Yes, it is true, in the conversation Charlie Gibson of ABC (”American Barack Broadcasting,” as my aunt says) with Barack Obama the other day, Obama threw down a challenge to John McCain. In this interview, which was VERY different from the interview with Palin, by the way (this one, they were practically playing Barry White and using mood lighting), Obama said this:

Yeah, right. McCain is afraid to confront Obama face to face. Now, you know damn well what would have happened if McCain HAD brought this up - Obama would have whined and cried that it wasn’t the issue they were supposed to be discussing, and besides that, McCain was involved in the Keating 5. And honestly, I think that is the only reason he is making this challenge, so he can throw that in McCain’s face. Never mind that McCain was exonerated - we all know facts don’t matter to Obama and his minions as his response to Gibson made quite clear.

(As to the Ayers component, Larry Johnson had an excellent piece on this exchange, “When It Comes to Ayers, It Is Participation That Matters“, which I recommend to you.)

But it is this claim of cowardice with which Obama and his camp are painting McCain that is just startling to me, and it is not confined to a discussion of Ayers. My sister sent me an article recently from Rolling Stone by Tim Dickinson claiming the Bush and McCain families are very much alike. Oh, please, spare me. One of the issues he raised in this article was about the Forrestal Explosion, of which I knew nothing, I have to admit. My sister added this little tidbit when I responded that they were nothing alike:

We’re talking about Johnny. Those were NOT “his men” in the POW camp and he DID abandon the men who were fighting the fire that HIS plane caused. Hell, he could at least have used a fire extinquisher (sic)!

I hadn’t the FOGGIEST about what she was talking until I saw John McCain’s biography on bio.com. I realized as I watched the ACTUAL footage from the plane to what she must have been referring. It seems that Obama’s pawns are spreading this vicious lie all around the Internet community that McCain caused the devastating explosion on the Forrestal aircraft carrier by “wet-starting” his plane, a hot dog stunt to mess around with a flight deck crewman. And that he was such a coward, he didn’t even bother to help anyone else on the aircraft carrier, so says the Democratic Underground anyway.

Wow. Aren’t these the SAME people who were livid (myself included) about the Swiftboating of John Kerry’s military service, and his heroics during the Vietnam war? Aren’t these the very same people who decried tactics of blatant lies, of character assassination, and now are engaging in those very same tactics? (Well, and why not - now voter fraud is perfectly acceptable to these folks, too, so why am I surprised??)

So, having seen this, I wrote back to my sister:

The other day, were you talking about when McCain’s plane blew up on the flight deck? I just saw the actual footage from that event on tv and realized that must have been about what you were talking. In case it was, what happened was a missile fired accidentally from another plane across the flight deck, and hit McCain’s plane in the fuselage right after he had started his pre-flight check. He had started the engine, but once he got hit, he turned it off. He dropped and rolled through the burning jet fuel (over 400 gal)from his plane. He saw the pilot next to him try to do the same thing, but failed. He got up to run to him, and as soon as he stood up, there was another explosion, which knocked him back 10 ft. After that, other missiles started exploding. It was the worst disaster outside of war, with 134 crew dying. It took 36 hrs to get the fire under control. One fire extinguisher was not going to do it, and he was lucky to get out of there alive (as it was, he was hit by shrapnel). It was in no way, shape, or form, his fault, nor was there anything he could do to help anyone, as is clear from the flight video.

She claimed she was being rhetorical (uh huh) about the fire extinguisher, and said the least he could have done was stayed to help instead of watching on closed circuit tv (the claim from the Rolling Stones article). Yeah, what a freaking coward - he jumps from a burning plane into burning jet fuel, tries to help another pilot, gets blown back by an explosion from which he took shrapnel, and the wimp turned tail and ran. How dare he! Obama would NEVER have done anything like that, I am CERTAIN. And I am certain of that because Obama did not spend 22 years of his life in military service to our country, and has not exhibited anything close to the intestinal fortitude that McCain has demonstrated over his long career in service to this country.

Once again, don’t take my word for all of this. Here is the actual video footage from the Forrestal aircraft carrier (and this accident completely changed standard operating procedures by the Navy on aircraft carriers). The first thing you should notice is that McCain’s jet tail is pointed OVER the deck toward the ocean, thus debunking the whole “wet-start started this whole thing!” claim. Here it is:

Here is eyewitness testimony about the fire on the Forrestal:

Finally, this is one made in response to the vicious smears by Obama supporters on this tragic accident:

Now shut the hell up. Or, as I said to my sister:

It sure would be nice if you bothered to look into the character of Obama, and the FACTS about him, as much as you are willing to listen to innuendo, rumor, and bald-faced lies about McCain and Palin. Obama has a HISTORY of unsavory characters as CLOSE friends/colleagues/bosses in his life, INCLUDING A MAN WHO BOMBED THE PENTAGON AND THE CAPITOL BUILDING, who said after 9/11 he wished they had done MORE!!!!!! How about Tony Rezko (convicted)? Auchi? Blogajevich (under investigation)? Wright? Meeks? Kilpatrick (convicted)? Clark (under investigation)? Farrakhan?? The people who got Obama into Harvard? Being a card-carrying member of the New Party wing of the Dem. Socialist Party, a group that endorsed him for his first run (in which he got EVERYONE thrown off the ballot)? *

And you are going to focus on a bogus claim that McCain didn’t do anything after his PLANE got shot by a missile and burst into flame???? A man who gave 22 yrs of his life in military service to this country?? HOLY SHIT.

Obama has done next to NOTHING in his life but be associated with the kinds of people mentioned above, and organizations like ACORN, which is under investigation in TEN (make that thirteen now) states for voter registration fraud. He has funneled money through them, has given them money this year, which his campaign admitted, and tried to get them to receive a HUGE chunk of the bailout repayment (which fortunately the Senate didn’t agree to). But hey - don’t worry about voter fraud. It’s already happened this year and too many people were willing to look the other way.

All I know is if Hillary or John or ANYONE had just ONE of those kinds of associates in their closet that Obama has in plain sight, they would have been drummed out already, but clearly, the FACTS about Obama mean nothing to his followers (I might add, my sister kept bringing up the Keating 5 - I told her that John Glenn was also one of the Keating 5, and is now campaigning for Obama, but that is okay, of course. No matter how many times I told her McCain AND Glenn were exonerated, she continued to maintain McCain was guilty. Sigh.). You’ll just listen to his (plagiarized) speeches, stolen policies, and bask in the shine of The One. (Oh - and now he is MAD at McCain for taking Hillary’s mortgage policy, and giving her CREDIT for it, because he was going to claim it for his OWN. And since McCain beat him to it, he is now claiming it won’t work. Gimme a break - at least McCain gives credit where credit is due - Obama just thinks every idea someone else has is due him and takes it without remorse.)

Whatever. If you care more about attacking other people based on lies rather than actually looking at your candidate, his character, his lack of judgment, his lack of qualifications, and his nefarious friends, there is nothing I can say that will change that.

True that. But it doesn’t mean that we can stop fighting the good fight, and getting this information out there. Fight on we must, good people. For our country, for voter rights, to combat voter fraud, and to keep the biggest fraud who has ever run for president out of the White House. To restore our honor and our integrity. Fight on!

* Each of these claims has been covered in full at No Quarter, so I am not going to add in links for every single one. Alert readers alreayd know these facts anyway.

In case anyone missed it, this is what Larry Johnson wrote to him at No Quarter after Andrew started the rumors about Bristol Palin being the mother of Trig:

Fuck You Andrew Sullivan

You piece of human scum. Pick the time and date. I will kick your ass. You are despicable. There is one indisputable fact–Sarah Palin gave life to a baby boy who has Down’s Syndrome. And you dare to suggest that this was an illegitimate birth by her daughter. You have no sense of decency or honor. You deserve to be beaten in every manner conceivable. You and your cohorts spread this vicious lie. You are a spineless coward. There is only one truth. Sarah Palin’s Down’s Syndrome baby has more humanity and intelligence than you will ever achieve in your pathetic life. You are a synonym for asshole. I will fight you with one arm tied behind my back and destroy you. Please, accept the challenge.

In other words, Sullivan’s a tool.

Here’s the thing - by spreading rumors, and posting unsubstantiated “comments” of Palin’s time in Wasilla (I have seen other comments that were more favorable by the people who lived there, as well as in a BIG article about her in Time.com), it weakens the argument against her. The amount of time she was governor is a slippery slope for Democrats since Obama has spent very little time in the Senate - he has missed almost HALF of the Senate votes, and started campaigning almost as soon as he got in. So, Democrats need to be mighty careful on that one - especially since she is not at the top of the ticket and Obama is. It just sets them up, is my point. I have tried to find independent, reliable verification of this story, but have not been able to do so. Huffington Post is the main source for this story, and they are notoriously slanted. Oh, and Palin has the highest approval rating of any governor in the COUNTRY. Which is why I say those who want to slam her must have documentation to support their claims against her.

Along those lines - NO ONE in the Obama camp should follow up on Palin allegedly “biting the hand” that got her where she is given what he did to Alice Palmer, and the NUMEROUS people he has now thrown under the bus. (By the way, did you know that Bill Ayers lives about 1 1/2 blocks away from Obama? And the Farrakhan compound is right up the street from Ayers? H/T to Truthteller for this info! Coincidence?? Hahahahaha.) So, yeah - I’d let that one lie if I was him…

Even more than that,though, the Obama people should NEVER chastise anyone else for not being “vetted.” Obama has NEVER been fully vetted, certainly not by the MSM. Had he, he would not be the nominee now. He has too many shady associates (add Kilpatrick to that list), too few legislative accomplishments, too little experience, and no paper trail at ALL. NONE. (How can that be? Hell, I have a paper trail, and I’m not running for president! I have old date books - I even know where they are! I have files, for cryin’ out loud!! With papers in them! Really! And Obama doesn’t?? Uh, sure.)

Frankly, this is the kind of thing Bush supporters did to Al Gore and John Kerry. It is disturbing to me that the Left Wing has started acting so much like the Right Wing in its actions. Perhaps it learned too well from the Bushits. But this is not the Democratic Party I knew - maybe I was/am naive, but I expect my Party to act ethically and with integrity. It has lost out on both counts in a major way this year. I don’t recognize it any more - well, not as Democratic anyway. And bear in mind, I was clinging to the far left corner of the DNC before this. Not a centrist am I. The sexism and misogyny ALONE this year has been nothing but shocking and unprecedented. Women are the BACKBONE of the DNC, and it has treated us like pure shit. Now, it is starting on Palin. I never thought I’d see this day. I am truly dismayed by this. McCain came out FORCEFULLY against the media and DEMOCRATS attacking Palin for not staying home and taking care of her babies! What is this - 1958??? The DEMOCRATS are saying this, and the REPUBLICANS are the ones standing up for women! I feel like I am living in upside-down world. Bush and Obama claim to be Uniters, and both have divided this country more than anyone else I can remember. Friends end friendships, families are fighting - what the hell is going ON???? I guess “Uniter” is supposed to be defined as “divider” now…

Bottom line is this - go after Palin’s POLICY positions, and there are certainly ones that are 180 degrees from many Progressives. But the Swift-Boating will backfire, I think. It infuriated us when it happened to our candidate because it was based on lies and innuendo. I hardly think we should be using the same tactics now.

Sigh. I am passionate about this, as you see. I am sad, sad that the DNC has acted so immorally, so unethically, and engaged in flat out fraud. Maybe this kind of thing has been going on for years and I just didn’t see it or know it, but if so, it sure wasn’t this blatant. Not by half. I cannot stand to see the Democrats engaging in such sleazy politics. And I am furious at the way they are treating women. What does it say when the RNC and McCain come out guns BLAZING about the sexist treatment of Sarah Palin, when Obama ENGAGED in sexist treatment of Clinton, and the DNC supported it, said nothing, and its leaders engaged in it. Now they are turning it on Palin. That is simply unacceptable to me. Completely, and utterly unacceptable. I will not condone that kind of treatment of women. And let me say this - if this is how Obama is treating Clinton and Palin now, you cannot claim he will watch out for women if president. If he treats women like this, over half the population, what hope do members of the GLBT community have? And so it goes down the line. How incredibly, disturbingly, sad…

Obama’s own voice may haunt him looks at how Obama’s Grammy award winning audio book, Dreams of My Father, will be sliced and diced for our listening pleasure.

Coming to an ad on your TV this fall are such wonderful snippets as:

I kept playing basketball, attended classes sparingly, drank beer heavily, and tried drugs enthusiastically… If the high didn’t solve whatever it was that was getting you down,” Obama intones, “it could at least help you laugh at the world’s ongoing folly.

Or his inspiring re-creation of the first time he heard our beloved Reverend Wright.  

In one excerpt from the audio book that Hewitt played on his show in March, Obama alters his voice to mimic Wright’s, and repeats passages from a sermon decrying a society “where white folks’ greed runs a world in need.” Later Obama says of Wright’s preaching, “I found the tears running down my cheeks.”

Here’s how one “expert” explains our elections for the ignorant (DNC) who still don’t get it.

“Most people will only start focusing on this race after Labor Day. Most Americans don’t give a rip yet,” said Brown, who is perhaps best know as a creator of the independent expenditure Willie Horton ad that helped elect George H.W. Bush in 1988. “Most haven’t looked at the issues. They don’t know Barack Obama. It’s all about delivering messages to those people during that moment in time when they’re listening.”

Ahh yes!  It should be a fun and enlightening fall.

___________________

Originally posted at Alegre’s Corner blog.

Well, some Obamoids learned the lessons verrrrrry well. At today’s Huffypot (do the google, I won’t link), Jeffrey Klein has started swiftboating John McCain’s navy career by implying McCain was both over privileged (he’s an elitist too!) and an incompetent flier. He starts the piece with a question about whether or not McCain was in line for a promotion to flag officer, but Klein quickly veers off into smearville. Of course, it wouldn’t be an anti-McCain talking point if he wasn’t tied to Bush:

Read the rest ->

McCain’s sense of entitlement to privileged treatment bears an eerie resemblance to George W. Bush’s.

But I think the part I loathe the most is this:

The genius of McCain’s mythmaking is his perceived humility amid perpetual defiance. Having been a rebel without cause, and often a rebel without consequences, McCain apparently was not surprised when his Vietnamese captors went relatively easy on him compared to his fellow POWs.

Wow. That’s pretty brutal. Wonder what standing this guy has to make such veiled accusations? Nice too is the title of this little hit piece: “McCain’s Secret, Questionable Record.” Of course, Klein says all he really wants is McCain to release all his navy records and that would answer ALL POSSIBLE questions. I call bs on that.

This campaign cycle resembles nothing so much as the Rove directed Republican efforts of 2000 and 2004, only with Democrats in the Republican role. Phew! Nasty! I’d like to see what Klein could do with the records of a Medal of Honor winner. Bet this crack investigator could get that award cut down to a “time served” ribbon.

Senator Barack Obama’s campaign is steering the candidate’s wealthy supporters away from independent Democratic groups, calling into question what had been expected to be the groups’ central role in this year’s Democratic offensive against Senator John McCain.

Obama’s national finance chairwoman, Chicago hotel mogul Penny Pritzker, told supporters at a national finance committee meeting in Indianapolis May 2, and in other conversations, not to give money to the groups, people familiar with her comments said.
“From the beginning of this race Obama has told supporters that if they want to help his effort, they should do so through his campaign,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton, who confirmed that Pritzker has told donors not to give to the groups. “And he means exactly what he says.”

Many of these progressive groups were established to counter movement conservatives’ dominate infrastructure. In 1971, in a reaction against the New Left, Lewis F. Powell drafted a memo for business groups and the Nixon administration on building a conservative infrastruture to counter what he saw as an anti-capitalist, anti-freedom movement of the New Left. This plan was followed and we have had a third of a century of conservative governance, interrupted by 4 years of Carter and 8 years of Clinton.

Similarly, after what many progressives saw as an attempted coup d’état by movement conservatives against President Clinton, the left began building its own infrastructure to counter the Rush Limbaugh/American Spectator magazine/Newt Gingrich assault on our first progressive president in a generation. MoveOn.org was born as a muscular defensive of Clinton in a era where the left consisted of stale periodically like The Nation and Mother Jones.

Now Obama is seeking to use the fragile progressive infrastructure for his own electoral gain:

But in recent days, major donors have begun to conclude that Obama is serious in trying to cut off funds to the outside groups.

“It’s given donors pause,” said one prominent Democratic donor of Pritzker’s words.

Obama’s remarkably swift and complete consolidation of Democratic Party power. It’s an unprecedented seizure of control that has built him, over the course of a year, the most powerful field organization and the largest financial network in American politics, leaving many existing structures – traditional party organizations in many states, the Clintons’ long-nurtured national network – in the dust.

Outside groups, of course, can alter the electoral landscape. Just ask Michael Dukakis and John Kerry, both victims of brutal attack ads run by groups more affiliated with movement conservatives than with the campaigns themselves.

But some liberal activists argue that Obama is making a big mistake by consolidating all the power and money into his campaign:

But Democrats who support the work of the media 527s say Obama’s making a mistake. Progressive Media USA has aired anti-McCain television ads and developed a website intended to be a hub for negative information about McCain.

As I wrote previously, the Republicans and their conservative shock troops have prepared their plan to dismantle Obama, assuming he becomes the nominee. Obama may be disarming himself in his attempt to deny Hillary the nomination, and consequently we can look forward to Obama joining the pantheon of defeated Democrats: McGovern, Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore [updated], and Kerry.

• “Obama Puts Democrats in Peril” and “Electability Is Name of the Game,” from TheStreet.com, and
• “Grand Unified Theory of The Race (GUTTeR),” by eriposte at The Left Coaster blog

Larry Johnson has been arguing here for months that Barack Obama faces a huge hurdle as a general election candidate, especially once the GOP begins its full-out assault. Larry’s most recent critique is “Obama’s Foreign Policy Faux Pas,” which hits on Obama’s vulnerabilities, particularly his dubious longtime associates who we are certain that the GOP and 527s will go after.

Former ambassador Joe Wilson has also written several strong op-eds — including Wednesday’s “Obama’s illusions on foreign policy” — that foresee the perils Obama faces when voters become more familiar with his lack of foreign policy experience and knowledge.

And on Tuesday, Bud White wrote a well-vetted analysis of what a general-election GOP assault will surely look like in “The Plan to Swift-Boat Obama.”

Now we have additional predictive analyses, substantiated by hard evidence and rational thinking, that any remaining sober superdelegates must face — that Barack Obama, as a general election candidate, may be overwhelmed by a tsunami of relentless GOP attacks and will face further insurmountable electability issues:

From “Electability Is Name of the Game” at TheStreet.com:

Barack and Michelle Obama sent a message to the media early in the primary season. Barack said:

“I’m confident that I will get her [Clinton] votes if I’m the nominee, it’s not clear that she would get the votes I got if she were the nominee.”

Then Michelle said on supporting Hillary Clinton:

“I’d have to think about that. I’d have to think about that, her policies, her approach, her tone.”

The logic behind those statements went unquestioned by the media. Ever since, the media has begun saying how Obama supporters would defect from a Clinton candidacy, ruining the Democratic party and handing the election to Sen. John McCain.

A poll last week put that thesis to shame. Gallup polled Democrats on their likelihood to defect from a Democratic candidate and crossover to support McCain: 28% of Clinton supporters chose McCain over Obama, while only 19% of Obama supporters abandon Clinton for McCain.

Enough said for the lazy analysis in the media.

This is bad news for Obama come a general election. Clinton has very strong support among women, and this election offers a classic scenario they know well: A lesser experienced man gets all the breaks on the way to being promoted to a better position. The media forgets sexism and intently focuses only on race. …

The author, John Fout, goes on to describe Clinton’s strong support among Latinos and older voters — two additional, solid voting blocks.

Fout also zeroes in on patriotism, an emotional, bedrock issue that Obama will face, especially from incoming GOP and 527 attacks:

Patriotism will become an issue, not race.

[...]

They will talk about him not wearing a flag pin; they will play the tape of his wife saying she’s never been proud of her country. Lastly, they will play Pastor Wright’s anti-American statements.

Obama’s favorability ratings could drop like a stone in middle America, including key swing states such as Missouri, Ohio and Wisconsin. Obama may recover by giving another speech on patriotism. But if the attacks come late in the election, it may be too late for him to recover.

Obama’s unifying message sounds wonderful, and I wish it were possible. But I believe it won’t happen in this election. …

Fout also points to the lead that Hillary Clinton enjoys in the major blue states with the largest number of electoral votes — and the inherent weaknesses of the Democratic nominating system that have driven us all mad recently:

Clinton likely wishes the Democrats used the electoral college to determine the election or winner-take-all. She would have sewn up the nomination with her big states already. Instead, Obama leads because of proportional representation of delegates and wins in many caucuses.

Read all of “Electability Is Name of the Game.”

In his latest story, “Obama Puts Democrats in Peril,” Fout describes Barack Obama’s failure to unite his own party:

His campaign has failed to recognize the results of the Florida primary — and Michigan — for political gain over his opponent, a decision that could disgruntle Democratic voters in Florida in November and years beyond.

[...]

The DNC is working its way out of the trap. Will Obama follow its lead anytime soon? He may want to take some action or face the wrath of Florida voters in the fall. A recent poll taken in Florida shows that as many as 25% of Florida voters will stay at home in the fall if the result does not count. That spells defeat for Democrats in the state.

(To see more of John Fout’s political commentary, click here.)

Obama already polls much worse than Clinton in Florida vs. McCain, and it will be difficult to win the general election without Florida. I explained this last week.

Florida Republicans have already used the DNC ruling as a campaign issue there in January and almost certainly plan to do so again.

Obama has a dilemma: Face criticism in a critical swing state where he’s in essence supporting disenfranchising Democrats because of a Republican ploy and against securing a verifiable paper trail for elections or recognize the results of the primary. The former choice places Democrats in a poor position for years to come in Florida.

Then there is Eriposte’s “Grand Unified Theory of The Race (GUTTeR),” a piece of writing so complex and deep that it is impossible to summarize neatly. Eriposte actually dares to talk about race, and without accusing all of the white voters of being racists for not voting for Obama.

You’ll have to read it yourself to get all that Eriposte describes. But here’s a tidbit to whet your appetite:

[I]f [David] Sirota is actually right, shouldn’t we ask a simple question?

If Sen. Obama was unable to win the large states that Sen. Clinton won (most of which are a must-win in November for Democrats) due to white racism amongst a significant portion of Democratic voters, how in the world is he going to win those states in November when the proportion of white voters in those states will only increase dramatically due to the massive influx of even more conservative white voters who are Independents and Republicans? Further, if Republicans use racially "coded messages and tactics" that work - in the general election (anyone want to bet they won’t?) - isn’t that a prescription for a rout of Sen. Obama in those very states - many of which have long been reliably Democratic?

As you can imagine, these questions are not considered very seriously in the Brilliant^TM piece that Josh Marshall couldn’t wait to link to. Sirota says blithely:

Even if Clinton wins big in the remaining Race Chasm states, Obama has advantages in Montana, Oregon, North Carolina and South Dakota—smaller states, to be sure, but likely enough pledged delegates to keep a significant lead. Clinton, therefore, would have a difficult time convincing superdelegates to go against the will of the people in their states.

That leaves the “electability” argument with the superdelegates—and the problem for Clinton there is that polls show Obama is at least as “electable” as Clinton, if not more so.

In other words, Clinton is winning with the help of white racism amongst Democratic voters but Obama can win in those very states in November because, um, many of those very same whites - perhaps along with some even more conservative whites that don’t vote in the Democratic primaries in those states will vote for Obama in the general election against McCain because their racism will magically disappear right after the superdelegates pick Sen. Obama as the nominee. Got it? It’s so simple, really!

If only those Racist Uneducated Rubes^TM in the Democratic party just understood The Math of the GUTTeR^TM!

Read all of “Grand Unified Theory of The Race (GUTTeR),” by eriposte at The Left Coaster blog.

Given what we know now about our electorate, a few questions come to mind:

1. Can Obama win large electoral states?

2. Can Obama win without Florida and Michigan?

3. Can Obama win without 28% (or more) of Hillary supporters?

4. Can he win? Period.

The Boston Globe reports that these operatives

are busy arming for the general election, in a year that could see record activity by such outside entities. They are plotting strategy, crafting ad campaigns, and raising millions in “soft money” - largely unrestricted contributions from wealthy individuals, corporations, and labor unions…

One Republican strategist familiar with the plans said Republicans expect Senator Barack Obama, who leads rival Hillary Clinton in the Democratic race, to be their opponent and have begun assembling material to turn voters against him. “They’re beginning to put the book together on Obama,” said the strategist, who discussed the effort on condition of anonymity.

Many of these operatives honed their skills with the 527 Swift Boat Veterans for Truth (SBVT), a group which ran the slanderous but effective campaign against Senator John F. Kerry, which many credit with derailing his campaign.

John Kerry’s participation in protests against the Vietnam War was small potatoes next to the anti-American, anti-white rants of Obama’s mentor of 20 years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. These racially charged sermons give the Republicans a gift beyond their wildest dreams, and the damage may have already been done.

Jerome Armstrong already sees the Reverend Wright fallout having fatally wounded Obama in the swing state of Missouri:

In a month, a 1 point McCain lead over Clinton is now 9, and a lead of 2 by McCain over Obama has become 15 percent. It gets worse in MO. McCain’s favorable/unfavorable rating is at 59/40. If McCain already has MO locked up by April, we are in deep trouble.

Obama’s strength in the caucuses has been his ability to attract moderates, independents and a few Republicans. John McCain has spent months shoring up his support with the conservative base of the Republican Party and he is now reaching out to moderates, the very group who will decide this election and who are most offended by Reverend Wright’s sermons.

It’s easy to imagine the Republicans and their 527 groups carpet bombing the electorate in swing states with blistering ads of the Reverend Wright’s rants juxtaposed with a smiling Obama, while disgruntled supporters of Hillary reluctantly pull lever for Obama or simply stay home. It’s important to remember that John Kerry, after the SBVT were finished with him, won the state of Pennsylvania by less that 2% points, and he only won 12 out of 67 counties. Pennsylvania is a must-win for Democrats. John McCain must be feeling very good right now.

The Democratic leaders who are trying short-circuit the nominating process should review the electoral map and decide if a tsunami of red is really the best outcome for the Party and their own jobs. The one thing that is for certain is that the Republican 527s are going to do their best to make sure that happens, particularly if Obama is the nominee. And they already have their battle plans drafted.

:::::::::::

Originally posted at Bud White’s World.