Popular Post

Monday, March 31, 2008

OBAMA’S POLL LEAD OVER CLINTON SHRINKS TO 3.4%

[RealClearPolitics]

The Real Clear Politics national Democratic poll average—determined by averaging the five major national presidential tracking polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, NBC/WSJ, Pew Research, and FOX News) shows that Obama’s lead over Clinton among likely Democratic voters has dwindled to just 3.4%--a virtual tie.

In addition, several of the averaged polls give Clinton a national lead over Obama or report a statistical tie—notwithstanding the Mainstream Media attempt to portray Obama as ten points ahead nationally in all the major polls.

Read the actual poll results through March 31, 2008 here.

OBAMA LIED ABOUT FILLING OUT CAMPAIGN QUESTIONNAIRE

[The Politico]

On December 11, 2007, The Politico ran a story about a candidate’s questionnaire filled out when Obama first ran for public office.

Obama’s answers to the survey revealed the candidate to be so left wing in his views, The Politico opined that his political positions could come back to haunt him now that he is running for president.

Indeed, 12 years ago, Obama took unabashedly liberal positions: flatly opposed to capital punishment, in support of a federal single-payer health plan, against any restrictions on abortion, and in support of state laws to ban the manufacture, sale and even possession of handguns. Filling out a 12-page questionnaire [part 1 of questionnaire, part 2 of questionnaire] from an Illinois voter group as he sought a state Senate seat in 1996, Obama answered “yes” or “no” — without using the available space to calibrate his views — on some of the most emotional and politically potent issues that a public official can confront.

But it gets far worse for Obama than being embarrassed by ultra liberal positions taken in the questionnaire. It now turns out he lied about having a role in filling the questionnaire out in the first place.

In fact, Team Obama claimed the candidate never approved—indeed—that he never even read or saw the questionnaire. Team Obama asserted the responses were filled out by a campaign aide who “unintentionally mischaracterize[d] his position.”

The “ah ha!” moment comes from an amended copy of the questionnaire that Politico has now obtained which—as you may have guessed—was clearly filled out by Obama and contains his hand written comments and amendments to certain answers.

“But a Politico examination determined that Obama was actually interviewed about the issues on the questionnaire by the liberal Chicago nonprofit group that issued it. And it found that Obama — the day after sitting for the interview — filed an amended version of the questionnaire, which appears to contain Obama’s own handwritten notes added to one answer.

The two questionnaires, provided to Politico with assistance from political sources opposed to Obama’s presidential campaign, were later supplied directly by the group,
Independent Voters of Illinois — Independent Precinct Organization. Obama and his then-campaign manager, who Obama’s campaign asserts filled out the questionnaires, were familiar with the group, its members and its positions, since both were active in it before Obama's 1996 state Senate run."

According to The Politico, the questionnaires provide fodder to question Obama’s ideological consistency and electability.
.
Those questions are central to efforts by Obama’s presidential rival Hillary Clinton to woo the supe-rdelegates whose votes represent her best chance to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama:

"Taken together — and combined with later policy pronouncements — the two 1996 questionnaires paint a picture of an inexperienced Obama still trying to feel his way around major political issues and less constrained by the nuance that now frames his positions on sensitive
issues."




OBAMA STUMP SPEECHES MISREPRESENTED KENNEDY CONNECTION


[Washington Post]

While Team Obama has been skewering Hillary Clinton on her “mis-recalled” trip to Bosnia 12 years ago, the Washington Post has revealed that Barack Obama flat misrepresented his claim to a Kennedy family connection. Here is the story:

Addressing civil rights activists in Selma, Alabama Sen. Barack Obama traced his "very existence" to the generosity of the Kennedy family, which he said paid for his Kenyan father to travel to America on a student scholarship and thus meet his Kansan mother.

The Camelot connection has become part of the mythology surrounding Obama's bid for the Democratic presidential nomination. After Caroline Kennedy endorsed his candidacy in January, Newsweek commentator Jonathan Alter reported that she had been struck by the extraordinary way in which "history replays itself" and by how "two generations of two families -- separated by distance, culture and wealth -- can intersect in strange and wonderful ways."

But wait. The story is simply false.

Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches in January at American University and in Selma last year, the Kennedy family did not provide the funding for a September 1959 airlift of 81 Kenyan students to the United States that included Obama's father, the Post reports.

In fact, the Kennedy’s did not lend financial support to the Kenyan airlift until a full year after Obama’s father came to the United States—who then met his mother (who was originally from Kansas) and fathered Barack before abandoning the family.

Camelot it ain’t.

More to the point, the holier than thou Obama has told a few campaign whoppers of his own.


Thursday, March 27, 2008

OBAMA’S REV WRIGHT STORY CHANGES AGAIN—THIS TIME ON THE VIEW


[AP Foreign]

Dispite specifically addressing the Reverend Wright controversy in a well prepared nationally broadcast speech crafted over a long weekend and addressing the matter on multiple occasions since, Barack Obama has changed his explanation of why he tolerated his pastor's racial, ethnic and religious intolerance for 20 years—yet again.

After initially claiming he was not present in the pews when Wright said "God damn America," that the US deserved 9/11, and that the US intentionally caused aids to kill blacks, then claiming he was unaware of the more controversial statements, Obama now claims he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor not stepped down, and had Wright not “acknowledged” to Obama in conversations of unknown date that what he said was wrong. (If this sounds completely inconsistent, it is.)

``Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church,'' Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, The View.

The interview, hastily scheduled by the campaign in light of yet additional revelations Thursday (see here and here) about anti-Jewish and anti-ethnic publications by Wright in his church newsletter, will be broadcast Friday. However, excerpts of the interview have been pre-released to the media.

Our take: This change in story will most certainly be viewed by skeptical Democrats and most Republicans as additional cause to wonder about the veracity of Obama’s explanations—since Obama never before maintained that he discussed the controversy with Wright, let alone that Wright had “acknowledged” his statements were “inappropriate”. Nor has Obama ever maintained that he would have left the church if Wright had not retired—until now.

We fall into this growing category of skeptics.

On the other hand, for die hard Obama supporters who have been satisfied all along with Obama’s explanations or felt he adequately addressed the issue in his speech on race, they will undoubtedly think the additional revelations—including virulent anti-Jewish statements republished in Wrights news letter last June—is much to do about nothing.

It was also reported Thursday that Wright has referred to other ethnic groups in disparaging terms, including his reference in the same news letter to Italian’s as “garlic noses”.

To add to Obama’s difficulties, Michelle Obama caused additional controversy Thursday over remarks she made back in January—but only recently published in the media—about Americans feeling “justified in their own ignorance.” (See here.)
.
Questions about the Obamas’ judgment—not to mention core values—are not going away, notwithstanding an Obama enamored media’s declarations this week that Obama has “weathered the storm” and citing an anomalous and questionable poll as “proof”. Obviously, Wright could not have expressed contrition to Obama about his racist, anti-Jewish, and anti-American statements (as Obama now claims) unless Obama was aware of them. But the questions that remain unanswered are when did this occur, why didn’t Obama mentioned his confrontation of Wright and Wright’s contrition in the speech that Obama specifically crafted to explain the controversy, and why did Obama wait so long to confront Wright on his racist views?
.
These are the questions that an Obama enamored media should be asking, but is not. And until answered, these questions will haunt the Obama campaign until he either loses the nomination or the general election in November.

MICHELLE OBAMA’S AMERICAN ‘IGNORANCE’ REMARKS IGNITE FRESH CONTROVERSY

[Foxnews.com]

Fox is reporting tonight that Michelle Obama came under new criticism Thursday as opponents seized upon remarks the would-be first lady made in a speech in January, when she told a group of students that they need to take advantage of diversity on campus so they can stop feeling “justified in your own ignorance … That’s America.”

Obama’s speech at the University of South Carolina hit the radar only this week, after it was circulated and widely viewed on YouTube.

In the speech, she said: “We don’t like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know, people sitting at different tables — you all living in different dorms. I was there.

“You’re not talking to each other, taking advantage that you’re in this diverse community. Because sometimes it’s easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your
own ignorance. That’s America.
So the challenge for us is, are we ready for change?”

Conservative critics said Thursday that Obama’s latest take on America is another demonstration of her disregard for the country her husband wants to lead.

REV JEREMIAH WRIGHT LANDS BARACK OBAMA IN TROUBLE AGAIN

[London Times]

Barack Obama faced fresh controversy Thursday over the anti-Israel views propagated by his former pastor even as he was being welcomed to New York by Michael Bloomberg, the city's Jewish Mayor, the London Times will report in a story hitting London newsstands March 28.

WRIGHT CHURCH NEWSLETTER PUBLISHED HAMAS ARTICLES

The disclosure of articles published by the Rev Jeremiah Wright's church newsletter threatened to overshadow his speech outlining his economic plans. The articles included a column by the Hamas leader, Mousa Abu Marzook, which asked: “Why should any Palestinian recognise the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state?”

ITALIANS REFERRED TO AS ‘GARLIC NOSES’

Mr Obama swiftly denounced the decision to reprint the article but faced further embarrassment over comments from Wright, quoted in another church magazine, which referred to Italians as “garlic noses”.

The presence alongside him of Bloomberg prompted speculation that he could yet help Mr Obama fix his growing problems at least with the Jewish vote, an important constituency and source of Democratic campaign donations. Some even suggested that the popular mayor could be a vice-presidential running-mate. However, Mayor Bloomberg has yet to endorse a Democratic candidate.

OBAMA GIVES INCONSISTENT ANSWERS ON REV. WRIGHT IN N.C.

[Washington Post]

While he has discussed his relationship with the former pastor of his church constantly over the last two weeks, it's still unclear what exactly Barack Obama heard as he sat in the pews of Trinity United Church of Christ.

At an event in Greensboro, N.C., on Wednesday, Obama used a question about his religion to defend his relationship with Jeremiah Wright, after Hillary Clinton had said earlier in the week she would not have had a pastor who made controversial remarks like Wright has. Videos of Wright's speeches that surfaced earlier this month show him saying "God damn America" for its treatment of ethnic minorities and suggesting the U.S. government invented AIDS to harm blacks, the Washington Post reports.

Wright said "some objectionable things when I wasn't in church on those particular days, and I have condemned them outright," Obama told the crowd, according to NBC News.

Interviewed on March 14 on Fox News, Obama also noted he had not been in church for Wright's controversial remarks, saying "none of these statements were ones I had heard myself personally in the pews."

But in his speech in Philadelphia about race last week, Obama described his recollections differently.

"Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes," Obama said.

Obama aides have not said specified which of Wright's sermons the candidate attended or if there was a difference between "objectionable" comments Obama did not hear and "controversial" ones he did.

But Obama defended his pastor last week and again yesterday after returning from the campaign trail following a few days off in the Virgin Islands.

"This is somebody that was preaching three sermons at least a week for 30 years and it got boiled down...into a half-minute sound clip and just played it over and over and over again, partly because it spoke to some of the racial divisions in this country."

At the same time, Obama added a wrinkle to his description of the church he has long attended, noting in Greensboro that the United Church of Christ denomination is "by the way, a 99 percent white denomination." The Chicago congregation Obama belongs to has an overwhelming black membership.



OBAMA FIRES HEAD OF PENNSYLVANIA CAMPAIGN, RETOOLS KEYSTONE STATE EFFORT

[Boston.com]

In a tacit admission of just how bad Obama’s prospects have become in the Keystone State, Obama has fired the head of his Pennsylvania campaign, Boston.com reported minutes ago.

Paul Tewes, who directed Obama's impressive win in the Iowa caucuses, will take over the Pennsylvania campaign from Jim DeMay, according to campaign sources. Tewes could not be immediately reached for comment.

Obama's national campaign has come under criticism from supporters that his defensive strategy in Pennsylvania -- designed largely to limit Hillary Clinton’s ability to run up her popular-vote total -- was tantamount to conceding the state.

Even before Tewes's appointment was confirmed today, campaign officials had hoped that the extended bus tour -- a commitment Obama's campaign has not made to an individual state since Iowa -- and a sizeable advertising buy over the past week would help to quell internal skeptics.

"My guess is it's a smokescreen, I don't think it changes the strategy at all," said one Obama fundraiser in Pennsylvania. "I think a lot of people were catching wind of the fact that they were writing off Pennsylvania."

SUPER-DELEGATE-GOVERNOR OF PUERTO RICO INDICTED

[Associated Press]

Puerto Rico Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila indignantly denied wrongdoing Thursday and gave no sign he would abandon his re-election effort after being charged with campaign finance violations that carry a penalty of 20 years in prison.

Acevedo, a super-delegate to this summer's Democratic convention and Obama supporter, accused U.S. prosecutors of pursuing a politically motivated indictment alleging that the governor and a dozen other people conspired to illegally pay off his campaign debts.

His indictment on 19 charges, including conspiracy to violate federal campaign laws, conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and giving false testimony to the FBI, made him the latest U.S. governor to run into legal trouble.

Others include New York's Gov. Eliot Spitzer, forced to resign after he was accused of soliciting prostitutes, and Alabama Gov. Don Siegelman, convicted for corruption in 2006 in what his allies allege was a politically motivated prosecution.

Acevedo's indictment could create some awkward moments for Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama if they campaign as expected on the island ahead of its June 1 Democratic primary.

"I am going to defend my rights and protect the dignity of my family and of the people of Puerto Rico who support me," the governor said in a statement hours after the FBI arrested most of those named in the indictment in San Juan, Philadelphia and Washington area.

Acevedo served in Washington as the island's nonvoting delegate to Congress then was elected governor in 2004 after campaigning on an anti-corruption platform.

"I want to assure the people of Puerto Rico that I have never solicited nor accepted a contribution in exchange for a government contract, never permitted the illegal use of public funds nor acted illegally," he said. "I know very well several of those accused today, and I am convinced that they never accepted a bribe or stole a single cent."

Acevedo canceled all his public events and remained sequestered all day in the island's powder-blue colonial governor's residence with his wife and two children. He said he would turn himself in Friday.

In a brief address on Puerto Rican television Thursday evening, he repeated his denials and accused U.S. authorities of distracting him from trying to revive the island's struggling economy. "They want blood not your well being," he said of federal prosecutors. The governor did not take questions.

In any event, the governor and super-delegate’s legal problems are unlikely to be resolved by either the Puerto Rico Democratic primary election or the Democratic convention.

Could this Democratic primary season get any more bizarre? Probably.

.
March 28 top story: OBAMA’S REV WRIGHT STORY CHANGES AGAIN—THIS TIME ON THE VIEW

PEW RESEARCH POLL GIVING OBAMA 10 POINT LEAD SUSPECT—VERY SUSPECT


Rasmussen Daily Gives Clinton 2 point National Lead Today
.
The Associated Press today, along with other MS media outlets, are reporting the results of a Pew Research Center poll that (purportedly) shows “Obama has weathered the controversy over provocative sermons by his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright”, by (purportedly) showing that “Barack Obama leads Hillary Rodham Clinton, 49 percent to 39 percent nationally.” Obama with a 10 point national lead? We don't think so.
.
These results are HIGHLY suspect for three reasons:
.
First, according the Associated press article, the Pew Center results “have changed little from late February”—in dramatic contrast with virtually every other national poll that has bounced between Obama and Clinton in the last 30 days, and which now has Obama and Clinton tied, or very close.
.
Second, how could this poll show that Obama has, so to speak, “recovered” from the Wright affair, when it never showed his popularity suffering from it in the first instance? (Note also the Pew poll concluded on March 22, 2007.)
.
Third, this poll contradicts every other national poll, as expressed by the Real Clear Politics National Average of 2.9% in Obama’s favor (factoring in the anomalous Pew Research Poll results, and amounting to a virtual tie), and a Rasmussen Daily (March 27) daily tracking result finding Clinton leads Obama today, 46% to 44%. (See here and here.)
.
NOTE: In addition to the Rasmussen Daily (showing Clinton +2), the Fox News poll shows Clinton +2, and the NBC/WSJ poll shows a “tie”.
.
Our take: The best reason to assume a Clinton victory is the Main Stream Media’s serial, incorrect, predictions of Hillary Clinton’s demise, and its backward arching efforts to consistently portray the Democratic Primary contest in Obama’s favor, while casting Hillary as the heavy. This, even though Team Obama has run a far more personal, dirtier campaign than any in recent memory.

OBAMA LIED ABOUT HIS ILLINOIS STATE POLITICAL RECORDS-- FALSELY STATING THAT NOT ONLY DO THEY EXIST, THEY HAVE BEEN THOROUGHLY SCRUTINIZED


[Marketwire]

Judicial Watch, the public interest group that forced the release of Hillary Clinton's daily White House schedule on March 20, announced today that Barack Obama’s November 11, 2007 claim to cable TV news reporter Tim Russert—that “every single piece of information, every document related to state government” relating to Obama’s tenure in the state legislature “was kept by the state of Illinois and has been disclosed and is… available right now”, appears to be false.

According to a February 25th letter from the Illinois Office of the Secretary of State in response to Judicial Watch's open records request, "The ISA does not maintain Senator Obama's personal records or papers. [Nor] does the ISA maintain records generated by his office. In addition, the ISA has received no requests from Senator Obama to archive any records formerly in his possession."
.
Said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton:

"Our investigation suggests Senator Obama could have had his records archived so that they are available to the public, but, to this day, has chosen not to do so. Apparently, he does not want a complete paper trail of his time in the Illinois State Senate. Where are his office records?"

Judicial Watch recently forced the release of Hillary Clinton's White House daily schedule through a lawsuit, and is pursuing her phone logs.

NEW OBAMA PREACHER’S ANTI-ISRAEL REMARKS SURFACE FROM OBAMA-CHURCH NEWS LETTER



Reverend Wright Church News Letter Accuses Jewish 'Apartheid' State of Creating Weapon 'that Kills Blacks and Arabs'

[Worldnetdaily.com]

Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago church published an open letter from a Palestinian activist that labels Israel an "apartheid" regime and claims the Jewish state worked on an "ethnic bomb" that kills "blacks and Arabs," World Net News Daily reports.

The letter, discovered by the blog Sweetness & Light, was published on the "Pastor's Page" of the Trinity United Church of Christ newsletter reserved for Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American, anti-Israel remarks prompted the presidential candidate to deliver a major race speech last week.

"I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the white supremacists of South Africa," wrote the letter's author, Ali Baghdadi. "In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check: they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that kills Blacks and Arabs."

The June 10, 2007, newsletter, which is still available at Obama's church's website, identifies Baghdadi as an Arab-American activist, writer and columnist who "acted as a Middle East advisor to the Honorable Elijah Muhammad, the founder of the Nation of Islam, as well as Minister Louis Farrakhan."

The piece is titled "An open letter to Oprah," referring to talk show giant Oprah Winfrey, who last year accepted an invitation to visit Israel offered to her by Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel. Winfrey had been a member of Obama's church but reportedly departed in 1986.

Read the read the entire Obama-church, Reverend Wright authored “Pastor’s Page” bulletin entitled Open Letter to Opra from Ali Bagdadi on Her Visit to Palestine, here.

Our observation: Oprah Winfrey had the good judgment to leave the Reverenced Wright’s racist, anti-American, anti-Jewish church in 1986. Barack and Michelle Obama did not.


PELOSI: SUPER-DELEGATES SHOULDN’T LIMIT CHOICE TO LEADER IN DELEGATE COUNT


[The Politico]

Politico is reporting that Brendan Daly, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), responded late Wednesday night to a letter by twenty supporters of New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, including San Francisco Democratic activist Susie Tompkins Buell , urging his boss to stop making comments about the super-delegates automatically selecting the Democratic presidential nominee based on the pledged delegate count alone:

“Speaker Pelosi is confident that superdelegates will choose between Sens. Clinton or Obama — our two strong candidates — before the convention in August," Daly said. "That choice will be based on many considerations, including respecting the decisions of millions of americans who have voted in primaries and participated in caucuses. The speaker believes it would do great harm to the Democratic Party if superdelegates are perceived to overturn the will of the voters. This has been her position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

We interpret Speaker Pelosi’s response differently that Politico, however.

Rather than “standing up to” to letter’s signatories, Speaker Pelosi explicitly states that the super-delegate vote should be based on a number of considerations, with the accumulated pledged delegate vote count being only one of them. In our view, Speaker Pelosi has gotten the message.

Second, we respectfully disagree with Daly’s assertion that this has been Speaker Pelosi’s position throughout this primary season, regardless of who was ahead at any particular point in delegates or votes.”

It was not until the pledged delegate count reached a mathematical impasse—albeit with Barack Obama holding a slight but insurmountable lead in the delegate count—that this even became an issue, or that Ms. Pelosi spoke out publicly in this issue.

In addition, Speaker Pelosi’s dislike of the Clinton’s is well known, and the implication of her previous statements—as favoring the Obama camp—undeniable.

20 DEM ACTIVISTS WHO LEANED ON PELOSI HAVE GIVEN $24M TO DEM CAUSES

Susie Tompkins Buell and her husband Mark

March 27, 2008

The twenty Democratic mega-donors who warned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to back off her position on the super-delegates automatically voting for the candidate with the most pledged delegates (i.e. Obama) have contributed almost $24 million to Democratic candidates and committees over the last 10 years, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics and as reported by ABC News.
.
The list of major donors who signed the letter includes Susie Tompkins Buell of San Francisco, an entrepreneur who made her initial fortune with the Esprit clothing line, also runs a charity she founded, and who is often described as Hillary Clinton’s best friend.
.
Under the circumstances, we disagree with the ABC News take on all of this that “threatening the DCCC is equal to threatening the superdelegates” and that it “also reinforces the narrative that [Clinton] will destroy the party to win." (See here.)
.
That is nonsense. First, no one threatned Pelosi, let alone the "DCCC".

Moreover, if Nancy Pelosi can lean on the candidates about the tone of their campaigns and try to push super-delegates into, in effect, voting for Obama, it is about time Nancy Pelosi heard from a primary source of her own power: The ability to raise money for Democratic causes and the party activists who have made that possible.
.
It is absurd that these twenty or so Democrats, who have given generously of both their time and money—and when Nancy Pelosi asked them to jump, they asked how high—cannot make their views known to her.
.
And it is completely naïve for ABC news to be “shocked” that they would do so (or that Pelosi would listen) or imply that this feeds into the Mainstream Media’s preconceived story line of Hillary Clinton not playing by the rules. Next ABC will be telling us that they are “shocked” that Nancy Pelosi welds more power that any other congressmen.

NEW PENNSYLVANIA POLL KEY TO CLINTON STRATEGY IN KEYSTONE STATE


[Wall Street Journal]

About 70% of likely voters in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary have concerns about their ability to afford health care, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, the Wall Street Journal reports.
.
According to the poll, voters ranked health care as their third most important issue in the election after the economy and the war in Iraq. Among voters who cited health care as their most important issue in the election, 56% said that they supported Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), and 38% said that they favored Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.).
.
According to the Journal, Clinton is "adopting a battle plan reminiscent of the one James Carville and Paul Begala used to boost underdog Democrat Harris Wofford into the Senate in 1991 and adapted a year later to help propel Bill Clinton to the presidency" with a focus on health care and the economy. Wofford "stunned the political world when he defeated former Gov. Dick Thornburg, a well-known moderate Republican who had resigned as U.S. attorney general to seek the seat," the Journal reports.
.
The Journal also notes that Obama intends to give a speech on the economy Thursday followed by a six-day bus tour in The Keystone State.

BARACK OBAMA GETS BIGGER AIRPLANE

Barack Obama has a new campaign airplane.

The North American Airlines charter is a Boeing 757 and replaces a Boeing 737 that had served as Obama’s ‘Air Force One’ for two months.

The Boeing 757 is equipped with 243 passenger seats, and is larger than the 737 it replaced.

Flight 93, the American Airlines jet that was on a flight from Newark to San Francisco when it was hijacked on September 11, 2001, then overtaken by the passengers and crashed was a Boeing 757—as was American’s flight 77, that was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon.


Wednesday, March 26, 2008

OBAMA TAKES BIG MONEY FROM FIRMS THAT EMPLOY LOBBYISTS

As this news analysis points out, Obama’s newest Pennsylvania television ad seriously misleads by claiming Obama takes no money from lobbyists—when he has taken hundreds of thousands of dollars from the lobbying firms that employ those lobbyists, and the CEO’s of the corporations the lobbyists represent. Cute!

This is a parsing of the English language that puts the Clinton camp to shame.


HILARIOUS VIDEO OF HILLARY DODGING BOMBS, BULLETS IN BOSNIA

We think that Hillary misspoke, rather than lied—but funny is funny, and this video is hilarious!
.

March 28 top story: OBAMA’S REV WRIGHT STORY CHANGES AGAIN—THIS TIME ON THE VIEW

FULL TEXT OF MAJOR DEM DONOR LETTER TO PELOSI

Speaker Pelosi was apparently surprised by the letter from 20 major dem donors

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi
Speaker of the US House of Representatives
Office of the Speaker
H-232, US Capitol
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Madame Speaker,

As Democrats, we have been heartened by the overwhelming response that our fellow Democrats have shown for our party’s candidates during this primary season. Each caucus and each primary has seen a record turnout of voters. But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes.

We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes. We are writing to say we believe your remarks on ABC News This Week on March 16th did just that.

During your appearance, you suggested super-delegates have an obligation to support the candidate who leads in the pledged delegate count as of June 3rd , whether that lead be by 500 delegates or 2. This is an untenable position that runs counter to the party’s intent in establishing super-delegates in 1984 as well as your own comments recorded in The Hill ten days earlier:

"I believe super-delegates have to use their own judgment and there will be many equities that they have to weigh when they make the decision. Their own belief and who they think will be the best president, who they think can win, how their own region voted, and their own responsibility.’”

Super-delegates, like all delegates, have an obligation to make an informed, individual decision about whom to support and who would be the party’s strongest nominee. Both campaigns agree that at the end of the primary contests neither will have enough pledged delegates to secure the nomination. In that situation, super-delegates must look to not one criterion but to the full panoply of factors that will help them assess who will be the party’s strongest nominee in the general election.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates and reflect in your comments a more open view to the optional independent actions of each of the delegates at the National Convention in August. We appreciate your activities in support of the Democratic Party and your leadership role in the Party and hope you will be responsive to some of your major enthusiastic supporters.

Sincerely,

Marc Aronchick
Clarence Avant
Susie Tompkins Buell
Sim Farar
Robert L. Johnson
Chris Korge
Marc and Cathy Lasry
Hassan Nemazee
Alan and Susan Patricof
JB Pritzker
Amy Rao
Lynn de Rothschild
Haim Saban
Bernard Schwartz
Stanley S. Shuman
Jay Snyder
Maureen White and Steven Rattner
[Source: http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/in_letter_a_dozen_top_clinton.php ]

MAJOR DEMOCRATIC DONORS WARN NANCY PELOSI TO BACK OFF

[WashingtonPost.com]

A group of major contributors to the Democratic Party sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today calling on her to back away from previous comments and reaffirm that superdelegates should be free to back whichever candidate they believe would be the party's best nominee.

The contributors said Pelosi has laid out an "untenable position that runs counter to the party's intent in establishing superdelegates in 1984" by suggesting on ABC's "This Week" recently that supedelegates should support whichever candidate has the lead in pledged delegates. "If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what happened in the elections it would be harmful to the Democratic Party," she said.

The contributors, who include some of Clinton's biggest bundlers, said that, with 10 contests remaining and millions of Democrats yet to be heard from, any effort to short-circuit the process should be curtailed, and they suggested that Pelosi's declaration that superdelegates follow the pledged delegate count fell into that category.

Many are raising questions about Obama’s electability in the wake of the Reverend Wright scandal, the revelation that yet another Obama spiritual advisor, the Reverend Meeks, professes racist and anti-American views (see here), and in view of the emergence of the Obama campaign as one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns in history (See here, here and here) thereby undermining Obama’s original appeal as the unifying voice of transcendent hope who would not practice the “old politics”.
.
The latest poll results in Pennsylvania provide a vivid illustration of the remarkable shift in how Obama is now being perceived.Not only is Clinton leading Obama by as much as 26 points according to one poll, the breakdown is even more remarkable.Although Obama continues to lead among minority voters (76%), Clinton now leads among Pennsylvania women (57% to 29%), whites (57% to 29%), ages 55 and older (55% to 29%), union member households (67% to 26%), and Born Again Christians (45% to 38%). She also leads among Catholics (26 points) and Protestants (23 points). Obama has the clear edge only among non-whites (76% to 12%). Obama and Clinton are tied or virtually tied (within sampling error) among younger, college-educated, and male voters. (Source: Politically Uncorrected blog, Franklin & Marshall.)
.
In the words if the NY Times:

“In recent days, [Pelosi] was viewed as putting her thumb on the scale for Mr. Obama with an observation that it would be dangerous for the party if superdelegates such as herself took the nomination away from the candidate who had won the most primary delegates — a position that would seem to favor Mr. Obama at this stage of the game.”
.
We agree that Speaker Pelosi needs to back off or suffer the consequences.

IT’S CLINTON 45%, OBAMA 45%. AND 20% WANT OBAMA TO QUIT-20% WANT CLINTON TO QUIT


Wednesday, March 26, 2008

[Rasmussen Reports]

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Wednesday shows a tie in the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination. It’s Clinton 45%, Obama 45%.

Not only that, but Twenty-two percent (22%) of Democratic voters nationwide say that Hillary Clinton should drop out of the race for the Democratic Presidential nomination. However, the latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that an identical number—22%--say that Barack Obama should drop out, Rasmussen reports in a separate poll released today.

In addition—ARE YOU LISTENING NANCY PELOSI?—Rasmussen finds that solid majority of Democrats, 62%, aren’t ready for either candidate to leave the race. (see here).

SAMANTHA POWER OBAMA’S NEXT SECRETARY OF STATE? (SHE SERIOUSLY NEEDS TO TONE DOWN HER USE OF THE F-WORD.)


[HuffingtonPost.com]


The "monster" remark was a curious slip of the tongue for an incredibly accomplished journalist who has conducted thousands of interviews and knows precisely when and how comments are considered on or off the record. But whatever, being an Obama supporter and hence a pussy, Power had to go and apologize. But, no matter, Power wants back into the game—apparently to realize her ambition of becoming Secretary of State, notwithstanding her penchant for the F-word.

Reports the Huffington Post:

Speaking at the Columbia University School of Law on Tuesday night, Power labeled herself "amazed" that Clinton had tried to get so much "political mileage" from comments Power made, in which she suggested that the next commander-in-chief would consider conditions on the ground when implementing his or her Iraq withdrawal plan.
.

"What I was saying is that you have to take into account what the generals on the ground are telling you," Power told the room of several hundred undergraduate and graduate students. "Take for example that 3 am phone call [from Clinton's campaign commercial]... She is not going to answer the phone and play a voicemail she recorded in 2007. That is crazy. She is going to judge the situation in 2009. Of course she is going to take into account what the generals have to say about the Iraq situation and what they are saying on the ground."
.
While Power ultimately left the Obama campaign for what she deemed "monster-gate," the brunt of the Clinton campaign's criticism was leveled at a policy interview she conducted with BBC Television shortly before her departure. Downplaying the firmness with which Obama would approach his current plan to withdraw troops, Power said, "[the senator] will, of course, not rely on some plan that he's crafted as a presidential candidate or a U.S. Senator... What he's actually said, after meeting with the generals and meeting with intelligence professionals, is that you -- at best case scenario -- will be able to withdraw one to two combat brigades each month."
In the days that followed -- even after Power severed her ties to the Obama -- the Clinton campaign cited the remarks as evidence that the Illinois Democrat could not be trusted to deliver on his Iraq pledges. Obama's camp, in return, stressed that the he would operate off a plan to remove one to two combat brigades per month over the course of 16 months. They also pointed to remarks by Clinton adviser Lee Feinstein, acknowledging that there are "contingencies" that one must take into consideration when looking at Iraq.
.
On Tuesday night, Power was not as reserved. She fired back against the Clinton campaign's attack, saying it was disingenuous and shortsighted of the New York Democrat to not (should she become president) listen to the advise of her military advisers.
.
"I now am in my first ever political attack ad," said Power. "And it does no justice to what I was saying and does no justice to a responsible position, which I am sure will entail looking out for U.S. security and that, with the passage of time, things are going to look different then they did in 2007."
.
The two-plus hour discussion at Columbia was held to promote Power's new book "Chasing the Flame." And while a good portion of the talk centered on the book's content (as well as several apologies for the "monster" remark) much was devoted to a detailed and surprisingly honest look at Obama, his position on the issues, and even the type of White House cabinet he would appoint.
.
Power called Obama's willingness to meet, without preconditions, world leaders with whom America did not always see eye-to-eye, one of the turning points of the Democratic primary: "I can tell you about the conference call the day [after Obama made the proclamation]," she recalled. "People were like, 'Did you need to say that?' And he was like 'yeah, definitely.'"
She emphasized that, unlike President Bush, Obama would put greater focus on the general welfare of the Iraqi people (looking at population displacements, health conditions, economic insecurities), when considering U.S. policy in that country. She also drew a picture of an Obama administration that was filled with different viewpoints and congenial debate.
.
And, to the delight of many in the crowd, she even hinted that she could be part of that hypothetical cabinet. "Because of the kind of campaign that Senator Obama has run," Power said, "it seemed appropriate for someone of my Irish temper to step aside, at least for a while. We will see what happens there."



OBAMA PASTOR NOW IN HIDING FROM PRESS, PUBLIC, WILL NOT APPEAR TO RECEIVE RELIGIOUS AWARD, CANCELS ALL APPEARANCES

[star-telegram.com]

The Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., the controversial pastor, close family friend, and spiritual advisor of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, will not be coming to Dallas this weekend for a black church summit and awards banquet honoring him, Brite Divinity School officials announced Wednesday on Brite’s Web site.

Wright also has canceled plans to speak at three services at a Houston church on Sunday, the Houston church’s pastor said.

28% OF CLINTON SUPPORTERS WILL VOTE MCCAIN IF BARACK NOMINEE

More than a quarter of Hillary Clinton supporters—28%--will vote for John McCain in the general election if Barack Obama is the nominee, Gallup has found in a new poll released March 26, 2008.

This may be of some interest to the super-delegates, who are already wrestling with the idea of how to chose between two candidates who remain deadlocked in the polls, who are fairly close in pledged delegate count, and who would be virtually tied in the popular vote but for the Michigan and Florida primary results being thrown out by the DNC.
.
Many are raising questions about Obama’s electability in the wake of the Reverend Wright scandal, the revelation that yet another Obama spiritual advisor, the Reverend Meeks, professes racist and anti-American views (see here), and in view of the emergence of the Obama campaign as one of the dirtiest presidential campaigns in history (See here, here and here) thereby undermining Obama’s original appeal as the unifying voice of transcendent hope who would not practice the “old politics”.

The latest poll results in Pennsylvania provide a vivid illustration of the remarkable shift in how Obama is now being perceived.

Not only is Clinton leading Obama by as much as 26 points according to one poll, the breakdown is even more remarkable.

Although Obama continues to lead among minority voters (76%), Clinton now leads among Pennsylvania women (57% to 29%), whites (57% to 29%), ages 55 and older (55% to 29%), union member households (67% to 26%), and Born Again Christians (45% to 38%). She also leads among Catholics (26 points) and Protestants (23 points). Obama has the clear edge only among non-whites (76% to 12%). Obama and Clinton are tied or virtually tied (within sampling error) among younger, college-educated, and male voters. (Source: Politically Uncorrected blog, Franklin & Marshall.)

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

EXPERTS: CLINTON RUNAWAY PENNSYLVANIA VICTORY LIKELY


[Source: Politically Uncorrected blog, Franklin & Marshall, hat tip to The Swamp]

Hillary Clinton is now up by as much as 26 points in the latest Pennsylvania polling, and Obama’s negatives have increased by ten points, according to the Pennsylvania based Franklin & Marshall Center for Politics and Public Affairs, and their “Politically Uncorrected” blog.

How bad does it look for Obama in PA? Really bad, Franklin & Marshall reports:

“Just how bad is documented by some key findings from a series of polls, including the Franklin and Marshal College Poll, all released recently. Almost none of the results bode well for Obama. Across the board Clinton is winning and winning big. She has decisively stopped Obama’s earlier momentum in Pennsylvania—and seems set for a romp.

“Statewide among Democrats, Clinton holds a lead that ranges from 16 to 26 points. The Real Clear Politics consensus estimate is roughly 17 points. She is winning every major region of the state except Philadelphia, while Obama has actually slipped slightly with blacks and more substantially with younger voters—two demographics that are critical backstops for him in the contest. He has also lost support with other key constituencies including white males and evangelicals.

“Moreover Clinton is seen by voters as the overwhelming favorite to deal with the economy and healthcare, two of the three issues Pennsylvania voters care most about, and she is virtually tied with Obama as the candidate voters most support to end the war.”

Moreover, the poll demographic breakdowns are really depressing for Obama, seemingly indicating that inroads that the candidate made weeks ago with white voters and women have not only evaporated, but reversed course:

1. Appeal among Key Groups of Likely Voters: Clinton leads among women (57% to 29%), whites (57% to 29%), ages 55 and older (55% to
29%), union member households (67% to 26%), and Born Again Christians (45% to 38%). She also leads among Catholics (26 points) and Protestants (23 points). Obama has the clear edge only among non-whites (76% to 12%). Obama and Clinton are tied or virtually tied (within sampling error) among younger, college-educated, and male voters. (Source: Franklin & Marshall College Poll)

2. Support across Major Regions of the State: Clinton leads in every region of the state except Philadelphia and has overwhelming leads in
the Northeast, Northwest, and Central Pennsylvania. She leads two to one in the Northeast and almost two to one in the Northwest and Central Pennsylvania. At this point only Philadelphia and the Philly suburbs (Southeast Pennsylvania) seem competitive for Obama. (Source: Franklin & Marshall College Poll)

3. Convincing on the Critical Issues: On the issues that voters say are most important, Clinton is controlling the field. Among voters who say the economy is most important, she is up 15 points. Among healthcare voters, she is up 19 points. Among voters who rank leadership highest, she is up 30 points, and among those who say electability is most important, she leads by 15 points. (Source: Quinnipiac University Poll)

Franklin & Marshall does throw Obama a bone or two at the end of the post:

“To a remarkable degree for a candidate down by double digits, Obama may still control his own fate. In the next couple of weeks, we will see what he makes of that opportunity.”

As to whether the authors damn Obama by faint praise, we leave that conclusion up to the reader.

What we think: If Pennsylvania voters disliked the Reverend Wright fiasco, wait until they get a load of the books-on-tape version of Obama’s first book—in the candidate’s own voice, throwing the N-word around like he was Reverend Wright. (See here.)

Stay tuned. The Pennsylvania primary is still 30 days away.



HILLARY CLINTON PLEDGES TO GO THE DISTANCE

[Time.com]

At a Greenburg, Pennsylvania press conference today, Senator Hilary Clinton vowed to continue her campaign for at least the next three months, Time reports.

Said Clinton:

“I think that what we have to wait and see is what happens in the next three months. There’s been a lot of talk about what if, what if, what if. Let’s wait until we get some facts…Over the next months millions of people are going to vote. And we should wait and see the outcome of those votes.”

NUDE PHOTO OF THE FRENCH FIRST LADY UP FOR AUCTION AT CHRISTIE'S

[Telegraph]

A nude photo of the French First Lady Carla Bruni has been put up for auction at Christie's New York, just hours ahead of her and her husband President Nicolas Sarkozy's state visit to Britain, the Telegraph reports.

The photo of Carla Bruni is expected to bring around £2,000 at auction next month
The image, by photographer Michel Comte, shows Bruni facing the camera wearing no more than a thoughtful expression.

The first couple are to arrive in the UK on Wednesday for the start of their two-day state visit, and will be meeting the Queen and the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, the Telegraph says.

Mr Sarkozy has faced criticism that his flashy, Rolex-wearing image belies a lack of substance, and he had hoped that the visit would add some much-needed gravitas to his public persona.

HILLARY CLINTON’S FIRST PENNSYLVANIA TV AD

With exactly four weeks until the Pennsylvania Primary, Hillary Clinton has started airing TV ads in the state. Clinton's ad launch comes just days after a weekend ad blitz by Barack Obama. Clinton's "Level" message is focused on her economic proposals

MARCH 25 POLL: IT’S CLINTON 46%, OBAMA 43%--OBAMA CAN’T CLOSE THE DEAL

[RasmussenReports.com]

In the Democratic Presidential Nomination, it’s Clinton 46%, Obama 43%. For the past week-and-a-half, Obama’s support has been between 43% and 47% every day. Clinton’s support has ranged from 42% to 46% (see recent daily results).

While the Democrats' battle for delegates continues to be fought on a state-by-state basis, the national preferences of Democratic voters could be an important factor in whom the super-delegates to the Democratic National Convention this summer choose to support, and thus in the outcome of the race.

OBAMA’S PROFANITY AND N-WORD LACED SPEECH ON TAPE


Yesterday radio personality Hugh Hewitt played clips from the audiobook Dreams From My Father, read aloud by the author—Barack Obama!

The book has been edited to remove the presidential candidate’s descriptions of his own cocaine use, but is liberally peppered with the F-word and the N-word. (No wonder the Reverend Wright failed to shock Barack.)

Explains Hewitt:

“I have written and broadcast on the subject of Senator Obama's first book, Dreams From My Father. It has to be the most unusual book ever by a presidential aspirant, and much of what he writes cannot be classified as mainstream, and some of what he wrote would shock the average American, including his causal use of profanity and his admission concerning past cocaine use.”

I did not learn until today that Senator Obama actually recorded the audio book, and I suspect that it won't be long until the most controversial parts of that audio book are broadcast. I broadcast one excerpt from Chapter 4 today, from pp. 72-74, and asked the audience for their reactions. Some callers shrugged it off, but many were deeply offended. I pointed out that past profanity cases like Nixon's "expletive deleteds," Bush's description of a New York Times' reporter and Dick Cheney's response to Pat Leahy have generated enormous headlines, but never has a presidential candidate ever purposefully recorded himself swearing so profusely or with such variety.”

“UPDATE: When a caller accused me of cherry-picking one profanity-laced segment of the book, I broadened the selection of excerpts to include Obama's own profanity --not that of his friends which he recorded-- as well as some samples of other controversial passages. You can listen to the first five clips I used in the third hour of the program when it is posted later tonight here.



Listen to Obama use F-word and N-word (tape #1)

Listen to Obama use F-word and N-word (tape #2)

Listen to Obama use F-word and N-word (tape #3)

Monday, March 24, 2008

HUH? PUERTO RICO’S REQUEST TO THE DNC DISCOVERED TO BE A TYPO? REAL PRIMARY DATE JUNE 1? YEP.


[The Associated Press]

Puerto Rico's original plan called for selecting delegates at caucuses June 7. However, after the DNC approved the plan in December, it was discovered that the date was a "typo" and should have read June 1, DNC officials said.

So the DNC on Monday formally approved Puerto Rico's proposal to scrap its caucus and hold a presidential primary on, what was that again, June 1? Yes.

The new date means that Montana and South Dakota will hold the party's last nominating contests, on June 3.

OBAMA SUPPORTER REV. JAMES MEEKS RACE HATE VIDEO

It is not just Obama supporter the Rev. Wright who has made racist speeches from the pulpit, as the above video of Obama supporter James Meeks shows, complete with his fiery condemnation of white politicians and liberal use the the N-word.

NEW OBAMA CAMPAIGN LOW: SUPPORTER REFERENCES BILL CLINTON 'STAIN ON MONICA'S BLUE DRESS'


[CNN.com]

Sen. Hillary Clinton's aides blasted Sen. Barack Obama's campaign Monday after a major Obama supporter referenced the blue dress at the heart of former President Bill Clinton's impeachment scandal, CNN reports.

Here is the full CNN story:

Gordon Fischer, a former chair of the Iowa Democratic Party and part of Obama's Iowa support team, also compared Bill Clinton unfavorably to Joe McCarthy.

McCarthy was a senator who was known for leveling accusations that people were Communists or spying for the Russians in the 1950s.

"When Joe McCarthy questioned others' patriotism, McCarthy (1) actually believed, at least aparently (sic), the questions were genuine, and (2) he did so in order to build up, not tear down, his own party, the GOP," Fischer, wrote on his blog.

"Bill Clinton cannot possibly seriously believe Obama is not a patriot, and cannot possibly be said to be helping -- instead he is hurting -- his own party. B. [Bill] Clinton should never be forgiven. Period. This is a stain on his legacy, much worse, much deeper, than the one on Monica's blue dress."

Fischer was referring to Bill Clinton's comments over the weekend that a race between Sen. John McCain and Hillary Clinton would be a contest between two people who love their country. Some Obama supporters -- including former Air Force Gen. Tony McPeak -- have interpreted that statement as an attack on Obama's patriotism.

NY TIMES: HOW HILLARY CAN WIN THE NOMINATION


The New York Times writes today:

To listen to some of the discussion about the Democratic presidential contest these days, one would think that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton should have spent Easter weekend in Chappaqua, writing her withdrawal speech and preparing for her return to the Senate.

But it’s not impossible. There remains at least one scenario where Mrs. Clinton could win. It gives succor to her supporters, and presumably Mrs. Clinton herself, and is something to keep in mind watching the two of them head toward the endgame of their contest.

The electorate that matters most now are not the voters waiting to go to the polls in the 10 nominating contests that remain between now and June. Instead, it is the superdelegates, — the elected officials and party leaders who have automatic status as uncommitted delegates and whose votes are needed to put either Mr. Obama or Mrs. Clinton over the top. There are about 800 of them, and they are going be weighing two main arguments: Mr. Obama’s contention that the Democratic rank-and-file has expressed its will and superdelegates shouldn’t overturn it, and Mrs. Clinton’s brief that she offers the party the best chance to defeat Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, this fall.

Mrs. Clinton’s best hope now is that Mr. Obama, as a candidate, suffers a political collapse akin to what has happened to the subprime mortgage market, a view shared by aides in both campaigns.

How could that happen? First, if Mrs. Clinton wins Pennsylvania on April 22. (She may swamp Mr. Obama there.) In addition, she has to go on and post a convincing win against Mr. Obama in Indiana, a state where the two appear evenly matched. Results like those would serve to underscore concerns among some Democrats that arose after Mrs. Clinton had beaten Mr. Obama in Ohio, suggesting he was having trouble getting blue-collar white voters into his column. It is one constituency that aides to Mr. McCain see very much in play this fall.

Along the same lines, Mrs. Clinton would get some wind if she trounces Mr. Obama in the June 3 contest in Puerto Rico. Mr. Obama has had trouble in competing for Latino voters. And that has been duly noted by Mr. McCain’s aides who said they are beginning to see a general election upside — among Hispanic voters in a contest against Mr. Obama — to the problems that Mr. McCain’s support of immigration legislation caused him in the primaries. (That is one reason why the endorsement that Mr. Obama won last week from Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who is one of the country’s leading elected Hispanic officials, had significance going far beyond the Democratic nominating contest).

But neither of those two factors would be enough. What Mrs. Clinton is going to need is for Mr. Obama to suffer a collapse in polls by the time super-delegates are being pressed to make up their minds.

Could that happen? The most pressing question now is the extent to which Mr. Obama has succeeded in dealing with the incendiary statements made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., which rocked his candidacy last week.

In this case, as a political matter, the audience that counts is general election voters — not Democratic primary voters, party leaders, editorial writers or television commentators. Two months is a long time, and it is simply too soon to say if the political imprint of an acclaimed speech by Mr. Obama will begin to fade, overcome by the potent images of Mr. Wright at the pulpit.

Superdelegates are, by nature, political animals. They appreciate the potential political price if they are perceived as overturning the will of voters, and blocking what so many Democrats view as a historic candidate. They are also hungry to win the White House and, in many cases, more committed to the success of the Democratic Party than to the fortunes of any specific candidate. They surely will pause if polls two months from now show Mr. McCain with a sudden and sizable lead over Mr. Obama.

All of which is to say that while all this could happen, it is going to take a near-perfect confluence of forces in Mrs. Clinton’s favor.

We would add to the Times: But how many media pundits have counted Mrs. Clinton dead on how many occasions so far this year.

And yet, Obama fails to close the deal…….

THE REVEREND WRIGHT TAPES YOU HAVE NOT SEEN YET

GALLUP DAILY: OBAMA AND CLINTON BACK TO A TIE—ARE YOU LISTENING SPEAKER PELOSI?

March 24, 2008 Gallup Tracking poll

The Democratic nomination battle -- having undergone significant shifts last week during the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy -- is now back to a virtual tie between Barack Obama (favored by 47% of national Democratic voters), and Hillary Clinton (chosen by 46%).

Obama has not been able to reestablish the clear frontrunner position he enjoyed in late February, and again in mid-March. As has happened so often over the past six weeks, the race among national Democratic voters has become "too close to call."


Gallup's general election ballots, pitting presumptive Republican nominee John McCain against Obama and Clinton, continue to show McCain with a slight edge. According to the latest five-day rolling average, from March 18-22, McCain holds a three percentage point lead over Obama in the preferences of national registered voters, and a 2-point lead over Clinton.