Silent No More published in 2005. In the book he rails on homosexuals and Muslims, claiming there is a “war between Islam and Christian civilization.” He goes on to call Islam an “anti-Christ religion.”

Parsley seems the perfect man to complete the triumvirate, with McCain as point man and John Hagee bringing up the rear. Even though together they created a team no less suited for each other than the Three Stooges, McCain had a sudden change of heart. With mounting pressure and embarrassment over alignment with extremists, McCain recently saw fit to swat down endorsement from fanatic John Hagee, an Evangelical Christian pastor who has made a number of inflammatory comments including associating Adolf Hitler with the Roman Catholic Church and claiming Hurricane Katrina was payback for gayness in New Orleans.

In a statement to CNN on Thursday, McCain said “Obviously, I find these remarks and others deeply offensive and indefensible, and I repudiate them. I did not know of them before Rev. Hagee’s endorsement, and I feel I must reject his endorsement as well.” -McCain rejects ministers endorsement, cnn.com, May 22, 2008

McCain later told reporters in Stockton: ”I just think that the statement is crazy and unacceptable.” Yet Hagee’s own testament casts doubt on McCain’s sincerity. In an interview with New York Times Magazine , Hagee said, “It’s true that McCain’s campaign sought my endorsement.” Not to mention, McCain let Hagee ride his crotch for months before deciding he would stiff arm him and then do an about face. The same day, McCain announced his divorce from Rod Parsley. This suggests McCain hoped to backpedal only after realizing the effect aligning himself with such extremist figures would have on voter turnout.

Together Parsley and Hagee create a force to be reckoned with. It will certainly be interesting to see what kind of power they can muster for McCain come the general election in November.

Following eight years of plunder by the Bush administration US citizens are beginning to consider whether our political system truly serves the greater good of the country. One would think a Democrat’s dream would be one of a party change, one where a new president takes the reins and rolls back the policies and agendas of a dictator-like ruler. In 2008, that’s not enough. The majority of voters want a change in ideals, not just policy. And the primaries reflect that. One would think the time is ripe for just any Democrat, running in the wake of George W. Bush, to waltz in and sweep the polls, but what is certainly a boon for Obama may actually be a pitfall for Clinton.

Hillary Clinton may be a Democrat. She may be the wife of former president Bill Clinton. She may also be too much like Bush for the ease of most Americans. Like Bush, Clinton has come to represent catering to big business, spooning with lobbyists and special interest groups, cronieism. Her campaign has brought on lengthy bouts of negativity and smear tactics. These are all traits of an era of politics that has been building since after World War II. It has been an era of politics marked by the lack of a unified goal in America, so politicians have been allowed the freedom to commit themselves, often solely, to political entrenchment. This era has come to a climax with the disenfranchisement of tens of thousands, perhaps even hundreds of thousands of voters with the election and re-election of George W. Bush.

The split between young and old voters represents this divide. With the majority of older Democrats voting for Clinton and younger Democrats springing for Obama. At 60, Clinton still has enough spunk in her to compete against a 45 year old candidate, Obama, so age alone is not a deciding factor for most voters. Bill Clinton called younger voters gullible for supporting Obama.

Older voters gravitate to Hillary Clinton because they’re too wise to be fooled by Barack Obama’s rhetoric, former president Bill Clinton told Pennsylvania voters today. -Bill Clinton: Older voters too savvy to fall for Obama, Political Intelligence, April 15, 2008

Bill Clinton is doing what he’s been doing since the beginning of the Hillary Clinton campaign, trying to boost her standings with Democratic voters by stabbing at Barack Obama. I find his statement disagreeable considering Obama fares better among college educated voters than Clinton does. And while education doesn’t guarantee wisdom, it does give people more tools with which to gain it.

The division between younger and older voters comes down in part topolitical styles. The youth of today don’t have the ingrained unconditional respect for authority instilled in older voters by World War II and the 1969 Moon Landing. They are looking behind the candidate to determine what they stand for. Clinton has sent too many conflicting messages and too many of her actions have been contradictory. Obama has been consistent, stable, and forthcoming.

Older generations seem to accept the dirty politics and nepotism as a part of the political process. They believe all the old stereotypes, that all politicians are liars, cheaters, and thieves, but what makes one politician better than another is that the good ones don’t get caught. Younger voters and less cynical older voters aren’t ready to give up so fast. They believe in a better future, a future where a politician can play the game, maintain dignity, and even keep the game fair. A future like this demands leaders who are conscientious and honorable, and these are traits Obama supporters see in him. When Clinton supporters look at her they see a “fighter.” George W. Bush is also a fighter and we can see the havoc that can wreak on an economy. Younger generations can see there’s been too much fight, not enough diplomacy, and the time is now for a different kind of leader to take charge.

When the United States sets out to solve a clash in ideals the struggle is always bitter. Take the American Civil War, for example. You might say the Democratic party is going through its own civil war right now. The American Civil War slanted in favor of the more righteous set of ideals. If that might be any kind of indicator of how power is divided in America, Obama is about as righteous as modern politics gets. Which means Clinton’s loss represents much more than just the defeat of a high profile extension of a powerful political engine. It also means the rejection of the methods, traditions, and ideology she stands for.

The media has been a common scapegoat when it comes to instigating controversy about issues that have potential to provoke the public emotionally. In some cases perhaps justly so, in other cases perhaps not. In this case we have to take a good look at the nature of the media coverage from day one of the Barack Obama vs. Hillary Clinton race till now. In doing so we can determine if there has been any sort of bias. If so, what might be the reasons behind them.

Throughout most of the race Clinton has been the steady underdog. News sources have made clear choices about their portrayal of the nomination process. The Democratic race is made up of many small races, and news sources have their obligation to report at every stage of the process. But if there’s too much interpretation delivered we end up with biased news designed to assist one candidate or another. In this race the media has done everything they can to bolster Clinton’s progress.

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the California Democratic primary on Tuesday, beating rival Barack Obama in the biggest contest of the day and boosting her claim to the party’s U.S. presidential nomination, media projected. - Reuters, February 6, 2008

Reuters February 6th article represented the collective sentiments of news sources all over the country. Reuters had release an article one day prior almost mocking Obama’s super Tuesday performance:

New York was the fifth state to go for the former first lady in voting on Super Tuesday, so called because nearly half of the U.S. states are holding contests to choose Republican or Democratic candidates for the November general election. Obama has won two states so far, projections show. -Reuters, February 5, 2008

But the article was misleading, as when the contest was finished Obama had taken 13 states compared to Clinton’s 10. Obama came home with 820 delegates compared to Clinton’s 814. Of course, Obama’s 11 streak run winning contests from American’s overseas to Wisconsin, there was nothing newsworthy to tell about Hillary Clinton save for the fact that she’s up at 3am every morning. But when Ohio and Texas sprung for Clinton the media erupted.

Big Wins for Clinton in Texas and Ohio -New York Times, March 5, 2008 Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) roared back into contention for the Democratic presidential primary race Tuesday night after claiming primary victories in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island. -Washington Post, March 5, 2008 …Hillary Clinton pulled out game-changing wins in Ohio and Texas Tuesday night… -Daily News, March 5, 2008

Even then, Obama’s sweep of the Texas caucus handily mitigated Clinton’s gains. Yet Clinton has been referred to in countless news articles as “The Comeback Kid,” representing more examples of media source attempts to suggest that she was actually gaining on Obama with enough effect to overtake his delegate lead.

Later, in the Pennsylvania contest, media sources were constantly overstating the results. Nearly every analyst agreed Clinton needed to score a double digit lead even to stay in the race. Prior to the Pennsylvania contest analysts on NPR had said without a 20 point lead, really nothing in the race will even change, yet after the results came in from Pennsylvania precincts major news networks blew it up into apocalyptic proportion. Articles everywhere claimed a ten point lead on Clinton’s part. The media was exaggerating. The actual vote count in Pennsylvania showed Clinton with 54.6% of the votes and Obama trailing behind at 45.4%. That’s a lead of 9.2 percentage points. If we feel perception is so important in the race, as that seems to be what most of Clinton’s arguments have been implying for the last few months when she’s repeated she’s more capable of beating McCain in November despite the popular vote count, how would the public have perceived the Pennsylvania primary if major news networks had rounded down instead of up? With most analysts saying it wouldn’t be worth it for her to continue in the race without at double digit win, considering how she fell short, one could make a valid argument that it was over for her at that moment, yet the media convinced the public she had reached another milestone, and the people ate it up.

Even now, after a seething defeat in North Carolina and a near loss in Indiana Clinton’s name was flying high in the on CNN the night of May 6th. From the moment precincts began reporting till at least noon the next day CNN.com was rotating photos on the front page showing Hillary Clinton waving to her supporters, wearing a shit eating grin looking as smug and self-righteous as the night she came out victorious in the Ohio primary. With the help of big news networks, Hillary Clinton is trying to win by doing what she does best: gloating. She has gloated over each small victory with such ferver that some of her supporters believe she’s actually winning. The lesson she needs to learn is that gloating over small skirmishes doesn’t mean you are winning the war. Obama is in the driver seat and will likely remain so even when the final pledged delegate is counted.

Hillary Clinton has recently gone balls out in Indiana and North Carolina in an effort to strip Barack Obama of his significant delegate lead. Some analysts have been saying Clinton needed a solid win in both states to justify even staying in the race. Other analysts felt if she could claim a large enough victory in Indiana she would have another rabbit in her hat to keep her campaign afloat. With the last of the results trickling in from the precints it appears big cajones alone weren’t enough to save Clinton from going limp on May 6th.

According to CNN, with 99% of North Carolina precincts reported, Obama had a 14 percentage point lead over Clinton at 56% with, 58 delegates in his pocket. Clinton weighed in at 42% with a 42 delegate take. North Carolina held a stash of 115 delegates total.

In Indiana, Clinton won by a miniscule margin of 2 percentage points at 52% and 37 delegates, whereas Obama walked away with 49% of the votes and 33 delegates, according to CNN. Indiana held a total of 72 delegates.

In the end, Obama came away with 91 points and Clinton took 79, suggesting Obama bludgeoned Clinton with a 12 point net delegate gain, broadening the gap between Senator Clinton and the Democratic nomination.

Hillary Clinton seemed oblivious to the fact that she was the loser of the evening, essentially declaring herself the winner when she stated, “…it’s full speed on to the White House.” What she didn’t seem to account for is that she has a near 150 point delegate gap to traverse if she even hopes to approach Obama’s lead in the Democratic race, and some analysts predicted Indiana might serve as a tie-breaker in the recent contests, but they didn’t predict Obama would win so decisively in North Carolina and that Indiana would be so close. Clinton used the rhetoric to her advantage in her Indiana speech claiming her campaign has “broken the tie.”

Clinton represents a small minority who feel this was a clear victory for her. Most don’t agree. “She got bitch slapped, Laramie,” said David Reid of the Center on Political Scrutiny, “Hillary came over the wire all flaming and trolling, but the citizens of North Carolina told her they need more than just a bunch of belly bumping.”

Before Tuesday Hillary Clinton had been reassuring everyone this would be a “game-changing” moment in the race. She was absolutely right. The game has changed in a way that’s going to make it even less possible for her to win. Huge cajones or not, the Clinton campaign may finally be spent.

Hillary Clinton joined Senator John McCain and President George Bush in the war room at the Donald Rumsfeld school of diplomacy when she threatened to ‘totally obliterate’ Iran. In 2008 we’re in a situation where the United States has been domestically incapacitated by a sustained war the majority of Americans disagree with. It was, firstly a war that was waged on the false pretense that there was evidence proving Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, secondly a war that was caused by a failure to institute adequate diplomacy. Moreover, it was a war concocted by a hawkish, crazy eyed blood mongers who could not and still cannot quantify any benefit to the American populace. Quite the opposite, in fact. Terrorist factions have multiplied. Future threat to the United States has actually increased by garnering the attention of terrorists, and our economy, high on the hog during the 90’s, now staggering from a record deficit caused by out of control defense spending, and record oil prices from a Mideast, whose individual parts were already threatening to fall apart at the seams, now plunged into complete destabilization. The only positive that might be gleened is the lessons that can be taken away from mistakes as vast as the Bush administration has made. Lessons unfortunately Hillary Clinton’s lust for power has stunted her learning.

Hillary Clinton, in her most bellicose comments since the presidential race began, today threatened to obliterate Iran if it launched a nuclear strike against Israel. Speaking as voters went to the polls in the potentially crucial Pennsylvania primary, the New York senator said: “I want the Iranians to know that if I’m the president, we will attack Iran (if it attacks Israel).” -Clinton makes threat against Iran as voters go to polls, guardian.co.uk, April 22, 2008

Robert Scheer did a good job at highlighting the seriousness of a statement that Clinton seems to toss around as lightly as she might toss an orange at a fruit stand:

Seizing upon a question as to how she would respond to a nuclear attack by Iran, which doesn’t have nuclear weapons, on Israel, which does, Hillary mocked reasoned discourse by promising to “totally obliterate them,” in an apparent reference to the population of Iran. That is not a word gaffe; it is an assertion of the right of our nation to commit genocide on an unprecedented scale. -Clinton Threatens to ‘Obliterate’ Iran, Truth Dig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines, Apr 22, 2008

With Clinton going on to make threats of “massive retaliation,” it’s important to note how similar this threat against Iran is to Bush’s pre Iraq war stance on Saddam Hussein. Mistake number one, assuming without proof the nation in question has weapons of mass destruction. Mistake number two, failure to institute adequate diplomacy. Essentially, Clinton’s policy is lifted directly from the pages of Bush’s presidential guide book. Not to mention, this is coming from a candidate who has endlessly touted her foreign relations competency on the campaign trail.

Many of her supporters will excuse this kind of talk as election season rhetoric designed to win votes in a largely blue collar state whose citizens value actions over words. If so, our worries are no lessened. Someone who uses words as strong as those in a public forum just to get votes obviously doesn’t understand the seriousness of her representation of her ideas. She obvously doesn’t realize words she uses in her campaign rallies have just as much capability to enflame and provoke leaders of Arab nations as demands she makes at a UN negotiation table. A candidate such as this, despite countless times declaring otherwise, is not ready to take charge of the White House.

A coalition comprised of media factions and his opponents have measured Barack Obama somewhere on the scale between the outlandish face of Reverend Wright and whatever they believe is wrong. It is now well established that Obama and Reverend Wright had close social ties. It is also well established that Reverend Wright expressed some opinions and made statements that were potentially inflammatory. If we really intend to weigh out a presidential candidate, we first have to consider why this controversy has surfaced. Second we have to determine exactly what message is being delivered. Only then can we determine if the matter is even deserving of controversy and how we might measure it by our own standards.

The media has a vested interest in fueling the fires of controversy, because conflict increases ratings and higher ratings lead to the allocation of more funding to specific programming. Because news made up of purely facts is considered dull and boring to people who commonly subject themselves to the bombardment of stimulus offered by regular entertainment programming, news networks feel obligated to provide interpretive content that often overstates or exaggerates the significance of facts.

The Clinton campaign is highlighting the Obama/Wright connection for obvious reasons. Associating him with a far out zealot who is seen as having criticized groups of people who are central to the core values of America can certainly shatter Obama’s standings with mainstrean Democratic voters. Clinton’s desire to win is so strong she’s willing to force feed American voters with whatever she wants to believe. We’ve seen evidence of this based on some of the lies she’s told on the campaign stump. Take a look at the Think on These Things website for concrete proof.

Now, considering that we have two biased sources, I’m going to urge people to weigh out the significance of this with an intellectual bias. As Wright was a high profile pastor at Obama’s perish, there’s no question their relationship would have been close, but because their relationship is clearly documented the question becomes how much of Wright’s ideology Obama actually believes in. The answer to that is easy. We have to look at the ideas Obama promotes in his own interactions with the public. We have to look at whether or not he’s been consistent with his message. Most importantly, we have to look at his record in politics. Obama has spent a great deal of his time as a politician fighting special interest. He has also devoted a good deal of effort toward passing ethics legislation. His record is not at all reflective of his challengers charges against him.

People also need to put themselves in his position by thinking back throughout their lives and considering if there has ever been anyone whome they had an obligation to respect that expressed views and ideas or opinions they personally disagreed with or even condemned. I’m going to go so far as to say that every one of us has known a Jeremiah Wright at some point in our lives. He could have been a friend, a relative, a family friend, a neighbor, a teacher, a coach, or any other potentially influential figure in a persons life. Does this mean everyone agrees with that type of person’s beliefs? If their ideas aren’t agreeable, do others have an obligation to publicly condemn them? We can’t hold Obama to expectations any higher than our own on that matter. Or else each of us would be condemning a lot of friends, relatives, and neighbors over the years.

Who is saying there’s something wrong with Barack’s name?  Quite a few people apparently.  Numerous instances are cited in the a December 20, 2006 Media Matters for America article, Schlussel: Should Barack Hussein Obama be president “when we are fighting the war of our lives against Islam”?

• During MSNBC’s special election coverage on November 7, co-anchor Chris Matthews remarked that Obama’s “middle name is Hussein” and suggested that it would “be interesting down the road.”

• On November 27, MSNBC host Tucker Carlson referred to radio host Bill Press as “a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club.”

• During the November 28 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball, Republican strategist Ed Rogers referred to “Barack Hussein Obama.”

• On the December 5 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, senior political correspondent Carl Cameron told viewers: “Though he’s written two books about himself already, most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama Junior’s uncommonly privileged life.”

• On the December 11 edition of CNN’s Situation Room, correspondent Jeanne Moos noted that “[o]nly one little consonant differentiates” Obama and Osama. She then added, “[A]s if that similarity weren’t enough. How about sharing the name of a former dictator? You know his middle name, Hussein.”

• On the December 11 edition of The Situation Room, CNN senior political analyst Jeff Greenfield compared the similarity of Obama’s “business casual” clothing to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s “jacket-and-no-tie look.” Greenfield concluded the segment by saying: “Now, it is one thing to have a last name that sounds like Osama and a middle name, Hussein, that is probably less than helpful. But an outfit that reminds people of a charter member of the axis of evil, why, this could leave his presidential hopes hanging by a thread.” He later explained on the CNN website that he was making “a joke.”

• On December 13, Matthews teased another interview with Rogers by describing the strategist as “the one who just loves Barack Obama’s middle name Hussein.”

• On the December 14 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Rush Limbaugh gave Obama a “nickname” — “Barack Hussein Odumbo” (in reference to Obama’s “big ears”).

• On the December 14 edition of Hardball, NBC’s Mike Viqueira announced “a man named Barack Obama, whose middle name, incidentally, is Hussein, running for president.”

These purveyor of defame owe the American people an explanation of what a persons name has to do with an individuals commitement to his/her country?    Cassius Marcellus Clay Jr. changed his name to Muhammad Ali and announced in 1964 his faith in Islam.  He’s now a member of the Sufi Islam group, but is undeniably respected by sports fans and blue collar workers, types who often pride themselves for their pro-Americanism.  Moreover, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush on November 9, 2005 and has been called an American hero by some.  The implication here is that high profile citizens are great Americans and model citizens only when it’s convenient or beneficial to the cause of a preferred political faction, whichever one is in fashion at that time. 

There is also Kareem Abdul-Jabbar,  standing at 7′2″, weighing in at 225 pounds.  Although Abdul-Jabbar has a name that is distinctly of Arab descent, I think you would find it hard to find many who would stand in his face and accuse him of lacking in Americanism.   Boasting 38,387 points and 17,440 rebounds he’s in the history books as one of the most respectable players in professional basketball.  The fact that he has an Arab last name has not affected his ability to do his job in an American basketball league.

The point is, no one ever questioned the abilities of these sports players to do their jobs based on their names.  Why would we do so for politicians?  Barack Obama hasn’t shown any propensity to support anti-American causes during his political career so far and his consistency has been commendable, so there is no cause for claiming he has the potential jeopardize national welfare. 

Besides, name calling, making fun of a person’s name, likening a person’s name to another’s name for the sake of associating them with someone unlikeable or unpatriotic.  Those are tactics I recall used by children on the playground in gradeschool.  Are these people proposing American adults are no more civilized, no more discerning, no more capable of telling the difference between right and wrong than a group of third graders engaging in a dispute over a game of hopscotch gone wrong?  They’re certainly implying that.  Then how can we accept their evaluations as opinions, much less, as facts.  How can we trust their assessments of a political candidate?  If we can’t trust them about that, what can we trust them about?  Can we put the fate of this country in the hands of a bunch of overgrown third graders?  I’ll leave it at that.

The Hillary Clinton campaign continues to champion the idea that delegates from states containing higher percentages of African-American Democrats and states where higher numbers of cross over voters reside are somehow less valid than delegates pledged by states consisting of larger numbers of Democrats like New York and California.

“I have won the big states. I’ve won the states that a Democrat has to win.” -Hillary Clinton, CNN Interview, March 12, 2008

“The Clinton campaign has been using the big-state argument on and off since Super Tuesday, when Sen. Clinton won big prizes including New York, California and New Jersey.” -The Wall Street Journal, March 24, 2008

“…the Clinton camp claims it has won the most important states…” -Tribune’s Washington Bureau, The Swamp, April 3, 2008

To Hillary Clinton supporters it seems like a point of leverage to not only win the support of superdelegates, but also to intimidate Barack Obama into abandoning his post as Democratic frontrunner. To everyone else it might seem like dogma. But a truly discerning eye would see it for what it is, downright dirty elitism. By calling to favor the delegates of some states over others it represents an effort to corrupt the nomination process and suggests disregard for a system designed to promote democrasy.

Clinton’s tactic insults the intelligence of anyone who has the comprehension skills to understand messages any deeper than basic meanings of words. It should be a warning to those who are not regularly inclined to follow politics that they must hold the words of politicians under closer scrutiny if they place any value whatsoever on virtues like honesty, trustworthiness, and transparency when it comes to our elected officials. A high percentage of Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 and 2004 are now punishing themselves for being willingly duped into electing him not once, but twice. They should now be less willing to allow contenders to run laps with the good will of American voters.

My evaluation will likely not change anyone’s opinion. It is pretty tough to sway the vote of a citizen who stances steadfastly behind a candidate of their choice. Neither will I attempt to do so by debunking a single strategy central to the Clinton campaign agenda. I will, however, encourage those who are still unconvinced to read a particularly well thought out article that delves deeper into the analysis of this particular subject: Hanging by a Thread: Hillary Clinton’s big-state fallacy.
by Jeffrey H. Anderson