Since VL’s thinking in offering his endorsement of Barack Obama is apparently premised on a cliche (’the lesser of two evils’), allow me to suggest that there is another, even more apt, cliche available…

Better the Devil you know, than the Devil you don’t know.

Does this constitute an endorsement of McCain — no. McCain’s record has been all over the place…he, like Hillary Clinton, has been running for President for the last eight years. Clinton, of course, spent the last eight years with her eye on November, because Democrats are supposed to be smarter than Republicans. McCain knew he had to go way right — and “support the President” — if he expected to win the GOP nomination.  Read more 

The PROOF of RBC Fraud

A document included as an exhibit in the Nelson vs Dean Lawsuit that was filed in October 2007 in an attempt to force the DNC to seat the Florida delegation provides indisputable proof that the Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee singled out Florida and Michigan for sanctions, and ignored violations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

The document is a tentative list of state primaries and caucuses, and is dated September 13, 2007. The listing for Florida says (“P” designates a primary)

1/29/08 Florida P Date of state primary; date violates rules; Non-Complia  Read more 

Barack Obama is looking for support from some of the most intolerant and corrupt “Christian” right leaders.

An article entitled Obama Meets with Conservative and Progressive Religious Leaders at the Christian Broadcasting network, included a list of “religious leaders” that Obama is trying to get support from…

Most of these leaders are rabidly anti-gay and anti-choice. And they even include one “religious leader” who played a role in Monica Goodlings efforts to put more right wing Christians in the DoJ….

Here’s a partial list…

TD Jakes – One of those mega-church preachers who enriches himself (he lives in a $1.7 million mansion) while “saving souls”  Read more 

How many times can men say that Clinton needed to do what they wanted her to do?

Hillary Clinton didn’t need to do anything — she chose to get behind Barack Obama, which is what she was expected to do.

18 million people cast their primary ballot for Hillary Clinton — she didn’t need to do anything to remain a potent force in the Democratic Party. She could have, had she chosen to, told Barack Obama “it ain’t over ’til its over, I’m still the better choice, I’ve still got more experience, I’ve still got better ideas, and I’m still far more electable than you — and superdelegates have nearly three months to figure that out.”

But we are now going to be told …  Read more 

The “Magic Number” is still 2025, or 2209. But its not 2118.

That’s because, in violation of the DNC charter, a secret meeting was held, and secret votes were taken — violations of specific Charter “sunshine rules” provisions. A deal was struck among Obama supporters on the committee to completely ignore what is known as the “fair reflection” rule (see note below), and to treat the constituency groups that had provided Hillary Clinton with considerable margins in two states (Hispanic/Latino voters, older voters, women, Jewish voters in Florida, older voters, working class voters, rural voters, and women in Michigan) as “half voters”.  Read more 

Hillary asked us to go to hillaryclinton.com and tell her what we thought we should do.

This thread is intended for people who go there and tell her to come back here and paste their letters….

mine is below the break  Read more 

Alice Germond is Secretary of the DNC, and a member of the Rules and Bylaws Committee.

She considers herself the guardian of the rules.

Article 9, Section 12: of the Charter of the Democratic National Committee states: All meetings of…official party committees…shall be open to the public and votes shall not be taken by secret ballot.”

On Saturday, a secret meeting was held, at which votes were taken.

At the end of the morning session, a one hour lunch period was announced, and the afternoon session would commence after that lunch. Members of THE PUBLIC were told to return in one hour.

THE PUBLIC, which had a right, under the charter to attend the meeting, showed up.  Read more 

I want to throw an idea out there.

I’m thinking of starting a campaign to demand refunds (and possibly sue) the DNC for its failure to abide by its own rules. The easiest one to prove is the Sunshine rule…. TONS of others were violated, but they require explanations. The Sunshine rule is simple — all business is conducted in public. No “smoke filled/back room deals”.

Yesterday there were various news reports that deliberations were expected to last until midnight —- and that was before the morning part ran over a couple of hours.

An agenda was announced in the morning that did not occur that afternoon. But a one hour lunch expanded to three hours…after which three resolutions were offered, each allowed only 10 minutes of discussion.  Read more 

KEY FINDINGS
When comparing the February primaries to those held in March, April, and May

· Obama only gained supported among the lowest income (up to $15K) and least educated (not a High School graduate) demographic categories.
· Clinton’s gains came primarily from middle, upper-middle, and upper income voters, and the “Some College”, College Graduate”, and “Post Graduate” education cohorts. Obama lost considerable support within these same groups.
· Increased support for Clinton from “working class” voters ($15K to $50K income demographic) made up less than 8% of Clinton’s increased support.

[Welcome Political Radar readers. This Memorial Day Weekend, try a round of Obama Golf! —lambert]

PART ONE: ALL VOTERS, GENDER, AND RACE

Ever since the media declared that Barack Obama was “inevitable” after February 19th, based on a two week period when an unprepared Hillary Clinton campaign suffered “10 straight losses”, rank and file Democratic voters have been sending a message. Rather than rally ‘round the “inevitable nominee” that message has been a consistent, loud, and clear message to the Democratic Party – DO NOT WANT.

In nearly every demographic category since February 19, Clinton’s percentage of the vote has risen, while Obama’s has fallen. This includes Obama’s supposed “strong” demographic categories such as voters with college degrees post-graduate degrees and voters whose income is above the national median. And Clinton beat Obama in the primaries in March, April and May in most of the major categories.  Read more 

On Super Tuesday, over 14% of voters in the Oklahoma Democratic Primary voted for neither Hillary Clinton nor Barack Obama, despite their being the only two major Democratic candidates left in the race. This was nearly twice the percentage of “someone else” votes as the next highest state (Arizona, with 7.2% of “neither” votes), and four times greater than Super Tuesday primary states over all (3.74% “neither” votes).

John Edwards received the lion’ share (10.14% of the overall vote) of the ‘neither” vote, and his supporters represented a significant opportunity for both Clinton and Obama. By examining where Edwards did well, both candidates could try and appeal to these “neither Clinton nor Obama” voters.

A review of exit polling from West Virginia shows that Hillary Clinton took advantage of the opportunity to appeal to Edward’s voters, and it was her success among those voters that made the difference between her 24 point win over Obama in Oklahoma, and her 41 point margin over Obama in West Virginia. Obama not merely failed to attract the support of Edwards voters, he actually lost support in the demographic categories where Edwards did best.  Read more 

While the Obama campaign and its surrogates have been trumpeting the fact that it is bringing in “new voters”, it seems to have forgotten a key component of the “old Democratic coalition” that it disparages.

“Old” voters. Literally.

The Clinton campaign consistently includes Hillary Clinton’s appeal to seniors when it discusses why she is the better choice to face off against John McCain – but the media seldom mentions older voters, choosing instead to concentrate on Clinton’s appeal to “white working class” voters to hype the race angle in the campaign.

The Obama campaign’s use of talking points involving “new voters” and a “new coalition” is sending a message to older voters – that “old” is worth a lot less to them than “new”, that young voters are more important than older voters, and that the “new coalition” means that the concerns of the “old coalition” members are no longer critical to the Party.

And all this is going on when the Republican Party will have a 71 year old as its nominee.  Read more 

I finally realized why I was having such a hard time saying that I’d vote for Obama if he is the nominee.

I’ve been voting straight ticket Democratic just about my entire adult life, and one of the big reaons is that I find the GOP’s use of its Southern Strategy abhorrent.

Obama’s use of race baiting in an effort to create huge margins and massive turnout in the AA community is his own “Southern Strategy.” Every time I think about what they’ve done to Bill and Hillary Clinton in the name of securing the nomination, I feel ill.

So I’m sitting November out if Obama is the nominee. I’m not going to vote for a “Democrat” who employs the tactics I find most abhorrent in Republicans.

Or
Why Obama Supporters Want Super-Delegates To Think That One Person In Anchorage Is Worth More Than 36 In Akron

As far as Obama’s supporters are concerned, a voter in Ohio is worth only 1/23 of a voter in Alaska. In Alaska, 8,877 voters chose the state’s 13 pledged delegates to the Democratic National Convention, or 683 voters per delegate. In Ohio, 2,194,851 voters chose that state’s 141 pledged delegate. That’s 15,566 voters per delegate.  Read more 

Aka Obama’s Sour Apples to Apples, Part Four

Between late February and mid-April, voters in nine states that should/could be “Democratic” in the 2008 Presidential Election were exposed to a considerable amount of negative informative concerning both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The negative information had little impact on how Hillary Clinton was regarded when compared to John McCain. But it has had a major impact on their perception of Barack Obama, and on the perception of the relative merits of Obama and McCain.

Overall, the worst that can be said about Clinton is the negative press attention has resulted in more previously undecided voters in certain demographic categories expressing a preference for McCain rather than for Clinton. But Obama is not merely losing “undecided” voters in most demographic categories because of negative media coverage, a significant percentage of voters who had supported Obama over McCain have switched their preferences.  Read more 

AKA OBAMA’S SOUR ’APPLES TO APPLES’, PART THREE: INDEPENDENTS AND MODERATES

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Perhaps most disturbing is Obama’s decline among Independent voters: Between late February and mid-April, in 9 key states for Democrats

· Obama lost an average 4.2% of his support among Independents
· While Obama was losing support among Independents to McCain, McCain was also picking up new support from previously undecided Independent voters, resulting in major decreases in Obama’s margins against McCain among Independents.
· In February, Obama led McCain among Independents in 5 of the 9 states, By mid-April, Obama was leading in only one state – by only 2%.  Read more 

DEMOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW, MALE AND FEMALE VOTERS

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support in virtually every key demographic category when matched against John McCain, while Hillary Clinton has gained support. Obama has lost support among men, women, White voters, “Independents”, and “Moderates”, while Clinton has gained support in all those categories.

Obama’s margins against McCain have fallen significantly in all of these categories, while Clinton is “holding her own” in these key categories as previously undecided voters make up their minds.  Read more 

Barack Obama is hemmorhaging support against John McCain in states where Democrats can/should win in November.

In the last six weeks, Barack Obama has been losing support, while Hillary Clinton has gained support, when matched against McCain. Much of Clinton’s additional support is from voters who were undecided in late February, and Clinton essentially “split” the “recent deciders” with McCain; as a result there is little change in her margins against McCain. But people who were undecided whether they preferred Obama or McCain are also making up their minds – and choosing McCain. As a result, Obama’s margins against McCain are looking much worse.

This is true among all major demographic categories that were available for comparison – if Obama improves in a category, Clinton has shown greater improvement in that category. And in categories where Clinton is not doing as well as she was in February, Obama is doing consistently worse.  Read more 

“By the way, when I get collect calls from prison and the like (I get wa-a-ay too many for the health of my phone bill), lately I always ask the guys who of the three candidates they prefer. Most (but not all), say Barack Obama.”

“Journalist” and professional Obama shill, Celeste Fremon, writing in the comments section (#77) on her blog.

I mean this story pretty much writes itself…

MURDERERS, RAPISTS, THEIVES, MUGGERS, GANGBANGERS ALL FOR OBAMA

By Calloussed Fremon  Read more 

(UPDATE…JAY ROSEN, CREATOR OF PRESSTHINK AND CO-PUBLISHER OF OTB, HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT OTB HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WRITING, EDITING, OR PRESENTATION OF THE STORY IN QUESTION — and I believe him. )

“Off the Bus” is a joint venture by Jay (Pressthink) Rosen and Ariana Huffington that encourages “citizen’s journalism.” The idea is that us “little people” can attend campaign events, and report them, just as well as the corporate media.

Recently, Off the Bus made news when an Obama supporter, Mayhill Fowler, reported on remarks made by Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser — the “bitter/clinging” controversy. Rosen addressed the controversy over at Pressthink, explaining the care and attention given to Fowler’s piece.  Read more 

Or
Why Jeremiah Wright is Obama’s Monica

Last night, we saw exactly why Barack Obama has a Jeremiah Wright problem. Just as Bill Clinton “lied” to us about Monica Lewinsky by telling us something that may be true but was clearly meant to deceive us, Obama is hiding behind the closely parsed “specific statement” defense to deflect criticism of his relationship with Pastor Jeremiah Wright.

I didn’t care that Bill Clinton was fellated by Monica Lewinsky. And I don’t care that Barack Obama came to terms with what it really means to be “Black in America” because Jeremiah Wright helped him to understand it. As far as racial issues are concerned, I share Wright’s perspective, and think that what Obama is telling America is pure pandering.  Read more 

(caution: rant zone ahead)

Last night I finished up six days in Wonderland.

You see, last week I agreed to allow Part 4 of my “Sexism and Misogyny” series to be serialized at FDL. That was a mistake. Part 4 was really just one big fat footnote to the rest of the series, that explained a nice big chunk in the variance in the levels of evidence of sexism. The only reason it wasn’t a footnote is because it took too long to explain that while the variance was related to the percentage of black voters in the electorate, the cause of the variance was the “shift” in the white vote that occurs in conjunction with the increase in the percentage of the black vote.

Now, even my eyes glazed over while writing that last sentence, so I’m assuming that most of yours did too while reading it.  Read more 

Part 4 of Misogyny, Sexism, & the Gender Gap in the 2008 Election

In choosing a nominee, the Democratic Party will not merely be deciding who deserves to win, or who would make the best candidate. It will also be a decision about which poisoned landscape the Party wishes to compete upon —- one in which toxic wildflowers of misogyny and sexism are in full bloom, or one in which the poisonous weed of racism is a constant part of the environment, and needs the merest watering to completely despoil the land.  Read more 

HOW THE GENDER GAP, SEXISM, AND MISOGYNY CHANGE THE OUTCOME IN INDIVIDUAL STATES

The gender gap in presidential elections is a well documented phenomenon. Almost without exception, women vote for Democratic candidates at a higher percentage than do men, while men vote for Republican candidates at a higher percentage than women. Moreover, men’s preference for Republican candidates is more pronounced than women’s preference for Democrats. In the 2004 election, nationally men gave Bush an 11 point lead (Bush 55%, Kerry 44%), while women gave Kerry a mere 3 point lead (Bush 48%, Kerry 51%).

Data from a recent (conducted Feb 26-28, released March 7) 50 state Survey USA (SUSA) poll of registered voters shows more than just a gender gap; it provides evidence that sexism and misogyny can have a profound impact in shaping electoral outcomes. The gender gap is nearly double the size when the matchup is John McCain vs. Hillary Clinton than when it is McCain
and Barack Obama. McCain/Clinton shows a 13.5% gap in registered voters and a 7% gap when it is McCain/Obama.  Read more 

REGIONAL COMPARISONS & BEST AND WORST STATES

The individual state cross tables from the SUSA 50 state general election poll demonstrate how the gender gap determines the winner in a very large number of states. But there is considerable variation between states themselves and within regions. Much of the variation appears to be related to other factors, such as race and racism, and how liberal/conservative a state is.  Read more