…“the parties once served a purpose, but they have degenerated into a system that discourages independent thought and undermines representative government” and “…loyalty to one’s political club often seems to trump objective decision-making.”

Amen. This is nothing new, however. Contrary to President Obama’s claims of being post partisan, his aggressive push of fealty to his “club” is just as bad as Republicans backing President Bush no matter what. Increasing numbers of voters registering as independents, voters holding tea parties and calling their party and individual representatives on the carpet is both a good and bad sign – it is a good in that voters are paying attention, fed up with being patronized and ignored. It is bad that they must take precious time away from work and family and get out a pitchfork to goad their representatives into remembering how to properly do their jobs in the first place.

Mr. Edwards cites the following example of party politics and groupthink:

Last month, when the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions became the first to vote out a healthcare reform bill, not a single Democrat thought questions about the proposal, which included a government-run plan, were sufficient to raise doubts about moving forward. Not one Republican thought the current state of American healthcare justified the proposed legislation.

If legislators decided how to vote by weighing the concerns of their constituents, looking to their own philosophies of government and evaluating proposals on their merits, one might assume that at least one or two Democrats would have balked, and perhaps a Republican or two would have voted to go forward. But we don’t live in that kind of political world.
(snip)
Granted, there are distinctions in political philosophy that draw people to one party or the other (a natural coalescing), but it is nonetheless clear that there is far less independent thinking going on than good governance would demand. (California’s two senators, incidentally, were among the worst: Barbara Boxer voted with her party 95.5% of the time; Dianne Feinstein, 94.2%.)

Mr. Edwards points out that we were appalled at President Bush’s use of signing statements. Now that President Obama is using them, there is nary a peep from the media or his virulent supporters. How is this acceptable?

Edwards states:

Loyalty to party undermines the very essence of representative government, which depends on entrusting members of one’s community to act in one’s stead as an evaluator of legislative policy.

What author Peter Shane labeled “Madison’s Nightmare” has come true: We live in a world of constant partisan warfare, a never-ending battle between “my club” and “your club,” undermining the belief that a citizen’s vote truly counts for something.

I did not elect my representatives to toe the party line. I expect them to be intelligent enough and courageous enough to do what is best for the people who put them in office, not to vote their coffers or personal interest.

As a lifelong Democrat, 2008 was obviously a rude awakening in many ways. I came to understand that labels mean far less than the individual carrying them. I vote the person now, not the party. I vote the issue, not groupthink. I registered as an independent because I am no longer comfortable blindly handing over my vote.

In conclusion, Edwards tells us:

Political theorist Bernard Crick wrote that “politics is how a free people govern themselves.” Strong political parties, on the other hand, are how a free people lose that ability. Parties choose which candidates can be on the November ballot, and do so in primaries and conventions that cater to the extremes. Parties reward fealty and discourage independence. In an earlier time, before the Internet, when it was hard to get information about candidates and they had to depend on party support for campaign funds and volunteers, political parties made sense; today, they are passe, black-and-white television, remnants of a time that has passed.

He makes a good point. Since President Obama is fond of using the internet to his advantage to get his message out, it is likewise heartening to know that educated citizens and citizen journalists are now leveling the playing field by getting their message out as well.

If our political parties are only capable of loyalty to themselves, disconnected from the needs of the average voter, it is time more of us grew our connection to each other. A commenter recently posted that Americans on opposite sides of the aisle have more in common than they realize. I agree. All they need do is look past the polarizing rhetoric their respective parties use to divide and conquer for their own selfish ends. If we can do that, we’ll be on to something.

What say you?

If you are noticing an uptick of independent voters, or “independent behavior” so to speak, I’d love to hear about it.

One can only hope. Oh, hahaha – “hope” – yes, it is a part of this story. “Hope and Change” – sound familiar? It should, not just for Barack Obama, but for his buddy for whom this strategy was tested: Deval Patrick. Oh yes, in case you didn’t already know, Patrick and Obama share the same media consultant: David Axelrod. Patrick rehearsed all of Obama’s lines for him just to see if they would work. They did, and he got elected.

But now, it seems things aren’t looking so good for Patrick’s re-election. It seems the folks in Massachusetts are finding that “Hope!” and “Change!” don’t put food on the table, as this article details: Patrick Support Plummets, Poll Finds: Faulted on economy, reforms; tough reelection fight ahead. Oh, dear – that doesn’t look good does it? And check out why:

Governor Deval Patrick, fresh off signing a major tax increase and still battling through a historic budget crisis, has seen a huge drop in his standing among Massachusetts voters and faces a tough road to a second term, according to a new Boston Globe poll.

The survey, taken 16 months before the election, shows that the public has lost faith in Patrick’s ability to handle the state’s fiscal problems or bring reform to Beacon Hill, as he had promised. He is either losing or running neck-and-neck in matchups with prospective rivals, according to the poll, conducted for the Globe by the University of New Hampshire Survey Center.

Patrick’s favorability rating has dropped sharply over the past seven months, with just 36 percent of respondents holding a favorable opinion of him, and 52 percent viewing him unfavorably. As recently as December, 64 percent of voters viewed him favorably.

The governor’s job-approval rating, sampled after Patrick scored several major legislative victories but also approved $1 billion in new taxes, is even worse, with just 35 percent of respondents approving and 56 per cent disapproving of his performance. Just as ominously, 61 percent said the state is on the wrong track, compared with 31 percent who said it was headed in the right direction, down from 44 percent in December – numbers reminiscent of voters’ mood before Patrick captured the corner office from Republicans in 2006.

Even the state Legislature, traditionally held in low esteem by the public, won higher marks when voters were asked whom they trust more to manage the state budget crisis and faltering economy. Forty percent said they put more faith in state lawmakers to handle fiscal issues, compared with 23 percent for Patrick.

“These numbers indicate that Patrick is in a very difficult position regarding his reelection,’’ said Andrew E. Smith, director of the survey center. “Voters do not think he is up to the task of dealing with the state’s fiscal problems, and he has lost his mantle as a reformer.’’

The poll, conducted among 545 respondents statewide from July 15 to 21, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

Well, yes, I would think so. In order to be a reformer, one has to be a reformer! I’m just sayin’, you can’t just CLAIM you do something without actually following through on it. Again, as noted a gazillion other times, “words, just words” just don’t cut it in a real-world kind of way.

Well, it’s not all Patrick’s fault, I suppose:

Patrick, the poll numbers suggest, is being blamed in part for the fallout from a global recession largely beyond his control. But even as Massachusetts approved this year’s budget without the political acrimony that has crippled states such as New York and California, polls around the country indicate that Patrick appears to be one of the least popular governors in the nation.

The potential matchups for the 2010 election illustrate the perilous political position of Patrick, who has said he will not govern on the basis of poll numbers.

State Treasurer Timothy P. Cahill, who left the Democratic Party this month to plot a potential independent gubernatorial candidacy, runs even with the governor in a three-way race that includes a Republican candidate.

Cahill also has a much higher standing with the public: Forty-two percent of respondents say they view him favorably, compared with 17 percent who view him unfavorably; the rest said they did not know.

Without Cahill in the race, the poll indicates, Patrick runs behind or even with the two potential Republican contenders. The newest GOP entrant, former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care chief executive Charles D. Baker, tops Patrick 41 percent to 35 percent in a head-to-head matchup. Baker beats Patrick even though more than six in 10 respondents said they knew little about the Republican.

The other Republican candidate, former Turnpike Authority board member Christy Mihos, runs about even, getting 41 percent to Patrick’s 40 percent, even though nearly two in five respondents said they viewed Mihos unfavorably.

Patrick’s best hope at this point appears to be that Cahill and Baker both run. The governor’s core constituency remains highly educated, liberal Democrats and voters in Western Massachusetts, which could help form a big enough base if Baker and Cahill split many conservative Democrats, independents, and Republicans. Baker has the potential to cut into Cahill’s support among independents the more he introduces himself to voters.

Patrick’s formerly strong appeal to independents – the state’s largest voting bloc – has dropped sharply, with only 17 percent viewing him favorably. Nearly two-thirds say they have an unfavorable opinion.

Seven months ago, a Globe poll showed that 52 percent of independents viewed the governor favorably.

“I just somehow expected him to be more ready and have more of a plan in place by now than he does,’’ said one poll respondent, Norma George, a 71-year-old retired nurse from Duxbury.

George, an independent who voted for Patrick in 2006, thinks the governor has been too indecisive.

“It may not even be his fault,’’ she said. “But I’m just disappointed with the way things are moving, or lack thereof.’’

And there you have it. Really – that is the crux of it all, isn’t it? That even if things aren’t his fault, he has not produced a VIABLE plan to help his state. That sure sounds like someone else we know, doesn’t it?

Here’s another one of the big reasons why Patrick is losing support, and while it is serious for those folks in the Commonwealth, it is serious for the rest of us who have a president based on this concept writ large:

One of the most damaging findings in the poll for Patrick was that most Massachusetts residents do not believe he has brought change to Beacon Hill, a core tenet of his 2006 gubernatorial race and a key aspect of his political persona.

Patrick’s political advisers have hoped he would get a big boost from his recent signing of major overhauls of state ethics, transportation, and pension laws – all changes he championed.

But just 25 percent said they felt that Patrick has brought reform to state government, while 62 percent said he had not – including nearly half of Democrats.

The governor must try to recover his political standing in an economic environment that some state officials believe could worsen next year.

On a variety of issues – from taxes to funding for Greater Boston’s zoos – voters either disagree with Patrick or do not trust him.

New increases in the sales and other taxes, which the Legislature initiated but Patrick signed, are deeply unpopular, despite being passed to prevent deeper cuts to state and local services. Sixty-one percent of respondents said they object to the increases – and Patrick appears to be getting most of the blame.

The buck does stop there, doesn’t it? Surely he didn’t think he would get all the glory and none of the blame, did he? (Hmmm – I just wonder if that is what Axelrod promised these guys? All the glory, none of the responsibility? Who knows, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that was the case…)

Poor Patrick, though – nothing he seems to do now appears to be working:

Nearly 60 percent of respondents opposed the governor’s veto of $4 million in funding for Franklin Park Zoo in Boston and the Stone Zoo in Stoneham. State lawmakers may vote this week to override Patrick’s veto, and zoo officials have threatened to close unless the funding is restored.

But even as residents object to Patrick’s funding cuts for the zoos, few actually visit them. Three-fourths of those polled said they had not been to either zoo within the past two years.

A majority of respondents – 57 percent – said they support Patrick’s plan for casino gambling in three locations in Massachusetts, a slight increase from previous Globe polls. The public overwhelmingly wants resort casinos, which Patrick has pushed, over slot machines at racetracks, which House Speaker Robert DeLeo strongly favors. Sixty percent of respondents favored resort-style casinos, compared with 12 percent preferring slots at racetracks.

And despite Baker’s background at Harvard Pilgrim, voters at this point see Patrick as the best candidate on healthcare, though by a small margin.

Overall, though, voter antipathy for Patrick is clear. Asked, in an open-ended question, to name the biggest problem facing the state, about a third of respondents listed jobs and the economy. Strikingly, nearly 7 percent volunteered Patrick by name.

OOPS – that is not good, is it? But wait, it gets worse:

Massachusetts residents also apparently believe that one-party rule on Beacon Hill has not worked. After 16 years of Republican governors, Patrick’s 2006 victory brought Democratic dominance to the State House. But a plurality of voters surveyed – 46 percent – prefer divided government; even 28 percent of Democrats said so.

I reckon that should be a lesson to us all, shouldn’t it? Oh, wait – we are already learning that lesson, I think. I never thought I would be saying that, but there it is. As it turns out, we DO need checks and balances. I reckon those Founders knew just what the hell they were doing after all!

But it isn’t ALL bad news:

Among other political figures, Senator Edward M. Kennedy is viewed favorably by the most people – 60 percent of respondents. Senator John F. Kerry fared worse, with 46 percent viewing him favorably and 44 percent saying they had an unfavorable opinion of him. Attorney General Martha Coakley remains popular, with 56 percent of respondents viewing her favorably and just 15 percent viewing her unfavorably. (Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com. Frank Phillips can be reached at phillips@globe.com.

So, there’s that. But wait – it turns out, the comparisons continue, as the title of this article indicates, “Poll: Obama Reaches A New Low.” In just six L-O-O-N-N-G-G months, people are starting to wake up from the “Hope!” and “Change!” hooeyfication. What took them so long?

President Obama’s approval numbers reached a new low today, according to Rasmussen’s tracking poll.

A total or 49% of likely voters now approve of Obama’s job performance, compared to 50% who disapprove.

Only 29% “strongly approve,” compared with 40% who “strongly disapprove.” The 11% gap between those numbers is the largest since Obama took office.

The percentage of respondents who strongly disapprove of Obama’s performance has jumped 5% since the President’s prime time press conference on Wednesday.

Gee, I’m no statistician or anything, but that doesn’t look too good to me (click HERE to read the rest of the article, if you wish)…

Axelrod, if my prayers are answered, will be known as the master of the One-Term Wonders. Fingers crossed!!!

Americans United is going after Democrats who are skeptical of Mr. Obama’s plans to double the national debt in five years and nearly triple it in 10. The White House is taking aim at lawmakers in 12 states, including Democratic Sens. Kent Conrad, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor. MoveOn.Org is running ads aimed at 10 moderate Senate and House Democrats. And robocalls are urging voters in key districts to pressure their congressman to get in line.

I refer to Americans United, Karl Rove and MoveOn as idiots, as all of them are hopelessly misinformed.

Rove believes the coordinated effort of the White House to pressure moderate Democrats through various advocacy groups will backfire. He is partially correct, but his reasoning is flawed. I quote Rove:

Every White House is faced with finding ways to nudge Congress without antagonizing it. But this overt campaign could infuriate members who won’t appreciate being targeted by a president of their own party. They could react by becoming recalcitrant. Should that happen, team Obama will have to recalculate its efforts, especially as the public sours on big spending plans.

Members of Congress will not simply become “recalcitrant” as a result of their personal disdain for Obama’s tactics; they will become recalcitrant as a result of all the Republican support they will receive from their constituents. Hence why I believe MoveOn and Americans United are idiots: attempting to incite certain Democrats to pressure certain Democratic moderates, their efforts will simply alert Republicans who probably never supported these Democrats that their Senator or House Representative is indeed a moderate. And not only will this engender Republican support for the moderate Democrats in question; it will also compel the Republicans and Democrats who voted against Obama in certain states to oppose Obama’s budget in a more active and vigorous manner. Moderate Democrats in Congress will then have electoral justifications to oppose Obama, and Republicans, Independents and Democrats who oppose Obama will have a new political signifier around which they can mobilize.

Consider Mary Landrieu and Blanche Lincoln, two Senate Democrats who represent southern states. Mary Landrieu beat her Republican opponent John N. Kennedy by 6 points last cycle, warding off a Republican surge that delivered a 59-40 victory to John McCain. The reaction against Obama in Louisiana almost derailed her reelection efforts, but she managed to win by citing her centrism and independence. Not only has that centrism and independence been confirmed by the ads Democratic organizations are launching against her; the Republicans who opposed her will now support her out of sympathy. As a result, she will receive supportive telephone calls from Louisiana Republicans who will urge her to oppose Obama’s budget. Moreover, her approval ratings will increase, complicating liberal advocacy groups’ efforts to render her unelectable. And yes, many Democratic groups would be satisfied if Mary Landrieu lost a reelection. Some Democrats, in fact, believe she deserves no respect. But to the chagrin of these Democratic activists, their botched efforts to make her political life difficult will only garner her more support from the Republicans who would otherwise oppose her.

Blanche Lincoln will run for reelection in 2010, and the results of the 2008 Presidential election in Arkansas are certainly not in her favor. In fact, McCain clobbered Barack Obama by a margin of 20 points in Arkansas, a margin that would make any Democratic incumbent nervous. Republicans are targeting her for her potential support of Card Check, while some Democrats derisively characterize her as the Democrat of Wal-Mart. This is certainly a stressful position for a Democrat who hopes to cobble together the coalition required to win in 2010 in a state that rejects the current Democratic President to whom she will be tied. But now that liberal advocacy groups are airing advertisements and complaining about Lincoln on the telephone lines of Arkansans, Republicans will rally behind her, and they may even cast votes for her in 2010. Americans United and MoveOn think they are blackmailing Lincoln with the threat of political death, but they are in fact increasing her popularity in her state, thereby handing her justification to oppose Obama’s budget and agenda. Some actions have inadvertent consequences.

Rove is incorrect when he claims moderate Democrats will react personally to Obama’s efforts to manufacture grassroots opposition to their centrism, and MoveOn and Americans United are incorrect when they believe their Washington, DC, advocacy will yield results in Louisiana and Arkansas. All of them are idiots, as all of them are misinformed, and all their efforts are misguided. But at least Democrats who struggle to win south of the Mason-Dixon line will remain in office as a result of the idiocy of some groups’ version of advocacy. For similar to Bill and Hillary Clinton, these Democrats understand the predicaments and the paradoxes that sustain the Democratic Party in the South. Republicans and the operatives surrounding Obama, on the other hand, do not. Obama, after all, admires Reagan, and Reagan, to be sure, is anything but an expert on Democratic politics.

Here is how the AAPOR defines the Bradley effect on page 53 of the report:

the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent.

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama’s fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. Of the 81 polls conducted during the final 30 days of the Iowa, South Carolina, California, and Wisconsin contests, the vast majority (86%) over-estimated Clinton’s relative vote share, while just 14% over-estimated Obama’s relative vote share. This finding is based on the signed direction of A for each survey.26 Furthermore, as reported in Table 3, poll estimates of Obama’s vote share in New Hampshire were quite accurate – it was only Clinton’s share that was consistently underestimated.

Here is Table 3 (page 14):

In poll after poll Hillary Cinton’s support was undersampled while Obama’s support was correctly sampled. It was not that her supporters lied to pollsters; they were simply not contacted.

Pollster.com offers this summary of the report:

• Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polls conducted before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate’s preferences there.
• Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Senator Clinton. Instead of continuing to call their initial samples to reach these hard‐to‐contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who more typically supported Senator Obama.
• Non‐response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre‐election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups who supported Senator Clinton–such as union members and those with less education–were under‐ represented in pre‐election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
• Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely larger error than was present in the unadjusted data. The influx of first-time voters may have had adverse effects on likely voter models.

Hillary’s base of women, blue collar workers, union members, single mothers and the elderly were simply too difficult to contact, while young Obama supporters were always available by telephone. It was not racism or the Bradley Effect that enabled Hillary to win New Hampshire; it was that the pollsters never spoke to her base.

But the media and the Obama campaign had to accuse New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters of racism in order to minimize Hillary’s victory and racialize the race before the South Carolina primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American.

Here is Mickey Kaus of Slate on January 9, 2008:

1. Bradley Effect: It seemed like a nice wonky little point when Polipundit speculated on the Reverse Bradley Effect–the idea that Iowa’s public caucuses led Dem voters to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by caucusing for Obama. Now this is the CW of the hour. Polipundit wrote:

I suspect that Obama may have scored better than he would have in a secret-ballot election, and benefited from a Reverse Bradley Effect.

New Hampshire, of course, is a secret ballot election. Voters might have told pollsters one thing but done another in private.** New Hampshirites I ran into Tuesday night mentioned that the state was very late ratifying the MLK Holiday.

Here is Andrew Kohut in the New York Times on January 10, 2008:

To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.…

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews….

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.

Here is David Kuo of the Huffington Post as votes were counted during the New Hampshire Primary:

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll — from exit polls to tracking polls — are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Here are excerpts from MSNBC on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:

ROBINSON: Well, I‘ll tell you what some people will suspect. Here you have polls, you know, the day before the primary showing Obama way ahead. And he finishes, you know, 15 points lower than that. A lot of people will suspect a “Bradley effect.”

You know, Tom Bradley…

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, Tom Bradley. You‘re…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: Not the Bill Bradley effect. We were talking about Bill Bradley‘s endorsement being, you know, not necessarily the greatest thing. I‘m talking about Tom Bradley, the mayor—African-American mayor of Los Angeles years ago, ran for governor of California. Polls showed him on election eve that he was going to cruise to victory and he lost. And Doug Wilder of—the first…

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, but are you really saying right now that the people of New Hampshire may have—I won‘t say, be racist, but are you saying that they did not want to go in that booth and vote for a black man? …

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, I‘ve been listening to the panel. Number one, the “Bradley effect,” whether people are going to decide it was in effect in this case is very real and talked about among people in the political business. Let‘s not forget the Gantt race in North Carolina few years ago.…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, you can only go back—you know, and I go back in recent history and you try to find races where you had these gigantic poll shifts, where the final pre-election polls differed so dramatically from the actual result.

And the one thing they all have in common is something that Eugene Robinson brought up earlier, and that is race.

It was Tom Bradley in California governor‘s race in 1982. The polls had him ahead—ahead by a fairly healthy margin over George Deukmejian. He ended up losing.

And Virginia governor, 1989, Doug Wilder had a double digit lead going into the final—in the final weekend. He won by a very narrow 1 point margin.

Harvey Gant, the 1990 Senate race with Jesse Helms—one of the most divisive races, frankly, that this country had on race. That was, again, pre-election polls had Gant ahead, Helms wins.

So you can‘t help but look at that—and particularly you‘ve got to wonder what this sends—the message that this could send to African-American Democrats, who may look at this and say, well, of course, that‘s what happened. You know, a lot of times when I‘ve noticed this and when you talk to African-American Democrats, they sat here and they‘ll see this race stuff a lot quicker than us in white America. And I think that this is—it‘s at least, you‘ve got to explore it. You‘ve got to look at it. History has taught us this—recent history—when it‘s come to dealing with African-American candidates.

Here is Carol Costello, Andrew Kohut and Professor Charles Ogletree on CNN’s Situation Room on January 11, 2008:

I’m Wolf Blitzer.

You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Is the U.S. ready for an African-American president?

Senator Barack Obama’s strong showing so far in this campaign has many saying absolutely, yes. Others, though, say it’s too soon to tell.

Carol Costello has been looking into this story for us — you’ve been talking to a lot of people supposedly knowledgeable on this very sensitive subject.

What are they telling you?

COSTELLO: Well, it is a sensitive subject, isn’t it?

You know, most I talked with today say it is too soon to tell.

Obama seems to have transcended race, but can he in the long run?

Already, critics say Obama’s opponents are trying to create this subtle narrative of racial division. They deny it, but it illustrates how hard it is in this country to take race out of the equation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The Iowa caucus created all kinds of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. His win in a predominantly white state and a strong showing in another seemingly proves it — Obama can transcend race. It’s something Obama has always believed could happen.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I am here to tell you yes, we can in ‘08.

COSTELLO: Maybe. But there are those who feel while Iowa and New Hampshire prove Obama can certainly get white votes, it doesn’t mean he can continue the trend — that Obama’s second place finish in New Hampshire, despite polls that had him coming in first, illustrates the undercurrent about race that exists in this country.

Andrew Kohut, in charge of Pew Research, has a theory. He says many of those inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were poor, uneducated whites who don’t participate in polls and who often don’t vote for blacks.

ANDREW KOHUT, PRES., PEW RESEARCH CTR.: At least race should be considered because we know that the kinds of people drawn to Mrs. Clinton are always the kinds of people who turn down surveys at pretty high rates. We don’t know much about whether the people who we don’t get are like the people that we do get.

COSTELLO: Polls about race are notoriously difficult to analyze. Take this ABC/Washington Post poll conducted before the Iowa caucus. A whopping 88 percent of Americans said race would not matter in choosing a president. But pollsters say you have to take this result with a grain of salt. Few people are willing to tell a pollster they’re racist. It reflects the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for governor in California in 1982. Most polls showed him leading but he lost to a white male candidate.

PROF. CHARLES OGLETREE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Ask Tom Bradley when he ran for governor in California. Black man, thought he could win, he didn’t. Ask Harvey Gant in North Carolina. Ask Harold Ford, Jr.

COSTELLO: Look at the stats. There is one black governor in the United States. They are nine women governors. They are 16 senators who are women. And one black man, Barack Obama.

Still, Barack Obama got plenty of votes in New Hampshire and in Iowa, which are both 95 percent white.

You could say that trumps the poll, but there are many more people yet to vote and racial under currents that are so hard to predict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And here is the Obama campaign as discussed in an article by Ryan Lizza in the January 21, 2008, edition of the New Yorker:

Did Obama experience a similar fate in New Hampshire? The evidence is murky, but his campaign believes the question is important enough to warrant study. When I asked a senior Obama adviser whether the Bradley effect was a possible explanation for the gap between the final poll numbers, which showed Obama leading by an average of eight points, and the ultimate outcome, he replied, “Definitely.” He added, “If so, then the question is: what’s different between Iowa and New Hampshire? It could be that the socially acceptable thing in front of your neighbor at a caucus could be different than what you do in a secret ballot. Obviously, that’s something we’re going to be trying to figure out as we go forward, primarily through polling. I know people are working on ways of asking questions about getting at people’s attitudes about race. We’re working on this.”

In other words, the Obama campaign cited the Bradley Effect in order to explain a loss, and the sycophantic media repeated the notion again and again and again. Apparently they received the memo from David Axelrod as votes were counted in New Hampshire. Too bad real analysis reveals that the Bradley Effect had no impact on the New Hampshire Primary.

Will CNN apologize? Will MSNBC apologize? Will the New York Times apologize? Will Slate apologize? And is it not a coincidence that after the Obama campaign decided race was the reason he lost the NH primary that the Clintons were accused of racism by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary? All of it was debunked in the report released today by the AAPOR. Will Obama and Axelrod apologize to Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I doubt anyone will apologize, for no one in the Obama administration or in the Obamamedia cares about facts. But at least all of us know that those of us who voted for Hillary during the New Hampshire primary and during the other primaries are not racist. Will they apologize to us?

In defining myself politically, I like to think of myself as representing a civilized consensus that does not fall into any particular political camp. More specifically:

On social issues, I am a liberal. As I said in my video “Why I should be President (I am the Very Model of a Modern Intellectual)”, I am tolerant of peccadillos cultural and sexual, provided they don’t frighten children and horses. People’s private lives are nobody’s business but their own, and should be kept that way. But I don’t much care for people who try to flaunt their sexuality (or their views) in everyone’s face, unless invited to.

I do not like those who advocate violence for anything except the defense of freedom from tyranny and terrorism (and then only as a last resort, although I cannot see any point in trying to reason with people who are manifestly immune to reason or to anyone’s point of view but their own).

On cultural issues, I am a conservative. I believe in conserving the best aspects of traditional culture (in my case western culture, since that is what I know best) and keeping alive the names of those who have contributed to our musical, artistic and literary heritage. I am also culturally conservative in that I resist the pressures of other cultures to foist their values on me and other westerners, for example the recent attempt to get the United Nations to ban any criticisms of Islam.

On economics, I have mixed views. I do not believe in unbridled capitalism that allows CEOs of failing companies to award themselves scores of millions in severance pay. At the same time I do not believe that Big Government is ever efficient in its use of taxpayers’ money or when it tries to manage resources. I also do not believe in a system that allows health care to be the biggest cause of bankruptcy and be such a drain on people’s income that it limits economic activity (which is fueled by discretionary income).

In addition, I do not believe in a system that allows people to starve when the agricultural and productive capacity of the country is so vast.

When I spell things out in such terms, I find that most people agree with me on these fundamental issues. Or at least most civilized people who are not blinded by narrow partisanship.

This civilized consensus, I believe, should be the litmus test of government. Do its actions reflect this consensus?

(The accompanying video has absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this piece. I simply did not want to waste an opportunity to shamelessly promote my music and my latest Youtube video. Deal with it.)

How great it is when we can receive the sage wisdom of a neighbor, a retired executive, a former coach, or on the international level a true statesman. While we may find it difficult to hear and deal with a tough message, ultimately the greatest form of “tough love” is simple truth and honesty.

A good friend of mine was gracious enough to share some video clips of a recent interview with Paul Keating, former Prime Minister and Treasurer of Australia. Mr. Keating speaks from experience and does not sugar coat the current economic turmoil.

While the three video clips (listed below) run approximately 20 minutes in total length, please allow me to provide a bullet point overview of some of the highlights. When you do have some spare time, I strongly encourage you to view these clips and gain the benefits of his wisdom. I do not think you will be disappointed, although you may be a bit dismayed as to his blunt honesty. In the meantime, here’s a brief overview:

– Australia had only 1 of the top 50 global banks prior to this crisis. It now has 4 of the top 15.

– the top 200 global financial institutions have had an average loss of 74% of market value.

– the current global economic turmoil is worse than it appears…

– the United States can not reflate the world…

– inflation is coming…

– the G-7 and International Monetary Fund (IMF) are no longer viable entities as structured, and the international economic community needs to formulate new bodies. In the process, we will see a significant shift in power and influence toward surplus nations (primarily China) from debtor nations (primarily United States).

– the Obama administration’s greatest challenge is its engagement of China. It must embrace China and not attempt to dictate to the Chinese along the lines of Treasury Secretary Geithner’s comment about China manipulating its currency.

– Keating strongly castigates the U.S. rating agencies, regulatory bodies, and banks for their neglect and incompetence in risk management.

– a “Bad Bank” may be necessary and has worked previously in other global financial crises

– the global economy needs to work towards debtor nations (U.S. and Europe) saving more, and surplus nations (China and Japan) spending and consuming more

– Keating views himself as neither a fiscal liberal nor conservative, but rather a fiscal pragmatist

– the United States needs to appreciate that it is in for a long and deep recession that will likely last 6 to 7 years!!!
(While I believe Keating is unduly pessimistic in this assessment, I also believe that those who believe the economy will start to turn around in the next 12 to 18 months are unduly optimistic)

No pandering, no nonsense. Mr Keating delivered a simple direct message that I, for one, appreciated. Tough love.

Now let’s go to the videos:

– LD

I published this satire script about a month ago here at No Quarter.  It hit the front page the same day as Governor-Gate hit and right after Cardboard-Cutout-Gate was all over the place.

You remember back in mid-December, right after the infamous picture of Obama’s speech writer copping a faux feel-up of a cardboard-cutout full-size replica of Secretary of State (to be) Hillary Clinton.  And immediately after that outrageous fiasco, the news hit about Governor Blagojevich trying to sell Obama’s Senate seat to the highest bidder.

Right between those two major events, that’s when this little skit got published.  It may as well not have been published at all, for all the attention it got.  (pout)

And, taking some of the blame on myself (mark your calendars), I didn’t really set it up properly.  I just published it as a script, with no intro, except to belabor the obvious point that it was satire and not an actual transcript of a real recording.

So let me do a little set-up now:

All through 2008, we’d been wondering how in the hell it came to pass that the Democratic National Committee decided to throw its weight behind Obama, and to deliberately sabotage Hillary’s campaign for the nomination.

It had to be a conspiracy of some kind!  You know it’s true!  People were talking about Hillary being the next president even before 2004!  So what happened?

Well, believe what you want, but this is how it might have happened, IMHO.  I was thinking, “Oh, to be a fly on the wall in that conversation!”  And this script was the result of my daydreaming about what that fly might have heard.

———————————————————————————————-

“Fly on the Wall (do-over)”

In an office meeting room are The Fetid Four: Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Donna Brazile. They are stewing over the Democratic loss in the election of 2004, and starting to think ahead to 2008.

HOWARD: (both hands pressed to his temples in anguish) I can’t believe Kerry lost!  Bush is so awful!

NANCY:  He’s a war criminal.  He should be impeached!

DONNA:  Yes!  And Cheney, too!  And you know what that means… (nudges Nancy) …Madam President!

(room erupts in nervous laughter)

HARRY:  Even if you had the votes to impeach in the House, you know that in the Senate we only have a one-vote majority…

NANCY: (cutting him off) That is so not gonna happen, so let’s just play the cards we’re dealt.

(general murmur of agreement)

HOWARD: (peering over his glasses) Well, one thing is for certain, we’ll win the next one, no matter who we run!

NANCY:  Absolutely!

DONNA:  Hell, even I could win it!

HARRY: (shaking head) Let’s not get carried away.

DONNA: (indignantly) Oh, thanks!

NANCY:  But I get your point.  Doesn’t matter anyway, because Her Nibs, Queen Hillary, is the heiress-apparent.

HARRY:  It’s an abomination!  What has she got, like two years in Congress?

DONNA:  Hillary… (makes gagging noises)

HOWARD: (laughing cautiously as he loosens his tie) I don’t think we can stop her… unless…

NANCY:  Unless what, Doc?  You planning on running again?

HOWARD: (wistfully) No, no, no… unless you think I should…

HARRY:  Oh, for the love of…

DONNA:  I don’t think so!

HARRY:  OK, so who can beat her?  She’s got all the momentum right now.  And the money.  She’s a walking ATM!

NANCY:  Let’s worry about the money later.  Even assuming she has the most cash, money’s not everything.

DONNA:  True.  If it was,  Soros would be running!

(Big laughter all around)

HOWARD:  Problem is, he’s not Natural Born.

HARRY:  You mean… he was born Caesarian?

HOWARD: (laughing) Good one!

HARRY:  Huh?

NANCY:  Natural born citizen!  Have you ever actually read the Constitution?  Article II?

HARRY: (blushing and flustered) Yes, I’ve read it!  Twice!  What do you think I am, an idiot?

(uncomfortable silence for several seconds)

HARRY: (struggling to recompose and assume an air of authority) Look, you know what I meant!  It was a joke!

NANCY:  Of course.

DONNA:  Sure it was.

HOWARD:  Well, I thought it was funny!

DONNA:  You would!

NANCY:  Medical humor, doc?

HOWARD:  Sure!  I mean, from an obstetrician’s point of view.

HARRY: (snorts and snickers)

DONNA:  Let’s not go there!

NANCY:  Come on, children! Let’s focus!

DONNA:  Well, anyway, like I was TRYING to say before… I think anyone we nominate is a shoo-in!

HARRY:  I thought it was “shoe-in.”

NANCY:  What?

HOWARD:  That makes no sense at all!  You mean like a boot?

NANCY:  No, it’s “shoo!” Like in “shoo fly!”  Or you “shoo” the horse into the barn.

DONNA:  What are you talking about?

HOWARD:  Horse shoes?

DONNA: (shaking her head in bewilderment, pronounces words studiously) Shoo.  Shoe.  Sorry, I don’t hear any difference!

NANCY:  Well, it’s “shoo.”

HARRY:  Are you sure?  Because I always thought it was like “shoe in,” like … (pushes with foot)

NANCY:  What, you’re going to kick the candidate into office against his will?

HOWARD:  I agree.  It’s “shoo.”  Like you’re just shooing them through without effort, because there’s no resistance.

HARRY:  I still think it’s “shoe.”

DONNA: (getting visibly agitated) Look! It doesn’t matter!  Our guy is going to win, that’s my point!

NANCY:  Or girl… woman I mean.

(all eyes turn to Nancy warily)

NANCY:  Well, not me, obviously…

HARRY:  Obviously…

DONNA:  Although it would be great to have a woman president… I just don’t want it to be Hillary!

NANCY:  No shit!

HOWARD:  Well, I agree to an extent.  I mean, as liberals, and as leaders of the Democratic Party, I do think it’s our duty to use this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make some history.  “The first female president!”

NANCY:  Yes! But not that female!

DONNA:  We agree on that, sis! (high-fives Nancy)

HARRY:  Then who?  Kathy Sebelius?

(general mumbling of discontent)

HOWARD:  Claire McCaskill?

NANCY:  Oh, please!  She’s… (shakes her head) No. Not her!

DONNA:  What if it’s not a woman?

HARRY:  Claire McCaskill’s not a woman?

(others ignore him)

HOWARD:  What do you have in mind, Donna?

DONNA:  What if…?  What if it’s a man, but a man of color?

HARRY: (does double take) You mean Bill Richardson?

HOWARD:  Oh, good lord…

DONNA:  No, I was just thinking about our keynote speaker at the convention.

NANCY: (smirks, knowingly) You still carrying a torch for him?

DONNA: (elbows Nancy sharply, glaring) No!

HOWARD:  Something I should know about?

HARRY:  I think she’s talking about Senator Obama, but we can’t run him.  He’s totally green behind the ears!

HOWARD:  Green behind the ears?  What the hell does that mean?

NANCY:  Well, Donna thinks he’s hot!

DONNA: (pouts and kicks Nancy under the table) Shut up!

HOWARD:  OK, so we know he’s hot and green behind the ears.  What else do we know about him?

HARRY:  Well, I hear he’s pretty much broke.  Had to do some financial flim-flam just to buy a house.

HOWARD:  Anything illegal?

HARRY: (clears throat) I don’t know all the details, but I heard some rules were bent at the bank.  Some third party, a shyster lawyer or mob guy or something…

HOWARD:  O-keeeeeeeeeeeeeee!  “Next!” Who else we got?

DONNA:  Now wait a minute!  Let’s not rule him out yet.  Look, you know a lot of women are still mad at Hillary for staying with Bill after he had sex, or whatever he had, with Miss Fatty Blue Dress.

NANCY:  True.  She should have at least done a Bobbitt on him. (makes scissors gesture)

HOWARD:  Ouch! For a BJ?

HARRY:  Don’t forget the cigar.

NANCY:  Oh gaaaaaaaawd… I’ve been trying to forget it!

DONNA:  My point is that just because she’s a female, doesn’t mean most women will vote for her.  She’s not a shoo… I mean it’s not written in stone.

HARRY:  “Etched in stone.”

HOWARD:   I agree. It’s “etched.”

DONNA: (slams both palms on the table) Whatever!  I’m just saying “forget Hillary!” The next election is ours!  We can’t lose!  Let’s make some real history!  Now, while we can!  It’s a chance of a lifetime!  Let’s elect a black man!

NANCY:  Agreed.  We can do the woman later.

HOWARD:  Woohoo!  Sounds like a party!

HARRY:  Are you sure he’s black?  I heard he was Indonesian or something?

HOWARD: (enunciates the name slowly) O-bah-ma… I don’t know, that sounds pretty African to me!

DONNA: (frowning) He’s half white, half African.  In fact, you can’t get much more African than him.  He says in his book that his daddy was from Kenya.

HARRY:  He’s written a book?

NANCY:  An autobiography.

HOWARD:  How many pages?  Three? (laughs loudly)

DONNA:  Look, he’s an excellent speaker!  He’s handsome, he’s got charisma, he’s a cool guy, and he’s… good-looking.

NANCY:  I think you’ve established that you think he’s attractive.

DONNA:  Well?  Isn’t he?

NANCY:  Not to me.

DONNA:  Why?

NANCY:  Oh, I don’t know, he’s just not my type, I guess.

DONNA:  You mean black?

HOWARD: (gasps) Uh-oh!

HARRY:  You’re a racist?

NANCY:  No!  That’s not what I meant!

DONNA:  Uh-huh.  Then what do you find not attractive about him?

NANCY:  He’s just, I don’t know, too skinny, for one thing.  And those ears!

DONNA:  That sounds pretty racist to me!

NANCY:  What?  Are you kidding me?

HOWARD:  Wait a minute, I think we’re onto something here!

HARRY:  America isn’t ready for a black president.  Let’s face it.

DONNA:  You too?

NANCY:  See?  I’m not the racist, he’s the racist!

HARRY:  I am not a racist!

NANCY:  Well, neither am I!  I’d vote for him!

HARRY:  Well, so would I!  But will the teamsters?

HOWARD: (cynically) The teamsters will do whatever we tell them to, as usual.

NANCY:  OK, so let’s be serious a minute…

DONNA:  I am serious!  Think about it.  If the four of us get behind one candidate, we can stop Hillary.  I know we can!  We just need to get my friends at Acorn to get the vote out in the first couple of primaries and take the momentum away from her!

HOWARD:  Acorn?  In Iowa?  Have you ever been to Iowa?  I have!

NANCY:  Yeah, so we’ve heard.

HARRY:  How could we not hear?  As loud as you yelled… Yahoooooo!

NANCY:  No, it was more like Yeehaaaaaaaaaaaaw!

DONNA:  If we can try to stay on topic… I really think we can pull this off!  Seriously!  Just let me spell it out for you.  First, it’s our turn, the Democrats I mean, and after Bush and Cheney, it doesn’t really matter who we nominate.  We will win!  That’s why everyone thinks Hillary has it made.  But it doesn’t have to be her.  We can take her down if we play it right.  We’ve got Acorn on our side!

HOWARD:  Not in Iowa, we don’t!  In Iowa, it’s about corn, not Acorn.  Hell, it’s more white-bread than New Hampshire.  And do you think Acorn can even find enough voters in Iowa to win?  You’ve got the Clinton Machine, you’ve got pretty-boy Edwards…

DONNA: (quickly draws a crude map) Lookie here.  You’ve got Iowa here, and right next door, Illinois.  That’s Barack’s state.

NANCY:  Oh, I see!  Illinois is close enough to Iowa, you think voters will identify with the guy from the next-door state!  That might help.

DONNA:  Well, that’s part of it, but think about this.  These are caucuses, not elections.  And we can run a shitload of buses from Chicago, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City… all full of brand new Iowa voters.  They swamp the caucuses, because even in Iowa hardly anyone goes to those things.  It would only take about one or two busloads per precinct.  Our guys swarm in, make a lot of noise, a little intimidation, and before the Clintons know what hit them, Hillary’s toast!

NANCY:  I think you’ve got something here!  But are you sure we can sell America on voting for an African-American man with a name that rhymes with Osama?

HARRY:  There you go being racist again!

NANCY:  I am not a racist!

DONNA:  I can’t believe you’re so racist!  Stop the hate!

HOWARD: (slaps table hard) That’s it! That’s how we sell it!  If anyone questions his name, his character, his background, anything… we play the race card!  And good old white liberal guilt will shame them into voting for him!

HARRY:  Brilliant!

NANCY:  I love it!  It gives me hope! Maybe we canchange candidates!

DONNA: Yes, we can!

HOWARD: (scribbling notes furiously) This is the best idea we’ve had in a loooooooooong time!

DONNA:  Too long!

NANCY:  Much too long!

HARRY:  That’s what she said!

I was delighted to see the brilliant “Sam Copeland” (his blogger name), who is currently working with our military on strategic influence, come in and comment on my Harry Truman cartoon. “Sam” apologizes for not visiting No Quarter as often as he would like, but his very acceptable excuse is, “ Support for our troops is a first priority.”

Anyway, I think most of you will enjoy this. Below are “Sam’s’” choice Truman quotes and his take on how Obama fits in.

“A President cannot always be popular.”

We’ll see if Obama can forego his desire to be a beloved figure long enough to do what it takes (ask Americans to make sacrifices) to fix the economy.

“Always be sincere, even if you don’t mean it.”

I think Obama has nailed this one.

“A President needs political understanding to run the government, but he may be elected without it.”

Of course, he could also hire a person who knows how to run the government and then hire her supporters.

“I never did give anybody hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”

This, of course, is the opposite of compromising with Republicans — the course chosen by Obama. Far from giving them hell, Obama is telling them what they want to hear.

“Whenever a fellow tells me he’s bipartisan, I know he’s going to vote against me.”

Gee, that’s how I felt the whole election campaign whenever Obama talked about a bipartisan spirit.

“If you can’t convince them, confuse them.”

Here is another one he has nailed.

“If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

Alternatively, you could put a woman in the kitchen who can stand the heat and is able to pick up the phone at 3 am and know what to do.

“Intense feeling too often obscures the truth.”

Also known as the “Obama Campaign Strategy.”

“It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit.”

Uh Oh! This could be a tough one for the junior Senator from IL and now the President elect.

“The buck stops here!”

We’ll see.

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

Our reluctant allies on the Right believe McCain was struck by the perfect storm. McCain’s loss was less about campaign strategy failures than an incredibly unpopular president of the same party and an economic October surprise which underscored his Party’s difficulties. It really was about Change. From the National Review:

1) 2008′S OUTCOME AND THE BANKING CRISIS AND STOCK MARKET CRASHES –
The media talk was wrong, the media talk that had gone on all year and reached its height in the summer and early September about an irresistable Democratic trend and unstoppable Obama. After a successful Republican convention and a week of campaigning by McCain-Palin capped by Obama`s “lipstick on a pig” gaffe, McCain had a nice national lead and one so strong in Ohio there were rumors Obama was pulling out. For purposes of perspective on last night’s results, it’s good to remember some of McCain’s numbers in various polls that second week in September:

Florida: +8

North Carolina: + 18

Georgia: + 18

Oklahoma: + 31

Idaho: + 39

New Jersey: – 3

New York: – 6

Michigan – dead heat

Wisc —dead heat

Minnesota — tied.

And the Gallup poll released September 11 showed a GOP five point lead in the generic question which could have translated into twenty to thirty seat pickup.

2) HARD TO CALL – This Fall’s political environment was unprecedented — an economic crisis not seen since the Great Depression. So there was no prior experience to fall back on. Campaign Spot readers and loyal Jedi warriors wanted Obi to make his unapologetic predictions of the past. That prediction was impossible. What could be said was that McCain was still very much in it despite the burdens he faced, including everyone’s 401(k) turning to cinders.

3) MCCAIN CAME BACK – Striding into one of the worst political headwinds ever McCain actually staged a comeback. A week after his last debate performance, his “Joe the Plumber” initiative and excellent performance at the Al Smith dinner in New York, four good polls showed him one or two points away from a lead. Even Rasmussen, who still gave Obama a four point advantage, noted McCain was shaving
the Democrat’s national lead and had moved back into a slight lead in Florida and Ohio. Then came more days of market crash. Yet, even after that, the survey data showed undecided voters were inclined towards McCain but also wanted to vote their frustration and anger over the economy and were inclined, rightly or wrongly, to take it out on Bush and the GOP.

4) THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IS A BLUNT BUT ULTIMATELY BENEFICENT INSTRUMENT — One place your Obi worked for Barry in 1964 was the New Hampshire primary and he vividly remembers that loss and then the carnage in November. (Even Sooners Coach Bud Wilkinson, one of the state’s religious figures, lost a Senate bid in Oklahoma.) But two years later came a GOP blowout marked by Ronald Reagan’s first election to political office. And back in `76 some of us thought
nothing was more important than electing Jerry Ford. But defeat that year ultimately led to a new Republican party and the Reagan era.

So when you ask: How could the American people do this? Don’t they know what they are getting? Well, unfortunately the blunt instrument approach — shock therapy — is like that. Lots of collateral damage in the hope the GOP will get itself together and give America a better time, a newer era.

6) FIGHT HARD; FIGHT FROM THE START TO STOP THE COLLATERAL DAMAGE – So the problem with the blunt instrument is the unintended consequences. The 1964 results meant the social tragedy, especially for the poor, of the Great Society programs. The 1974 Democratic Congressional blowout cost 13 million South Vietnamese their freedom. The 1976 defeat meant Carter era malaise at home and one of the most perilous periods for U.S, national security.

The liberals in Congress will soon push to discourage entrepreneurship and economic growth, nationalize the medical system, weaken the military, use state power to coerce Americans into removing mentions of God from the public square, accepting abortion on demand and the altering the definition of marriage. And an early test for President Obama will be his reaction to pressure in two areas from his own party that may brand his administration early as decidedly leftist. He will be pushed to take various measures to stifle dissent through enacting the Fairness Doctrine and ending the secret ballot in union elections. And he will be pushed to make a decision that cost the newly elected President Clinton his honeymoon period — changing the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy about gays in the military. On all of this, the congressional liberals and their media allies will be unrelenting. And yet all this represents opportunity for the GOP. The last Congress was the most unpopular in history because of its radical liberalism. Yet the GOP failed entirely to enumerate for voters that Congress’s transgressions. That opportunity is coming again.

Also, the liberals know that neither in 2006 nor 2008 did the American people vote for the left-wing agenda. They are hoping conservatives will again go along after some polite demurrals. So, if loud and noisy but enlightened opposition is offered at every turn, much of the collateral damage can be avoided. And the American people will see the real agenda of the liberal elites.

7) REJOICE — Electing an African American president closes a painful but proud chapter in American history. What a country.

8 ) TOUJOURS L’AUDACE —We gather our armies. We go forward.

Finally, Dick Morris chimes in that McCain did better than the media predicted:

For political historians, it’s worth noting that Obama hasn’t scored the knockout that many predicted. As I write, it seems clear that John McCain will lose by a few points in the popular vote, not by the double digits so confidently predicted in the media polls. The fact is that most of the undecided voters went to the Republicans.

What do you think? Is there anything McCain could have done differently? Or were the conditions too unfavorable for any Republican?

Medusa’s original post: According to a rumor on Daily Kos, Obama’s internals show him with a mere 2 point lead in Pennsylvania. If true, this is very bad news for the Anointed One. John Kerry carried Pennsylvania by only 2.5 points, and Kerry didn’t insult the voters there.

Heidi Li Feldman and Marc Rubin of the Denver Group and Democrats for Principles Before Party (DFPBP) have two ads currently running in different metro regions in Pennsylvania. Watch the most recent one, here:

Pennsylvania is key in the election, and as you may have heard, Democratic Representative Jack Murtha first called his own Pennsylvania constituents “racists” but has now softened the insult by calling them “rednecks.” In an interview with the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Murtha said:

There is no question that western Pennsylvania is a racist area

But actually it turns out that these people are the gun-toting, bitter, religious types that the Dems find so clingy and bitter. Murtha clarified his remarks to mean that:

some of his constituents in western Pennsylvania are “rednecks” and the entire region just five to 10 years ago was “really redneck.

Marc Rubin’s fabulous post on No Quarter How Democrats Can Defeat Obama, See McCain Win, Still Get Everything They Want and Respect Themselves In The Morning spelled out the reasons why many Democrats refuse to vote for Obama:

Many Democrats seem to be going through a period of conflict over this election. They see Obama for what he is: a dishonest snake oil salesman, unfit and unqualified to be President, throwing out one sweet talking lie after another as the political Mr. Goodbar, trying to pick up as many votes as he can get.

Rubin rightly states that Obama must be defeated in order to “fumigate” the Democratic Party of its corrupting influences. And he urges people to vote for McCain to send a clear message to the party that gave us the Rules and By-Laws that awarded Hillary’s votes to Obama:

Obama is the nominee because of a dishonest primary in which these same people, along with the press, did everything possible to sell Obama as the nominee and do it as dishonestly as they knew how, including rigging the roll call vote, violating every Democratic Party rule and procedure in the process.

Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, Fowler and every member of the DNC who engineered and went along with fixing the process needs to go. Those who won’t resign (though I think many will after an Obama defeat) need to have their power and their base removed, so the that the Democratic Party can air itself out. And the only way that can happen is with an Obama loss. And the bigger the better.

Rubin is a former advertising executive and he understands how advertising works. In a recent interview on No We Won’t radio, with Riverdaughter, Heidi Li and Harriet Christensen, Rubin explains how skewed the polls are and why, and he says that with enough money to create ads, he feels that the DFPBP could influence this election away from Obama. Listen to the interview here.

Donating to The Denver Group’s DFPBP is a powerful way to make a difference now. If we can get 500 No Quarter regulars to donate $20 we, as a community, could raise $10,000 to run powerful, persuasive ads in Pensylviania and other battleground states!!! Now is the time to act. You have the power. Click here to donate.

Remember what Hillary said:

For everyone here in Ohio and across America who’s ever been counted out but refused to be knocked out, for everyone who has stumbled but stood right back up, and for everyone who works hard and never gives up — this one is for you.

More No Quarter posts on The Denver Group:

The quality of intent: What is really at stake in the 2008 Presidential Election by Heidi Li Feldman

Holding the DNC’s Feet to the Fire: An Interview with Marc Rubin of The Denver Group by Ani

The Denver Group’s New Video by SusanUnPc

The Denver Group’s Letter To Prevaricator Howard Dean by Uppity Woman

MAKING THE SQUEAKY WHEEL SQUEAK LOUDER Marc Rubin

NQ Radio Interview — The Denver Group Bud White

The Obama campaign has had a deliberate strategy of calling the Clinton campaign racist and the media has allowed itself to be led along. Obama himself confessed to this strategy in the Nevada debate when shown a copy of a campaign memo directing campaign workers to use race-bating to defame Hillary Clinton.

January 27, 2008:

Please, just fuck off. Bill Clinton made exactly the right point and Obama’s defenders are playing into the worst of the Right-wing racist tropes, that there is something tainted about successful black candidates who get majority black support.

January 28, 2008:

I’ve spent a good amount of time here on this blog defending HRC against bogus claims of racism, and I’ve smacked The Golden One around for engaging in his own race-baiting, trying to milk liberal white guilt for all it is worth.

There is no person, no campaign, no victory that can justify deliberate use of racial divisions. Leave it to the Republicans to immolate themselves on the pyre of racism come November.

February 2, 2008:

Then begins the long slog towards South Carolina, with the media, the blogosphere and Obama’s campaign screaming at every turn that the Clintons are racists.

March 31, 2008:

My point here is not to promote the Clintons (though I think they deserve it), but to emphasize the way in which they are demonized by their own party. They become the embodiment of the old South, the unrepentant, segregationist South, just as northern blue collar voters who challenge the party orthodoxy are labeled Archie Bunkers.

April 5, 2008:

Here is the challenge to the Democrats – how to cease treating working class whites the eternal “Other” of the party, the roadblock to fulfilling the promise of the nation, and seriously address the ways in which the party will help all Americans live their lives with dignity.

April 28, 2008:

I have seen it put cynically (hell, I have put it cynically myself) that Obama was just promising the (mostly white) comfortable class of the party that he wouldn’t insist on looking at those nasty claims of justice if they would just elect a black dude and redeem their souls.

May 2, 2008

The assault on the Clintons has no basis in policy or political philosophy. It is an attack on uppity white trash who dares to succeed in the world without assimilating into the ruling elite, and for the added insult of being adored by the nation precisely for their common connections.

May 4, 2008:

Hannah Arendt, my favorite political theorist, has been excoriated as a racist for pointing out that integration and post-racial sociality is not such a big deal when the person being integrated is already part of your socio-economic class, remains a numerical minority within your enclave, and is no threat to your social standing or economic power.

May 6, 2008:

Obama’s campaign is certainly doing pernicious race-baiting, but mostly to initimidate critics and shame wavering white voters.

May 8, 2008:

What I’m seeing is an amplified, exaggerated perversion of the lessons, biases and attitudes I encountered in my very liberal college education, things that resonate with me in strange ways, playing on the way I learned to see the world as divided into evil whites, good whites and the oppressed Others we good whites had to free from the evil whites.

May 18, 2008:

I don’t see the Hillary campaign saying a bad word about the voters, even those who vote for her opponents. I don’t see the campaign explaining away their losses because of some flaw or failing in the voters.

May 21, 2008:

Failure to create the conditions under which vast majority of the party will have no doubts that he will serve the interests of the party and be protective of those who dissent from him will leave not just Obama but the party itself in dire straits in the months to come. Riverdaughter has a brilliant post up on The Confluence. You need to go read it all beause it is good in every regard

May 23, 2008:

I’m reading the reports on the mendacious attacks the Bogger Boyz are making on Hillary by completely perverting her comments about RFK.

Rather than weigh in on the current idiocy (which is being handled very nicely by Riverdaughter & Co. over on the Confluence. If you have not read that blog, stop, go there, read and bookmark. I’ll be here when you’re done.)

May 31, 2008:

1. I am not saying in any way shape or form that Larry Johnson is lying about the existence of some video of Michelle Obama. Please. Larry would not do that. A video of some kind exists.

2. If you read his posts closely, Larry does not claim to have seen the video in question himself. I may have missed a post where he did state this, but in the posts I have read, he does not. He was very clear that he has spoken to at least two people who do not know each other, who he trusts completely, and who have attested to the existence of a video.

September 24, 2008:

When Democratic women say “The Obama camp has run a sexist, mysogynistic campaign,” we are told we’re wrong, no such thing, there was not any sexism there, except maybe some from Tweety. When Democratic women say, “No, it’s not his race, it’s his lack of commitment to the programs that matter to us,” we are told that, no, we’re all just racist bitches, and that it’s our fault if he doesn’t win.

September 16, 2008:

The ultimate shadow of Reagan is that you don’t win by defending losers, only by securing the interests of the winners. That is the dark heart beating in the chest of the Unity Democrats. They are done with the losers.

May 2, 2008:

It is the deep guilt of the liberal upper class that we know, every last miserable one of us, that our privilege is due to centuries of white supremacy and to the informal, unspoken, but pervasive advantage our skin color and behavioral patterns gives us in this society. It is our Moby Dick, the whale we pursue obsessively through political seas, frantic to have material proof that we are innocent of the crimes of our nation.

There are reasons the LGBT community supported Clinton over Obama: Obama refused to be photographed with Gavin Newsom in 2004, when the San Francisco Mayor was the center of a national uproar for his support of gay marriage; Obama participated in a gay bashing “Gospel Tour” in South Carolina with Donnie McClurkin, an African-American minister who views homosexuality as a disease Jesus Christ can cure; Obama cites his Christianity when he mentions his opposition to gay marriage in his text entitled The Audacity of Hope; Obama stigmatizes and minoritizes gay marriage when he refers to it as such in his political speeches and texts; Obama admits to seeking spiritual counsel from a certain Rev. James T. Meeks, a homophobic minister in inner city Chicago who was named by the Southern Poverty Law Center as one of the “10 leading black religious voices in the anti-gay movement;” Obama refuses to march in gay pride parades; and Obama will not allow himself to be interviewed by the LGBT press. Because Obama has a record of homophobic speech, actions and affiliations, the LGBT community rallied behind Hillary Clinton. And they may rally behind McCain-Palin, for Obama’s continued disrespect for this constituency will compel many LGBT voters to reconsider their support for the homophobic Democrat.

Obama, according to The Advocate, will launch a gay bashing “Faith, Values and Family” tour with homophobic Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec. I quote with added emphasis:

The Christian Broadcasting Network is reporting that the Obama campaign next week will kick off “Barack Obama: Faith, Family, and Values Tour,” designed to woo the votes of left-leaning Catholics, progressive Evangelicals, and some conservative mainline Protestants. If LGBT people find the tour eerily reminiscent of the South Carolina gospel tour the campaign arranged last year with antigay “ex-gay” gospel singer Donnie McClurkin, their instincts may not be far off.

CBN names Catholic legal scholar Douglas Kmiec as one of the religious surrogates who will hit the road stumping for Obama. Kmiec wrote a June 13 op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle supporting California’s Proposition 8, the ballot measure to ban same-sex marriage, titled “On Same-Sex Marriage: Should California Amend Its Constitution? Say ‘No’ to the Brave New World.” Kmiec’s first two sentences in the piece read, “The California ballot initiative intended to set aside the state supreme court’s judicial invention of same-sex marriage deserves public support. Maybe it is enough to say, as many do in conversation, that it merely re-secures a millennia of tradition and common sense.”

Obama, in other words, will campaign with a legal scholar who believes “a millennia” of “tradition,” “common sense” and homophobia should be preserved. Kmiec, by the way, is the former constitutional legal counsel to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Republican jurisprudence is the change in which the LGBT community can believe, I guess.

But it gets worse, for Kmiec writes the following in his 13 JUN op-ed for the San Francisco Chronicle. I quote with emphasis added again:

Separating marriage from procreation may also have other remote, but frightening, ill consequences. Society should be skeptical of wider use of asexual procreation. An earlier dark moment in U.S. history employed eugenics to forcibly sterilize the mentally disabled. The push for artificial wombs and the genetic manipulation of intelligence already peppers scientific literature – a push that would no doubt grow, accommodating even the minimal same-sex desire for simulating natural child birth – claimed to be of interest for 20-30 percent of same-sex couples. When carefully assessed, the acquisition of unnatural reproductive means often advances the interests of the very affluent through a libertarian exercise that would threaten all hope of democratic equality.

According to Kmiec, gay marriage is a harbinger for a social eugenics that manipulates the human genome in the name of maintaining social hierarchies. A threat to democracy, the LGBT community in Kmiec’s warped mind is attempting to eliminate the heterosexual population. Raising specters gleaned from science fiction novels, Kmiec stokes the fires of a fear of a queer planet.

For some reason Barack Obama finds this entirely acceptable. Indeed, Barack Obama desires to use the campaign funds he has collected from Democrats and from members of the LGBT community to give this Catholic legal scholar of the lunatic, Republican fringe a platform in Colorado, Indiana, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Florida, New Mexico, Virginia and Wisconsin. If we witness a spike in hate crimes against the LGBT community in any of these states before votes are cast in November, we will only have Barack Obama and Douglas Kmiec to blame.

We also know who to blame if Barack Obama loses the general election. For the LGBT community does not take too kindly to gay bashing in the name of garnering votes from Evangelicals and other conservative Christians. Barack Obama never had our votes, and he certainly will not gain them if he continues to terrorize devout Christians with the specter of a queer planet.

Obama, by the way, refuses to attend LGBT Democratic events: Michelle Obama was the one who addressed the Gay & Lesbian Leadership Council of the Democratic National Committee in New York City in June, and she was the one who headlined the lunch for LGBT delegates in Denver during the August convention. Barack Obama was nowhere to be found. But then again, the man who has received spiritual guidance from homophobic ministers probably fears that the audience would try to genetically clone him into a gay man.

How odd it is that the Democratic Presidential candidate is a gay basher and the Republican Vice Presidential candidate is a woman who vetoed anti-gay legislation. While Obama is routinely criticized in the LGBT press for his homophobia, Sarah Palin receives accolades from Gay.com for joining the cause of the ACLU and nine homosexual couples employed by the state of Alaska and by the city of Anchorage. Perhaps the LGBT community is one of those constituencies Barack Obama and Donna Brazile believe they can shed as so much toxic waste from the Democratic Party’s past. If this is the case, then I guess the LGBT community should consider supporting the McCain-Palin ticket. After all, Palin supported the community while Obama was bashing it with Donnie McClurkin and Reverend James T. Meeks.

And now Obama will bash the community with the former legal counsel to the Bush and Reagan administrations in 12 states. While this may yield one or two Evangelical votes for Barack Obama, Obama’s continued and unrestrained gay bashing will also result in tens if not hundreds of thousands of LGBT votes for John McCain and Sarah Palin. For similar to the Evangelicals and conservative Christians Obama and Kmiec will court, the LGBT community votes “ALL our values.”

Also see Reverend Amy’s essay on Barack Obama’s second gay bashing tour.

Well, not so much…

BISMARCK, N.D. (AP) — Barack Obama, who has deployed more than 50 staffers in North Dakota in an attempt to become the first Democratic presidential candidate to carry the state since 1964, is pulling out.

An Obama spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, confirmed Sunday that the campaign’s North Dakota staffers were being sent to Minnesota and Wisconsin, where recent polls have shown a tight race between Obama and Republican John McCain.

She declined to say how many campaign workers were being shifted, but other Democratic activists put the number at more than 50. Obama has opened 11 North Dakota campaign offices and run television advertising in the state, which is unusual for a Democratic presidential candidate.

This must be more of the good fiscal management and sound judgment that Senator Obama is exhibiting – throwing money and staff at the problem.

But the 50-state strategy seems a little ridiculous now. I understand he also spent a bunch of dough in Alaska…

McCain’s campaign has no paid staff or offices in North Dakota.

I guess John McCain didn’t think he needed to spend much money there. He must feel pretty confident that, as per usual, the state is going to go Republican in the fall.

Some though, are still touting the DNC party line:

Minot attorney Jim Maxson, who was the first North Dakota “superdelegate” to the Democratic National Convention to back Obama, said he believes the Democrat still has a chance to beat McCain in North Dakota.

Okay.

Lyndon B. Johnson was the last Democrat to carry North Dakota when he swamped Republican Barry Goldwater in 1964. George W. Bush twice won the state easily, with Democratic foe Al Gore getting 33% of the vote in 2000 and John Kerry attracting 36% in 2004.

Maxson concluded by stating:

“In Minot, these folks have been working seven-day weeks, 12 hours a day, since July,” Maxson said. “They’re reaching a point of diminishing return on their efforts. I think this is a wise move for them to relocate, and we’ll be fine.”

“I’m not a trash talker, but I’ll go out on a limb and say that it looks like Obama is going to be doing substantially better than the Democratic presidential candidates have done in the last two races, with or without these (Obama) folks here.”

Substantially better than what? Al Gore getting 33% of the vote in 2000 and John Kerry attracting 36% in 2004??

I guess Obama campaign manager David Axelrod’s new creative electoral map is not looking as plausible now as it was when he was selling kool-aid to the party powerful last Spring. Obama also pulled out of Georgia recently, didn’t he? If I recall correctly, back in June, Axelrod was bragging that Georgia was the new Florida.

Uh oh.

I think it’s safe to say the Super Duper Delegates are stocking up on some antacids right about now.

started running the “stages of grief” trope on Hillary supporters way back in February—you know, from anger, through denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance. It’s an easy riff to run, even for bad writers, so it’s been all over the Obama blogs

Of course this “stages of grief” narrative oozed with sexism and condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary’s female supporters, emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy throughout the summer.

McCain’s selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to halt Obama’s bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks. It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college.

The panic from the Obamabots in palpable.

Let me suggest that there are 3 levels of panic.

1. Wunderwaffen.

During World War Two, Hitler forced his beleaguered arms manufacturers to produce “miracle weapons,” strange armaments which he believed would turn the war in Germany’s favor.

Like armchair generals in a losing battle, losing political campaigns have supporters who desire the Wunderwaffen, a magical weapon which can sink the other side or a proven winner who can take the reins of the campaign and guide it to victory. In 2004, while Kerry was being hammered by Bush, many pleaded for James Carville to take over Kerry’s war room and provide the message discipline from 1992. From the Democratic Underground, August 27, 2004:

I have been saying this for over a month now…I wrote Mr Carville the following email:

Mr. Carville, please save the Kerry campaign!
He is throwing out sound bites that are perfect ammo for Rove and his evil crew. You can train this man.You can save this campaign and this country. We need you Mr. Carville.

In 2008, as victory becomes increasingly uncertain, Obama supporters are banking on voter registration and the belief that cell phone users are not accounted for in national polls. The same theories were trotted out in 2004 but the polls then fairly predicted the actual vote. However, there are even stranger ideas floating around Obama-land. At TalkLeft, there’s an armchair general named mmc9431 who believes that Obama should announce part of his cabinet now and turn them into roving ambassadors for the campaign:

Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he’s going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.
Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We’d have three people out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

Likewise, over at Daily Kos, Ursa Majority’s Wunderwaffen is one good television ad that will convince all the “low information” rubes to vote for Obama:

Yes, you heard it right. We need a killer ad (radio and TV) to get back onto message while shrinking McCain. And, with middle and low information swing voters, you’ve got to try to tie it all together in one digestible message. So, let’s get back to our effective messages of the post “Obama as Britney” era (i.e., McCain isn’t taking the issues seriously) and use McCain’s words and actions against him.

2. Denial

Obama supporters are now somewhere between searching for the magic bullet and denying that anything is wrong. The Kerry campaign is also rich with similar examples at a similar time in the campaign.

On September 17, 2004, almost exactly four years ago, Cartooner, at Democratic Underground, predicted that John Kerry would win in a landslide:

Call it an epiphany; call it crazy, and it’s just a hunch; but hey, A HUNCH made Quasi Modo famous…

~snip~

The economy, health care, jobs, LIES,

the messages are FINALLY STARTING TO RESONATE …

Ok… Maybe I’m an optimist; but I think Kerry will win on a
LANDSLIDE …

This campaign is also filled with delusion. A poster on Craig’s List gives Obama odds I’d like to take to Las Vegas:

Date: 2008-09-12, 12:32AM EDT
Location: new haven

He’s definitely going to win. No question.

What chances would you give him? I’d give him 100%.

3. Acceptance

The last stage is filled with sadness and recriminations.

Lentinel writes:

my heart sinks.
I lay some of the blame at Obama’s door.
As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
He voted for FISA.
He disowned public financing.
He went on preaching to evangelicals.
He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

And Daily Kos’ DaveinSiliconValley has a diary titled: “Why (Sadly) Obama Will Probably Lose”

A few days ago I had a conversation with a mid-fifties nonreligious, pro-choice, Caucasian, suburban mother who thinks the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, that Bush was a terrible president, and is concerned that McCain may get us into another war, but she is “seriously thinking” about voting for McCain. I will give you a clue. She is absolutely going to vote for McCain.

I asked, given the way she feels on the issues, why isn’t she voting for Obama? She said “I don’t know.” I pressed her. She said, “I don’t trust him.” I asked why and she said “I don’t know.”

Obama can hit this lady with a thousand commercials explaining his stand on the issues and why his plans for the country are better than McCain’s plans and it will have no effect whatsoever on her vote. Zero. She is issue-proof.

What’s going on? Is it just subliminal racism? It’s not that simple.

After the 2004 election, Democrats became obsessed with psychoanalyzing the electorate. I engaged in some of this myself. Searching for answers, we read What’s the Matter with Kansas? but failed to find the answer. Believing, like DaveinSiliconvalley, that Republicans controlled the electorate with subliminal powers, we read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant, but we found that framing issues is only one small part of winning elections. Framing can come across as patronizing, e.g., you’re pushing your agenda on the electorate instead of listening to their needs.

In 2006, as I began thinking about the next presidential cycle, I finally got around to reading Hillary’s Living History and President Clinton’s My Life. The Clintons, both policy wonks, believe that winning campaigns put forward good policies which appeal to the electorate’s aspirations. The voters do not need to be cajoled or hypnotized into voting for a candidate. The voters decide the issues and the politicians offer solutions.

The Clintons taught Democrats how to win elections. Remember, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected to a second term since 1936. Also, let’s not forget the magnitude of Hillary’s victories; she won Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky; she won West Virginia by 40%. A few caucus states and Obama’s delegate stealing in Michigan made the difference. Let’s not pretend that Obama was the people’s choice. The primary campaign was not a decisive win by either candidate, and millions of Hillary supporters will never forgive the way she was treated by those within the Party, to say nothing of the media.

The Clintons win by offering proposals to make people’s lives better. On the campaign trail, they talk incessantly about helping working people, and they both have an unwavering commitment to the nation’s defense. The Clintons reject flowery rhetoric and use a clear communication strategy. Their strategy is effective; they know how to build winning coalitions. I have no doubt that Hillary would now be locking down battleground states on her march to the White House.

Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the Party’s infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org, and he was supported by the netroots and the media.

Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized during the primary as “low information” and hopelessly bitter. No one television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic.