MoveOn.org Endorses Obama: This is No Surprise

MoveOn.org members voted to support the candidacy of Barak Obama over Hillary Clinton, by a margin of 70% to 30%.

Even their vote was a little strange as some members of MoveOn reportedly got their ballots the very day that the announcement was made. Not that I really care about that point.

But the fact that 2007's most liberal senator got the endorsement of the most rabid liberal group in the country is no surprise at all. I think Super Tuesday is going to be very interesting to watch. It'll be interesting to see if MoveOn's maneuver helps or hurts Obama.

When Pollsters Are Wrong, Dems Scream About Voter Fraud: Yet When They Get Democratic Primary in NH Wrong, Dems are Silent

Limbaugh made some good points about Hillary's "comeback" in New Hampshire on his radio show today, saying that in recent elections, whenever the pollsters really get their data screwed up and the election results are opposite of what their polling data shows, the Democratic Party starts screaming about voter fraud and stolen elections. Rush noted the pollsters had it about as wrong as humanly possibly and wondered aloud when the screaming would begin.

It won't.

The polls are an excuse for the Democrats to protest when they've lost an election. The New Hampshire primary election results prove it. If this was a Democrat vs. Republican election, there would have been screaming before the polls closed and a court case. But since it's a Democrat vs. Democrat election, they remain silent. Hypocrites.

The next time the Democrats lose an election AND the pollsters get their results wrong again, I don't want to hear ANYTHING about voter fraud or stolen elections.

Oprah Joins Obama Campaign: Is This a Smart Move on Obama's Part?

The news media is making a big deal about the fact that Oprah Winfrey is joining the Barak Obama campaign for part of a tour through Iowa, South Carolina and New Hampshire.

Does Obama really want the distraction that someone like Oprah will bring with her? Who's the media going to be more interested in talking to: Obama or Oprah?

Can Obama really afford this, with the race being as tight as it is?

While I compliment Oprah for becoming involved in the campaign as actively as she has, I don't think that celebrities should be sharing the stage with the candidates. It takes the focus off the candidate. Part of the public's imagination will be captured by the Obama/Oprah alliance, but who will the media pay more attention to?

Mark my words, they'll tune in to Oprah, every single time.

Columnist Novak Says Clinton Campaign Has Dirt on Obama But Has Chosen Not to Use It: What's Really Going On Here?

Columnist Robert Novak is claiming that Hillary Clinton's campaign has dirt on rival Barak Obama, but is not using it as it makes her look like she's taking the high road.

Does Clinton have dirt on Obama? Possibly. It's in her nature to utterly destroy her opponents, regardless of what she says.

Since she's gone through the trouble of having her people dig up dirt on Obama, why is she holding back their findings now? Friendship? A friend doesn't look for scandalous information on a friend in the first place. Especially if that dirt is meant to be publicly released to publicly harm that friend.

It should be noted that Hillary's and Bill's friends end up in jail. Remember the Whitewater fiasco?

That's what Hillary does to people she calls friends. Her reputation on this point is pretty solid, so any claims of friendship that Hillary makes to Obama with regards to the current situation should be taken by Obama as a stark warning of what she'll pull on him if he starts winning Democratic primaries left and right.

If she does have information, someone in her campaign will leak it to prevent Obama from gaining the nomination.

Edwards and Obama Employ Their Wives to Attack Hillary's Positions: Canidates' Families Are Getting Into It

John Edwards and Barak Obama have been taking a back seat to their wives lately, allowing them to go after Hillary Clinton's positions themselves.

Are Mrs. Edwards and Mrs. Obama running for President themselves? It sounds an awful lot like they are, telling their husbands to shut up and stand aside while they take care of Hillary as well as their other opponents.

Elizabeth Edwards attacked Obama's "holier-than-thou" attitude on Iraq, and Clinton on her "lack of leadership on health care and Iraq."

Michelle Obama went after Clinton's example of family: "If you can't run your own house, you certainly cannot run the White House." But she has also joked about her husband's big ears, his not putting the butter away, his funny name, and so on. Analysts aren't sure of what to make of her.

I'm waiting for Bill Clinton to jump in on this so that the three-way dance will be complete.

Seems like the spouses of the candidates are really getting into this campaign, which is a little unusual. And the candidates are not returning fire, either, ignoring the barbs coming from the candidates' families.

It's been quite a while since the Democratic side has been this interesting in a Presidential campaign.

Predictions on Pakistan Appear to Be Coming True Sooner Than Expected: This is Not Good News

Uh oh.

I had written last week about Senator Obama's rash words promising to send U.S. troops into Pakistan without permission to hunt al-Qaeda down. I had written that it could easily expand into a mission to secure Pakistan's nuclear weapons ("Some Candidates Want to Substitute One War for Others: What's the Point?" once U.S. forces crossed the border to start hunting al-Qaeda.

Look at what was on CNN's web site today.

The Pakistani issue that I raised may become moot if President Bush decides to secure Pakistan's nuclear arms before he leaves office. What are we getting into now??!

Obama-Clinton War of Words: Much as I Hate to Say It, Clinton's Right

During the recent CNN/Youtube-sponsored Democratic Presidential debate, one of the questions asked was whether the candidates would meet with certain nations within one year of being elected. Here are the questions and how Clinton and Obama answered the question:



I loathe to admit it, but on this question, Clinton is absolutely correct. Obama screwed up and is now making more mistakes to cover his original mistake. His statement was hopelessly naive; one could almost hear his advisers groaning from backstage and his spin doctors going into damage control mode.

Clinton's statement was that she didn't want a visit to be used as a propaganda tool by those nations mentioned, who are notorious for doing precisely that kind of thing. She was correct that the groundwork needs to be done first before a Presidential visit could occur.

Diplomacy SHOULD resume with those nations, with a goal of eventual high-level talks and visits. But Obama's approach came across as having an American President crawling on hands and knees to that commie runt in North Korea, or the Mouth of the South, or Iran's hostage-taking president to ask them to please talk to us.

We ought to kick a few of them IN the mouth before we talk to them, just so they're paying attention.

Obama ought to admit the error, then move on.

Debate Rages Over Use of "Articulate" to Describe Senator Obama: Severe Overreaction in Progress

Prominent African Americans have been going on TV lately, criticizing the use of certain words to describe Senator Obama. Some criticisms of some of the words are acceptable, but others are way off the mark.

Senator Biden got in trouble for describing Obama as the first "mainstream African American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." Biden ended up apologizing for the remarks, which Rev. Jesse Jackson said were "highly suggestive, but not off-color." Biden realized that he royally screwed up and mended the fences with Obama, which was the right thing to do.

But the debate raged on over the use of the word "articulate" (separate from Senator Biden's unfortunate remarks) which, to some, smacked of condescension. Some have severely overreacted to this word and took to the airwaves last night on FOX News and on CNN. They were angry, and unwilling to listen to other points of view.

If someone says one is very articulate, the proper response is "thank you." It's a compliment, and Senator Obama's speaking style is superior and better versed than many of his fellow politicians, as well as many in the general public for that matter. He's an outstanding public speaker.

But if "articulate" is good enough to describe you, or me, it should be good enough for Senator Obama and the talking heads on TV too.

CNN Joins the Obama/Osama Slip-Up Crowd, Substituting the Senator's Name for the Terrorist's in Caption

CNN messed up last week and put Senator Barack Obama's name into a caption that was meant to read "Where's Osama?"

The Situation Room's Wolf Blitzer apologized on-air and called Obama personally to apologize, but the gaffe is the latest in a string of accidental and intentional substitutions of Senator Obama's last name for bin-Laden's first name; CNN is definitely not the first to do this.

Numerous instances of this have happened since Senator Ted Kennedy uttered the first public instance of "Osama/Obama" and conservative talk show hosts picked it up to ridicule Kennedy and Obama.

It's easy to make a slip of the tongue since the two first names are similar in spelling and pronunciation. Osama. Obama.

Still, I'm not comfortable with with this kind of accidental or intentional name-calling. It comes across (to me) as calling someone a Nazi, a choice of words for which I have nothing but contempt.

Those who delight in calling the senator "Osama" really ought to come up with something that doesn't have racial overtones to it. This is just nasty.