It seems someone stole $2 million from the WV State Auditor’s office using nothing more than letters sent through the U.S. mail. This scam has also been recently reported by Florida, North Carolina, Massachusetts and Maine.

“Two payments intended for one of the companies were diverted overseas,” (State Auditor) Gainer said “– and the money could end up in terrorists’ hands.”

I might take issue with the “terrorists” statement above. Sometimes thievery, as demonstrated by Somalia pirates, is nothing more than a brutish crime of greed. And sometimes the success of criminal endeavors can be blamed less on broken security measures and more on plain and outright stupidity.

Eloquent in its simplicity, here is how it works.

Let’s open the first chapter of today’s Scamming for Dummies. If you want to run this scam, first locate the names of companies who have long-standing contracts with the states. This is easy. Most states publish bid and contract holders on their websites. Next, reproduce the company’s letterhead. This, too, is easy. Just download a copy of the corporate annual report and there you will find a warm introductory letter from an executive of the company. That is also where you will find an official name and title to use in your scam. You will need one more little piece of information to look official. Just go to the state’s Secretary of State’s website and look up the company’s business license. The final piece of our construction materials is provided by the state wishing to grant us the wish of total transparency. Every company that does business with a state must register and provide identifying information, such as their Federal Identification Number.

OK. Now let’s get to work. Nobody puts a million dollar check in the mail. Nope. It is much safer to have large sums like that wired. That is the assumption our scam is based upon. With research, materials and assumptions in hand it is now time to develop the process. The Bonnie and Clyde process worked because it was simple. They convinced bank tellers to give them other people’s money. They walked in the front door, waved a gun, demanded money and the teller complied. Let’s keep it that simple.

Oh, yes. You must have a bag for the money. Open a bank account in, let’s say Africa. Open another one in the U.S. Here comes the robbery. Send a letter, on company letterhead, signed by an executive of the company, to the state treasure or auditor – or whoever in that state controls the outgoing monies. The letter should reference the description of the contract, the contract number and the company FIN. Here comes the interaction with the teller. Explain, in that letter, that you have changed banks and ask the state to forward all future payments to the bank routing and account number listed for the U.S. bank. The teller obliges. It’s that simple. The very last step is the getaway. Now we go from low-tech to a high-speed vehicle known as the wire. As soon as the money hits your U.S. bank transfer it offshore.

This really happened. Not once, but several times. And no one is sure yet how many states have been duped, nor how much money has been, or is being stolen.

May 1, 2009
W.Va. Auditor’s Office defrauded of ‘in excess of $1 million’
The Charleston Gazette

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — More than $1 million has been stolen from the West Virginia Auditor’s Office and diverted to an overseas bank as part of an “elaborate fraud,” state Auditor Glen Gainer said Friday.

The FBI and U.S. Attorney’s Office are investigating.

The money was intended for two companies that have contracts with the state’s Insurance Commission and Department of Health and Human Resources. Instead, three payments that totaled “in excess of $1 million” were diverted to an unauthorized bank account in recent weeks, Gainer said.

“It was an elaborate fraud committed by a perpetrator outside the state,” Gainer said. “Everything went to a U.S. bank initially, but it very quickly was transferred overseas. By the time we caught it, the money was gone.”

The person behind the scheme sent letters allegedly from the two companies, requesting that payments be sent to new bank accounts.

The requests were sent on the companies’ letterhead with tax identification numbers and sample checks, which investigators now believe were fake. The letters included forged signatures from corporate executives.

All changes apparently were completed by correspondence through the U.S. mail.

“It was a case of corporate identity theft,” Gainer said. “The only thing that was changed was the routing of the money. They basically asked for the remittance of the funds to be changed.”

That was Friday. Whoops. It seems it was a little more than a million. AND, it was not his fault, says the Auditor.

May 4, 2009
Companies, not state, responsible for scammed funds, Gainer says
Gazette follow-up story.

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — West Virginia should not have to repay two companies that lost nearly $2 million in a corporate identity-theft scheme, state Auditor Glen Gainer said Monday.

[snip]

It is not unusual for vendors to ask for their account information to be changed, Gainer said. They must submit proper documentation, but national standards do not dictate that the state must call firms to verify those changes.

“For us to go back and make thousands and thousands [of phone calls], I don’t have the staff to do that,” he said.

You are called the “Auditor.” I think the title implies that checking details is in your job description. The Charleston Gazette Editorial Board Sums it up.

May 5, 2009

Editorial

Fraud
‘Corporate ID theft’

Now that the auditor’s calamity has spotlighted the fake bank account scam, all agencies, businesses and families should adopt a new rule: When asked to send payments to a different recipient, call first to double-check.

My profound scientific response: Duh! So readers, how secure are YOUR state monies?

Barack Obama has a coal problem. Responding to yesterday’s revelation that Barack Obama intends to bankrupt all plants that operate on energy generated from coal, Chris Hamilton, the Senior Vice President of the West Virginia Coal Association, called Obama’s comments in San Francisco “unbelievable.” I quote the West Virginia Record:

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama’s comments “unbelievable.”

“His comments are unfortunate,” Chris Hamilton said Sunday, “and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally.”

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

“In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said ‘not here’ about building coal-fired power plants — this is exactly what will happen,” Hamilton said. “Financing won’t be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

“If we’re going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here.”

In other words, the workers of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana and all the other states in which coal is mined, processed and converted to electricity should be prepared to have their jobs outsourced under an Obama Presidency. That is not the change the economically battered Ohio River Valley needs. It is also not the change those of us who consume electricity need. Just imagine the cost of our energy bills if coal plants, which generates 49% of our electricity, are bankrupted and eliminated.

American Girl in Italy asks No Quarter readers to disseminate the following recording of Barack Obama’s statement on bankrupting coal plants far and wide.

And I offer more information on who will be affected by Obama’s reckless energy policy in an essay I published yesterday.

Clearly Obama’s statements will have electoral effects in West Virginia, where he has already garnered opposition from leaders of the industry that is that state’s main economic engine. But we must ensure voters in Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania are armed with these facts before they cast votes tomorrow.

Sarah Palin is doing everything within her power to ensure voters in the Ohio River Valley understand the implications and ramifications of Obama’s desire to bankrupt plants relying on energy produced from coal. I quote CBS News:

(MARIETTA, OHIO) – Seizing on a newly released audio tape picked up by the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin took the opportunity here in coal country to accuse Barack Obama of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry.”

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”

The audiotape Palin was referring to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a Jan. 17 interview.

“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin asked, leading someone in the crowd to shout, “Liberal media!”

“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”

Marietta, Ohio, is located on the Ohio River on the border between Ohio and West Virginia. This is the perfect place to discuss Obama’s desire to bankrupt the coal industry, for many of the workers in that city and its environs earn their wages in mines and in factories reliant on coal.

And Sarah and the audience in Marietta, Ohio, are correct: we only learned about this now as a result of the venal and obsequious media’s suppression of any and all information that is unfavorable to Barack Obama. Just witness CNN’s attempt to minimize the importance of this story:

Contrary to her attempts to portray a media cover-up, audio and video recordings of Obama’s January 17 sit-down with the Chronicle editorial board have been freely available online for more than nine months.

In the interview, Obama said that his “aggressive” cap-and-trade plan would charge polluters for every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas they emit, a plan that would render polluting coal plants financially unviable.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” he said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

In the interview, Obama also made the case for alternative energy sources, adding that he does not believe coal production will be eliminated, and that he supports carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

John McCain also supports a market-based cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions.

Regardless, Palin sought to use Obama’s words against him in a part of the country where coal has long been king.

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen.”

The media, it seems, will not inform working class voters of Obama’s attempts to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and raise our electricity bills. But Sarah Palin and those who care about the economy of West Virginia and other states in the Ohio River Valley will. And so will we, for we understand that the elimination of jobs in a region of a country Obama already insulted with his comments in San Francisco about those bitter small town voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio who cling to guns and religion will not solve America’s economic woes. Indeed, it will only exacerbate the current recession.

Let us stand with West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley and defend those who rely on coal for their economic livelihood. This is certainly what Hillary would do. I quote the Sun-Times article I cite above:

After the quotes [about "bitter clingers"] surfaced on a political blog Friday, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP hopeful John McCain immediately decried them as evidence that Obama is “elitist” or “out of touch.”

“My opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience,” Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia. “As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves … Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them.”

And yes, Barack Obama is an elitist politician who “looks down on” voters in the Ohio River Valley and in other areas of the country that rely on coal. Hillary Clinton does not, and neither does John McCain. Here is John McCain yesterday campaigning in Pennsylvania:

SCRANTON, Pa. — Campaigning in coal-rich Pennsylvania, GOP presidential nominee John McCain pledged this afternoon that if elected president, he would ensure that the U.S. exports coal overseas — something that U.S. policy already permits.

At the same time, the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee reportedly launched robocalls in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other coal states attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s position on coal.

Mocking Obama for a comment he made in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January — “The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster,” Obama had said — McCain promised the audience at the University of Scranton that he’s been a proud coal cheerleader in the past, and plans to be one in the future.

“My friends, you know what Senator Obama said about a year ago, he said he had not been a, quote, coal booster,” he said, as the crowd booed. “My friends, I’ve been a coal booster and it’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s going to help restore the economy of the great state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The robocalls have been placed, but we must ensure the voters understand that Obama desires to bankrupt the coal industry and increase the prices of our energy bills. We have one day, and this must be done. Circulate the video I cite above.

———————————————-

[UPDATE]: Ohio Coal Association issues a scathing statement on Barack Obama’s statement. I quote:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov 03, 2008 /PRNewswire–USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation’s coal industry.

“Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

“These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.
“It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

“Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation’s coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to ‘bankrupt’ our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

“In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation’s long-term energy security – a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

“Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.”

The Ohio Coal Association (OCA) is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio’s underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

Representing 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 associate members in related industries, the OCA will deliver many Ohio votes to John McCain.

Words do matter, I guess.

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

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” Snow asked: “Anybody making over $250,000…” Biden responded: “Is gonna pay more.” Snow: “Is going to pay more.” Biden: “You got it. It’s time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut.”

Conservatives predictably went ballistic with their calls of “class warfare”; Obama’s fans thought it brilliant economics.

For those of us who are Democrats, or former Democrats, Joe Biden’s statement was offensive on a different level. Although many of us agree with progressive taxation, Biden’s formulation is deeply offensive. According to Biden, greater taxation equals greater patriotism. This concept fits perfectly with the self-congratulatory world of Whole Foods Nation. Anglachel describes Biden’s target audience as the new elites:

The focus of the [Obama] Democrats is on the winners of the economic realignment, those who managed to win a place in the white collar upper-middle class … [Obama] is the exemplar of a mode of life that, while not as unreachable as that of Bush’s base, is still out of reach of those who do not have the education, acculturation and business contacts to climb up that economic ladder.

Some will argue that Biden is simply practicing liberal class warfare; he is targeting the wealthy and not the “bitter” gun owners of greater Appalachia. I disagree. By using the framework of patriotism, Biden is challenging — to use Anglachel’s parlance — the “Bubbas” and the Archie Bunkers — to ownership of American patriotism.

Biden is telegraphing to Whole Foods Nation that it’s equally patriotic to live in Boulder, Colorado and pay on a 33% tax bracket income as it is to serve in Iraq, like Governor Palin’s son. Or, as a friend in this income bracket told me recently, she “sacrifices” by voting Democratic.

The primary campaign showed that Obama fared well with affluent voters and African Americans. Clinton crushed Obama with middle- and low-income voters. The Pennsylvania primary was a perfect example of Obama’s inability to connect with low-income voters:

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary shared many of the same vote characteristics of other primary states this season – with Clinton winning her core base of union members, less educated and lower income voters and rural voters, and Obama winning voters with more education and income, and black voters.

The attack on blue-collar voters by Obama is what precipitated the civil war now raging in the Democratic party, and Obama’s race-baiting of blue-collar whites has been one of the more depressing episodes in our history as a Party.

Low-income white Democrats are the least likely group to vote Republican, and the assault on this vulnerable group has all the markings of racial and class warfare used for electoral gain. African Americans are all too familiar with politicians playing on prejudices for electoral gain and there is nothing different in this case except for the color of the victims’ skin.

The dishwasher, the waitress at Denny’s, the auto mechanic, the grocery clerk, the nursing assistant, the soldier — all low income Americans — are equally patriotic to anyone living in San Francisco or Hyde Park or the East Village, regardless of the amount they pay in taxes.

I’ve been thinking about Biden’s notion of patriotism for several days. Last night I found a video which captures patriotism in a way still held by much of the country. It’s an old fashioned form of patriotism which is now considered uncouth and looked down upon by the liberal elites. But it’s a type of patriotism once honored by Democrats; it’s a part of what made Democrats the governing party for most of the first half of the last century.

The video is from Ken Burns’ brilliant 1990 documentary The Civil War. I think Sullivan Ballou’s love for his wife Sarah is only matched by his love of country.

Listen to Sullivan Ballou’s words carefully and think about everything he is sacrificing. You won’t hear politicians — except perhaps for John McCain — speak of our beloved country with such a degree selflessness and honor.

Sullivan Ballou wrote to his wife that he was “willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government.” Ballou’s patriotism is echoed by Sarah Palin’s willingness to give her child to the service of our country: “Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas…to fight for our country, for democracy for our freedoms.”

Whole Foods Nation hates Sarah Palin for the class she represents. She threatens the self-perception of their own moral superiority on race and their economic “sacrifices.” Giving her son to our nation is not enough to silence the voices of hate.

During the primary campaign, on TPM, billysumday suggested that Bill Clinton was a racist because of his bumpkin origins, totally ignoring that the President was educated at Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford:

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.

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

I was struck by the high quality of the ad. It tweaks Obama’s celebrity status, and then unleashes a full-throttle class attack on Obama. “Life in the spotlight must be grand,” intones a woman’s voice, dropping her voice off for emphasis, “but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.”

Contrast this ad with the lingering image of Obama in Europe, a trip which I think cost him dearly. Obama is trying to stretch his image into that of a statesman; he tried to fill the shoes of real presidents by going on the Euro-Disney tour of historic moments of American presidential history. But these staged events actually make Obama seem smaller, like the scared guy hiding behind a faux presidential seal:

I’ve been thinking about Obama’s missteps since he “secured” the nomination. I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America. Instead of puffing himself up to look presidential, Obama should bring himself to the door steps of poor whites in Appalachia, Latinos in Texas, the elderly in Florida. Bill Clinton published a book during the 1992 campaign called “Putting People First,” and his economic message struck a chord. Obama has promised Hope, but he has failed to articulate a compelling economic message. But I suspect that he and his advisers are already intoxicated on their perceived greatness.

Obama’s message is a post-modern, self-referential echo of how great Obama is, because Obama brings you hope and that’s what you’ve been waiting for, in addition to yourself (who you didn’t know you were waiting for). He won’t let you be complacent and he will remind you that you and he are merging into “The Ones we’ve all been waiting for”. And then a light will shine. Our tires will spontaneously inflate. And the earth will begin to heal.

Putting sarcasm aside, take a look at a Bill Clinton ad from 1992. People often complain that politics is all image and no substance. But here we have a candidate who is nearly all substance. He is working at his desk while the names of economists supporting his economic plan scroll across the screen. Obama fills the screen with himself and his adoring crowds, Bill Clinton (like Hillary Clinton) outlined solutions. Working Americans, I suggest, can see the difference.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gny-7ZBsJ9w[/youtube]

My neighbor told me today that he’s voting for McCain. The only other time he’s voted Republican was for Nixon in 1972, an ominous warning for Democrats.

If Obama is losing Democrats like my neighbor — white ethnic, life-long Democrat, over 65 years old — he is in deep trouble. Back in April, Anglachel wrote that Obama’s inability to speak the language of the working class would cost the Democrats the election:

Should Obama be the nominee, he can kiss the general election goodbye … the Democratic Party leadership itself is going to be paying for its whole-hearted embrace of reductionist class politics. Some voters will defect to the Republicans, though I think that is going to be limited … I think you see a significant section of the working class simply turn away from participation, depressing turn out and costing the party electoral success. They will stay away until the party offers them candidates who talk to their material interests instead of to the leadership’s fantasy of being modern day Solons.

Obama’s inability to speak to the “forgotten middle class,” as Bill Clinton famously called them, is a primary source of his troubles. His campaign is still running to win the votes of college towns, but now great swaths of working America are starting to pay attention and the candidate speaking to the concerns of the working class, ironically enough, is the Republican nominee.

1) Remember when BO threw TUCC under the bus? There’s a WP article out today about some of the fallout from that. Some Trinity members feel ill-used. I’d say they have a right.

The space under Obama’s bus is full enough now with Wright, Trinity, Pfleger, Rezko, Johnson, his white grandmother, and assorted others to require the outfitting of monster truck wheels.

2) A fascinating article in the Weekly Standard (I know, I know) suggests one way to look at the divide in the democratic party is by labeling the sides Academicians and Warriors.

read the rest ->

The divisions between these two classes tend to be deep. Academicians traffic in words and abstractions, and admire those who do likewise. Jacksonians prefer men of action, whose achievements are tangible. Academicians love nuance, Jacksonians clarity; academicians love fairness, Jacksonians justice; academicians dislike force and think it is vulgar; Jacksonians admire it, when justly applied. Each side tends to look down on the other, though academicians do it with much more intensity: Jacksonians think academicians are inconsequential, while academicians think that Jacksonians are beneath their contempt. The academicians’ theme songs are “Kumbaya” and “Imagine,” while Jacksonians prefer Toby Keith:

Well, a man come on the 6 o’clock news

Said somebody’s been shot, somebody’s been abused

Somebody blew up a building, 

Somebody stole a car, 

Somebody got away,
Somebody didn’t get too far, 

Yeah, they didn’t get too far 

Justice is the one thing you should always find. 

You got to saddle up your boys, 

You got to draw a hard line. 

When the gun smoke settles, we’ll sing a victory tune, 

We’ll all meet back at the local saloon. 

We’ll raise up our glasses against evil forces, 

Singing “Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses.”

Academicians don’t think “evil forces” exist, and if they did, they would want to talk to them. This, and not color, seems to be the divide.

Then the article switches to the race as it is now.

And he [Obama] is up against John McCain, a true Jacksonian if ever there was one. Of course, he dispatched another Jacksonian in Hillary Clinton, who, against all expectations, emerged as a lower-to-middle-class spokesman, and all-purpose warrior queen. As a feminist and graduate of Wellesley and Yale, she was an unlikely choice to appeal to Jacksonians, but she won them over by her grit and tenacity and her stubborn refusal to give in to pressure. Like McCain, she gave the impression that she would never stop fighting, while Obama, as Barone puts it, gave “the impression, through his demeanor and through his statements that he would never start.” Obama may be the first nonwhite with a serious chance of reaching the White House, but he is also the latest in a long line of anti-Jacksonians who have tried, and have failed, to win the office of president. The second obstacle may prove more formidable than the first.

The Appalachia explanation and white racist explanation do not fit nearly as well as this one. And it dovetails nicely with the PUMA like atmosphere found at this blog and others. Although I’d have to say Toby Keith isn’t the ONLY possible bannerman for warriors, Obama’s democratic detractors are definitely warrior-like. Booyah.

3) Rezkowatch has a very helpful discussion of the Obama home purchase issue. While Obama negotiated a nice, much-lower price for his house, Tony Rezko’s wife paid extra for the lot next door. Since both lot and house were sold by the same seller, it looks as if the seller roughly got his asking price but with the house going for below market while the lot went for above market. Later, Obama bought 1/6 of that lot for 1/6 of the price Rezko’s wife paid. The article notes: who would later want to buy 5/6 of a lot, particularly when it is not likely you’d get a building permit for it?

Looks like in addition to a nice discount on his house, Obama wanted to buy just enough of the empty lot next door to make it “unbuildable.” Unusual? Not really. Unsavory? Definitely. Perhaps this is an early application of the “new politics” of real estate.

The problem is the party itself. 2008 was the year that the party abandoned its principles. It is no longer the party of FDR and shared responsibility. Now, it is the party of wannabe rich libertarian Democrats. It is the party of the Ariana Huffingtons who, dissatisfied with her own party, have decided to steal someone else’s. It isn’t the party that nearly elected Bobby Kennedy. It is the party that is about to write off Appalachia. Good riddance, poor working people! You’re on your own now. It isn’t the party that made social security sacred. It is the party that might very well start tinkering with it …

More from Riverdaughter:

[...]

The problem with Obama and the new Democratic party is that it doesn’t stand for real Democrats. It is yet another strange amalgamation of voters whose self interest was pandered to. In many ways, it is no different than the Republican party of gilded capitalists, religious crazies and neocons. This new Democratic party is made up of young people, libertarians and pretentious status conscious liberals. There is a nasty streak of cynicism in it as well, …

Image grabbed from Bud White’s great, recent story here at No Quarter: “The Neo-Liberal War on Blue-Collar Whites and the Breakup of the Democratic Party ».“

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New York Times’ new columnist, Charles W. Blow, a specialist in race baiting those who support anybody but Barack, has achieved a new level of absurdity, arguing that Obama doesn’t need key states for the general election but at the same time will win them anyway.

How’s that? Blow says that Obama is toast in greater Appalachia, which extends over eastern and southern Pennsylvania and southeastern Ohio. Of course, forget about West Virginia and Kentucky. Obama has already dismissed those voters as demented bigots.

Blow does not report that Hillary beats McCain handily in West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Arkansas, Missouri, and is competitive in Kentucky.

Instead, Blow disses voters across 12 states as “uneducated” for not voting for Obama. But wait, it doesn’t matter that they won’t vote for him. Why? Because, well, they will vote for him!

Blow writes in a rush of wishful thinking:

If he (Obama) wins New York and Pennsylvania (he lost both in the primaries) and flip-flopping Ohio (another primary loss) he will be in good position.

The electoral votes of the other heavily Appalachian states could be offset. For instance, if he wins Virginia (where a corner sits in Appalachia and which seems to be in play although it hasn’t swung Democratic in more than 40 years) and Florida (which almost swung — or maybe did swing — Democratic in 2000), he will have won more electoral votes than in Tennessee, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia combined.

So, Obama won’t win these states, except that he will! Because Charles W. Blow says he will! Just because. Brilliant! It’s magic! Got that, superdelegates?