Obama Appears Inevitable While Clinton Only Has Hope
James William Smith asked:
Political pundits are beginning to sense an end to the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Last week Peggy Noonan wrote a column questioning how gracious Hillary Clinton would be in defeat. This week **** Morris predicted an eventual nomination victory for Barack Obama and the end of the pursuit of the White House by the former First Lady.
So are these pundits correct? Is the race for the Democratic party nomination over? Will it in fact be Barack Obama and John McCain in a race for the White House in the fall? Since at this point in the campaign it is all about the delegate count, let’s look at the possibilities.
The delegate count after last night’s Potomac Primaries is still very close with Obama leading Clinton by just 67 delegates (1242 to 1175) according to CBS News. The magic number for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination is 2025. Nevertheless the campaign of Hillary Clinton certainly appears to be in big trouble.
Hillary Clinton has lost every primary and caucus since Super Tuesday and her prospects for victory are slim for the rest of the month of February. She has loaned her campaign five million dollars according to various news reports. Her senior staff has been working without pay and her campaign is currently raising half of the amount of new campaign funds on a daily basis in comparison to the campaign of her opponent. She has just replaced her campaign manager.
The Clinton current campaign strategy is to conserve money and concede the remaining state primaries in February to Obama. The campaign is concentrating on winning the remaining primaries in March, April, and May. This would give Barack Obama substantial victories in all the remaining primaries in February (Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Washington). It should give him about 1300 total delegates on March 1, 2008.
This February election result would insure that Clinton would trail Obama by around 90 – 100 delegates entering the March 4, 2008 primary contests of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. She will have not beaten Obama in a primary or caucus for a month. To remain in the race, Clinton would need victories approaching 60% of the vote in every remaining state except Mississippi in the month of March. If she somehow pulled this result off she would have about 1436 delegates on April 1, 2007. Obama would win about 165 delegates and his total would be 1465. The dubious news for Hillary Clinton is that Obama would still remain ahead at the end of March in delegates even if Clinton ran the table in March and won each contest (except Mississippi) by a 60-40% margin.
In April, 151 delegates will be at stake in the state of Pennsylvania. Let’s assume that Hillary Clinton wins that state with 60% of the vote and captures the same proportion of delegates. Her delegate total would be 1556 to Obama’s 1522, giving her a slight lead in delegate count. There would be 214 remaining delegates for the candidates to battle for during the primaries in the month of May.
Therefore, for Hillary Clinton to regain the lead on pledged delegates from Obama, she needs to win all the primaries (except Mississippi) with at least 60% of the vote in March and April. She needs to win the primaries in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. She needs to achieve these primary victories with 60% or more of the vote. She will be outspent by the Obama campaign since he is raising more money. She also needs to produce these victories after a month of non-stop primary losses. Clinton also must realize that this is the same dubious strategy that did not turn out well for Republican Rudy Giuliani at the beginning of the 2008 election season. Based on all these factors, her chance to secure the Democratic Party nomination at this point look like a long shot indeed.
It is true that there are still about 500 remaining Democratic Party super delegates that remain uncommitted to any candidate. These delegates are Democratic party members and insiders. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that these delegates will quickly jump aboard the campaign that looks like a winner during March. After the primaries on March 4, 2008, if Obama is still ahead by at least 100 delegates and has won most of the state primaries and caucuses ( he has won 23 of the 35 to date), the super delegates will begin to endorse him in significant numbers and the Democratic race will be all but over.
The fact is that Obama has been endorsed by too many Democratic party regulars to be a victim of a back room deal that would have most of the remaining super delegates endorse Hillary Clinton. Also, the Democratic party will be careful not to allow insiders to appear to overturn the actual voting results of the primary states. However, in a last desperate attempt to stave off defeat, Hillary Clinton will probably try to use the disqualified delegates in the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage. These delegates were disqualified because each state moved its primary forward in the 2008 election calendar. As a result of breaking party rules the states delegates are not currently included in the delegate totals of either candidate.
In general, Hillary Clinton has to hope she can stop Obama’s political momentum very soon. Indeed, it now looks like she will be behind by nearly 100 delegates after all the February primaries are finished. One hundred delegates is a dangerous number to be trailing in this election year with the Democratic Party rule of proportionate allocation of the vote for each states delegates. Her only remaining hope is to run the table with big (twenty percentage point) wins in all the remaining primaries during the months of March, April, and May. However, her campaign’s last stand may well turn out to be on March 4, 2008 in either Ohio or Texas.
It is interesting to see how things can change so quickly in politics. Six months ago, Hillary Clinton was the candidate of inevitability and Barack Obama was the candidate of hope. In February 2008, each candidate’s prospects for the Democratic Presidential nomination are now exactly the reverse.
Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress
Political pundits are beginning to sense an end to the Presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton. Last week Peggy Noonan wrote a column questioning how gracious Hillary Clinton would be in defeat. This week **** Morris predicted an eventual nomination victory for Barack Obama and the end of the pursuit of the White House by the former First Lady.
So are these pundits correct? Is the race for the Democratic party nomination over? Will it in fact be Barack Obama and John McCain in a race for the White House in the fall? Since at this point in the campaign it is all about the delegate count, let’s look at the possibilities.
The delegate count after last night’s Potomac Primaries is still very close with Obama leading Clinton by just 67 delegates (1242 to 1175) according to CBS News. The magic number for the Democratic Party Presidential nomination is 2025. Nevertheless the campaign of Hillary Clinton certainly appears to be in big trouble.
Hillary Clinton has lost every primary and caucus since Super Tuesday and her prospects for victory are slim for the rest of the month of February. She has loaned her campaign five million dollars according to various news reports. Her senior staff has been working without pay and her campaign is currently raising half of the amount of new campaign funds on a daily basis in comparison to the campaign of her opponent. She has just replaced her campaign manager.
The Clinton current campaign strategy is to conserve money and concede the remaining state primaries in February to Obama. The campaign is concentrating on winning the remaining primaries in March, April, and May. This would give Barack Obama substantial victories in all the remaining primaries in February (Hawaii, Wisconsin, and Washington). It should give him about 1300 total delegates on March 1, 2008.
This February election result would insure that Clinton would trail Obama by around 90 – 100 delegates entering the March 4, 2008 primary contests of Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, and Vermont. She will have not beaten Obama in a primary or caucus for a month. To remain in the race, Clinton would need victories approaching 60% of the vote in every remaining state except Mississippi in the month of March. If she somehow pulled this result off she would have about 1436 delegates on April 1, 2007. Obama would win about 165 delegates and his total would be 1465. The dubious news for Hillary Clinton is that Obama would still remain ahead at the end of March in delegates even if Clinton ran the table in March and won each contest (except Mississippi) by a 60-40% margin.
In April, 151 delegates will be at stake in the state of Pennsylvania. Let’s assume that Hillary Clinton wins that state with 60% of the vote and captures the same proportion of delegates. Her delegate total would be 1556 to Obama’s 1522, giving her a slight lead in delegate count. There would be 214 remaining delegates for the candidates to battle for during the primaries in the month of May.
Therefore, for Hillary Clinton to regain the lead on pledged delegates from Obama, she needs to win all the primaries (except Mississippi) with at least 60% of the vote in March and April. She needs to win the primaries in Ohio, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont, Wyoming, and Pennsylvania. She needs to achieve these primary victories with 60% or more of the vote. She will be outspent by the Obama campaign since he is raising more money. She also needs to produce these victories after a month of non-stop primary losses. Clinton also must realize that this is the same dubious strategy that did not turn out well for Republican Rudy Giuliani at the beginning of the 2008 election season. Based on all these factors, her chance to secure the Democratic Party nomination at this point look like a long shot indeed.
It is true that there are still about 500 remaining Democratic Party super delegates that remain uncommitted to any candidate. These delegates are Democratic party members and insiders. The problem for Hillary Clinton is that these delegates will quickly jump aboard the campaign that looks like a winner during March. After the primaries on March 4, 2008, if Obama is still ahead by at least 100 delegates and has won most of the state primaries and caucuses ( he has won 23 of the 35 to date), the super delegates will begin to endorse him in significant numbers and the Democratic race will be all but over.
The fact is that Obama has been endorsed by too many Democratic party regulars to be a victim of a back room deal that would have most of the remaining super delegates endorse Hillary Clinton. Also, the Democratic party will be careful not to allow insiders to appear to overturn the actual voting results of the primary states. However, in a last desperate attempt to stave off defeat, Hillary Clinton will probably try to use the disqualified delegates in the Michigan and Florida primaries to her advantage. These delegates were disqualified because each state moved its primary forward in the 2008 election calendar. As a result of breaking party rules the states delegates are not currently included in the delegate totals of either candidate.
In general, Hillary Clinton has to hope she can stop Obama’s political momentum very soon. Indeed, it now looks like she will be behind by nearly 100 delegates after all the February primaries are finished. One hundred delegates is a dangerous number to be trailing in this election year with the Democratic Party rule of proportionate allocation of the vote for each states delegates. Her only remaining hope is to run the table with big (twenty percentage point) wins in all the remaining primaries during the months of March, April, and May. However, her campaign’s last stand may well turn out to be on March 4, 2008 in either Ohio or Texas.
It is interesting to see how things can change so quickly in politics. Six months ago, Hillary Clinton was the candidate of inevitability and Barack Obama was the candidate of hope. In February 2008, each candidate’s prospects for the Democratic Presidential nomination are now exactly the reverse.
Caffeinated Content – Members-Only Content for WordPress
What Will Barack Obama Do About Online Casinos?
Marcus Miles asked:
Millions of people eagerly viewed the recent American election. Millions of people in millions of countries stayed up late to get the result of this landmark election. Barack Obama and John McCain had worked around the clock. They had debated, they had argued, they had spent countless dollars trying to convince the American people – the Joe plumbers, the hockey moms – to tick their box in the voting booth. After the votes were counted, only one man walked out onto the stage the winner. He was Barack Obama. Many have speculated why Obama finally won. In the end, he promised change and after two terms of George W. Bush, it was what the American public, and the world, wanted.
Barack Obama promises a different approach to politics and a confident press conference recently suggested he was going to keep to the script that got him elected. He told journalists his actions for his first months as president. Obama set out his aims for economic revival, stimulus packages and troop withdrawal from Iraq. It’s questionable whether many reporters in the group had questions concerning online gaming. Indeed, the 44th president probably has bigger things on his mind. He is the new representative of the American people after all.
When the issues surrounding the recession, the war and fossil fuels have subsided though, the issue of online gaming will find its way into the Whitehouse. Obama’s call on online casinos will choose the fate of gaming in the US. The most important question left remaining is what will the President decide to do; to allow online casinos to operate in the US, or not? While the 2006 Safe Port Act prevents online gamers from wagering money on online casinos, there are some positive omens that an Obama presidency may overturn the law introduced by the outgoing president, George W. Bush.
But, there are signs of hope for online gaming players. Comments made in the past from Obama hints he’d study the pros and cons of legalising online casinos across the United States. Asked a question by reporters during his election bid, Obama said that he could see the opportunities a regulated online casino industry could bring. Although Obama hasn’t declared that he’d reinstate online casinos in the USA, his statement has heartened many players and online operators alike. Obama’s comments from an appearance in Las Vegas, that online casinos was a good economic factor, gave more joy to online casinos wishing to play in America again.
American players shouldn’t be too eager to log onto their nearest online casino though Obama has told a number of reporters that he’s not the biggest supporter of online casino gaming. When a president, voted into the Whitehouse on a wave of change, talks to a newspaper and explains that online casino gaming can have devastating ethical and social costs, online casino companies hoping to run their casinos in America shouldn’t start buying up domain names. He’s also had a track of anti-casino voting, blocking the increase of the Illinois gaming arena in 1999.
A lot of online casino companies will be troubled by Barack Obama’s wavering opinion on the issue of internet casinos. Although, a President can often change his mind and there may be a possibility for online casinos in America. A possibility, but don’t start dreaming of chips and cards at the moment.
As an occasional poker player, Obama is known for his calm poker game. As a member of the Senate, Obama often indulged in games of poker. He never bet huge amounts, rarely bluffed, and always kept his hand close to his chest. Could there be any similarities between his playing and presidential methods If you ask Obama about his opinions on online casinos, will he just glance at his cards and smiles?
Given the scale of Democratic gains in The Senate, Obama should have no problems passing a law to allow internet casinos. Whether he will is another matter altogether. The regulation of online casinos has been seen to provide a large of tax revenue for other countries; battling against a faltering economy and seeing a strong possibility of recession the USA, will Barack Obama be able to give a good reason for keeping the law on online gaming, purely because of any possible moral protests he may have? No one really knows until Obama starts his presidency in dark nights of January. Until Inauguration Day, American casinos will have little option but to lie back and pray to the gaming gods for a successful throw of the die.
Caffeinated Content
Millions of people eagerly viewed the recent American election. Millions of people in millions of countries stayed up late to get the result of this landmark election. Barack Obama and John McCain had worked around the clock. They had debated, they had argued, they had spent countless dollars trying to convince the American people – the Joe plumbers, the hockey moms – to tick their box in the voting booth. After the votes were counted, only one man walked out onto the stage the winner. He was Barack Obama. Many have speculated why Obama finally won. In the end, he promised change and after two terms of George W. Bush, it was what the American public, and the world, wanted.
Barack Obama promises a different approach to politics and a confident press conference recently suggested he was going to keep to the script that got him elected. He told journalists his actions for his first months as president. Obama set out his aims for economic revival, stimulus packages and troop withdrawal from Iraq. It’s questionable whether many reporters in the group had questions concerning online gaming. Indeed, the 44th president probably has bigger things on his mind. He is the new representative of the American people after all.
When the issues surrounding the recession, the war and fossil fuels have subsided though, the issue of online gaming will find its way into the Whitehouse. Obama’s call on online casinos will choose the fate of gaming in the US. The most important question left remaining is what will the President decide to do; to allow online casinos to operate in the US, or not? While the 2006 Safe Port Act prevents online gamers from wagering money on online casinos, there are some positive omens that an Obama presidency may overturn the law introduced by the outgoing president, George W. Bush.
But, there are signs of hope for online gaming players. Comments made in the past from Obama hints he’d study the pros and cons of legalising online casinos across the United States. Asked a question by reporters during his election bid, Obama said that he could see the opportunities a regulated online casino industry could bring. Although Obama hasn’t declared that he’d reinstate online casinos in the USA, his statement has heartened many players and online operators alike. Obama’s comments from an appearance in Las Vegas, that online casinos was a good economic factor, gave more joy to online casinos wishing to play in America again.
American players shouldn’t be too eager to log onto their nearest online casino though Obama has told a number of reporters that he’s not the biggest supporter of online casino gaming. When a president, voted into the Whitehouse on a wave of change, talks to a newspaper and explains that online casino gaming can have devastating ethical and social costs, online casino companies hoping to run their casinos in America shouldn’t start buying up domain names. He’s also had a track of anti-casino voting, blocking the increase of the Illinois gaming arena in 1999.
A lot of online casino companies will be troubled by Barack Obama’s wavering opinion on the issue of internet casinos. Although, a President can often change his mind and there may be a possibility for online casinos in America. A possibility, but don’t start dreaming of chips and cards at the moment.
As an occasional poker player, Obama is known for his calm poker game. As a member of the Senate, Obama often indulged in games of poker. He never bet huge amounts, rarely bluffed, and always kept his hand close to his chest. Could there be any similarities between his playing and presidential methods If you ask Obama about his opinions on online casinos, will he just glance at his cards and smiles?
Given the scale of Democratic gains in The Senate, Obama should have no problems passing a law to allow internet casinos. Whether he will is another matter altogether. The regulation of online casinos has been seen to provide a large of tax revenue for other countries; battling against a faltering economy and seeing a strong possibility of recession the USA, will Barack Obama be able to give a good reason for keeping the law on online gaming, purely because of any possible moral protests he may have? No one really knows until Obama starts his presidency in dark nights of January. Until Inauguration Day, American casinos will have little option but to lie back and pray to the gaming gods for a successful throw of the die.
Caffeinated Content
The Barack Obama Prophecies (humor)
Josh Greenberger asked:
by Josh Greenberger
(August 17, 2008) Legend has it that Migel Nostrildamous, a seer of the 1500s, could smell the future. He predicted the 2008 U.S. Presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.
Nostrildamous claimed there were two parallel universes, one in which McCain would win and one in which Obama would win. Although he could not clearly see which universe was ours, he gave an amazingly detailed account of the outcome of the Obama presidency.
What Nostrildamous saw was startling. In 2015, after winning a second term, Obama will find himself in a large room being grilled by angry senators ready to impeach him.
This was Nostrildamous’ vision:
Senator: President Obama, you were supposed to be the President of change. What happened?
Barack Obama: Well, I believe I did give you change …
Senator (interrupts angrily): … Mr. President, we’re missing New York! It got nuked right out of our midst. That’s not the kind of change we were looking for!
Obama: Senator, I’ve been saying for years, Canadians have been slipping through our northern borders …
Senator: … Canadians had nothing to do with this! Iran was the culprit!
Obama: Is there a basis for this allegation?
Senator: The plane was highjacked by Iranian nationals, the nuclear weapon was carried on board by Iranian diplomats, the bomb’s components were manufactured in Iran, Ahmadinejad took responsibility for the attack, and, a day before the attack, the highjackers were invited to Columbia University for a robust debate on the ethics of dropping a nuclear bomb on a populated city if it has an impact on the environment and the caribou reindeer in Alaska.
Obama: You know … that’s an interesting point. You see, Ahmadinejad assured me his nuclear program was strictly for peaceful purposes.
Senator: And you believed him?
Obama: I had no reason not to. In our last meeting he articulated how much he loved the caribou reindeer.
Senator: Mr. President, we can’t afford more catastrophes.
Obama: We could’ve avoided this one.
Senator: And how’s that?
Obama: Well, when I asked Americans to inflate their tires …
Senator (bangs down angrily with his gavel): … What on earth does this have to do with inflating tires?!
Obama: If you’ll let me finish, senator … (pauses for a moment) I thought you were a Democrat.
Senator: There are no more Democrats and Republicans. There’s only one party now — the Damnangrycats (pronounced damn-angry-cats). What’s your point, Mr. President?
Obama: Well, as I was saying, when I asked Americans to inflate their tires, they laughed at me. Ahmadinejad wasn’t laughing. He had his people inflate their tires. With the windfall profits from saved money on gas, they were able to speed up their nuclear program by leaps and bounds. Had we inflated our tires first, we wouldn’t be in this situation today.
Senator: With all due respect, Mr. President, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. How would inflating our tires first have saved us from this situation?
Obama: Well, while we were busy laughing, they were busy building. While we were busy stagnating, they were busy progressing. While we were looking back, they were looking forward. While we were accepting a bleak future, they were beaming with optimism. While we were …
Senator: Okay okay, I get it.
Obama: It seems absurd to judge a presidency on only one act.
Senator: We’re not. We’re judging your presidency on several acts. Have you forgotten about your wide open border policy on the south?
Obama: Of course not. My strongest voter base is from Tijuana.
Senator: Don’t you find that a little disturbing?
Obama: Disturbing? I’ll tell you what’s disturbing. When Americans drive around on flat tires …
Senator: … stop with the tires already …
Obama: … you’re not letting me explain my position.
Senator: I’ll wait till you flip-flop on that position another fourteen times, and then I’ll listen to the final explanation.
Obama: When you attack my people …
Senator: … they’re not your people. They’re Mexicans.
Obama: I’m President to all people. All people have the right to dreams. All people have the right to equal comfort zones. All people …
Senator: … they overwhelmed Texas and California, seceded from the union, and renamed the two states The United States of Juanitos. Is it me or is there something wrong with that picture?
Obama: I’ll say there’s something wrong with that picure. The “Runners Republic” would’ve been a more appropriate name.
Senator: Mr. President, under your watch we’ve lost three states.
Obama: Three? (laughs) Senator, aren’t you making a mountain out of a molehill?
Senator: Am I?
Obama: What’s the big deal? We still have fifty four states.
Senator: We only had fifty to begin with.
Obama: When did we lose the other seven?
Senator: We never had fifty seven, Mr. President. Can you name all fifty seven?
Obama: You know … that’s an interesting point. This country was founded on unity, not numbers. Washington never counted states. Lincoln never counted states. I may not look like all those presidents on the dollar bills, but I’m not going to count states either.
Senator: Washington and Lincoln also never flipped-flopped an issues the way you do. Your energy policies have been disastrous.
Obama: I lifted all drilling restrictions.
Senator: After how many flip-flops?
Obama: Why didn’t the oil companies drill between flip-flops?
Senator: Because your flips were shorter than your flops.
Obama: The coast of Florida has been open for drilling for a long time now.
Senator: By the time our oil companies were allowed to drill, the oil was gone. China pumped it all. They’re selling gas all over China in ninety-nine cents stores. Chinese farmers are driving around in stretch limos.
Obama: I’m not denouncing China, and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce China. It’s not a China worthy of denouncing.
Obama: Thank you for that insight, Mr. President, but this isn’t about China. It’s about your waffling on all positions. You even flip-flopped on drilling in the “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” in Alaska?
Obama: We had to stop. After drilling began, a caribou reindeer slipped on an oil slick and fractured an antler. The animal-rights people threatened to bring me before a tribunal for crimes against humanity.
Senator: But they’re not human.
Obama: I know, but they’ve got a lot of clout in Washington.
Senator: I was talking about the reindeer.
Obama: Ah … look, caribou have the same feelings we do.
Senator: And how would anyone know that?
Obama: The reindeer with the fractured antler recently developed social anxiety disorders. He no longer ***** ice with the rest of his family.
Senator: Your record of not standing up to environmentalists is absolutely unforgivable.
Obama: Gentlemen, you’re forgetting, Congress now has three chambers: The Senate, The House or Representatives, and the Environmentalists. And the Environmentalists can overrule the other two chambers and the President.
As Nostrildamous’ vision began to fade, he saw the environmentalists eventually lifting drilling restrictions on the east coast, but only if all equipment are driven by solar energy and all fish within a 20 mile radius of drilling sites are moved deeper into the ocean.
Consequently, oil companies will drill during the day and catch fish at night. On heavy overcast days, instead of using heavy drilling equipment, oil companies will send down skin divers with fork hoes.
By 2030 oil companies will realize that selling fish is more profitable than drilling for oil and halt all oil exploration.
By 2035 all cars will be replaced by horses, buses will be replaced by stagecoaches, and hay will become the hottest commodity on the stock market.
As companies compete to improve the quality of hay, it’ll open up a new multibillion dollar “Hay Tech” industry. Most of these companies will be concentrated in an area in California called Fertilizer Alley.
One company will develop a breakthrough process that will improve many different types of plants. The process, called Multi-Fertilizing, will make a trillionaire out of it’s CEO, Gill Bates, and make his company, ExtraSoft, the most profitable in Hay Tech history.
Nostrildamous tried looking into the future of the McCain presidency, but his “communications” broke down. So he called tech support. His remains are still on hold.
by Josh Greenberger
Kansieo.com
by Josh Greenberger
(August 17, 2008) Legend has it that Migel Nostrildamous, a seer of the 1500s, could smell the future. He predicted the 2008 U.S. Presidential race between Barack Obama and John McCain.
Nostrildamous claimed there were two parallel universes, one in which McCain would win and one in which Obama would win. Although he could not clearly see which universe was ours, he gave an amazingly detailed account of the outcome of the Obama presidency.
What Nostrildamous saw was startling. In 2015, after winning a second term, Obama will find himself in a large room being grilled by angry senators ready to impeach him.
This was Nostrildamous’ vision:
Senator: President Obama, you were supposed to be the President of change. What happened?
Barack Obama: Well, I believe I did give you change …
Senator (interrupts angrily): … Mr. President, we’re missing New York! It got nuked right out of our midst. That’s not the kind of change we were looking for!
Obama: Senator, I’ve been saying for years, Canadians have been slipping through our northern borders …
Senator: … Canadians had nothing to do with this! Iran was the culprit!
Obama: Is there a basis for this allegation?
Senator: The plane was highjacked by Iranian nationals, the nuclear weapon was carried on board by Iranian diplomats, the bomb’s components were manufactured in Iran, Ahmadinejad took responsibility for the attack, and, a day before the attack, the highjackers were invited to Columbia University for a robust debate on the ethics of dropping a nuclear bomb on a populated city if it has an impact on the environment and the caribou reindeer in Alaska.
Obama: You know … that’s an interesting point. You see, Ahmadinejad assured me his nuclear program was strictly for peaceful purposes.
Senator: And you believed him?
Obama: I had no reason not to. In our last meeting he articulated how much he loved the caribou reindeer.
Senator: Mr. President, we can’t afford more catastrophes.
Obama: We could’ve avoided this one.
Senator: And how’s that?
Obama: Well, when I asked Americans to inflate their tires …
Senator (bangs down angrily with his gavel): … What on earth does this have to do with inflating tires?!
Obama: If you’ll let me finish, senator … (pauses for a moment) I thought you were a Democrat.
Senator: There are no more Democrats and Republicans. There’s only one party now — the Damnangrycats (pronounced damn-angry-cats). What’s your point, Mr. President?
Obama: Well, as I was saying, when I asked Americans to inflate their tires, they laughed at me. Ahmadinejad wasn’t laughing. He had his people inflate their tires. With the windfall profits from saved money on gas, they were able to speed up their nuclear program by leaps and bounds. Had we inflated our tires first, we wouldn’t be in this situation today.
Senator: With all due respect, Mr. President, this is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard. How would inflating our tires first have saved us from this situation?
Obama: Well, while we were busy laughing, they were busy building. While we were busy stagnating, they were busy progressing. While we were looking back, they were looking forward. While we were accepting a bleak future, they were beaming with optimism. While we were …
Senator: Okay okay, I get it.
Obama: It seems absurd to judge a presidency on only one act.
Senator: We’re not. We’re judging your presidency on several acts. Have you forgotten about your wide open border policy on the south?
Obama: Of course not. My strongest voter base is from Tijuana.
Senator: Don’t you find that a little disturbing?
Obama: Disturbing? I’ll tell you what’s disturbing. When Americans drive around on flat tires …
Senator: … stop with the tires already …
Obama: … you’re not letting me explain my position.
Senator: I’ll wait till you flip-flop on that position another fourteen times, and then I’ll listen to the final explanation.
Obama: When you attack my people …
Senator: … they’re not your people. They’re Mexicans.
Obama: I’m President to all people. All people have the right to dreams. All people have the right to equal comfort zones. All people …
Senator: … they overwhelmed Texas and California, seceded from the union, and renamed the two states The United States of Juanitos. Is it me or is there something wrong with that picture?
Obama: I’ll say there’s something wrong with that picure. The “Runners Republic” would’ve been a more appropriate name.
Senator: Mr. President, under your watch we’ve lost three states.
Obama: Three? (laughs) Senator, aren’t you making a mountain out of a molehill?
Senator: Am I?
Obama: What’s the big deal? We still have fifty four states.
Senator: We only had fifty to begin with.
Obama: When did we lose the other seven?
Senator: We never had fifty seven, Mr. President. Can you name all fifty seven?
Obama: You know … that’s an interesting point. This country was founded on unity, not numbers. Washington never counted states. Lincoln never counted states. I may not look like all those presidents on the dollar bills, but I’m not going to count states either.
Senator: Washington and Lincoln also never flipped-flopped an issues the way you do. Your energy policies have been disastrous.
Obama: I lifted all drilling restrictions.
Senator: After how many flip-flops?
Obama: Why didn’t the oil companies drill between flip-flops?
Senator: Because your flips were shorter than your flops.
Obama: The coast of Florida has been open for drilling for a long time now.
Senator: By the time our oil companies were allowed to drill, the oil was gone. China pumped it all. They’re selling gas all over China in ninety-nine cents stores. Chinese farmers are driving around in stretch limos.
Obama: I’m not denouncing China, and I’m not interested in people who want me to denounce China. It’s not a China worthy of denouncing.
Obama: Thank you for that insight, Mr. President, but this isn’t about China. It’s about your waffling on all positions. You even flip-flopped on drilling in the “Arctic National Wildlife Refuge” in Alaska?
Obama: We had to stop. After drilling began, a caribou reindeer slipped on an oil slick and fractured an antler. The animal-rights people threatened to bring me before a tribunal for crimes against humanity.
Senator: But they’re not human.
Obama: I know, but they’ve got a lot of clout in Washington.
Senator: I was talking about the reindeer.
Obama: Ah … look, caribou have the same feelings we do.
Senator: And how would anyone know that?
Obama: The reindeer with the fractured antler recently developed social anxiety disorders. He no longer ***** ice with the rest of his family.
Senator: Your record of not standing up to environmentalists is absolutely unforgivable.
Obama: Gentlemen, you’re forgetting, Congress now has three chambers: The Senate, The House or Representatives, and the Environmentalists. And the Environmentalists can overrule the other two chambers and the President.
As Nostrildamous’ vision began to fade, he saw the environmentalists eventually lifting drilling restrictions on the east coast, but only if all equipment are driven by solar energy and all fish within a 20 mile radius of drilling sites are moved deeper into the ocean.
Consequently, oil companies will drill during the day and catch fish at night. On heavy overcast days, instead of using heavy drilling equipment, oil companies will send down skin divers with fork hoes.
By 2030 oil companies will realize that selling fish is more profitable than drilling for oil and halt all oil exploration.
By 2035 all cars will be replaced by horses, buses will be replaced by stagecoaches, and hay will become the hottest commodity on the stock market.
As companies compete to improve the quality of hay, it’ll open up a new multibillion dollar “Hay Tech” industry. Most of these companies will be concentrated in an area in California called Fertilizer Alley.
One company will develop a breakthrough process that will improve many different types of plants. The process, called Multi-Fertilizing, will make a trillionaire out of it’s CEO, Gill Bates, and make his company, ExtraSoft, the most profitable in Hay Tech history.
Nostrildamous tried looking into the future of the McCain presidency, but his “communications” broke down. So he called tech support. His remains are still on hold.
by Josh Greenberger
Kansieo.com
Seven Reasons I’m Voting for Barack Obama for President
Marvin J Markus asked:
g for Barack Obama this November 4th for President of the United States. What follows in this article are 7 of the many reasons I am voting for Obama and not John McCain.
1. Obama was against the Iraq war from the start. Very few politicians had the integrity and the judgment to know that the Iraq war was a mistake before it began. John McCain certainly did not. McCain was one of the many politicians who thought Iraq would be a short easy war and that American soldiers would be “greeted like liberators” in Iraq.
2. Obama will lower taxes for people making less than $111,645 per year (that includes me, unfortunately!) more than John McCain will. McCain has been running many misleading advertisements which make the claim that Obama is raising taxes across the board. That is not true. Obama is only raising taxes for the very rich and for corporations (who have not paid their fair share of taxes.)
For 90% of Americans, Obama’s plan will bring lower taxes than McCain’s will. This is an important fact not only because of the lower taxes that most Americans will pay but also because it speaks to McCain’s lack of integrity. McCain continues to run disingenuous ads which claim a vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes.
3. Obama is pro choice and will nominate pro choice judges for the Supreme Court. McCain has said he will be a “pro life President.” Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s not the role of the government to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.
If you believe in a woman’s right to choose it is essential that you support Barack Obama as it’s very likely the next President will be nominating 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices. If McCain is the one nominating those judges, it’s very possible that Roe V. Wade could be reversed.
4. Foreign policy. Obama showed he had far superior foreign policy judgment with his stance on Iraq. The things he said about the Iraq war before it had even begun all turned out to be true. We need a President who has judgment and the ability to know when and where to strike. The shoot first ask questions later cowboy mentality of the Bush/Cheney administration would be made even worse by McCain who, as Pat Buchanan put it, would make “Cheney look like Gandhi.”
5. International respect. George W. Bush has been a humongous embarrassment for Americans. People all over the world now think of Americans as morons. Barack Obama is already loved all over the world. He is a brilliant speaker who understands the nuance of how to converse with people from different cultures. He’s preferred in Europe over McCain by enormous margins. Obama as President would instantly make America popular again.
6. Health care. While I do not believe that Obama’s health care plan is the universal plan that our country really needs, it is a good step towards a better plan and it will help to lower overall health care costs. McCain’s approach would hurt more than help. There would be even more people without health care with McCain as President.
7. Energy. While McCain is harping on the ridiculous non-issue of off shore drilling because he knows it plays well to the many uneducated voters in this country, it is Obama who has a real plan for energy independence. McCain’s off shore drilling plan would only help to make extremely rich oil companies even more rich. It would not lower gas prices.
Caffeinated Content
g for Barack Obama this November 4th for President of the United States. What follows in this article are 7 of the many reasons I am voting for Obama and not John McCain.
1. Obama was against the Iraq war from the start. Very few politicians had the integrity and the judgment to know that the Iraq war was a mistake before it began. John McCain certainly did not. McCain was one of the many politicians who thought Iraq would be a short easy war and that American soldiers would be “greeted like liberators” in Iraq.
2. Obama will lower taxes for people making less than $111,645 per year (that includes me, unfortunately!) more than John McCain will. McCain has been running many misleading advertisements which make the claim that Obama is raising taxes across the board. That is not true. Obama is only raising taxes for the very rich and for corporations (who have not paid their fair share of taxes.)
For 90% of Americans, Obama’s plan will bring lower taxes than McCain’s will. This is an important fact not only because of the lower taxes that most Americans will pay but also because it speaks to McCain’s lack of integrity. McCain continues to run disingenuous ads which claim a vote for Obama is a vote for higher taxes.
3. Obama is pro choice and will nominate pro choice judges for the Supreme Court. McCain has said he will be a “pro life President.” Nobody is pro-abortion. It’s not the role of the government to tell a woman what she can do with her own body.
If you believe in a woman’s right to choose it is essential that you support Barack Obama as it’s very likely the next President will be nominating 2 to 3 Supreme Court Justices. If McCain is the one nominating those judges, it’s very possible that Roe V. Wade could be reversed.
4. Foreign policy. Obama showed he had far superior foreign policy judgment with his stance on Iraq. The things he said about the Iraq war before it had even begun all turned out to be true. We need a President who has judgment and the ability to know when and where to strike. The shoot first ask questions later cowboy mentality of the Bush/Cheney administration would be made even worse by McCain who, as Pat Buchanan put it, would make “Cheney look like Gandhi.”
5. International respect. George W. Bush has been a humongous embarrassment for Americans. People all over the world now think of Americans as morons. Barack Obama is already loved all over the world. He is a brilliant speaker who understands the nuance of how to converse with people from different cultures. He’s preferred in Europe over McCain by enormous margins. Obama as President would instantly make America popular again.
6. Health care. While I do not believe that Obama’s health care plan is the universal plan that our country really needs, it is a good step towards a better plan and it will help to lower overall health care costs. McCain’s approach would hurt more than help. There would be even more people without health care with McCain as President.
7. Energy. While McCain is harping on the ridiculous non-issue of off shore drilling because he knows it plays well to the many uneducated voters in this country, it is Obama who has a real plan for energy independence. McCain’s off shore drilling plan would only help to make extremely rich oil companies even more rich. It would not lower gas prices.
Caffeinated Content
President Obama Ringtones – Barack Obama Ringtones
Daniel Sitar asked:
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Barack Obama Ringtones
Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States of America. He is expected to take office as the forty-fourth President of the United States on January 20, 2009. He also is currently the Junior United States Senator from Illinois. Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States and was the first to be nominated for President by a major U.S. political party. Obama is also the first candidate born in Hawaii to have been nominated and subsequently elected president. Obama announced his presidential campaign in February 2007, and was formally nominated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with Delaware senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In the November 4, 2008 United States Presidential election he won 53% of the popular vote, and 349 electoral votes to rival John McCain’s 162
Click Here to Get Bonus Ringtones for Your Phone!
If you are a Barack Obama supporter, click on the link below to download Barack Obama ringtones for your phone. Even if you were not old enough to vote for Obama in the election, you can still get a Barack Obama ringtone to celebrate his victory. Just click on the link below and sign up to get access to thousands of hot ringtones, including President Obama ringtones! Congratulations to Barack Obama on his election victory and making history on November 4th.
Click Here & Sign Up to Download President Obama Ringtones
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
Click Here & Sign Up to Download Barack Obama Ringtones
Barack Obama is the President-elect of the United States of America. He is expected to take office as the forty-fourth President of the United States on January 20, 2009. He also is currently the Junior United States Senator from Illinois. Obama is the first African American to be elected President of the United States and was the first to be nominated for President by a major U.S. political party. Obama is also the first candidate born in Hawaii to have been nominated and subsequently elected president. Obama announced his presidential campaign in February 2007, and was formally nominated at the 2008 Democratic National Convention with Delaware senator Joe Biden as his running mate. In the November 4, 2008 United States Presidential election he won 53% of the popular vote, and 349 electoral votes to rival John McCain’s 162
Click Here to Get Bonus Ringtones for Your Phone!
If you are a Barack Obama supporter, click on the link below to download Barack Obama ringtones for your phone. Even if you were not old enough to vote for Obama in the election, you can still get a Barack Obama ringtone to celebrate his victory. Just click on the link below and sign up to get access to thousands of hot ringtones, including President Obama ringtones! Congratulations to Barack Obama on his election victory and making history on November 4th.
Click Here & Sign Up to Download President Obama Ringtones
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
Obama Vs Mc Cain Who Will Win?
JOHN MOKEMBE NYAOSI asked:
bama loses unfairly?
By John Nyaosi TEL. nairobi, +254 734 603 184
Barring a last minute jolt or an unforeseen sudden vicissitude , come November 4, Illinois senator Barrack Obama,47, is poised to amass enough votes to enable him step into the Oval office, after triumphing in a political duel fraught with all sorts of impediments and logistical nightmares.
In any contest whether small or big there must be a winner and a loser. As it often happens the winner may be boastful or magnanimous in victory even as the loser cries foul. Often you will hear claims and counter claims of an uneven playing field and advance rigging et cetera et cetera. Right now world attention is glued to the titanic tussle pitting John McCain,72, against Barrack Obama for the US presidential elections slated for November 4.2008. Much as he has been derided a “terrorist”, the US press, the Clintons and no lesser a person than former Secretary of State have endorsed his candidature. And now he can be said to be a heart beat away from presidency of a leading superpower.
The fact that his paternal roots are Kenyan and by dint of the blood flowing in his veins, Democractic candidate Barrack Obama is regarded a son of Kenya. The air in the country of his dad is right now pregnant with expectation on how this son whose father hailed from down at Kogelo Villabe in Siaya will fare on in the final polls on November 4. Will he triumph or will he flop? That is the question on many Kenyan fans’ lips about this denizen to of the world who after beating all odds is poised to embody in a special way not only the American dream but our own Kenyan dream too. He is as much a US citizen as a Kenyan one. Even the bird down at a thicket in Kogelo village can probably be heard chirping about this special son of Kenya who is suddenly poised for greater things. For us if there is anything in our potential to give for him to win the race we will spare no effort in doing so to ensure Obama finally triumphs. If it is money
, the contribution of a shilling from every Kenya would in no time net a whopping Shs 36 million from the 36 million Kenyans! But Obama is not desperate for campaign funds , having in the month of September alone amassed a cool $150 million dollars that has seen him enjoy a wide berth in expenditure.
What Obama needs is our moral support and goodwill and nothing more.
However, there is this thing called the Bradley’s Effect which threatens to deny our son the victory he has so relentlessly and courageously fought for and that which he so much deserves. For although in successive opinion polls by reputable and not so reputable pollsters Obama is widening the gap with a recent one putting him in the lead by 50 per cent to John McCain’s 44 per cent only a few days to D-Day in November, due to what in election parlance is known as Bradley’s Effect he could well lose. The Bradley Effect got its name from what befell one, Bradley ,who lost a poll despite pollsters having pointed to a sure win. All those polled who favour Obama could change on polling day, God forbid , by behaving in their true colours and of course goaded by racism reject him on basis of the colour his skin and not ability. If this happens , it means they may have been paying lip service about their support for Obama to please him
or so as not to be labelled ****** while deep down in their heart of hearts they and never were for him as they are ****** to the core. This is the main reason we can’t even start celebrating even as all opinon polls point clearly to an Obama victory.
Should Obama lose fairly we his fans are prepared to accept the results but should be lose through rigging of any sort, we will not resort to catching the next plane to Washington to uproot the railway. Having learnt the bitter way , and particularly with hind sight and both the Kriegler report and Waki’s recommendations on the perpetrators of post-election violence, we of course accept defeat with cool heads. Nobody is prepared to be hauled to the International Court of Justice at the Hague to answer charges of alleged crimes against humanity and genocide. So Michael Ranneburger the US ambassador to Kenya should rest assured that his citizens will be safe even when racists like writer Jerome Corse who sought to discredit Obama in the book titled: The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality are hell bent to discredit our son.
For Obama fans his triumph is an embodiment of the American dream of , as it were, whereby an immigrant arriving at a city empty –handed and walks off after hard work as a success story. Obama’s success will have vindicated the believers of the American dream .Nontheless, his detractors claims are as confounding and as they are despicable.
In the event of an Obama defeat (which is highly unlikely), what should we do? We should lobby the American envoy in Nairobi to a repeat of the poll on a level playing field. Of course we are alive to the fact that the financial turmoil caused by credit crunch on Wall Street in spite of what Alan Greenspan describes as “ irrational exuberance”, the post 9/11 repercussions , the unfinished war on the so called Axis of Evil grouping Iran and North Korea as sponsors of terrorism and all the other problems that emerged as consequences of a unipolar world that led to the Iraq war , the Middle East ,that cauldron of endless conflict will have a bearing on the outcome of the polls. These are the challenges which any winner in the November poll will have to face a new.
But in the event that we end up getting a raw deal through a rigged poll we want to , of course with tongue firmly in cheek , to propose the following measures as a fitting remedy to the problem.
Through Michael Ranneburger we will propose that the setting up a coalition government modeled on the Kenyan one immediately to share power between the two principals John McCain and our brother Barrck Obama. All political appointment must be vetted with both prior to postings. A Committee of Eminent Persons of the World must also expeditiously broker an amicable deal to share power and the over 200-year old American Constitution must be overhauled with input from Wanjiku or preferably a representative in this case the interested parties like Kenyans with a view to coming up with a document that will always ensure fair play in future US polls On top of this denizens of this part of the world will demand reparations for Slave trade and the loss of Black kinsmen who perished in the cotton plantations as they build America.
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
bama loses unfairly?
By John Nyaosi TEL. nairobi, +254 734 603 184
Barring a last minute jolt or an unforeseen sudden vicissitude , come November 4, Illinois senator Barrack Obama,47, is poised to amass enough votes to enable him step into the Oval office, after triumphing in a political duel fraught with all sorts of impediments and logistical nightmares.
In any contest whether small or big there must be a winner and a loser. As it often happens the winner may be boastful or magnanimous in victory even as the loser cries foul. Often you will hear claims and counter claims of an uneven playing field and advance rigging et cetera et cetera. Right now world attention is glued to the titanic tussle pitting John McCain,72, against Barrack Obama for the US presidential elections slated for November 4.2008. Much as he has been derided a “terrorist”, the US press, the Clintons and no lesser a person than former Secretary of State have endorsed his candidature. And now he can be said to be a heart beat away from presidency of a leading superpower.
The fact that his paternal roots are Kenyan and by dint of the blood flowing in his veins, Democractic candidate Barrack Obama is regarded a son of Kenya. The air in the country of his dad is right now pregnant with expectation on how this son whose father hailed from down at Kogelo Villabe in Siaya will fare on in the final polls on November 4. Will he triumph or will he flop? That is the question on many Kenyan fans’ lips about this denizen to of the world who after beating all odds is poised to embody in a special way not only the American dream but our own Kenyan dream too. He is as much a US citizen as a Kenyan one. Even the bird down at a thicket in Kogelo village can probably be heard chirping about this special son of Kenya who is suddenly poised for greater things. For us if there is anything in our potential to give for him to win the race we will spare no effort in doing so to ensure Obama finally triumphs. If it is money
, the contribution of a shilling from every Kenya would in no time net a whopping Shs 36 million from the 36 million Kenyans! But Obama is not desperate for campaign funds , having in the month of September alone amassed a cool $150 million dollars that has seen him enjoy a wide berth in expenditure.
What Obama needs is our moral support and goodwill and nothing more.
However, there is this thing called the Bradley’s Effect which threatens to deny our son the victory he has so relentlessly and courageously fought for and that which he so much deserves. For although in successive opinion polls by reputable and not so reputable pollsters Obama is widening the gap with a recent one putting him in the lead by 50 per cent to John McCain’s 44 per cent only a few days to D-Day in November, due to what in election parlance is known as Bradley’s Effect he could well lose. The Bradley Effect got its name from what befell one, Bradley ,who lost a poll despite pollsters having pointed to a sure win. All those polled who favour Obama could change on polling day, God forbid , by behaving in their true colours and of course goaded by racism reject him on basis of the colour his skin and not ability. If this happens , it means they may have been paying lip service about their support for Obama to please him
or so as not to be labelled ****** while deep down in their heart of hearts they and never were for him as they are ****** to the core. This is the main reason we can’t even start celebrating even as all opinon polls point clearly to an Obama victory.
Should Obama lose fairly we his fans are prepared to accept the results but should be lose through rigging of any sort, we will not resort to catching the next plane to Washington to uproot the railway. Having learnt the bitter way , and particularly with hind sight and both the Kriegler report and Waki’s recommendations on the perpetrators of post-election violence, we of course accept defeat with cool heads. Nobody is prepared to be hauled to the International Court of Justice at the Hague to answer charges of alleged crimes against humanity and genocide. So Michael Ranneburger the US ambassador to Kenya should rest assured that his citizens will be safe even when racists like writer Jerome Corse who sought to discredit Obama in the book titled: The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality are hell bent to discredit our son.
For Obama fans his triumph is an embodiment of the American dream of , as it were, whereby an immigrant arriving at a city empty –handed and walks off after hard work as a success story. Obama’s success will have vindicated the believers of the American dream .Nontheless, his detractors claims are as confounding and as they are despicable.
In the event of an Obama defeat (which is highly unlikely), what should we do? We should lobby the American envoy in Nairobi to a repeat of the poll on a level playing field. Of course we are alive to the fact that the financial turmoil caused by credit crunch on Wall Street in spite of what Alan Greenspan describes as “ irrational exuberance”, the post 9/11 repercussions , the unfinished war on the so called Axis of Evil grouping Iran and North Korea as sponsors of terrorism and all the other problems that emerged as consequences of a unipolar world that led to the Iraq war , the Middle East ,that cauldron of endless conflict will have a bearing on the outcome of the polls. These are the challenges which any winner in the November poll will have to face a new.
But in the event that we end up getting a raw deal through a rigged poll we want to , of course with tongue firmly in cheek , to propose the following measures as a fitting remedy to the problem.
Through Michael Ranneburger we will propose that the setting up a coalition government modeled on the Kenyan one immediately to share power between the two principals John McCain and our brother Barrck Obama. All political appointment must be vetted with both prior to postings. A Committee of Eminent Persons of the World must also expeditiously broker an amicable deal to share power and the over 200-year old American Constitution must be overhauled with input from Wanjiku or preferably a representative in this case the interested parties like Kenyans with a view to coming up with a document that will always ensure fair play in future US polls On top of this denizens of this part of the world will demand reparations for Slave trade and the loss of Black kinsmen who perished in the cotton plantations as they build America.
Caffeinated Content for WordPress
Will the Real Barack Obama Please Stand Up
James William Smith asked:
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
Caffeinated Content
The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.
Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.
While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.
It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.
So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.
Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.
In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.
As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.
However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.
Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?
Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.
Caffeinated Content