I saw the following story this morning on the news, and was pretty surprised by it: One-Fourth of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted, Study Finds. Some of you may recall that John McCain asked for an extension to count votes in VA for absentee ballots requested by military personnel that were delayed in being set out. That was back in November.

Well, a new study has just come out from the US Senate, and you are not going to believe this. This is certainly timely given our conversations regarding our votes being counted, continuing tonight at 9:00pm (EST). Get this:

One out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted, according to findings being released at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said the study, while providing only a snapshot of voting patterns, “is enough to show that the balloting process for service members is clearly in need of an overhaul.”

Uh, ya THINK, Chuck?? No freakin’ kidding! These people put their lives on the line, and then one of their most basic right as Americans, the right to have vote and have it counted is treated so cavalierly? Yeah, I think that warrants an “overhaul.” SO astute.

There’s more:

The committee, working with the Congressional Research Service, surveyed election offices in seven states with high numbers of military personnel: California, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

It said that of 441,000 absentee ballots requested by eligible voters living abroad — mainly active-duty and reserve troops — (emphasis mine)more than 98,000 were “lost” ballots that were mailed out but never received by election officials. Taking into account 13,500 ballots that were rejected for such reasons as a missing signature or failure to notarize, one-quarter of those requesting a ballot were disenfranchised.

The study found that an additional 11,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable.

Holy smokes. Twenty-five percent of the votes cast were not counted. I’m still trying to get my head around that, especially in light of the clear intention TO vote as expressed here:

Schumer’s office said that because a person living abroad must request the absentee ballot and show a clear intention to vote, voter negligence is not thought to be a major factor.

Rather, the New York Democrat said in a statement, there is a chronic problem of military voters being sent a ballot without sufficient time to complete it and send it back. He cited estimates that a ballot can take up to 13 days to reach an overseas voter.

Among the states surveyed, California had 30,000 “lost” votes out of 103,000 ballots mailed out. An additional 3,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable and 4,000 were rejected.

And that is exactly the issue McCain was trying to address in VA, where it was CLEAR that the fault lay with those responsible for mailing out the ballots. They failed to do so in a timely manner, especially considering the length of time it takes for the ballots to be received overseas.

So, what is the plan to correct this unacceptable situation? Well, this:

The hearing was to take up possible problems in the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Pentagon program that handles the election process for military personnel and other overseas voters.

Oh, whew. I feel better now. That should take care of it, right? Ahem.

This just boggles my mind. Come to think of it, this isn’t just unacceptable, it is a breach of trust with those who are serving in our military abroad. They should be able to know that if they ask for an absentee ballot, they will receive it in a timely fashion. And, they should be able to know that their vote cast is a vote counted. We all should be able to trust that. Clearly, not only can those serving and living abroad not be able to trust in that, even when they do all that is required of them to cast that vote, but we cannot either. Not now, not with electronic voting machines, and not with rampant voter fraud. Something has to change, and it has to change now. At the very, very least, we all, every American, should be able to know with CERTAINTY that the vote we cast is counted, first of all, but counted correctly, second of all. And those who put their lives on the line for us deserve that at the very least.

Twenty five percent. 25%. One-fourth, 1/4th, of the votes not counted. Simply unacceptable.

Saturday, Sunday & Monday, 8 people (the starving college student kind) will be coming to NC where I am located to stay with me to help out on the ground game here.

I just found out at the last minute, but I did state a couple of weeks ago that I would house anyone who needed it and I refuse to go back on my word despite the fact I made the statement before my fiance had surgery from being hurt downrange.

They asked for my help, so I will give it. They may be strangers but we are definitely united by the same cause, hell after all we have ALL been through I feel like I know everyone of them. But what is at stake is so important. I cannot charge them anything so ANY donations no matter big or small will definitely be appreciated.

If you are unable to do this I understand I don’t have the heart to charge them anything because its not there fault. This is the link on my blog, ANVP and donation button.

Obama & Friends: Judge Not?, By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, October 10, 2008; A19

Convicted felon Tony Rezko. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers. And the race-baiting Rev. Jeremiah Wright. It is hard to think of any presidential candidate before Barack Obama sporting associations with three more execrable characters. Yet let the McCain campaign raise the issue, and the mainstream media begin fulminating about dirty campaigning tinged with racism and McCarthyite guilt by association.

[Associations] provide a significant insight into character. They are particularly relevant in relation to a potential president as new, unknown, opaque and self-contained as Obama. With the economy overshadowing everything, it may be too late politically. … But that does not make it, as conventional wisdom holds, in any way illegitimate.

[McCain] should months ago have begun challenging Obama’s associations, before the economic meltdown allowed the Obama campaign (and the mainstream media, which is to say the same thing) to dismiss the charges as an act of desperation by the trailing candidate.

McCain had [a chance] when the North Carolina Republican Party ran a gubernatorial campaign ad that [linked] Obama with Jeremiah Wright. The ad was duly denounced by the New York Times and other deep thinkers as racist.

This was patently absurd. Racism is treating people differently and invidiously on the basis of race. Had any white presidential candidate had a close 20-year association with a white preacher overtly spreading race hatred from the pulpit, that candidate would have been not just universally denounced and deemed unfit for office but written out of polite society entirely.

Nonetheless, John McCain … with his overflowing sense of personal rectitude, joined the braying mob in denouncing that perfectly legitimate ad, saying it had no place in any campaign. In doing so, McCain unilaterally disarmed himself, rendering off-limits Obama’s associations, an issue that even Hillary Clinton addressed more than once.

Obama’s political career was launched with Ayers giving him a fundraiser in his living room. If a Republican candidate had launched his political career at the home of an abortion-clinic bomber — even a repentant one — he would not have been able to run for dogcatcher in Podunk. And Ayers shows no remorse. His only regret is that he “didn’t do enough.”

[...]

[These associations] tell us two important things about Obama.

First, his cynicism and ruthlessness. He found these men useful, and use them he did. Would you attend a church whose pastor was spreading racial animosity from the pulpit? Would you even shake hands with — let alone serve on two boards with — an unrepentant terrorist, whether he bombed U.S. military installations or abortion clinics?

Most Americans would not, on the grounds of sheer indecency. Yet Obama did, if not out of conviction then out of expediency. He was a young man on the make, an unknown outsider working his way into Chicago politics. He played the game with everyone, without qualms and with obvious success.

Obama is not the first politician to rise through a corrupt political machine. But he is one of the rare few to then have the audacity to present himself as a transcendent healer, hovering above and bringing redemption to the “old politics” — of the kind he had enthusiastically embraced in Chicago in the service of his own ambition.

Second, and even more disturbing than the cynicism, is the window these associations give on Obama’s core beliefs. He doesn’t share the Rev. Wright’s poisonous views of race nor Ayers’s views, past and present, about the evil that is American society. But Obama clearly did not consider these views beyond the pale. For many years he swam easily and without protest in that fetid pond.

Until now. Today, on the threshold of the presidency, Obama concedes the odiousness of these associations, which is why he has severed them. But for the years in which he sat in Wright’s pews and shared common purpose on boards with Ayers, Obama considered them a legitimate, indeed unremarkable, part of social discourse.

[...]

[Obama's] character remains highly suspect. There is a difference between temperament and character. Equanimity is a virtue. Tolerance of the obscene is not.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Big surprise, but I just do not GET this claim that Obama has a “First-Class temperament.” I have written about this before - the NY Times claimed he was “even-keeled.” Even Bill Hemmer made that claim the other day on Fox News. Have they not been WATCHING him? Have they not seen how FAST he rises to anger?? They are always harping on McCain’s “famous” temper, of which I have seen blessed little, while Obama throws temper tantrums whenever something doesn’t go his way. Whatever. Besides that crapola, this article says what MANY of us have been saying: IT IS ALL ABOUT CHARACTER, and who Obama’s close friends are says a LOT about his, and none of it good. It’s a shame no one bothered to look at him during the Primaries…Oh, wait - whenever they did, they were called “Racists,” just like Rep. John “BACKSTABBER” Lewis did to John McCain yesterday, equating him to George Wallace. That is way, way beyond the pale. And simply unacceptable.

Anywho - better late than never, I reckon. I hope people will actually pay attention. We’ve been saying this for MONTHS - but 3 weeks before the election works, too…

CHARLOTTE – Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in North Carolina where black votes could help swing the state to the Democrats, said today that electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden said the policies of running mate Barack Obama make his presidency even more urgent and declared this to be the most important election that any living person has seen in their lifetime. But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.

“That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally,” Biden said. “That all by itself will be significant.”

North Carolina last voted for a Democrat in 1976, when Jimmy Carter won much of the South. But the state has a large population of blacks galvanized by Obama’s candidacy, and the Illinois senator has competed aggressively here for months.

The race card will have to be dropped aggressively in North Carolina, for African-Americans comprise only 21.7% of the state’s population. This is by far smaller than the number of African-Americans in states such as Mississippi and Louisiana. Compounding this demographic constraint for the racially polarizing Obama campaign is recent polling data: McCain respectively leads Obama 17 points and 20 points in recent Research 2000/DailyKos and SurveyUSA/ABC11-WTVD polls. The Obama campaign is desperate, and they will try to mobilize each and every single African-American in that state to vote for Barack Obama, even if that entails asking Joe Biden to go for broke at the Phillip O. Academy in Charlotte, North Carolina. Yes, the Obama campaign had the audacity to asked the man who uttered to following questionable words to drop the race card in inner city Charlotte:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

Everyone, it seems, suffers from amnesia when race is invoked in any political discussion. Perhaps one should say those inspired by Joe Biden’s Charlotte, North Carolina, race card have been hoodwinked and bamboozled. Or maybe Michelle Obama simply prefers the word “storybook” to the phrase “fairy tale” when Democrats discuss her husband’s candidacy. Too bad Michelle failed to remember that Bill Clinton was referring to her husband’s Iraq policy and not to her husband when she shamelessly criticized the former President at the Trumpeter Awards before the racially charged South Carolina primary. But why should we expect consistency from those who recklessly exploit the politics of race for electoral and personal gain?

How odd it is that Biden is now the weapon the Obama campaign will deploy in North Carolina as they racially polarize that state’s population in the name of cynical electoral politics. Michelle’s deck of cards must be out of aces of race. For on 5 MAY it was Michelle Obama who laid down her entire hand at the Ovens Auditorium in Charlotte on the eve of that state’s important and in many ways decisive primary. I quote The Hill:

It was an hour-long tale of resentment and anger.

First, she complained at great length that her husband had been treated unfairly in the Democratic presidential race. Every time he made a move forward, she said, “they” — she never spelled out exactly who “they” were — moved the goalposts a bit farther away from him.

First, “they” said he couldn’t raise the money necessary to run a big-league campaign.

But “once he proved that he could raise the money, then all of a sudden money didn’t matter,” Mrs. Obama told the crowd. “Everybody said, ‘Well, money isn’t important.’ ”

Then “they” said the test for Obama would be whether he could build a political organization. But “once it was built, they said it’s not an organization — the stakes changed again.”

Next, “they” said Obama had to win Iowa. But “once he won Iowa, then all of a sudden Iowa was no longer important.”

“They” had moved the bar again. This time, Obama had to win a primary state.

“Then we rolled into South Carolina,” Mrs. Obama said. “Then you know what they said? They said South Carolina didn’t count, because Barack was supposed to win.”

Then came Super Tuesday, and after that Obama’s stretch of victories in a series of primary and caucus states.

Still, Mrs. Obama complained, “they” tried to undermine her husband every step of the way.

“We’ve learned that we’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?” she said.

“They tell you all you need to do is do these things and you’ll get to the bar, so you go about the business of doing those things.

“You start working hard and sacrificing, and you think you’re getting closer to the bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, you get right to that bar, you’re reaching out for the bar, and then what happens?

“They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach.

“And that’s just what’s been happening in this race.”

According to Michelle Obama on 5 MAY, “they,” the Clintons, were raising the bar on her husband, and they did this to him solely as a result of her husband’s “race.” It is a scenario Michelle claims she understands. I quote the author of The Hill article again:

Even Michelle Obama herself. “I’m not supposed to be here,” she tells the crowd. “I am a statistical oddity. As a black girl raised on the south side of Chicago, I’m not supposed to be here. I wasn’t supposed to go to Princeton. They said my test scores were too high” — surely a verbal slip, because in the past she has said she was told her test scores were too low — “I wasn’t supposed to go to Harvard Law School, because they said it might be a little too hard for me. And I certainly am not supposed to be standing here with a chance to become the next first lady of the United States of America.”

The Obama campaign complained about the raising of the bar during the North Carolina primary, but now they are clearly lowering the bar with more race baiting and more racial polarization in Charlotte, North Carolina, a city they view as a receptacle for their political and racial toxic waste. First it was Michelle Obama, and now it is Joe Biden: same message, different people, more divisiveness, more distractions, more sleaze, more race cards.

The people of Charlotte, North Carolina, will be hoodwinked and bamboozled into submission. But even worse is how Obama will subject all the African-Americans of that city and state who will vote for him to so much “okie-doke” if he manages to make it to the White House on their backs. Is this post-racial politics, or am I right to view it as so much regression?

More commentary on and analysis of Biden’s event in Charlotte, North Carolina, is available at Memeorandum. Also be sure to visit Charlotte Front and Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is an excerpt from the newspaper, Charlotte Observer, when Howard visited Charlotte , NC on 25th of July as part of his tour program:  Shouts of protest continued intermittently.  When Dean mentioned what he called “the biggest job for President Obama,” they hollered, “He’s  not the president!” 

Speaking to reporters later on his bus,he dismissed the protesters.

I’m not sure all of them are Clinton supporters,” he said. Some of them are having fun at the Democrats’ expense. I think shouting during somebody’s speech is low class.” 

We’re “low class” . I believe his words were so calculating because he knew no AA were with us that afternoon. Imagine if there were, it becomes racist and the AA community would rise  and there would be a pandemonium. But since we’re an “old” bunch of ladies, “low class” was appropriate for us. Hey, Coward Dean, remember what else we hollered, “I will not fall in line, I own my vote.”

Through the auspices of our leader,  and a bunch of “old” but wiser ladies from http://www.Charlottefrontandcenter,Asheville, and Greenville , we were able to have a dignified coup to express our freedom of speech and freedom to assembly. I thought I’ve got thick skin and would never be affected by this; you know that I cried….. I know this is so silly compared to the maltreatment thrown to Hillary, so my message is now to Howard Dean, I hold grudges and I will get even in the general election…Jyoti 

Imagine if a bunch of disgruntled Mitt Romney supporters were currently stalking John McCain or Republican events loudly demanding that their candidate be nominated. Think the national press would be featuring it bigtime as an example of Republican party disunity? Well, the same thing is happening except the people are disgruntled Democrats expressing their opposition of Barack Obama while loudly continuing to support Hillary Clinton. … PUMA activities seem to be surging lately. …

JustSayNoDeal.com reports more coverage today, including a dynamite LTE, “Party leadership, Obama rejected by these Dems” published in today’s Indianapolis Star newspaper and an original article published at Raw Story, “Hillary supporters, still angry, frustrate attempts at party unity. The Raw Story report features the highly successful protest by PUMA members during Howard Dean’s speech in Charlotte, North Carolina:First, the IndyStar LTE which concisely sums up essential concerns about Barack Obama’s candidacy:

Party leadership, Obama rejected by these DemsWe know very little about Barack Obama, but we do know he is unwilling to take a firm stance on issues.He said he would accept public financing for the general election, and later rejected it.He voted in favor of the government’s eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies after promising his supporters he would reject it.He advocates both an individual’s right to own a gun and the government’s right to regulate ownership.He assured America he would negotiate a better deal with NAFTA and then winked to the Canadian government that this was simply political posturing.He assured his supporters he would pull all American troops out of Iraq immediately. Now he calls this impossible.The list is endless.I am a member of PUMA PAC (People United Means Action), a group of citizens who favored Hillary Clinton and are motivated by belief that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) has abrogated its responsibility to represent the interests of all Democrats in all 50 states. I and thousands of other PUMA members will not vote for Obama, the DNC’s selected, not elected, nominee.Dylan AsdalePUMA PAC DemocratAvon

Here’s a quote from the section of the Raw Story report about that dramatic Charlotte, N.C. protest:

Protesters brought their anger over the supposed mistreatment of Hillary Clinton by the Democratic Party to a Howard Dean appearance in Charlotte Friday, some carrying signs that read “Dump Dean.”Two dozen of the New York Senator’s supporters shouted down the Democratic National Committee Chairman with a chorus of, “I own my vote!” the Charlotte Observer reported.The protest was sparked by a rumor that Clinton’s name would not be put in for nomination at the Democratic National Convention in Denver next month.The supporters were loud enough that Dean was forced to stop his speech to the 150 people who showed up for the voting rally and address the demonstrators. …

Read all of the Raw Story report, which also covers PUMA members’ statements and strategies in Texas and elsewhere.

• Outrage at the blatant bias against Hillary in the mainstream media
• Outrage that the Obama campaign has played the race card repeatedly and been given a “free pass” by the media
• Outrage at the DNC and the NCDP for their unethical behavior in steering voters to Obama in the watershed North Carolina Democratic Primary
• Outrage that almost a century after women won the right to vote, we’re still living with the same old paradigm – a woman who stands up and speaks out gets told to shut up and sit down
• Outrage that after eight years of Bush, we’re stuck with another loser Democratic candidate

 We’re mad as hell – and we have a new website:  charlottefrontandcenter.com Declare your independence this July 4th and take back our Democracy!  On July 3^rd Hillary supporters and centrists from all over the country will be joining charlottefrontandcenter.com in our Operation Hell Hath No Fury mail-in protest.  We are sending old-school paper postcards to the heads of the DNC, all state Democratic officials, and major media personalities.  You can print them out and mail them - or - Check out our new website for complete details of how to do it online – the USPS will mail them for us!  Want to see how it’s done? You’re invited to our Postcard Party!!

• Caribou Coffee at 7510 Pineville-Matthews Road (at Carmel)
• Wednesday night, June 25th - Drop in any time from 7pm to 9pm
• Bring a laptop and a credit card - No laptop?  No problem, use one of ours
• Cannot attend?  Out of state.  Send postcards online instead.

At charlottefrontandcenter.com, you’ll find links to other like-minded grassroots organizations that have sprung up all over the country. They’re joining us in our nationwide demonstration.  Will you?  Send the DNC and the media a clear message:  NOBAMA 08!  

Just the opening photo alone is telling - he is stretched out on a sofa, talking to someone who is not in the frame. It reminds me of another photo I saw of him recently, sitting back with his feet up on the conference table. If you put a little cowboy hat on him, he reminds me of someone else, too - and I don’t like THAT someone, either!!! Anywho, as the title would indicate, Obama intends to “delegate” his workload to the members of his inner circle, rewarding their loyalty to him.

Ironically, or similarly, there was a lengthy article in the NY Times Magazine about George W. Bush on January 14, 2001, entitled, “The Bush Years; C.E.O., USA.” This article includes statements like, ”A good executive is one that understands how to recruit people and how to delegate,” he said after he presented three designees in Austin right after the New Year. ”How to align authority and responsibility, how to hold people accountable for results and how to build a team of people. And that’s exactly what we’re going to do. This is a team of people who’ll be dedicated to doing what is right for America.”

Hmmm. See, here’s the thing. I have said for MONTHS that Obama is the MIRROR opposite of Bush. The above referenced NY Times articles basically make that point for me. Obama likes to “delegate,” i.e., unload his work on someone else, taking the credit when it goes well, and spreading out the blame to everyone else when it goes wrong. In other words (as Bush likes to say), he accepts no personal responsibility.

Oh wait - I should say, neither ONE of them accepts personal responsibility. Interesting. And by THAT I really mean, TELLING. So, lessee - they both like to delegate, and they both take other people’s work as their own. I mean, really - was there ANY policy that OBAMA came up with on his very own?!?! Not of which I am aware.

He would take Clinton’s policy statements, sometimes changing a word or two here, most often not, and the media would claim HERS was like HIS. Say HUH?? Who said cheaters never prosper?!? Don’t even get me started on the whole Florida debacle of voter disenfranchisement, but there’s another big ol’ similarity for you!

The author of the Obama article makes statements like, “He is personally even-keeled, but can be prickly when small things go wrong.” Um, that does not sound even-keeled to me. No, rather, it just sounds a whole lot like Bush, whose temper is legendary.

Obama, on more than one occasion, has demonstrated that same quick trigger, like in one of the debates where he turned on Clinton and accused her of having ties to Wal-Mart (oh, yeah - YEARS ago, and hardly surprising since it IS an Arkansas based company. But - in throwing out this accusation, Obama was also engaging a smoke screen, hiding his WIFE’S work for a company closely affiliated with Wal-Mart. And, Michelle’s work was long after people began to question the hiring practices and employee treatment, unlike when Clinton was involved with them. A simple Google search bears this out.).

Every single time he has been pressed, his ratchet response is anger - hardly what I would call, “even-keeled.” (Perhaps the media is trying to equate his quick temper to being even-keeled the same way they equated Bush’s arrogant swagger as “charm.” Yeah, okay.)

I imagine, though, that for someone who claims he cannot keep up with paperwork, having someone ELSE to do it might just be helpful. I reckon that’s what happened to all of the paperwork from when he was in the IL Senate - he just couldn’t keep up with it, and *POOF* - it disappeared! What a shame! No paper trail for him!!! Hey, wait! Another Florida association!!! Ahem.

This is the same man who says he doesn’t even have a datebook for that time period. Really? What grown up with a job or family or LIFE does NOT have a datebook?!?! Since he already admitted he cannot keep up with things, it would seem to me a datebook would be MANDATORY for him. Yet, nope, no datebook for the ENTIRE time he was in the IL Senate. Huh - as I recall, there was a whole bunch of other paperwork “lost,” too! Oh, RIGHT! Bush’s Air National Guard paperwork!!!! Somehow, the military just happened to lose ALL of the paperwork for the son of the then Ambassador to the UN…Sure - that could happen - in about a gazillion years!!

Well, it is too bad it never occurred to Obama to at least get someone to do his SENATE work for him. But, hey - he was BUSY, okay?!?! He was CAMPAIGNING!!! And playing basketball - sure couldn’t take time to debate CLINTON - he had to play some round ball with the Tar Heels (I am originally from NC, and a Tar Heel fan, but REALLY - that was just silly.). And riding his bike! Oh, Good googly moogly - the comparisons just keep rolling on! You cannot make stuff like this UP, people!!!

There is ONE big difference between them, though. Yes, and it pains me to say it, but Bush is actually FAR more experienced than Obama. There, I said it. And it is TRUE.

At least Bush was the Governor of a pretty large state for a couple of terms. And owned a baseball team. That is a HECKUVA lot more than Obama can say. Who cares if Bush failed up at absolutely EVERYTHING he ever did?!?!

How is that different from someone claiming he was a community organizer, when he was really registering people to vote? Or that his buddies were the ones who really put his name on things to give him credibility he neither earned nor deserved?? Emil Jones? Tony Rezko? Bill Ayers? Yep - very little difference in that regard.

I simply do not have the time to ennumerate the VAST number of lies each one of them has told - Bush to get the US into a war, and Obama on getting us out of the Iraq war, which he claimed he did not say, just for starters. Oh, here’s a fun game - go find your OWN comparisons! Here are some topics: family history, policy issues, NAFTA…

What kills me is that MANY of the same people who went BALLISTIC about Bush’s lack of credentials are now the same ones jumping on the Unity Unicorn. The same ones saying it doesn’t matter that there is no paper trail, that Obama does very little of his own work, that he spends more time on the court than he did IN court, that he is arrogant, partonizing (I wonder if he gives nicknames, too? For instance, does HE call Axelrod “AxelRove”??), OR sexist. It doesn’t bother them in the LEAST that he has an inner circle controlling the message, no, CREATING the message, and he just goes along with what they tell him (oh, until he lost PA, now he is paying a little more attention), then blames EVERYONE but himself.

WHY can they not see that these two men are MIRROR IMAGES OF EACH other, slack as the day is long, riding a sense of entitlement bigger than Big Brown?? I don’t get it, I surely don’t. Maybe they wanted their own slacker president since Clinton worked his heart out. Maybe that whole slacker mentality appeals to all the young folk they claim as his supporters.

All I know is that these two men look a WHOLE lot alike to me.

Father Pfleger writes to say, “I regret the words I chose on Sunday. These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them.”

Is this why the Obama campaign scrubbed Pfleger, one of Obama’s “spiritual advisors,” from their official webpage on faith? Did the Obama campaign ask Pfleger to apologize? Will Obama apologize to Clinton? Clinton personally apologized to Obama in the wake of Shaheen’s remarks in NH.

What I find troubling about Pfleger’s statement is the following:

These words are inconsistent with Senator Obama’s life and message, and I am deeply sorry if they offended Senator Clinton or anyone else who saw them.

No, they are consistent with Obama’s life and message. This is why this the paroxysm Father Pfleger mistook for a sermon is newsworthy. Here is Michelle Obama in Charlotte, NC:

But Mrs. Obama, the star attraction, is taking no chances. Walking onstage to chants of “Yes, we can!” and “Fired up — ready to go!” she quickly gets to the heart of her message: There are forces out there who are trying to take away everything Barack has worked for. They — she doesn’t mention anyone in particular but does refer to one “brand name politician” — are trying to win this election for themselves and thereby deny Obama the opportunity to move America to the mountaintop of hope. And they must be stopped.

“We’ve learned that we’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?” she tells the crowd.

“That’s right.”

“They tell you all you need to do is do these things and you’ll get to the bar — ”

“Uh-huh.”

“So you go about the business of doing those things — ”

“Yes — ”

Her husband has been doing just that, Obama explains — raising money, building an organization, winning caucuses, winning primaries, and amassing a large number of delegates. And yet he still hasn’t won, because nothing is ever enough for those unnamed adversaries.

“You start working hard and sacrificing, and you think you’re getting closer to the bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, you get right to that bar, you’re reaching out for the bar, and then what happens?”

“They raise the bar!”

“They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach.”

In other words, “whitey” Hillary Clinton is raising the bar on “black man” Obama. And Hillary, the “brand name politician,” does this, as Hillary, a white woman, feels entitled to the Presidency.

Pfleger is not the first person to discuss Hillary in Trinity. We remember the following Christmas Day sermon by Pfleger’s good friend Reverend Jeremiah Wright:

In “Bible country,” Wright informs his audience how the Clintons, the “rich white people,” the Europeans, are responsible for the negative press on Barack Obama, who does not fit the model of “white, rich and privileged.” Hillary fits the mold, while Obama does not. Hillary will never understand oppression, while Obama, who led a life of privilege, does. Hillary is entitled, while Obama is not. Obama is the black Jesus, while Hillary is the Roman oppressor. Hillary must be destroyed. Hillary is a product of white entitlement.

Also notice how Wright and Pfleger behave as if they are engaging in acts of copulation when speaking to the Trinity congregation: Pfleger has verbal orgasms, while Wright thrusts his pelvis toward the pulpit.

I guess members of Trinity should expect both sex and religion on Sunday mornings. And yes, this was a central part of Obama’s life for twenty years. He and his wife even exposed their children to the wanton abandon of these deranged men when they sat in the pews of Reverend Wright’s den of hatred and desire every Sunday.

But Pfleger was not just a part of Obama’s religious life; he is a part of Obama’s political and financial life. I quote:

One of those long-time supporters was Rev. Michael Pfleger, the politically active leader of St. Sabina Church. He gave Obama’s campaign $1,500 between 1995 and 2001, including $200 in April 2001, about three months after Obama announced $225,000 in grants to St. Sabina programs.

Father Pfleger and his “message” are perfectly consistent with Obama’s life and message. And they will remain consistent with that life and message until Obama repudiates Pfleger and personally apologizes to Clinton for the remarks a member of his campaign delivered in Jeremiah Wright’s “God Damn America” Church in inner city Chicago.

Save the apologies for the Vatican, Father. We know the Chicago Archdiocese will only slap you on the wrist, for Daley, Obama, Wright, Axelrod and Giannoulias will ensure that St. Sabina will remain intact. After all, you earned it last Sunday.

Once again Obama’s supporters and surrogates are colluding with neoconservative men, namely Bob Novak, the man who exposed Valerie Plame’s identity. I quote:

Close-in supporters of Sen. Barack Obama’s presidential campaign are convinced he never will offer the vice presidential nomination to Sen. Hillary Clinton for one overriding reason: Michelle Obama.

The Democratic front-runner’s wife did not comment on other rival candidates for the party’s nomination, but she has been sniping at Clinton since last summer. According to Obama sources, those public utterances do not reveal the extent of her hostility.

Michelle Obama has not already revealed her hostility? Where do we begin with this statement: with the video of Michelle Obama “returning to her south side roots” as she denigrates Hillary Clinton for her husband’s improprieties before an African-American audience;

with her unwillingness to uphold Party unity on February 4, 2008, in the wake of the coordinated and unfounded race baiting in which she and her husband engaged when they willfully distorted President Bill Clinton’s statements at the Trumpet Awards on January 13, 2008 and on the campaign trail in South Carolina on January 23, 2008;

with her avowal of a desire to “rip Bill Clinton’s eyes out” while campaigning in South Carolina; with the complete and utter disdain she expressed twice in one day for the country that has offered her and her husband so much;

with her hostility toward those who are wealthy, who she believes should “give [her] something here;” with her unrestrained animus for Americans, who she refers to as “cynics, sloths and complacents;” or with her failed attempt to mock Hillary Clinton before college students at the elite Haverford College after her husband insulted blue collar workers who tote guns and practice religion in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Montana, South Dakota, Oregon and West Virginia? Where does one begin with Michelle Obama? Where does one begin to analyze this woman’s hostility?

I ask these questions, for one can only assume Michelle Obama is profoundly disturbed. Some would say she loathes herself. Indeed, her inability to contain her rage has been a liability to the Obama campaign, or at least this is what some political commentators postulate. Perhaps this explains the new feminine role in which Axelrod has attempted to cast Michelle. I quote an article on a speech Michelle Obama delivered at a fundraiser for Rep. Jan Schakowsky at McCormick Place in Chicago, Illinois, on May 10, 2008:

Obama suggested that if she were to become first lady, she would take on women’s and family issues, prompted by the stories she has been hearing from females on the campaign trail.

“And if I have the honor of becoming the next first lady, I want to continue these conversations like the ones I’ve had with these incredible women across the country. I want to ensure that their voices don’t get drowned out ever again in Washington.”

Michelle, according to the script penned by Alexrod, will now be the caring, nurturing, feminine First Lady who will champion the issues of women and children. No longer will she be the race baiter she has been in North Carolina and in other states with large African-American populations, and no longer will she issue derisive comments about women whose husbands may be unfaithful; Michelle, now tamed by her male handlers, will be a woman relegated to the margins, to the realm of domesticity. Women, I guess, will not be liberated in the twenty-first century.

But how will Michelle become a paragon of domesticity? How is a woman who exhorted working class women in Zanesville, Ohio, to relinquish opportunities to earn large incomes in the name of working in the “helping industry” possibly prepared to address the rights of women and children? How is a woman who believes working class women of Zanesville, Ohio, can afford to spend $10,000 on piano lessons, ballet lessons and summer camp aware of their plight? How is a woman whose home was financed by a questionable deal involving indicted political fixer named Antoin “Tony” Rezko receptive to the concerns of single and married women who cannot afford to pay their subprime mortgages?

How is a woman whose Rezko mansion is maintained by a housekeeper and a landscaper sensitive to the time constraints of working women? How is a woman whose only legal experience is corporate law aware of the impediments women and children must surmount in order to attain equal and fair representation before the law? How will David Axelrod manage to transform a mound of excrement into a bag of gold?

None of this will matter, for Axelrod has a history of turning political figures into that which they are not. And in the case of Michelle Obama, he necessarily has to cast her as a champion of women, for white women have abandoned the Obamas in droves. I imagine the racially charged speech Michelle Obama delivered at the Ovens Auditorium in Charlotte, North Carolina, on May 5, 2008, did not endear her or her husband to white women. I quote:

But Mrs. Obama, the star attraction, is taking no chances. Walking onstage to chants of “Yes, we can!” and “Fired up — ready to go!” she quickly gets to the heart of her message: There are forces out there who are trying to take away everything Barack has worked for. They — she doesn’t mention anyone in particular but does refer to one “brand name politician” — are trying to win this election for themselves and thereby deny Obama the opportunity to move America to the mountaintop of hope. And they must be stopped.

“We’ve learned that we’re still living in a time and in a nation where the bar is set, right?” she tells the crowd.

“That’s right.”

“They tell you all you need to do is do these things and you’ll get to the bar — ”

“Uh-huh.”

“So you go about the business of doing those things — ”

“Yes — ”

Her husband has been doing just that, Obama explains — raising money, building an organization, winning caucuses, winning primaries, and amassing a large number of delegates. And yet he still hasn’t won, because nothing is ever enough for those unnamed adversaries.

“You start working hard and sacrificing, and you think you’re getting closer to the bar, you’re working and you’re struggling, you get right to that bar, you’re reaching out for the bar, and then what happens?”

“They raise the bar!”

“They raise the bar. Raise the bar. Shift it to the side. Keep it just out of reach.”

“Yes!”

“And that’s just what’s been happening in this race.”…

Even Michelle Obama herself. “I’m not supposed to be here,” she tells the crowd. “I am a statistical oddity. As a black girl raised on the south side of Chicago, I’m not supposed to be here. I wasn’t supposed to go to Princeton. They said my test scores were too high” — surely a verbal slip, because in the past she has said she was told her test scores were too low — “I wasn’t supposed to go to Harvard Law School, because they said it might be a little too hard for me. And I certainly am not supposed to be standing here with a chance to become the next first lady of the United States of America.”

But here she is, in just that position — only to find that they, as always, are trying to raise the bar a little higher, just out of her and her husband’s reach. Still, she asks the crowd “to close your eyes and do some dreaming…to dream of the day that a man like Barack Obama is standing in front of the Capitol with his hand on the Bible.” With that, the audience erupts into shouting and applause. They’re fired up and ready to go, and all those who love the Lord and will vote for Obama say “Amen.”

According to Michelle Obama, a Caucasian woman named Hillary Clinton, a woman for whom she has an immense amount of hostility, is the “brand name politician” who is responsible for “raising the bar” on her and her ostensible African-American husband. A Caucasian woman, in other words, has made it impossible for her and her putative African-American husband to seize the reins of power. Caucasian women are the enemies of African-Americans, and they must be stopped. Women who believe in self-determination, even or especially those who are African-American, are somehow responsible for the oppression of African-American males. No wonder why a staggering number of African-Americans in North Carolina voted against their economic interests and cast their ballets for Barack Obama: Michelle’s hostility toward women is contagious.

And no wonder why Axelrod attempted to recast Michelle Obama five days later into an exemplar of domesticity during a fundraiser for a female politician who happens to be Caucasian. Now that Michelle believes she has thoroughly destroyed the only chance a woman may have to become President of the United States during many of our lifetimes, she must now try to rise from the ashes left in the wake of her incendiary race baiting and misogynistic rhetoric as the phoenix of women’s rights. No wonder why she is hostile toward Hillary Clinton: in order to become Hillary, she must destroy Hillary. But Hillary, our true feminist mother, will never be destroyed. And Michelle, a woman who exploits misogyny for electoral gain, will never approximate Hillary.

Happy Mothers’ Day, Hillary. And Happy Mothers’ Day to all those who respect their mothers.

I dedicate this essay to all the mothers whose sons and daughters, both literal and metaphorical, never learned to respect them. Let us hope they finally will on Mothers’ Day 2008.

[UPDATE]: Watch this video on Michelle Obama compiled by Fox News. Michelle is a liability for Democrats in the general election. Do Democrats seriously believe ordinary Americans will respect this woman?

“Reynolds Coliseum on N.C. State’s campus seats 12,400 people. It did not seat that many tonight.”

Behold, the power of political staging:

As Seen On TV:
This is the Coliseum, all crowded with hooting and hollering Yes We Can-Can!!

Barack Obama packs ‘em in again!

People kill to get into an Obama Rally!

Not As Seen On TV:

This is what the other side of the Coliseum looked like.

“Those tables in between my position and the rally you saw on TV are about a quarter full of milling, bored, tired reporters.

Part of running a decent campaign is knowing how big a crowd you might have and planning accordingly so as not to embarrass yourselves with a woefully understuffed venue.”

Any questions?

Oh, and no sense of forgetting the Bumper Sticker on the Obama supporter’s car.

MAY I RECOMMEND that you watch FOX NEWS? I don’t think a single one of us should give MSNBC ANY rating numbers. Besides, Fox News does a great job, and Karl Rove’s analyses are quite fascinating since he knows the country so well.

INDIANA = 72 delegates
NO. CAROLINA = 115 delegates
(via Wikipedia)

AHA! UPPITY WOMAN stole my HOPE BONG a couple weeks ago.

I just stole it back. Pass it around, everyone! Give your Obamabot pals an extra hit!

Early results via Drudge for Indiana (hate to admit it, but he’s pretty fast at getting results up):

IN [2% PRECINCTS]
CLINTON 20,237 61%
OBAMA 12,935 39%
(It’s too hard to keep updating this so let’s all report results in the comments.)

(NORTH CAROLINA doesn’t sound good - perhaps double digits — I’ll never get it, but that’s just me. People voting against their own best interests, just to make themselves FEEL good.)

From exit info from A.P.:

The economy was on voters’ minds in Democratic primaries in Indiana and North Carolina. Two-thirds of Democratic primary voters in Indiana and nearly as many in North Carolina said the economy is the most important issue facing the nation. That’s more than have said so in 28 previous competitive Democratic primaries with exit polls this year.

Only about one in five in each state said Iraq was the top issue, and even fewer picked health care from a list of three issues.

Four in 10 Indiana Democratic voters said the current recession or economic slowdown has affected their family a great deal. Nearly as many said that in North Carolina.

CROSSOVER VOTING

Indiana’s Democratic primary was open to all voters. About one in five said they were independents and one in 10 identified themselves as Republican. North Carolina’s Democratic primary was open only to voters registered Democratic or unaffiliated; nearly one in five voters in that contest called themselves independents.

DEMOGRAPHICS:

The exit poll estimated blacks made up about a third of voters in the North Carolina Democratic primary, about one in seven in Indiana. More than half of voters in both states were women, which is typical for Democratic primaries.

UPDATE #2: Potter has written a diary at MyDD on this: “Obama Staff: Call in Sick for Us!” (If you have a MyDD account, recommend this!)

From the Charlotte, N.C. Field Director Jason Green:

From: Obama Voice [mailto:obamavoice@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:37 PM
To: obamavoice@gmail.com
Subject: Time for Change. Time for Action

When I arrived in Charlotte I was immediately impressed by the grassroots organization that had already been established here. Then, I could not have imagined the blood, sweat and tears that would be shed in the name of hope, to produce change. In just a few short minutes, your incredible field organizers and I will gather to review our game plan one final time. In so doing, we will undoubtedly marvel in the growth and remarkable journey of this campaign here in North Carolina. It is upon your shoulders that we have arrived at this critical point, and it is – once again – upon your shoulders that we will bring it home.

Ready to go?

But please remember that the forces against which we are waging do not go quickly or quietly into the night. We cannot wait passively and idly hope for change to come. Heed the words of Senator Obama, recognize the fierce urgency of now, and be the change you hope to see. We are in a unique position to actually influence the outcome of this presidential primary, and in so doing, have an incredible influence on the future trajectory of this country.

And to do that we need your help. We need more of your blood, your sweat, and your tears. This weekend our Charlotte organization knocked on an incredible number of doors – but there are still many doors to knock, more stories to hear, more voters to inspire. So please join us as we knock on your neighbors doors and bring Senator Obama’s message of hope, unity and change. There is nothing more effective than connecting with another voter and expressing your story. Only you can do that. You know how important this is! I know I don’t have to ask, but I will one last time – please join us tomorrow. Call in sick if you have to and help us all day by canvassing or offering rides to the polls.

Tomorrow we will be canvassing at 9am, 1pm and 4pm (and whenever else you can join us)! There are offices all over Charlotte but our greatest priorities are at 1520 West Blvd and 7935 N. Tryon St. People need to hear your story – hear why you know Barack will make a great president and how his message has touched your life. Join us tomorrow in making history!

Between now and 8pm tomorrow evening, when polls close, we each have to do all in our power to ensure that Barack Obama is victorious. Now is our opportunity to not only change politics, but how Americans view and respect one another. The responsibility is ours.

Jason G. Green

Regional Field Director, Charlotte

1523 Elizabeth Avenue

Charlotte, NC 28204

It’s a high-profile, high-level signal to other super delegates that it’s okay to switch to Obama in order to finally bring about the inevitable conclusion. … The dam was holding, but it has now sprung a leak. The whole thing now threatens to collapse.

If it were still February, BOKA may have been correct in his assessment. However, as Jerome Armstrong correctly points out about Obama supporters:

They are stuck in February and early March, when they saw Obama as the second coming of 50-state campaigner that would move us beyond the battleground days. That’s not the Obama of late April.

There are two parallel, related narratives replicating in the media and the national consciousness, and neither are good for Obama. The first, of course, is the Rev. Wright debacle. Like the DNA in a virus, the Wright narrative replicates other mini-narratives: it tells us that Obama is rapidly losing working class whites, his overall poll numbers are dropping dramatically, and that Obama as a candidate is fatigued and confused, a candidacy sputtering. Additionally, his campaign has been caught sending out an amateurish polling memo and embarrassing letters to Oregon voters talking about their beautiful Great Lakes.

The other narrative is Hillary’s Gas-Tax plan, panned by critics but loved by voters. This media virus spreads additional information: Hillary cares about and connects with average voters, she responds to the country’s needs now and, most importantly, she is controlling the narrative of the election; long gone are the days of sniper fire in Bosnia. We read about a focused and energized Hillary who puts in 16 hour days and leaves the press corps exhausted and in awe. Hillary is in far better shape now than she was heading into Pennsylvania. Her campaign is a presidency-in-waiting.

This brings us back to Joe Andrew. He literally penned his letter of support at his mommy’s table, wringing his hands over the hard-fought nomination contest, throwing in every tired Obama cliché he could remember (I suggest a four year break on the words audacity and hope), and begging Democrats to stop voting and start buying into Obama. Instead of coming across as a dam breaking like BOKA suggested, the Andrew endorsement was more like a thud, and in an exquisite example of the parallel narratives, Hillary announced her own group of DNC’s chairs arguing for her candidacy:

The signatories, all previously announced Clinton supporters, were: Pennsylvania Gov. Edward Rendell, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe, Don Fowler, Kenneth Curtis, Charles Manatt, Debra DeLee, Steven Grossman and the family of the late Ron Brown.

“Hillary can win our party’s nomination,” the former leaders wrote. She is neck and neck with her opponent in Indiana and North Carolina. Both states have sizable voting blocs that resemble constituencies who supported Hillary by large margins in Pennsylvania, Ohio and other contests.”

The letter concluded with an understated appeal: “We encourage you to continue to fully consider Hillary Clinton and the fact that she is qualified and accomplished. Too much is at stake for us not to consider deeply the choice we must make for our Party and our country.”

Long gone are the days when we read stories about in-fighting and a lack of focus in Hillary’s campaign. This campaign is now a lean, nimble machine capable of beating both Obama and McCain. It’s Obama who is in the shit storm, and that’s not a good place to be prior to a big contest.

We’ve written FIVE stories on Obama’s fear of debating Hillary again — because she whupped him in the last ABC News debate. All of our stories are listed below, along with the most choice quotes (and snarky imagery). Let’s begin with the extremely snarky “A Lincoln-Douglas Debate? But Obama Just Isn’t Up To It” …

When danger reared its ugly head,
He bravely turned his tail and fled.
Yes, brave Obama turned about
And gallantly he chickened out.
  - From Riverdaughter’s blog

Barack Obama is cowering in fear of another embarrassing debate performance. In contrast, a confident Hillary Clinton is petitioning Obama to honor the debate he reneged on in North Carolina (originally scheduled today) and challenging him to more debates in Indiana and Oregon.

Today, Hillary Clinton upped the ante, proposing a 90-minute Lincoln-Douglas style debate before Indiana’s primary. Obama is sure to refuse.

“[I]ndescribably stupid” is what Tom Watson calls Obama’s repeated refusals to debate in North Carolina or Indiana. In “All the Wrong Moves,” Watson observes:

For one, running and hiding from Hillary looks, well, like running and hiding from Hillary. It cements that growing perception in the press that she’s tougher, and that he’s a brittle political actor - all smiles when the polls are moving upward, quite another story in stormy seas. When you’re running against a beloved American war hero and the Republican attack machine, this is never a good posture.

Secondly, it leaves Obama’s terrible performance in the last debate at the top of people’s minds when they think of the two Democrats duking it out. For all the hand-wringing about the inane ABC News questions in the debate’s first half, it was Obama’s sullen and seemingly lost persona that was the Philly battle’s real story. …

HERE ARE MORE NO QUARTER STORIES CHALLENGING OBAMA:

Sign Hillary’s Petition to Make Obama Honor His Promise to Debate in North Carolina — in which we pick up on Lanny Davis’s suggestion that it was HOWARD DEAN HIMSELF who got Obama out of the scheduled North Carolina debate:

Here are some of the series of stories we’ve done on Barack Obama’s failure to honor his commitment to debate in North Carolina (abetted, many suspect, by DNC chair Howard Dean), and his disinclination to debate in other important primary states such as Indiana and Oregon (not to mention Kentucky, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and more primaries yet to come):

• “Hillary Asks Barry to Debate, Much More Nicely …” (in Oregon)
• “Lanny Davis and Evan Bayh Throw Down the Gauntlet” (on Obama’s running away from the North Carolina debate — and a video of Lanny Davis expressing his suspicion that Howard Dean was behind getting Obama out of the debate — and his failure to give the people of Indiana a debate on their soil), and
• “Obama Congregants: Waaaaa! Leave Barry Alone! No More Debates!” (on Obama ducking out of the No. Carolina debate).

FROM the APRIL 23 story:

Lannie Davis today, on Fox News, lowered the boom on Obama and Dean:

Barack, are you really that afraid of Katie Couric? (We know you’re scared s–tless of Hillary, but surely Katie will be easier than the ABC News team, right?) Are you that much of a wuss, Barack? If you are, let us know now. We can’t afford a president presidential nominee (because that’s as far as he’d get) who’s a wuss.

On C-Span [VIDEO COMING]: 5 p.m. ET — DEM. CANDIDATES SPEAK AT NC DINNER — Tonight, watch LIVE coverage as Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) and Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) attend the North Carolina Democratic Party’s 2008 Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. Other scheduled speakers include Gov. Mike Easley (D-NC) and the Democratic candidates for the 2008 Gubernatorial and U.S. Senate contests.

On Fox News/Greta Van Susteran [VIDEO COMING]: 10 p.m. ET — John Murtagh is Greta’s guest. (See Uppity Woman’s story today, “When This Man Was 9 Years Old, Ayers Bombed His Home.”)

On PBS’s Bill Moyers Journal tonight, Kathllen Hall Jamieson on the presidential race that goes “on and on and on.”

I wonder if Bill will read any of the reviews or e-mails he received after hosting Rev. Jeremiah Wright last weeke.

Recent polls show that approximately 30% of Hillary voters could defect to McCain if Obama is the nominee. That such a large swath of Democratic voters might defect should be disconcerting to superdelegates, to say the least. I’ve been reflecting for several weeks on my own unease with Obama, a man who was once my second choice for president.

Last month I attended a Passover dinner and the conversation predictably turned to politics. (For those who don’t know, a Passover Seder is perhaps the first liberation theology ceremony, celebrating the Jewish people’s Exodus from slavery in Egypt).

One of my dinner companions was a computer salesman from New Jersey and an avid Obama supporter. I told him that Obama’s (largely) successful effort to paint the Clintons as racists had me doubting if I could vote for him if he were the nominee. He responded by saying that it was good politics and showed that Obama was willing to do whatever it took to win.

His acknowledging that Obama has been playing racial politics has me rethinking the idea of a racial dog-whistle, the notion that only African Americans, for example, understand that when Obama says “hoodwink, okie-doke, bamboozled,” he means that the Clintons are treating them like fools, attempting to undermine the Clintons’ hard-earned reputations as advocates for all Americans.

Most Americans who are paying attention, I suggest, understand Obama’s use of race. Obama’s problems with Bitter-gate and Rev. Wright underscore that Obama is not the uniter he claims to be, but rather a shrewd practitioner of identity politics.

I think most Americans are more culturally literate and less racist than the neo-liberals think (and perhaps as some neo-liberals are), regardless of their income bracket. Hillary voters understand that Obama, in cahoots with the Obamablogs and much of the media, has been willing to do whatever it takes to derail Hillary, and this includes smearing the Clintons as racists.

Randi Rhodes epitomized the venom against the Clintons and the Obama supporters use of anti-white racism when she said: “The Clinton campaign describes Hillary’s voters as older, white, and undereducated. Or as we called them in my neighborhood: white trash.” No wonder white voters are turning off to Obama.

Sean Wilentz, contributing editor at The New Republic, has been one of the few observers to honestly report on Obama’s use of racial politics. Wilentz has posted a new piece on the Huffington Post which further examines Obama’s effort to paint the Clintons as racists:

Once again, the Barack Obama campaign and its supporters, fresh from a stinging defeat, are trying to stir up false accusations that Hillary Clinton and her campaign have cynically injected racial animosities into the campaign.

The latest round of charges about the Clintons have come from a familiar source, Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the highest-ranking black leader in Congress. In January, after the Obama campaign suffered stunning defeats in New Hampshire and Nevada, Rep. Clyburn, although nominally uncommitted, joined a chorus of concerted complaint about Hillary Clinton’s supposed denigration of Martin Luther King, Jr. and his contributions to the 1964 Civil Rights Act because of her observation that President Lyndon Johnson had played a crucial part in guiding its passage. (Clinton’s actual remarks, rarely reported, praised King enormously and were historically accurate.)

Wilentz details again Obama and his surrogates’ depressing use of race: Jesse Jackson Jr.’s words about Katrina and Hillary’s tears, Clyburn insinuating that WJC’s “fairy tale” remark was racist, the infamous South Carolina memo, and the false accusation that Hillary had insulted the legacy of Martin Lurther King:

It may strike some as ironic that the racializing should be coming from a black candidate’s campaign and its supporters. But this is an American presidential campaign–and there is a long history of candidates who are willing to inflame the most deadly passions in our national life in order to get elected. Sadly, it is what Barack Obama and his campaign gurus have been doing for months–with the aid of their media helpers on the news and op-ed pages and on cable television, mocked by “SNL” as in the tank for Obama. They promise to continue until they win the nomination, by any means necessary.

Regarding the class war in the Party and Bitter-gate, Anglachel writes that:

Obama is projecting his own bitterness at being denied a win, attributing hateful and defamatory intentions to those who will not provide him what he believes he deserves. I’m sure there are people out there who won’t vote for him because of the color of his skin. I know a few. They are all Republicans. Empirical evidence does not support his claims about those who won’t vote for him, no matter how loud GKJM and Kos scream about the horrible racists supporting the horrible Hillary Mommy Monster.

Blue-collar whites know that the most important color in America is green, and they don’t feel particularly privileged themselves. They have listened as elite Obama supporters insult their lives (”It appears that Appalachia has an Obama problem,” sniffed a DailyKos diarist). They have watched as Obama has smeared the Clintons, defended his anti-white mentor and then had the audacity to lecture them on race, called his loving grandmother a “typical white person,” and insulted their culture, religion, and concerns to a group of San Francisco billionaires.

It’s not clear if Obama’s break with Rev. Wright will allow him to regain momentum. The one thing that is clear, however, is that many voters who gave Obama a serious look and were inspired by his post-racial message now believe that he drank deeply from the well of Rev. Wright’s teachings and unless Senator Clinton becomes the Democratic nominee, Senator McCain is seen as an appealing alternative.

As Rabbi Hetch writes regarding Passover, “whether you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, Agnostic, atheist, or a no label, Let’s all appreciate being liberated from being labeled and stereotyped.” I’ll drink to that.

THE HARD FACTS: REV. WRIGHT is a huge problem for Barack Obama in the state of North Carolina, which votes Tuesday. People know that repudiations don’t count for much when Obama sat in his pews for 20 years, and that Rev. Wright married him, baptized his children, and “blessed” his $1.6M mansion. People know the repudiation was poll-driven. People know the repudiation was “politically expedient.”
___________________

Via Halperin’s Time magazine blog:

Several local papers analyze if the latest slew of events has had an effect on voters.

Charlotte Observer: “Obama forcefully denounced Wright on Tuesday in Winston-Salem…but some white voters remained bothered by Obama’s ties to Wright.”

News & Observer: The North Carolina race is tightening, with Obama’s struggles in distancing himself from Wright “apparently eroding his once formidable lead.”

NOW, here’s the word from two Hillary Clinton supporters, one a soldier at Ft. Bragg, the other a ’round-the-clock grassroots volunteer in North Carolina — as well as Gov. Mike Easley’s new TV ad for Hillary:

Now, from the grassroots 18/7 volunteer in North Carolina, and the Easley ad:

I’m on the ground in Charlotte. Our Honk 4 Hillary events draw over 15 people, and we elicit honks from virtually everyone who passes us. White women and white undeclared voters in the Republican precincts of south Charlotte have flocked to Clinton. And I hear the rurals are Clinton Country. According to one staffer with whom I am in contact, Clinton will close in on Obama from Asheville and from the vote east of I-95. And then she will cut into his margins in the Research Triange.

The office is buzzing with volunteers. Once Clinton won PA, the Charlotte office was abuzz with telephone calls and sign requests. We will hold an AIDS walk with Chelsea Clinton on Saturday, and my group will continue our Honk 4 Hillary events, which has attracted press inquiries from throughout the country. I guess I have attracted a lot of attention, as I have been on the news five times.

The rally in Charlotte was a huge success: the stadium was full; Clinton delivered an economic populist message; and the crowd was ecstatic. The Easley endorsement has catapulted her campaign into the margin of error, and the Latino and Asian-American communities have rallied behind her.

The Obama campaign has waged a sign war in Charlotte, and they are removing and destroying our signs on private property. The Obama campaign has also sent hate mail to my home and to the homes of members of my group who published letters to the editor in the Charlotte Observer. And yes, young white men and African-Americans make lewd gestures during our Honk for Hillary events. In other words, the electorate is divided, and the mood is bitter.

Obama’s campaign is not visible in Charlotte. Yes, he has two offices, but I have not encountered one volunteer. The Clinton campaign has offices in Charlotte and in all the surrounding rural counties. Bill is visiting small town after small town, and Obama will visit Charlotte for the second time this weekend, as he realizes he has a problem here.

AND — last but by no means least — the NEW North Carolina ad featuring Governor Mike Easley, a superdelegate for Hillary:

Following is the script for the ad.

“Determined”
TV :30

Gov. Easley: These are tough times in America and I think that Hillary is the one we can count on to get the job done.

She’s going to turn the economy around, she’s going bring new jobs, she’s going to get some tax cuts for the middle class for a change.

She’s going to make health care available to everybody in this country, and she’s going to do everything she can to help every child reach their full potential.

She is so resilient, so determined.

She knows how to deliver.

She’ll be a great president.

Hillary Clinton: I’m Hillary Clinton and I approved this message.

###

______________

Thanks to Joey Sky for the link to the soldier’s YouTube.

UPDATE: “InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Survey: North Carolina Democratic Primary: Hillary Clinton Takes Lead Over Obama” (Compiled from InsiderAdvantage and Southern Political Report staff) || PDF of polling results

AND HERE’s THE VIDEO, as PROMISED — and now Part Two is up:

Part Two:

NOW the video is up at Fox News; click above. Also check out THIS report on the great new poll numbers from Fox News. Or read the full article.

And Real Clear Politics nails the reason for Obama’s press conference yesterday:

So why did this particular performance by Wright finally create the need for Obama to speak up more forcefully? That answer is simple: falling poll numbers in Indiana, North Carolina and nationally, and to that, we can safely conclude, Barack Obama takes great offense. — From “Obama’s Wright Turn,” by Richard Baehr

Consider this the spot where you may help “live blog” and comment on Bill O’Reilly’s interview of Hillary Clinton at 8:00 p.m. ET / 5:00 p.m. PT. O’Reilly reairs at 11 p.m. ET / 8 p.m. PT. We will have the video up the moment it becomes available. (I’ve seen “sneak peeks” on Fox News, and it looks great.)

Double Your Dollar’s Impact.

DONATE HERE, DONATE NOW.

Here’s another video, about Hillary volunteers in Indiana: