The seed for the first Woman’s Rights Convention was planted in 1840, when Elizabeth Cady Stanton met Lucretia Mott at the World Anti-Slavery Convention in London, the conference that refused to seat Mott and other women delegates from America because of their sex. Stanton, the young bride of an antislavery agent, and Mott, a Quaker preacher and veteran of reform, talked then of calling a convention to address the condition of women. Eight years later, it came about as a spontaneous event.

In July 1848, Mott was visiting her sister, Martha C. Wright, in Waterloo, New York. Stanton, now the restless mother of three small sons, was living in nearby Seneca Falls. A social visit brought together Mott, Stanton, Wright, Mary Ann McClintock, and Jane Hunt. All except Stanton were Quakers, a sect that afforded women some measure of equality, and all five were well acquainted with antislavery and temperance meetings. Lucretia Mott Fresh in their minds was the April passage of the long-deliberated New York Married Woman’s Property Rights Act, a significant but far from comprehensive piece of legislation. The time had come, Stanton argued, for women’s wrongs to be laid before the public, and women themselves must shoulder the responsibility. Before the afternoon was out, the women decided on a call for a convention “to discuss the social, civil, and religious condition and rights of woman.”

To Stanton fell the task of drawing up the Declaration of Sentiments that would define the meeting. Taking the Declaration of Independence as her guide, Stanton submitted that “all men and women had been created equal” and went on to list eighteen “injuries and usurpations” -the same number of charges leveled against the King of England-”on the part of man toward woman.”

You have to love the symmetry with which Stanton crafted the “Declaration of Sentiments.” And what an interesting choice of words for the Declaration, isn’t it? Stanton didn’t stop there:

Stanton also drafted eleven resolutions, making the argument that women had a natural right to equality in all spheres. The ninth resolution held forth the radical assertion that it was the duty of women to secure for themselves the right to vote. Elizabeth Cady Stanton afterwards recalled that a shocked Lucretia Mott exclaimed, “Why, Lizzie, thee will make us ridiculous.” Stanton stood firm. “But I persisted, for I saw clearly that the power to make the laws was the right through which all other rights could be secured.”

The convention, to take place in five days’ time, on July 19 and 20 at the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls, was publicized only by a small, unsigned notice placed in the Seneca County Courier. “The convention will not be so large as it otherwise might be, owing to the busy time with the farmers,” Mott told Stanton, “but it will be a beginning.”

A crowd of about three hundred people, including forty men, came from five miles round. No woman felt capable of presiding; the task was undertaken by Lucretia’s husband, James Mott. All of the resolutions were passed unanimously except for woman suffrage, a strange idea and scarcely a concept designed to appeal to the predominantly Quaker audience, whose male contingent commonly declined to vote. The eloquent Frederick Douglass, a former slave and now editor of the Rochester North Star, however, swayed the gathering into agreeing to the resolution. At the closing session, Lucretia Mott won approval of a final resolve “for the overthrowing of the monopoly of the pulpit, and for the securing to woman equal participation with men in the various trades, professions and commerce.” One hundred women and men signed the Seneca Falls Declaration-although subsequent criticism caused some of them to remove their names.

How telling is that, that no woman felt “capable of presiding” at their own Rights Convention? Holy smokes. At least there were some supportive men there, including Lucretia Mott’s husband, to step up. But not everyone was supportive:

The proceedings in Seneca Falls, followed a few days later by a meeting in Rochester, brought forth a torrent of sarcasm and ridicule from the press and pulpit. Noted Frederick Douglass in the North Star: “A discussion of the rights of animals would be regarded with far more complacency by many of what are called the wise and the good of our land, than would be a discussion of the rights of woman.”

But Elizabeth Cady Stanton, although somewhat discomforted by the widespread misrepresentation, understood the value of attention in the press. “Just what I wanted,” Stanton exclaimed when she saw that James Gordon Bennett, motivated by derision, printed the entire Declaration of Sentiments in the New York Herald. “Imagine the publicity given to our ideas by thus appearing in a widely circulated sheet like the Herald. It will start women thinking, and men too; and when men and women think about a new question, the first step in progress is taken.”

Stanton, thirty-two years old at the time of the Seneca Falls Convention, grew gray in the cause. In 1851 she met temperance worker Susan B. Anthony, and shortly the two would be joined in the long struggle to secure the vote for women. When national victory came in 1920, seventy-two years after the first organized demand in 1848, only one signer of the Seneca Falls Declaration-Charlotte Woodward, a young worker in a glove manufactory -had lived long enough to cast her ballot.

What a day that must have been for Charlotte Woodward, but how sad it took 72 years for women to get the right to vote after Seneca Falls, and that she was the only remaining one able to cast her vote. Still, what a joy that must have been for her. Can you imagine it?? WOw.

Let’s just see how far we have come in the past 161 years:

We have come nowhere near far enough. I can only imagine what Mott, Stanton, and the others, would have thought of this past primary season. On the one hand, no doubt, they would be thrilled that a woman would win the popular vote, would win almost all of the big states, many by a landslide. On the other, they most likely would have seen the treatment of that woman (and Sarah Palin, too), as more of the same. Forced by the powers-that-be to give up delegates she won fair and square for the inexperienced, younger man, forced to play by a different set of rules at the Convention than anyone else EVER, a different kind of convention from Seneca Falls, that’s for sure. It was one that failed to live by its OWN rules in order to put this woman firmly in her place. No doubt, what happened this past year would feel all too familiar to them. And to too many of us.

My deepest appreciation to these women who began this process. We have come a ways from that Convention 161 years ago, but we have far, far to go to achieve real equality in this country. One thing I do know - no one is going to hand it to us. We must keep fighting, like Hillary Clinton kept fighting in the face of the naysayers. And maybe next time, the best person, who happens to be a woman, will actually win…

It has taken the better part of a year, and specifically the last six months of this election season, for committed citizen journalists at NoQuarter and many other blogsites to do the research on Barack Obama that the media, the democratic national committee, and our Congress should have done.   Although our collective knowledge of Barack Obama and the concerns of his candidacy came too late to make a difference in this election,  for all our hard work, we were successful in shedding some light on the content of his character: his associations, his deeds, his family relations, his friends, his stewardship, his patriotism, his potential agenda, and the startling depth of his secrecy. 

Now that we have “un-muddied” the water…..we stand on the edge of a caldera* with no idea of the complexity, depth,  explosiveness, nor unpredictability of this phenomenon we have all witnessed in the rise of Barack Obama!   We as a country have never actually been here before, standing at the edge, except perhaps in the election of 1860. One realizes at once the perils of both diving into that hot pool of water or running away to avoid the explosion….

While there seems to be little evidence that we will ever fully know Obama, nor avoid the explosion change he will bring, there is a way we can learn from this experience such that our Country will never again be faced with someone who is truly unknown, inexperienced, untested, and feels (to me anyway) uncommitted to America.  We can use the  2008 experiences to also highlight and then design strategies to ensure that every political party is responsive to its constituents, and that our Constitution is really a living document.

The Constitution is by and for “we the people”; therefore “we the people” must make it work and not rely on any political party to sell America to the highest bidder.

FOUR QUESTIONS 

I bring forward four questions that get to the heart of our rights, as American citizens, to ensure that our government and its leaders are indeed qualified to lead our great country.  By extension, these questions can be used as windows to other potential areas where we the people do not yet have redress.

These questions are miraculously (given procedural errors and existing judgments)before the Supreme Court with the requirement that President-elect Obama respond to them by December 1, 2008.  

While I have not kept track of the Berg v. Obama case for many reasons, it truly is miraculous that Justice Souter granted the writ of certiorari.  Even if, as some have said, Souter’s action is not significant and procedural only, how Obama responds will reveal much about his view of the Constitution and will determine if the Supreme Court decides to hear the case.

In my opinion, the questions raised by Berg and the questions raised in the case should not have been thrown out entirely based on standing alone, or by the notion that the injury to a voter is “vague”.   The Supreme Court Rules permit the grant of a writ of certiorari only under specific circumstances.

The questions presented for review are:

1. Whether a citizen of the United States has standing to challenge the Constitutional qualifications of a Presidential nominee under the “natural born citizen clause” [Article II of the U.S. Constitution] when deprivation of the right to such a challenge would result in the infringement of a citizen’s Constitutional right to vote?
2. Isn’t it true that no one has the responsibility to ensure a United States Presidential candiate is eligible to serve as President of the United States?
3. Are there proper steps for a voter to ensure a Presidential Candidate is qualified and eligible to serve as President of the United States?
4. Isn’t it true that there are not any checks and balances to ensure the qualifications and eligibiity of a Presidential Candidate to serve as President of the United States?

 The “questions presented for review” in the the writ require Obama’ response. Notice that answering these questions does not require Obama to produce a birth certificate,  but to answer why he does not have to prove himself eligible.  

Although we cannot predict Obama’s answers, based on past legal motions submitted in the lower court case, Obama may indeed argue that (1)a citizen does not have standing, (2) that no one has responsibility to ensure eligibility, (3) that there are no proper steps for a citizen to ensure qualifications, and (4) that there are no checks and balances that exist today to ensure a candidate is qualified.  It is also possible Obama would argue that the 14th Amendment permits “naturalized citizens” and “dual citizens” to be known as “American citizens” and thereby satisfies the requirements of Article II.

I think these questions may have Obama boxed in. If he intends not release his COLB, citizenship records, etc, Obama would then practically argue a big “FU” to the U.S. Supreme Court and say in effect “I don’t have to respond to this because there is no law, no avenue for citizens, and no checks and balances that require me to do so.”  He will argue technicalities in how to disregard the Constitution. I wonder how the Supreme Court might respond to that? 

If Obama responds in any other way, he will be forced to disclose and or describe why, how, and what steps citizens can take to assure the POTUS’s  eligibility, and perhaps then he may be forced prove his eligibility to serve as POTUS under Article II. Alternatively he could be forced to concede that there are no procedures to ensure eligibility of a person for POTUS.  Would the Supreme Court order him then to produce his documentation according to the original suit filed by Berg?

One item of interest is how Obama responds to Question 4, on the existence of checks and balances to assure eligibility.  One would assume procedurally that “checks and balances” could mean legislative processes, acts, bills, or resolutions that would act as those “checks and balances”.  Here is where Obama could argue that the Senate Resolution passed by Leahy, Obama, and McCatskill on John McCain’s eligibility applies.  This resolution could be seen as an attempt by the three Senators to create a blanket provision for a naturalized citizen to be eligible to serve as POTUS.  In other words, Obama could argue that the checks and balances already exist and this resolution suffices (notice this is not a bill).

Justice Souter will then hear Berg’s response to Obama’s legal argument before deciding where the case goes next, including whether the full Supreme Court will take the issue up.  Remember that Souter’s clerks have all the lower court material and reviewed it before Souter granted the writ of certioriari.

How does the Supreme Court react?  Will it order the production of Obama’s documents? Will it order the FEC, electors, or Congress to verify his eligibility, or develop verification procedures?  Will they say that the 14th Amendment really did modify Article II criteria? Will they dismiss the case?

And how, in the meantime, are we to ever know about Barack Obama? Is the burden of proof really on America (Berg), or on Barack Obama?  Is it up to your empoyer to find out who you are, or is it up to you as an employee to provide your documentation?  Isn’t Obama supposed to be working for America?

Implications for the Future

The four questions presented to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008 will have a lasting and enduring effect on the course of the American Constitution in the next decade or more, and will continue to feed the growing doubts about Obama’s intentions in the next four years.

Just my suspician, but I am beginning to get a more complete picture of why Obama has sealed all of his records, including college financial aid applications, papers, and coursework.  I believe his financial aid applications reveal his foreign status; and I now see that his Columbia and Harvard papers could reveal his examination of the “weaknesses” of the U.S. Constitution and ways to “remedy” them using “administrative procedures”.

As I look at the scope of research on the issue of eligibility during this election season, I note that nearly all have concluded that there are no checks and balances to assure the eligibility of a Presidential Candidate, that no one is responsible, and that indeed citizens and voters have very little recourse to ask these questions.  The Supreme Court has never been presented with this question before on Article II eligibility.  I doubt that they will duck their responsibilities to protect the constitution.

It appears that up until this time, it has been assumed that every candidate and POTUS has met Article II qualifications.  We assume that in fact no one would dare to run for and claim the Presidency if he/she didn’t meet the qualifications of the Constitution.  Looks like our age of innocence is over.

It appears that we will have to craft legislation to assure eligibility criteria are met for the POTUS, and to assign appropriate responsibilities to assure so.  If the country wants to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized or dual citizens to serve as POTUS, then we have that mechanism, wherein 75% of the states have to ratify.

The four questions to the Supreme Court also remind me of other areas in which we voters do not have redress when something goes wrong.  Although I am now an “unaffiliated” voter, having left the democratic party after November 4th, it also appears that democrats do not have an avenue of redress when the DNC and RBC violate party rules as they did in this case to deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. In addition, we now know that caucuses can be gamed, and do not serve the interests of democracy or provide a fair representation of the strength of our party’s candidates.  Because of the DNC, RBC and Obama’s gaming of the system with caucus fraud,  the blatant use of race and misogyny to silence critics, we are witnessing the democrats begin the disintegration of the “democratic brand”.  I am sure there are issues in the Republican party after GWB destroyed the “republican brand”.  We all need a detox from our respective koolaid brands in order to really see clearly.

What is next for our country?  Well, if we don’t want to dive into that hot pool, we’d better start creating an alternative vision.  A line in one of my favorite movies, The Shawshank Redemption, sums it up for me:

“…get busy livin’, or get busy dyin’…”

*Photo Credits: (1)”Predictor”, EENR, Yellowstone National Park 2003. (2)British Columbia photo stock

Congratulations, Senator Obama.

And yet, we will all be watching. Very closely.

Will you make good on the promises that will make for a better life for all of us? (It’s difficult to pin down the specifics because there were so few of them.) We will be watching.

Will you appoint experienced people with integrity to help you learn your job? We will be watching.

We wish you well, we really do. Our country needs positive change. But, we will be watching. Very closely.

Obama was in my town of 25,000 yesterday begging for our lousy 4 electoral votes.

Tonight he’s having another Springsteen fund raiser in NYC because he needs dough.

This thing is close and as BHO said today, “Remember New Hampshire”. This ain’t the Bradley effect scaring the crap out of team Obama, it’s the Palin effect, the NH effect, Hillary’s “Invisibles” effect. I honestly believe that David Axelrod is seeing his worse nightmare. A repeat of the surprise finish my state gave to Hillary.

The number of undecideds are twice as high as at this point in 2004 and that does not include the Invisibles. Those who rarely or never voted before, those who may be at the lower end of our society, those who for once in their lives have the chance to vote for someone who has had their baby, someone who has struggled with children and a career. A woman like them who speaks like them and quite frankly enjoys life like they do.

Those people are never ever polled. The waitress working 6 nights to feed her own 5 kids. The women who make your bed at the Holiday Inn then go home to make dinner for their laborer husband and cute batch of kids. That woman with the tattoos riding the Harley last weekend. The Vegas strippers I “interviewed” last fall before the primary, the ones who had all registered to vote for the first time in their lives so they could vote for a woman.

The Invisibles will be the force that says no more. No more abuse Mr. Obama because we’re voting for the woman who truly does feel our pain.

Sarah Palin will win this campaign with a huge double finger to the pollsters.

Barack Obama is not the “map changer” CNN and all the discredited Democratic blogs claimed he would be; he is a supercilious underachiever who promises to color the entire nation red, not blue. He is tied with McCain in Minnesota and Pennsylvania; he is trailing McCain in Ohio AND MICHIGAN; he is CLINGING to a lead in New Jersey; and women in New York state are abandoning the Democratic ticket, thereby catapulting McCain-Palin within striking distance of Obama-Biden in a state Gore and Kerry won by 25 and 17 points respectively: portentous numbers, these, but the Democratic Party refused to listen when we warned them about this during the primary season. Democrats, I guess, want to lose. Indeed, they seem to enjoy it.

So now Obama must invest precious and finite resources in states such as New Jersey and New York. And instead of campaigning in Arkansas, Nevada, Florida or Louisiana, he will hold events in Minnesota, a state that should be solidly Democratic in the current political climate. He may even have to campaign in New York now that McCain is within five points of the underperforming Obama. A Democratic strategist quoted in the New York Post article I cite above summarizes this state of affairs succinctly. I quote:

“If it winds up being tight in New York, that means McCain wins the election nationally,” said a prominent Democrat familiar with some of the polling data.

I hope Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean, Donna Brazile and all the venal bloggers and operatives who manufactured support for Obama online are satisfied. For once McCain wins, and he will win, it will be time for real Democrats who enjoy winning elections to reform OUR presently defunct Party apparatus from within and from without. We have worked too hard for this Party to allow them to squander opportunity after opportunity in order to satisfy the warped desires of a small band of elitist mediocrities who again and again take those of us who comprise the Democratic base for granted.

216 for McCain-Palin, 217 for Obama-Biden, 105 Toss Ups: Obama’s lead in the electoral college has officially eroded. Here is Survey USA’s report about the state of electoral affairs in Washington state:

Democrat Barack Obama’s once double-digit lead in Washington state is no more, according to this latest SurveyUSA poll conducted exclusively for KING-TV Seattle and KATU-TV Portland Oregon. In an election today, eight weeks till votes are counted, it’s Obama 49%, McCain 45%. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll 4 weeks ago (before both candidates had named their running mates), Obama is down 2 points; McCain is up 1. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll 8 weeks ago, Obama is down 6; McCain is up 6. Obama led by 17 points in June, led by 16 points in July, led 8 points in August, leads 4 points today.

Among voters with no college education, there is continuing movement to McCain. Obama led by 15 points in July, now trails by 8, a 23-point erosion. Among voters who earn less than $50K a year, there is continuing movement to McCain. Obama’s once 26-point lead among the lower-income group is now 5 points, a 21-point erosion. Among voters older than McCain, Obama had led by 24 points in July, now trails by 1, a 25-point erosion. McCain always has run well among Conservatives, but his advantage among Conservatives has grown from 4:1 in May to 11:1 today. In Eastern Washington state, Obama led 5:4 in June, but McCain leads 2:1 today.

The erosion of Obama’s once staggering lead is not limited to Washington state; it has also altered the landscape of Montana. I quote Rasmussen Reports:

John McCain has opened a double digit lead over Barack Obama in Montana. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey in the Treasure State finds McCain leading by eleven, 53% to 42%.

That’s quite a change from late July when the race was a toss-up. Montana has voted for a Republican candidate in nine of the last ten presidential elections but Obama had made clear his intention to compete for the state’s three Electoral College votes. The candidate himself spent the Fourth of July in Butte, Montana and his campaign ran significant television advertising in the state. However, just before the Democratic National Convention, Obama stopped advertising in Montana and several other traditionally Republican states.

The erosion is also occuring in North Dakota. I quote Rasmussen Reports again:

Like neighboring Montana, North Dakota has become a lot friendlier to John McCain in the first polling conducted since Sarah Palin was nominated to be the Republican Vice Presidential nominee.
The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of North Dakota voters shows McCain with a 14-percentage point lead over Barack Obama, 55% to 41%. In early July, the candidates were tied in the state and Obama was looking to the Dakotas and Montana as a way to expand the electoral map for Democrats. Now, the Democratic nominee appears to be more focused on traditional battleground states.

But North Carolina really bore the brunt of this displacement of geological proportions. I quote ABC 11 News in Raleigh-Durham:

In 3 previous SurveyUSA NC tracking polls, McCain had led by 8, 5, and 4 points. Today: 20. McCain has gained ground in every demographic group. Among men, McCain led by 9 last month, 27 today. Among women, Obama led by 2 last month, trails by 12 today. McCain holds 9 of 10 Republican voters; Obama holds 3 of 4 Democratic voters; independents, who were split last month, break today crisply for McCain, where, in the blink of an eye, he is up by 25.

In a blink of an eye, a veritable avalanche followed in the wake of Sarah Palin’s emergence. States once competitive were swept into McCain’s columns, while others, particularly those “traditional battleground states,” are quickly sliding toward the precipice. McCain is hovering above the fifty percent threshold in Missouri; he leads Obama by 1 point in Nevada; he is inching ahead of Obama in Michigan; McCain-Palin trounces the Democratic ticket in Florida by a seemingly insurmountable 8 points; the gap separating Obama and McCain in New Jersey is closing; and Ohio is teetering on the brink: unless Obama can move mountains, the prospect of a Democratic victory will be nothing more than a pebble plummeting into a Republican abyss.

No wonder why Democrats on Capitol Hill are panicking. And no wonder why Obama is resorting to some of the most deplorable tactics imaginable. But Obama is desperate, and desperate candidates will do and say anything in a vain attempt to reverse a course that can only be described as inexorable.

if we pull out a 4% spread on election day, I’ll be very pleasantly surprised. It’s much more likely that we are going to see the same result as in ‘04 and ‘06, a tie or 2% lead. That’s it.

A tied race is particularly bad place for Obama. The Obama campaign planned on putting McCain on the defensive in Western states and overwhelming him with money in the key battleground states. The selection of Palin will probably nullify any Obama inroads in the West and the Republicans are suddendly at financial parity with Obama. Bloomberg News reports:

With an increase in fundraising following McCain’s choice of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, Republicans say they are no longer in danger of being swamped by Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama’s campaign cash.

“The money game is essentially off the table now,” said Eddie Mahe, a former deputy chairman of the Republican National Committee.

In addition to the financial boon brought on by Palin, the attempted swiftboating of Alaska’s governor has created a situation where the public overwhelming perceives the media as being biased for Obama. Armstrong suggests that the attacks on Palin will actually strengthened McCain:

The media has been busy digging a grave for us this past week, by following up on the vicious personal smears that have been pushed by prominent liberal blogs into the mainstream. Not only did they mostly backfire by not being true, but they confirmed the popular opinion that the media favors Obama. It’s become conventional wisdom. This presents two huge problems.

First, McCain can basically wield whatever attacks he’d like, and not have to worry about the critique of the media. They are not seen as objective judges in the matter.

Second, the only way that the media can change this public opinion is to go overboard the other way, by attacking Barack Obama with multiple feeding frenzies.

To date, the media has been unwilling to investigate or critique Obama, so a feeding frenzy is unlikely; there’s nothing to suggest that this will change. The public’s understanding of this bias gives McCain the opportunity to define Obama and link him to the media’s elitism and the D.C.-establishment culture. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden makes McCain’s task much easier. McCain/Palin now own the Change narrative. As Bob Somerby says:

That “maverick” narrative is deeply entrenched—and this planet is driven by narrative. (If we might borrow a bit from Lord Russell: It’s novels, all the way down.)

The Associated Press is reporting that Palin’s speech (and perhaps McCain’s as well) was viewed by more viewers than Obama’s, and her critiques of Obama appear to be taking a toll on the Democratic nominee. Obama seems rattled and is now defending his mysterious work as a “community organizer.” Carolyn Lockhead of the SF Chronicle (h/t Paul Villareal) writes:

Sen. Barack Obama ditched his normal languid cool today, punching back at Gov. Sarah Palin as he spoke with reporters in York, Pa, hotly defending his work as a community organizer. He said he assumes Palin “wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated, which means their records are under scrutinty [sic]. I’ve been through this for 19 months. She’s been through it, what four days?” (emphasis added)

Lockhead seems to be approving of Obama as the political pugilist, as Obama “punches” at his rival’s VP pick. Instead, by saying that Palin “wants to be treated same way guys want to be treated,” Obama is drawing attention to her gender and implying that if she complains of his tactics that she’s not as tough as the “guys.” This is classic Obama sexism: it’s the condescending put-down meant to disempower his female opponent by playing into stereotypes.

In the next sentence, however, Obama comes across as defensive:

Obama’s hackles were clearly raised by Palin’s dismissal of his community organizing –a response to his earlier dismissal of her record as a small-town mayor. “Why would that kind of work be ridiculed?” Obama said. “Who are they fighting for?” The idea that community organizing is not relevant to the presidency, he said, just shows why Republicans “are out of touch and don’t get it.”

The McCain Team should be wary of a cornered Obama. In a similar situation in January, on the heels of back-to-back defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Obama, sensing defeat, began to sound rattled. In a column titled “Now or Never,” David Broder described Obama’s desperation in psychological terms:

But all that is down the road from South Carolina. For now, Clinton and her husband, the former president, have gotten inside Obama’s head and rattled his composure. Obama seemed unusually defensive in his speech here Sunday evening, launching the final burst of campaigning in the state

Obama’s firewall in South Carolina, as has been well-documented, was the despicable use of racial politics against the Clintons.

McCain’s selection of Palin has shifted the narrative of this race away from Obama’s Hope message and back to the familiar Marverick narrative. While McCain/Palin own Change, Obama/Biden are the verbose Washington insiders. Independents and women voters are swinging back to McCain, and the electoral map projections will change the “inevitable” narrative. The McCain Team should be wary. In times like these, when Obama is feeling down, he lashes out.

“I asked Barack Obama what he wanted for his birthday. He said, ‘Indiana, Colorado and Virginia,’ ” said Kerry, referring to three potential swing states Obama hopes to win in the Nov. 4 election.

Wow - that’s all he wants? And what is a possible way, at least in their minds, that this might happen?? Well, if they chose EVAN Bayh as Obama’s running mate, they think that might just get them Indiana. You remember Evan Bayh - the big HILLARY supporter. Yes, there is a big ol’ meeting tonight in Indiana, one SO important that Evan Bayh canceled a BASEBALL game - a game that was supposed to be played last night. Whatever. Anywho - my question is: why would we (PUMAs and those who Just Say No Deal be any more swayed by Obama picking someone who was staunchly in Hillary’s camp? It’s not like we, or should I say, I, will go, “Well, heckfire - if BAYH is okay with Obama, then I guess I should be, too.” Nope. For me, it is more like, “Wow, Evan - what a turncoat!! I cannot believe you are so buddy-buddy with Obama! So much for loyalty! How COULD you??” Or something along those lines.

Anyway, there is supposed to be a big To-Do in Indiana tonight, and there is MUCH speculation that this is going to be the big day for Bayh. Even though His Royal Highness will be taking off for Hawaii in a couple of days for vacation. And Hillary will be stumping for him (do NOT even get me started on that, except to say, ARGH!). So could this be Bayh’s big day? Maybe. And next, would Obama then get his birthday wish of Colorado, Indiana, and Virgina? Well, our good buddy, GeekLove, has prepared a map of what it would look like if Obama does get his wish. With her permission, here it is:

For an added bonus, and comparison, here is the latest AOL Poll Map (also courtesy of GeekLove):

I hasten to add, I am not endorsing McCain. BUT - unless the Super Delegates get it together, it ain’t looking so good for the DNC’s handpicked selection. GeekLove’s map might be more truth than creativity. Just sayin’.

OKAY, people - IF you have NOT done the PLATFORM SURVEY for I OWN MY VOTE, please, please go do it. The survey only takes FIVE minutes, and it includes a handy Comment section - you know you have something to say about the upcoming nomination and election. Now’s your chance!!

And thanks to memeorandum.com for the WSJ article linked above!

:::::::::::::::::::::::::

NoQuarterUSA Action Of The Day: We ask that you take part in the I Own My Vote Virtual Platform Committee Meeting now! It takes five minutes. Click here to start. If you have not yet signed the pledge, click here to do so.

Republican John McCain has quickly closed the gap between himself and Democratic rival Sen. Barack Obama in several key battleground states even as the Arizona senator struggles to break through the wall-to-wall coverage of Obama’s trip to Europe and the Middle East this week.

McCain and Obama are in a statistical dead heat in Colorado, Michigan and Minnesota while the Illinois senator has a more comfortable double-digit edge in Wisconsin. …

63% Say Trip Does Not Make Obama More Fit to be President, Rasmussen Reports:

While Barack Obama has touted his travel to the Middle East and Europe this week as a “fact-finding” trip, 63% of Americans do not believe it makes the Democratic candidate any more qualified to be president.

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken Monday night, also finds that less than a third (32%) think Obama will learn from his trip to Iraq. Forty percent (40%) say his mind is already made up about policies to deal with the war there. The Democrat has been accused by liberals in his party of softening his long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq in an effort to appeal to more moderate voters. …

Here’s much more from Rasmussen’s fascinating report:

In a separate survey this week, 45% said Obama is too inexperienced to be president. This number has risen from 41% over the past week. But the same number — 45% — believe the Democratic candidate does have the necessary experience.

Slightly more than half (53%) of Americans in the new poll do not approve of candidates making statements contrary to U.S. government policy while visiting U.S. troops in a war zone. Only 29% believe that it’s okay to do so.

But 49% say it’s fine for a presidential candidate to make a highly-publicized trip to a war zone, while only 26% disagree.

Less than half (47%) believe it is better to have a president with military experience directing a war, but 38% say it doesn’t matter. Seventy-three percent (73%) of Republicans see military experience as a plus, but 57% of Democrats do not. Obama has not served in the military, while McCain was a Navy combat pilot in the Vietnam War. He was shot down on a bombing mission, imprisoned and tortured in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton” for six years.

Among those who have members of their immediate family in the military, 48% say military service makes a president better able to conduct a war, while 36% disagree.

Another Rasmussen Reports survey this week finds that while voters trust Obama more on most issues, McCain has a double-digit lead on his rival when it comes to national security and the war in Iraq. Overall, Obama and McCain remain very close in the popular vote contest as measured by the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Only 39% of Democrats say Obama’s travels this week make him more qualified to be president, while 42% disagree. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliateds feel the same way. The gap widens when how an individual plans to vote is factored in: 44% of likely Obama voters see the travel as a positive, while 89% of those who plan to vote for McCain disagree. …

READ ALL: 63% Say Trip Does Not Make Obama More Fit to be President, Rasmussen Reports.

When all the polls are averaged, Obama averages 46%. When you look at February to present, to analyze what happened when he really was gaining momentum, Obama averages 46%. And when you just look at the polls from June 3rd forward, when Obama ‘cinched’ the nomination, Obama averages 47% of the vote. This pattern is much more flat that I would have anticipated, and indicates that Obama is having a very difficult time in getting more than 50% of the vote. In fact, only 3 of the 147, or less than 2% of the polls showed him with over 50% of the respondents favoring him.

I ran the same method of analysis on McCain’s numbers. McCain was also trending a surprising static average. In all 147 polls, McCain averaged 43% of the respondents aligning themselves with him. From February forward, that number remained 43%. And from June 3rd to now, when the presumptive Democratic nominee should presumably have been getting a bounce, McCain’s number only fell by 1%.

So Barack Obama’s total bounce from his nomination, averaging all polls from June 3rd forward, was a 2% point gain, with Obama gaining 1% and McCain losing 1%.

All these numbers still show Obama ahead, so you may be wondering by now why the article is titled “Why Obama can Lose.” The answer lies in examining the current voting pool, and what opportunities are left for either candidate to gain votes. To that end, there are 4 groups that can be described as critical to putting either candidate into a majority, and looking at these 4 groups, one can see definite room for McCain support to grow, and little evidence that the same can happen for Obama.

1. Undecideds - taking an average of the polls since June 3rd, only 88% expressed a preference for Obama or McCain, leaving 12% having chosen neither at this time. According to an analysis piece in Newsweek describing the results of the new Newsweek poll, “85 percent of undecided voters are non-Hispanic whites and only 22 percent of those undecideds have a four-year college degree.” That demographic could be a challenge for Obama to win over.

2. Independents - That same Newsweek poll showed Obama lost 14 points in independent voters since June while McCain gained 5 points with independents and an additional 5 points with Republicans. Independents and moderate Republicans are asking themselves “Who is Obama?” as his position changes on issue after issue that they had previously thought him to be representing post-partisan governing.

3. PUMA Democrats and the Just Say No Deal coalition - This group of Hillary Clinton supporters are outraged at the injustice of the DNC and the May 31 RBC decisions on Florida and Michigan that ensured that Barack Obama would wind up with more delegates, effectively giving him the nomination. This coalition represents a significant percentage of Hillary’s famed 18 million, and cannot be counted on to fall in line and vote for Obama in November.

4. Barack’s base on the left - Probably the most detrimental to Barack Obama right now is Barack Obama himself. For the same reason that Obama is losing support from Independents, he is also seeing a fracturing of enthusiastic support within his base, due to his recent and substantive shifts in policy, including but not limited to:

• Opting out of public financing of campaign even though he pledged to do so in order to keep big money interests out of the campaign. MSM is just beginning to report that the majority of Barack’s funds have come from the likes of Goldman Sachs, Google, Time Warner and GE.
• Announcing that he will be revising his policies on plans for withdrawal in Iraq after running a campaign pledging that he will get the troops out in 16 months, period.
• Agreeing with the conservative minority on the SCOTUS decision to not apply the death penalty in cases of child rape where no loss of life occurs. Obama the progressive told his followers that he would impose the death penalty here.
• Agreeing with the majority in the SCOTUS decision involving the constitutionality of hand gun bans in DC. This reversal from the man from Chicago, where another hand gun ban is in place. This from a candidate who has always positioned himself as a gun control advocate.
• Pledging to expand President Bush’s faith based initiatives. This particular point has several problems. As a progressive candidate, he is arguing against separation of Church and State here. And, given we already know what spiritual advisors have had Obama’s ear for 20 years, I’m not so sure the American public is eager to support the efforts of preachers who insist that the government spread AIDS to kill blacks, or that God should damn, rather than bless America.
• And the real stinger for many: Voting for the revised FISA bill that contains immunity for the telecom community after vowing to filibuster it.

That’s quite a list, and it’s not even complete. Obama has talked out of both sides of his mouth on trade agreements, abortion, gay marriage, and just about any other issue that requires one to take a stand.

It is that constituency - those who thought they had found their progressive hero, who feel betrayed. While looking at him most of the year as their Messiah, many among his followers are now feeling as though he has become Judas, right before their eyes. Should he lose any significant proportion of these true believers, he will most definitely lose the election. And there are a lot of indications that this group is becoming very disillusioned. The less passion felt, particularly by younger voters, the less likely they will get out of their own way to get to the polls come November. This is, in my estimation, the most ominous sign of all for Barack.

The election is still months away and lots can happen along the trail. But if I was Barack Obama, I wouldn’t be buying any champagne yet.

The first post, Obama’s Flawed Race Strategy: Why the Black Vote Won’t Be Enough by iam0nly1, argues convincingly that Obama’s weakness in the Rust Belt cannot be offset by African American voters in the South:

Obama’s entire claim to redrawing the political map is based on his perceived ability to win in Southern states precisely because of African American voters. After all, this is why Hillary’s claim that she alone was capable of winning large swing states that Democrats must win, such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, went unnoticed and unheeded by Dean, Pelosi and others. However, this is a severe and dangerous gamble.

Obama is in serious trouble in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and, particularly, Florida. Consequently, he’s trying to expand into traditional red states, especially Virginia and Georgia in the South, and the Rocky Mountain West region.

The second post, by Charles Lemos, is a video and PowerPoint presentation by renowned pollster Douglas Schoen. On the surface, it seems to be good news for Obama. He now leads McCain, the country wants change, and a generic Democrat beats a generic Republican:

Lemos is correct that Schoen’s analysis is a snapshot of the current situation:

I think the presentation is accurate as of right now. In politics, nothing is static. Events happen but of as right now, Obama is leading and Schoen’s presentation, I think, offers reasons why.

Many commentators have referenced Michael Dukaksis’ infamous 17 point lead over George H. W. Bush in 1988 as a cautionary warning to Obama. Beware, the argument goes, summer’s highs can evaporate in the fall after the withering attacks by the Republicans.

All of this has me thinking about a more recent election. In 2004, my preferred candidate did win the Democratic nomination — and there was real unity in our Party. Iraq was spinning out of control, Americans felt shame about the horrific pictures coming out of Abu Ghraib prison, and the Democrats were about to nominate a genuine war hero. Looking up Democracy Corps’ polling analysis from July 22, 2004, I found that Obama’s situation is strikingly similar (if slightly weaker) compared to where John Kerry was at the same time. Karl Agne, writing for Democracy Corps, sounded even more optimistic about Democratic chances than does Schoen today:

The Kerry-Edwards ticket heads to the Democratic Convention in Boston with a great deal of momentum behind them. In a race that has been surprisingly stable and evenly divided since Kerry truly emerged as the nominee in March – characterized by small swings in either direction usually predicated by events in Iraq and in the nation’s economy – Kerry and Edwards are enjoying an undeniable shift in voter attitudes. Kerry leads Bush in every national poll released this month, reaching 50 percent in the last two surveys of likely voters.

~snip~

Virtually every poll released in the last couple weeks shows Kerry making tremendous gains in these individual states. In fact, Kerry now leads in the most recent poll in every state won by Gore in 2000 and is either winning or within the margin of error in all 11 battleground states won by Bush. In making such strong gains at this stage, Kerry has put himself in an enviable position and can now use the unparalleled exposure of the Democratic Convention to solidify these gains, reinforcing his already strong support in the Democratic base and reaching out to even more Independents and newly engaged voters.

Besides the fluctuations of polls, what’s interesting about the above statement is the reference to the battleground states. Because of our Electoral College system, national polls (as cited by Schoen) can only tell you so much, and this is where the news becomes ominous for Obama. Unless he has a huge national lead in the fall, Obama will likely be fighting for the same swing states for which Kerry fought. iam0nly1 argues that African Americans are unlikely to increase their numbers sufficiently to carry Obama in Southern states. With the South off the table, Obama will also be disadvantaged in the Rust Belt and Florida, and he will be fighting for the Rocky Mountain West:

[Obama's team] discuss the Rocky Mountain states of Nevada, New Mexico and Colorado, but frankly, even if he wins those three, and Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire (all three of which will be highly competitive), if he loses Ohio and Florida, he will lose the election 267-271 (this count includes all the states Kerry won). In short, if Obama loses Ohio and Florida, the three Rocky Mountain states and Georgia and Virginia become must win states.

In short, Obama’s minuscule national lead today — prior to the expected Republican assault — will show Obama to be a map-changer, but not in the direction he hopes.

It’s worth the read. Part one starts out like this:

In 1998, as six years of a national campaign to demonize First Lady Hillary Clinton — funded by conservatives and rooted in profound anti-feminism — was reaching a fevered crescendo, then-conservative David Brock (now of Media Matters) penned a book called The Seduction of Hillary Rodham. The publisher’s note for the tome says of its subject: “No public figure in contemporary life has elicited more polarized reactions than Hillary Rodham Clinton. The first presidential spouse who pursued a major policymaking role, the beleaguered first lady has been a heroine and role model to her feminist allies - and a malevolent, power-mad shrew to her conservative foes.”

Sometime in the last decade, her liberal foes evidently decided that whole “malevolent, power-mad shrew” thing sounded pretty good, too.

Throughout the course of the Democratic primary, it was neatly repackaged as “wildly ambitious person who will do anything in her voracious quest to win including destroying the Democratic Party while cackling monstrously and whose womanness totally doesn’t matter we swear.” The classic misogynist charge once used against Clinton by the vast right-wing conspiracy became the rallying cry of large swaths of the erstwhile reality-based community.

Without a hint of irony.

Read the rest ->

Part two starts out like this:

It was an indication of how thoroughly the left co-opted the use of the GOP and media-created scandals, to smear Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, that the Republicans weren’t even mentioning them much anymore, content to let the Left do its dirty work. There was little reason for GOP operatives to get their hands dirty reviving the villainous First Lady Macbeth caricature, when many liberals were happy to do it for them.

Not content to merely destroy the entire Democratic party single-handedly, Hillary Clinton was hell-bent on murder. Evidently having failed to satiate her bloodlust after murdering Vince Foster - or such was the claim of her ideological enemies, a charge still being chanted like a demonic incantation by rightwing pain-maker Rush Limbaugh - now she was openly lusting for the assassination of her opponent, Barack Obama. (That is not to suggest there were no legitimate concerns about her statement.) And Randi Rhodes - a “progressive talk radio personality” - fresh from calling Clinton a “fucking whore,” fanned the same flames when she announced fearing for her life after delivering the insult to someone who routinely has her enemies whacked.

Give this a read. Although stomach-churning, it calls out the that orange place and Randi Rhodes for their smears. And it’s not a bad thing to remember why we’re still fighting for HRC.

2) This morning, CNN has a story about Clinton supporters not going for Obama. According to a poll, fewer Clinton supporters say they will vote for Obama than a month ago. (See also: “Obama Fails to Attract Hillary’s Supporters.”)

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll released Friday, the number of Clinton supporters who plan to defect to Republican Sen. John McCain’s camp is down from one month ago, but — in what could be an ominous sign for Obama as he seeks to unify the party — the number of them who say they plan to vote for Obama is also down, and a growing number say they may not vote at all.

In a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey completed in early June before the New York senator ended her White House bid, 60 percent of Clinton backers polled said they planned on voting for Obama. In the latest poll, that number has dropped to 54 percent.

In early June, 22 percent of Clinton supporters polled said they would not vote at all if Obama were the party’s nominee, now close to a third say they will stay home.

Looks like PUMA and Obama’s many position switches may have had an effect here. Unfortunately, CNN still ascribes this unwillingness to vote for Obama to sour grapes rather than for any principles or ideas about leadership.

“These things always take time to heal,” said Bill Schneider, CNN senior political analyst. “I think Clinton’s supporters are waiting to see if Sen. Obama will pick her as vice president. That would certainly be very healing to them.”
———————————
“If he doesn’t pick her, a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance,” Schneider said. “In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Sen. Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk.”

Then the article slinks down to talking about how Bill Clinton needs to “repair” his image. Blech. CNN would have spent their time better to figure out exactly what the voters’ objections to Obama really are.

But I guess it’s a step up from saying it’s just a racist plot against Obama, right??? Racists, sore losers, bitter old white women and, later, just bitter white people. And the ideas that we need to just “get over it” and “come home.”

Yeah, yeah, we know. The beatings will continue until morale improves. Yada, yada, yada.

3) Over at Redstate, conservatives ponder Obama’s position(s) on abortion and figure he might not be so bad after all. Of course, they also recognize you can’t tell where he really stands. Hey, Redstate, we can’t tell either!

4) ABCnews blogger Greenburg finds it interesting that Obama has supported the gun ban reversal and death penalty decisions from SCOTUS. In particular, Obama’s position on the abortion question (saying mental distress is not a reason) is one held previously only by Justices Thomas and Scalia. Not the usual playground buddies for a Democrat.

“. . . McCain and . . . Obama praised the conservative’s position [on the DC gun ban]. The same thing happened the day before in another sharply divided 5-4 case over whether states can execute people who rape, but do not kill, children. This time conservatives lost, but again McCain and obama were on the same side, blasting the liberals’ decision striking down laws that allowed the death penalty for child rape.

“But on two of the biggest social controversies to reach the Court this year, Obama, too, [like McCain] sided with conservatives — rejecting opinions by the liberal justices who, presumably, are of the kind he would appoint if elected President.

But that’s nothing compared to Obama’s most recent comments about the most controversial social issue of them all: abortion.
————

. . . there’s no mistaking that Obama says he no longer will support what’s long been a cornerstone of the abortion rights debate: The Court’s insistence that laws banning abortions after the fetus is viable (now about 22 weeks) contain an exception to allow doctors to perform them if necessary to protect a pregnant woman’s mental health.”

Greenburg notes that Obama’s current position is in opposition to the current law of the land on this issue. She notes as well that his current position contradicts earlier legislation co-sponsored by Obama himself.

“The Freedom of Choice Act specifically allows abortions after viability where necessary to sprotect a woman’s health, and the legislation refers repeatedly to the guarantees of Roe and Doe, which protect the right to an abortion where necessary for a woman’s physical and mental health.

One of its co-sponsors? Barack Obama.

5) At fivethirtyeight.com there’s an article from June 26 about which candidate, Obama or McCain, has a problem with his base. The answer is both of them.

We’ve long assumed this about McCain, but this is a change for Obama. It may even be stronger now. We’ll just have to see. Perhaps the more interesting question now is whether or not the Obama campaign cares if its most enthusiastic base is fully behind him. Judging by his recent moves, I’d say no.

6) At therealbarackobama, Steve Diamond writes that the American Federation of Teachers is defending Obama and his education advisor Linda Darling-Hammond and suggests the AFT doesn’t want Obama and Darling-Hammond’s close relationship to Bill Ayers to get much attention. Both the AFT and National Education Association will endorse Obama.

Diamond wrote about the relationship between Obama, Darling-Hammond and Ayers before.

When I pointed out at the Edwize Blog sponsored by the United Federation of Teachers, the big New York division of the AFL-CIO affiliated AFT, that Darling-Hammond backs the same key policy proposal (repayment of centuries of “education debt” to people of color) as Bill Ayers, long time education advocate and co-worker of Obama, and that Ayers and Obama are far from being “casual acquaintances” as Leo Casey of the AFT had contended, Casey replied with the following false claims . . .

Diamond outlines Casey’s counterclaims and then states his position on those. While all this is a little “weedy” for those not involved in education, it is noteworthy that Diamond’s ends his post with the following:

While no one could, or should, impute to Obama any support for the terroristic activity of Ayers, Dohrn and others, there is an important connection between Ayers’ politics then and his approach to education policy today: Ayers and the Weather Underground promoted a politics built around the absurd idea of “white supremacy,” which Ayers calls even today the “monster in the room” at the heart of American life.

This was linked to another idea that was widely held among the maoist elements that took hold in the early 70s in the US: that American workers and their unions were part of a giant labor aristocracy that exploited workers of the south, the so-called Third World. Inside the US, the Weather Underground argued that a global form of “unequal exchange” was reproduced in the relationship between white and black workers.

Thus, when an idea like repayment of centuries of accumulated “education debt” is proposed as the top priority of the next federal government as it has been by Darling-Hammond, Ladson-Billings and Bill Ayers, all of whom have links to Obama, it is reasonable to ask what Obama’s view are on such a critical issue. The presumptive nominee has yet to explain how it is that his education advisor can promote such an idea and yet he remains silent on it.

I would think the members of America’s teachers’ unions would like to know the answers to such questions as well before they decide how to approach the upcoming elections.

I’ve heard from teachers for a long time now that “there are NO stupid questions, only the ones you don’t ask.” Well, how about asking a few? Of course, even if Obama promised the unions he wouldn’t significantly change education policies they advocate, why should they believe him?

After all, the Obama bus has a lot of blue meat under it already. Of course, teachers’ unions aren’t favorites of a lot of “middle America,” so there may simply be a collective yawn when the unions find themselves at odds with Obama later. Because, you know, all the truly progressive educated people loooooovvvveee Obama. And they make more money than teachers.

The boost in the wake of the primaries about which Obama supporters have been gloating has evaporated.  According to Gallup’s three day tracking poll, Obama and McCain are now tied at 45%.

Obama also trails McCain in the important state Missouri by a margin of seven points in a poll Survey USA released today.  McCain has already consolidated the support of a slim majority, or 50%, of Missourians, while Obama underperforms at 43%.  Consider Missouri a red state in 2008 now that superdelegates selected Obama as the Democratic nominee.

Perhaps PUMA, Just Say No Deal and I Own My Vote are finally affecting polling data.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=i9dVfylr5bg[/youtube]

Another explanation is Obama’s obvious weaknesses on issues of national security.  According to another poll Gallup released today, Obama trails McCain by a staggering 25 points on this important aspect of the Presidency.  

And while Obama has attempted to neutralize these concerns in his recent advertisement entitled “Country I Love,” he exacerbated this problem by taking credit for extending health care benefits for veterans when he in fact did not even vote on the bill he cites in the commercial.  This, I believe, will not resonate well with voters who are preoccupied with national security, and I imagine it will have electoral effects.   

Continue to support PUMA, Just Say No Deal and I Own My Vote, for our votes will decide the outcome of the election in November.  

The algorithms used by pollsters are beyond the vast majority of voters. Most people take polls at face value. WRONG.

Pollsters massage their numbers based on what they believe about the electorate. Are pollsters taking into effect PUMAs? I don’t believe they are for two reasons: 1) their state results skew unrealistically towards BHO and are out of sync with the national polls 2) almost all analysts believe PUMAs will return to the fold.

The only polls I trust right now are Rasmussen’s. He mentioned changing this methodology after BHO self-nominated.

[Ed. Note: See TexasDarlin's "Rasmussen: McCain Takes Florida" on June 20.]

Here’s a simple example.

Suppose the pollster believes the country is split as follows, based on voting patterns over the last few years:

D – 40, R – 30, I – 30

But, we know between a third and half of Hillary’s voters won’t support BHO. Many, like me, have left the Dem Party. If polled, I would call myself an independent. And, the Dems left will overwhelmingly support BHO because so many Hillary voters aren’t Dems anymore. See the problem? The models over-represent Dems and undercount Independents.

Let’s say, to make are example simple, that 10 out of the 40 Ds become Is. And, let’s assume, for simplicity, that all Ds are voting for BHO, all Rs are voting for JM, and the Is are split evenly. The electorate would look like this:

D – 30, R – 30, I – 40

That would give each candidate 50% each. But, the pollsters’ model has 40% Ds. So, they will poll and/or crunch their numbers accordingly. Let’s see what happens when the pollsters take our results and adjust for their bias.

O– 40, Mc – 30, I – 30 (split evenly) = O – 55, Mc – 45

The poll will show Obama with a slam-dunk (which is GREAT PR) while really the state is tied. I’ll bet even Obama’s internals are skewed like this, since they seem to be blithely assuming PUMAs will come home.

How many pollsters are using pre-primary demographics? Remember, two of the most reliable voting blocs are women and older voters = PUMAs.

I think the question is worth asking.

The Florida survey also found that McCain currently leads Obama in the state by a 47% to 39% margin. Six percent (6%) said they would vote for some other candidate while 8% are undecided.

However, after voters were told that McCain favored offshore drilling and Obama opposed it, McCain’s lead increased to eleven points, 49% to 38%. While a three-point net gain is not stunning, it is significant that the issue didn’t push voters towards Obama. All of McCain’s gains on the offshore drilling issue came from male voters.

How does Obama respond to the results of this poll? He drops the race card, of course. I quote Barack Obama, who according to Mark Halperin uttered the following at a fundraising event this evening in Jacksonville, Florida:

“The choice is clear. Most of all we can choose between hope and fear. It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy. We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid. They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?

["]He’s got a feisty wife.”

Even better, however, is Obama’s decision to project everything he disavows about himself and his campaign onto his Republican opponents. He continued,

“We know the strategy because they’ve already shown their cards. Ultimately I think the American people recognize that old stuff hasn’t moved us forward. That old stuff just divides us.”

Let us summarize the Obama campaign strategy: when one is poised to lose, drop the race card, but be sure to claim your opponents are the ones who are divisive, even if you are the one who disenfranchised the voters to whom you are appealing for funds. Always eschew any and all discussions on policy, and always refer to your opponents as racist and xenophobic. This is Obama’s version of unity, and this is Obama’s notion of waging a different type of political campaign. Welcome to Obamatopia, where the deck is always stacked with strategically placed race cards to be played with impunity.

Commentary available at Memeorandum.

Above average voters, the citizens of Arkansas are different. Indeed, 56% of voters in Arkansas surveyed in a Rasmussen Reports poll released today understand what we have been arguing for months: Barack Obama is too inexperienced to serve as President of the United States. This may explain why 54% of Arkansans still have an unfavorable opinion of Barack Obama. How can one win a state when over half of its residents view you with an unfavorable regard, especially when 57% of those voters view your Republican opponent favorably?

Obama trails McCain in Arkansas 39% to 48%, and only 69% of Arkansas Democrats plan to vote for the presumptive Democratic nominee. Compare this to the last hypothetical matchup between Hillary Clinton and John McCain on 12 MAY 2008, when Clinton trounced McCain 59% to 39%. The Arkansas Times could not be more succinct in the article they published on 12 JUNE 2008: Democrats “likely will be hard-pressed to win the state in November’s general election” now that Hillary Clinton is not the presumptive nominee.

Is this how Democrats win elections? Do we win elections by conceding entire states? This appears to be the Democrats’ strategy, which may explain why Obama and McCain are locked in a statistical dead heat at a time in the cycle when Democrats are normally leading their opponents by double digit margins.

Superdelegates still have a chance to nominate the electable Democrat. Will they do it? Or will they hand Arkansas and its six electoral votes over to the Republicans? Because I am interested in winning elections, I hope they will cast their votes for Hillary Clinton at the convention in Denver.

Vote By Numbers

This conclusion comes not from wishful thinking but from a new method of analysis on the statistics of polls that has been accepted for publication in the journal Mathematical and Computer Modeling. The authors, J. Richard Gott III, a professor at Princeton, and Wes Colley, a researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, are not political scientists. They are astrophysicists. And one of the tasks of scientists is to clarify the apparent complexity of the universe by using the language of mathematics.

Essentially the method is taking into account the median results of the polls a few weeks before an election. Using this method, Gott and Colley were able to pick the correct result in 49 of 50 states in 2004.

Here’s what they discovered: in swing states, the median result of all the polls conducted in the weeks prior to an election is an especially effective predictor of which candidate will win that election — even in states where the polls consistently fall within the margin of error.

To make his prediction of the outcome of the 2008 race Tyson followed the same rules established by Gott and Colley. If no poll had been take 6 weeks prior to an election or if the median poll is a tie, the win was given to the party that won it four years before. Real Clear Politics was chosen as the central database from which to make comparisons. What Tyson discovered is instructive.

We begin with the Kerry states. The states that in 2004 were won by Kerry. And we use his 251 electoral votes as a starting point for determining which states would be normally Democratic. And this is where Hillary’s case is exemplified. Because the numbers bear out the case she made on the campaign trail.

In Ohio, for example, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama two polls to one. But Mrs. Clinton beats Mr. McCain two polls to nothing. So Ohio, which Mr. Kerry did not win in 2004, would go into Mrs. Clinton’s column, giving her an additional 20 electoral votes.

Now take this all in. If Hillary were to bring Ohio into the fold, suddenly there is a number jumping right out at us that No one can ignore. That magick 271 electoral vote total qualifies someone for the Presidency. And who would that be? Hint: It ain’t Obama.

In Florida, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But Mrs. Clinton shuts out Mr. McCain two to zero. Because Florida went to President Bush four years ago, Mrs. Clinton grabs 27 more electoral votes.

Nice little 27 electoral vote buffer here. No wonder Hillary kept mentioning just how important Florida is. I wonder about the results in Michigan?

In Michigan, Mr. McCain beats Mr. Obama three polls to zero. But the median poll between Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton is a tie. Mr. Kerry won Michigan in 2004, so Mrs. Clinton gets to keep it. But Mr. Obama loses its 17 electoral votes.

What’s that? Obama loses Michigan? I thought he was awarded 59 delegates from there because some idiots used their psychic powers to determine that the people of Michigan really would have voted for him had he been on the ballot. Hmmmmm…. Seems perhaps those DNC fools might have been wrong after all.

Tyson continues to apply this examination to all of the states and his results are stunning. Indeed, Obama does better than Kerry. He beats his efforts by a total of ONE whole electoral vote. Better than Kerry, but not by much. Not much indeed. And frankly his accomplishment is easily forgotten when we take into consideration that he is just another loser anyway.

But what of Hillary?

When you complete this exercise for each state, Mr. Obama picks up Colorado, Iowa and New Mexico, three states that went Republican in 2004, but he also loses Michigan and New Hampshire, two states that Mr. Kerry had won. Mrs. Clinton loses the previously Democratic states of New Hampshire and Wisconsin, but she would nab 57 electoral votes from the Republicans by winning Florida, New Mexico, Nevada and Ohio.

If the general election were held today, Mr. Obama would win 252 electoral votes as the Democratic nominee, while Mrs. Clinton would win 295. In other words, Barack Obama is losing to John McCain, and Hillary Clinton is beating him.

In the end Tyson reaches the same conclusion that many of us have. The conclusion that has left many of us scratching our heads in disbelief.

Two questions arise in the face of this result. Whom should the Republican candidate prefer to run against to maximize his party’s chances of retaining the White House? And what does it say of the Democratic delegate selection system when its winner would lose the presidency if an election were held today, yet its loser would win it?

It really doesn’t take an astrophysicist to figure this stuff out because many of us know it intuitively. It’s Presidential Politics 101. If you want to win an election then you must compete in the swing states. And you must win there. Hillary has proven that she not only understands how to win, she has the capacity TO WIN.

It might not have taken an astrophysicist to figure this out. But I am very glad that an astrophysicist did figure it out. And prove it. It kinda makes the rest of us not look so dumb after all.

1. First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama …
2. Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain …
3. Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate

[...] First, Sen. Clinton is more experienced and qualified to be president than is Sen. Obama. This is not to say Sen. Obama cannot be a good, even great, president. I believe he can. But Sen. Clinton spent eight years in the White House. She was not a traditional first lady. She was involved in policy and debate on virtually every major domestic and foreign policy decision of the Clinton presidency, both “in” and “outside” the room with her husband. She has been a U.S. senator for eight years and has a record of legislative accomplishments, including as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

[...]

With no disrespect or criticism intended, Sen. Obama has been an Illinois state senator for eight years and a U.S. senator for just four years. He has, understandably, fewer legislative accomplishments than Sen. Clinton. That’s just a fact. Therefore, it is reasonable to argue that Sen. Clinton would be less vulnerable to criticism from Sen. McCain on the “experience” issue.

Second, Sen. Clinton’s position on health care gives her an advantage over Sen. McCain. Her proposal for universally mandated health care based primarily on private insurance and individual choices is a stark contrast to Sen. McCain’s total reliance on private market insurance, HMOs or emergency rooms for the 45 million or more uninsured. Sen. Obama’s position, while laudable in its objective, does not mandate universal care and, arguably, won’t challenge Sen. McCain as effectively as will Sen. Clinton’s plan.

Despite the fact that Sen. Obama’s campaign made the Iraq war a crucial issue in the Iowa caucuses and early primaries, there has never been a significant difference between his position and Sen. Clinton’s. Sen. Obama deserves credit for opposing military intervention in Iraq while he was running for the state senate in early 2002.

But in 2004, Sen. Obama said he “did not know” how he would have voted on the war resolution had he been a senator at the time. That summer he told the Chicago Tribune: “There’s not much of a difference between my position and George Bush’s position at this stage” of the Iraq War. (This is a statement that Sen. Clinton would not have made.) While he served in the Senate, he voted 84 out of 85 times the same as Sen. Clinton on Iraq-war related votes. The only exception is when he supported President Bush’s position on the promotion of a general that Sen. Clinton opposed.

Third and finally, there is recent hard data showing that, at least at the present time, Sen. Clinton is a significantly stronger candidate against Sen. McCain among the general electorate (as distinguished from the more liberal Democratic primary and caucus electorate).

According to Gallup’s May 12-25 tracking polling of 11,000 registered voters in all 50 states plus Washington, D.C., Sen. Clinton is running stronger against Sen. McCain in the 20 states where she can claim popular-vote victory in the primaries and caucuses. In contrast, Sen. Obama runs no better against Sen. McCain than does Sen. Clinton in the 28 states plus D.C. where he has prevailed. “On this basis,” Gallup concludes: “Clinton appears to have the stronger chance of capitalizing on her primary strengths in the general election.”

The 20 states, Gallup points out, not only encompass more than 60% of the nation’s voters, but “represent more than 300 Electoral College votes while Obama’s 28 states and the District of Columbia represent only 224 Electoral College votes.” Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain in these 20 states by seven points (50%-43%), while Sens. Obama and McCain are pretty much tied. But in the 26 states plus D.C. that Sen. Obama carried in the primaries/caucuses, he and Sen. Clinton are both statistically tied with Sen. McCain (Clinton 45%-McCain 47%; Obama 45%-McCain 46%).

Gallup’s state-by-state polling in seven key battleground “purple” states also shows Sen. Clinton winning cumulatively in these states by a six-point margin (49%-43%) over Sen. McCain, while Sen. Obama loses to Sen. McCain by three points – a net advantage of 9% for Sen. Clinton. These key seven states – constituting 105 electoral votes – are Nevada, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Mexico, Arkansas, Florida and Michigan.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama holds about an equal advantage over Sen. McCain in six important swing states that he carried in the primaries and caucuses – Colorado, Oregon, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin and Missouri. But these constitute less than half – 54 – of the electoral votes of the larger states in which Sen. Clinton is leading.

The latest state-by-state battleground polls (published May 21-23) by other respected polling organizations verify Gallup’s findings that Sen. Clinton is significantly stronger against Sen. McCain in the key states that a Democrat must win to gain the presidency. According to various poll data within the last 10 days:

- Pennsylvania: Sen. Clinton leads McCain 50%-39%; Sen. Obama and Sen. McCain are effectively tied.

- Ohio: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 48%-41%, Sen. Obama is down 44%-40%.

- Florida: Sen. Clinton leads Sen. McCain 47%-41%; Sen. McCain leads Sen. Obama 50%-40%. (Sen. Clinton has a net advantage of 16 points!)

- North Carolina: Despite a substantial primary victory, Sen. Obama is down 8% vs. Sen. McCain, (51%-43%), while Sen. Clinton leads by 6% (49%-43%).

- Nevada: Sen. Clinton up 5%, Sen. Obama down 6%.

Even the theory that Sen. Obama can open up significant numbers of “red” states has not been borne out by recent polling. For example: in Virginia, which Sen. Obama won substantially in the Feb. 12 Democratic primary, he is currently down in at least one recent, respected poll by a significant 9% margin – one point greater than the 8% margin Sen. Clinton is behind Sen. McCain.

[...]

READ ALL.

In 2001, Gene Lyons and Joe Conason, both respected journalists of the center-left, co-authored The Hunting of the President, a frightening look at the Right’s conspiracy to destroy the Clintons. However, it is more frightening still to realize that the neo-liberals are putting to use the same tactics to destroy Hillary. The RFK assassination “issue” comes to mind as a particularly ugly example.

Ironically, Lyons and Conason exemplify the split within the Democratic Party. Conason suggests that Hillary Clinton is channeling George Wallace (an analogy used here first but accurately applied to Obama), and he “worries” about this harming Hillary’s reputation. On the other hand, Lyons chronicles how Obama encourages the press corps’ anti-Hillary biases, and he warns of a split in the Democratic coalition.

In their book, Lyons and Conason show how the Washington press corps were accomplices in the Right’s plan to destroy the Clintons. Perhaps having learned from that analysis, now Conason uses the same straw man techniques to question Hillary’s motives. For example, when Hillary stated that Obama is having trouble winning the votes of blue-collar whites, Conason interprets her comments with this broadside:

What she should not ignore, however, is the damage that her increasingly reckless behavior is inflicting on her reputation and that of her husband — especially when she starts to sound like a reincarnation of the late George Wallace.

What Conason doesn’t address is that Obama does have a problem winning the votes of blue-collar whites. Conason is using the same rhetorical trick as Keith Olbermann and Markos Moulitsas, the trick where accusations of racism are treated the same as real racism.

However, as the Times pointed out the day after Hillary trounced Obama in West Virginia, she beat him because of her economic message, not because of racism:

Nearly two-thirds of West Virginia voters said that the economy was the most important issue facing the country, and they backed Mrs. Clinton by a margin of 2 to 1. About 9 in 10 voters say they were affected by the current economic slowdown, including nearly half who said they were affected a great deal. Mrs. Clinton was supported by about three-quarters of those most affected.

Obama bloggers screamed “racism” at the incredible rejection of Obama by West Virginia voters. However, as Paul Lukasiak shows, Obama once lead Hillary among white men by 4.6% but now trails her by 12.9%. It’s not Obama’s skin color which matters; that hasn’t changed. What has changed is the information the public has received about Obama, his associates, and the way he has conducted his campaign. For instance, the Obama campaign’s suggestion that Hillary is waiting for something unthinkable to happen to Obama.

Avoiding the pathos invoked by Conason, Lyons writes that low-income whites are attracted to Hillary because of her populist, patriotic message:

Every available poll shows that economics, health care and national security motivate such voters, not bigotry. Academic leftists have daydreamed about a winning coalition of African Americans and latte-sipping idealists since forever, but it’s never worked before, and there’s no reason to believe it can work [now].

Conason continues his rhetorical tricks of smearing the Clintons by praising the Clintons’ past stands on racial issues, and then bemoaning that:

the Clintons probably understand the essential evil of racism better than most white politicians. They have certainly done more than most of today’s white politicians to combat that evil. That is why, as they contemplate the conclusion of this campaign, they deserve better from themselves than to encourage doubt about their decency and character.

Juxtaposed to Conason’s straw man argument, Lyons calls out the media for their obvious bias:

But it’s not merely patronizing for the Washington media to have taken sides, it’s dangerous. By declaring an extremely close contest over, and by repeatedly questioning the motives, even the sanity, of Clinton and her supporters, they’ve led Democrats to ignore a big chunk of political reality.

The reality of which Lyons writes is the divisions which have arisen in this primary that constitute a culture war. During the rise of the evangelical movement, the culture wars involved the strictures of Christian Right versus the secular mainstream. Similar to that culture war, the one that is dividing the Democratic Party is based on differing values: the race-baiting ideology of the neo-liberals, including accusing the Clintons of racism against all contrary evidence, accompanied by sweeping allegations of racism directed at anyone not supporting Obama, versus the more progressive positions proposed by Hillary such as advocating solutions for our economic woes, universal health care, a livable wage, and being strong on national security issues.

To put it differently, in order to promote their far-left (but less progressive) agenda, Obama and his operatives participate in willful misinterpretation for the sake of accusation and slander, tools employed by the far Right and the media in the 1990s. They employ an intentional knee-jerk reaction to find fault and blame Hillary Clinton not because she’s wrong but in order to further their own agenda, primarily the acquisition of power and the expelling of blue-collar whites from the Party. Contrast this with Hillary’s supporters’ ongoing questions about Obama: we want to know who he is, what he has accomplished, and why someone would vote for him.

This is especially important because Obama has received fewer votes than Hillary and he is the weaker Democratic candidate, yet it appears that he is being forced onto Democrats even though they have soured to his candidacy. Anglachel describes the culture war in this campaign in these terms:

The actual political battle being fought this electoral year is whether or not the Democratic Party is willing to abandon its elitist politics of resentment against its own working class core and take that part of the population back from the Republicans…

If the anti-Clinton wing persists in the politics of demonization to the detriment of the party, they will be the ones left at the station as the Republicans drive off with the majority of the voters.

Conason and Lyons, once coauthors and now on opposite sides in this new culture war, epitomize this distinction: one fishes for blame and the other hunts for answers