Shallowness is disheartening to witness but can he win?

Media bias? Not if you are a Democrat.

Hillary also learned media and press loyalty is ephemeral. They now favor their new darling - Obama. Supporting the Senator from Illinois is a natural because he has run a mesmerizing campaign. He is the Messiah and being in his camp is the politically correct thing to do. The fact that Obama has little experience at governance, has a thin voting record and is a master at political flexibility, matters naught because the press and media are not interested in objective examination. They want their candidate in The White House and will move heaven and ink to do so. (See 1 below.)

Fearing liberalization of their own nominating rules has gotten Democrats in trouble so a few big wigs are attempting to shut the nomination off by July 1. Some members of the party have proven they will eat their own in order to win. Politics is politics.

Can you imagine if Republicans were trashing their own rules in order to stick it to one of their own how the press and media would portray them? They would be having a field day of derision.

November is a long way off but McCain has some very difficult and heavy lifting if he is to capture the prize. He is behind in fund raising, he is behind in energizing his base, he must overcome Obama's advantage when it comes to block voting and the newly registered who are mostly younger voters whose brains have yet to be completely formed and then there is the media bias.

If discernment and critical thinking drove voter decisions, as opposed to a high emotional content, McCain's chances would appear better. Since that is not the case, he has an uphill fight. It will be interesting to see if he can level the playing field. Proving he can, in itself, could prove a convincing reason why voters might conclude McCain is a better choice.

Perhaps I am blind to the halo effect of Sen. Obama's candidacy. What I do see is just another politician who is exceptional at working the system, manipulating a sympathetic and pandering media unwilling to look beneath the surface and possessing outstanding and clever oratorical skills. He also is advantaged by the fact that he is running against a person burdened by high negatives and incapable of telling the truth. Hillary is the perfect foil for Obama whose own inability to tell the truth is not as he would want you to believe, whose own convictions are staged and whose past associations and voting record is far left of America's historical centrism.

But these are different times. The public mood is one of angst, dissatisfaction over the Iraq War creates hurdles for anyone who understands the consequences of another defeat. So, Obama can spout words without filling in the details of their meaning and they are swallowed regardless of their size.

We have lowered standards in every aspect of life - education, morality, public service and the list is endless, so it is little wonder that a person with Obama's resume can portray himself as the political panacea.

Shallowness is disheartening to witness.(See 2 and 3 below.)

Clarence Page portrays Obama in a positive light but Harold Ickes gets to the heart of the matter. Forget who is the best candidate. The question boils down to whether Rev. Wright has so damaged Obama, can he still win?. (See 4 and 5 below.)

But then a Canadian puts his two sense in and seems to think as I do. (See 6 below.)

Dick

1) Media 'Depression'
By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Journalism: It's been said the press notice the homeless problem only when a Republican's in office. The same could be said for food stamps, which the media now are using as an economic indicator.


Scary headline in Monday's Times: "As Jobs Vanish And Prices Rise, Food Stamp Use Nears Record." Scarier headline in Britain's Independent: "USA 2008: The Great Depression."

Why didn't the Times editors just say: "Economy In Shambles — It's All Bush's Fault"? Or the Independent condemn the president for his war on the poor?

The stories, as well as similar coverage in other publications and on the newswire, were more subtle than that. But make no mistake — the message is that the Bush-Republican economy is a calamity of epic proportions.

As the election nears, the mainstream media, unable this time to make an issue out of Iraq, are focusing on the economy on behalf of the Democrats. And they're more than a bit overwrought. To see the headlines and to read or listen uncritically to the stories, one would think the 1930s were golden years by comparison.

As usual, there's more to the story.

Take the headline "Food Stamp Use Nears Record," which is only partially accurate. True, the 28 million Americans who will use food stamps in 2008 is the highest number ever. But that raw number is a poor measure; it doesn't provide context.

What's relevant is the percentage of the population that's on food stamps. And the worst years there are 1993, 1994 and 1995.

Yes, it was during the second Camelot presidency that the largest portions of the population were using food stamps: 10.4% in 1993 and 1994, and 10% in 1995.

Even if 28 million Americans use food stamps in 2008 as projected — and eagerly reported — with 303.5 million people in the country, the rate of 9.2% would still be lower than those three Clinton years.

Any discussion of food stamps should also include eligibility rules, which have been altered through the years. At various times, it's been harder to get food stamps. One example: the years that followed the 1996 welfare reform. At other times, the standards have been relaxed, as they were with the 2002 farm bill.

Enlistment drives are another factor. (Where's the federal campaign to promote self-sufficiency rather than dependence?) Washington is currently promoting food stamps and changing the system from one of paper coupons to electronic debit cards in hopes that removing the public humiliation that comes with using food stamps will encourage more people to take part.

Natural disasters also can have an impact on the number of food stamp recipients. Floods, earthquakes, ravaging storms and wildfires can increase the number of food stamp "clients."

Despite the many reasons not to use food stamps to gauge economic health, the media still do it. They're sure that many voters will make their choices this fall based on what the press tells them.

Things will change, though, if a Democrat is elected president. Expect to start seeing glowing reports on the economy about a year from now — no matter what shape it's in.

2) Top Dem trio seek nominee deal by July 1
By Alexander Bolton

Democratic leaders in Congress, fearing a messy fight at the party convention in August, are coalescing around the idea that uncommitted super delegates should announce which candidate they support early this summer.

Their calls for the party to select a nominee in the next three months have put pressure on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) to back down from her pledge to battle Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) all the way to the Denver convention.

But some Clinton supporters are pushing back. They argue that super delegates should not be forced to follow their leaders’ time line.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), who has been in discussions with Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean over how to avoid a convention fight, said that super delegates should reveal their favored candidate by the beginning of July or earlier.

Taking a similar line, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Tuesday she “would hope a resolution could be reached before July,” adding that Democrats need to be ready for the November general election.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) suggested the protracted intra-party battle could be solved if party officials meet informally to reach consensus on who should be the nominee.

“In my early days, my younger days, I was a political leader in Prince George’s County,” he said during a meeting Tuesday with reporters. “We had what was called a breakfast club. People sat around a table just like this. We rarely ever voted. We did have, however, significant discussions in which we ultimately came to consensus.”

By calling for a quick resolution of the stalled primary, Democratic leaders have offered support to Dean, who last week called for super delegates to make a decision between Clinton and Obama by July 1.

Immediately after his proposal became public, Clinton dismissed the notion that she would drop out of the race if she still had a chance to overturn Obama’s delegate lead at the convention.

Obama has nearly 150 more delegates than Clinton, but he is not expected to win enough support to capture the nomination before the convention. The stalemate could be resolved, however, if the party’s uncommitted super delegates weigh in on the race in the coming weeks. Dean estimates that more than 300 of the party’s 794 super delegates remain uncommitted.

Specifically, Democratic strategists are concerned that a floor fight at the convention could create a schism between two of their most important constituencies: women and African-Americans.

“We have two candidates who are the personifications of major constituencies,” said Hoyer. “Mr. Obama, obviously, of African-Americans, Hillary Clinton of women.”

Clinton supporters, who argue that Obama’s campaign has lost momentum since winning a string of primaries in February, are resisting calls to wrap up the race quickly.

“Super delegates should be afforded the same courtesy as regular delegates,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.), a Clinton supporter. “They shouldn’t have to make up their mind according to the timetable of Howard Dean.”

But Obama supporters take the opposite view.

“I don’t see a reason for super delegates to hold out until the convention,” said Rep. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), an Obama backer.

Obama himself has helped spur Democratic leaders into action by suggesting that selecting a nominee in late August could harm the party in the general election. He recently told reporters that it would be “extremely helpful” for the nominee to have “two or three months” to prepare for the general election.

Clinton has fueled Democrats’ anxieties with her own statements.

“I know there are some people who want to shut this down and I think they are wrong,” Clinton told The Washington Post Saturday. “I have no intention of stopping until we finish what we started and until we see what happens in the next 10 contests and until we resolve Florida and Michigan. And if we don’t resolve it, we’ll resolve it at the convention — that’s what credentials committees are for.”

But Democratic leaders have distanced themselves from a proposal by Tennessee Gov. Phil Bredesen (D) that super delegates hold a formal meeting before the convention to select the nominee.

“I’m not sure I’m supportive of that idea,” said Hoyer, who said consensus is best reached through informal discussions.

“I think [super delegates] will be talking to one another,” he added later.

Senate Democratic Policy Committee Chairman Byron Dorgan (N.D.) also downplayed Bredesen’s proposal.

Meanwhile, several uncommitted Democratic senators on Tuesday joined their leaders’ call for the nominee to be selected well before officials meet in Denver.

“I think it makes sense it gets resolved as soon as we can,” said Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.). “I think we should work to try to get the result resolved before the convention.”

Sen. Ben Cardin (Md.), another neutral Democrat, said: “I do think we would be better served if we make our decisions by July instead of August.”

Other Democrats are trying to ease growing concerns among colleagues over internecine fighting.

House Democratic Caucus Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) argued in a press conference Tuesday that Democrats would be well-positioned in November. He pointed to the millions of dollars that Clinton and Obama have raised for their campaigns and the high level of enthusiasm among Democratic voters.

3) Obama and the 'L' Word
By PETER WEHNER


When it comes to being labeled "a liberal," Barack Obama is dismissive. "Oh, he's liberal. He's liberal," he said recently in describing a characterization of him by Republicans. "Let me tell you something. There's nothing liberal about wanting to reduce money in politics. It's common sense. . . . There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure that everybody has health care."

Mr. Obama needs to inoculate himself against the claim that he's a liberal. For the past quarter-century it has been consistently the most effective charge made by Republicans against Democrats. America is a center-right country and in modern times has not elected a thoroughgoing liberal as president (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton ran as moderate Democrats). The problem is that, by any reasonable standard, Mr. Obama is an orthodox liberal.

National Journal rated him as the most liberal person in the Senate in 2007, and for good reason. On economic policy, Mr. Obama favors higher income, Social Security and corporate taxes. He supports massive increases in domestic spending and greater government regulation of the economy. He favors a significantly larger role for the federal government in health care. He opposes the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Mr. Obama has criticized the Supreme Court's decision to uphold a partial birth abortion ban, and he wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act. He voted against John Roberts and Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. In Illinois, Mr. Obama supported banning the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. And he supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

On national security matters, Mr. Obama voted to deny legal immunity to telecom companies that have cooperated with the government in warrantless wiretapping of suspected terrorists. He wants to grant habeas corpus rights to detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. He supports a full-scale withdrawal from Iraq. And he says, in his first year in office, he would meet with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea without preconditions.

It's no wonder that Mr. Obama has been endorsed by Moveon.org – one of the most radical groups within the liberal universe.

Adding to Mr. Obama's problems is his close association with Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., whose anti-American rantings are the kind of thing routinely said by the far left.

For whatever reason, Mr. Obama has failed to do what Mr. Clinton did in 1992 – run as a "new" Democrat who favors some conservative policies (ending welfare as we know it, supporting free trade, criticizing the "butchers of Beijing," and famously criticizing Sister Souljah).

Since Mr. Obama's record reveals him to be a doctrinaire liberal, he dismisses ideological labels as simplistic, misleading and outmoded. When asked if he's comfortable with the liberal label, he says, "This is what I would call old politics. This is the stuff we're trying to get rid of . . . Those old categories don't work, and they're preventing us from solving problems."

In fact, "liberal" and "conservative" can be useful (if incomplete) monikers – a shorthand way of describing where an individual stands on issues and, as importantly, their political philosophy. They are an indicator of a person's underlying assumptions, the propositions they embrace or reject. Mr. Obama's effort to present himself as a post-ideological figure is an effort to avoid an important national debate. And John McCain should not let Mr. Obama (assuming he wins the Democratic nomination) get away with it.

But because the political environment and challenges facing America have changed significantly since Ronald Reagan was president, it will not be enough for Mr. McCain to invoke the word "liberal" against Mr. Obama. Mr. McCain needs to present a compelling case on the foundational beliefs that divide liberalism and conservatism – on matters like the size and role of government, competition and accountability in education, health care, and whether higher taxes encourage or retard economic growth. Mr. McCain also needs to force a debate on the proper role of the judiciary, the protection owed to unborn children and the rights owed to unlawful enemy combatants, and whether promoting liberty should be a central aim of American foreign policy in combating militant Islam.

Mr. McCain needs to become an educator-in-chief on matters of political philosophy. He won't be able to fulfill that role nearly as well as Reagan, who was a philosophical conservative in the way that Mr. McCain (and most other Republican politicians) is not. And Mr. McCain himself has, until now, been sui generis on matters of conservatism. His challenge is to make his case well enough to convince Americans not only that Mr. Obama is a liberal, but that having a liberal in the White House would do real damage to our country.

Mr. McCain has overcome harder challenges than this one.

4) A Black Moses, 40 Years Later
By Clarence Page

Words do matter. Forty years ago the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. ended a rally speech in Memphis on a note that was eerily prophetic, since it would turn out to be his final speech.

"Like anybody, I would like to live a long life," he said, speaking without notes to the church rally on April 3, 1968. "Longevity has its place. But I'm not concerned about that now. I just want to do God's will. And He's allowed me to go up to the mountain. And I've looked over. And I've seen the promised land. I may not get there with you. But I want you to know tonight, that we, as a people, will get to the promised land!"

King was assassinated the next day. Like Moses, who led his people through the wilderness for 40 years, King died before his people reached the promised land.

Which leaves a special question for us black Americans 40 years after King's prophetic speech, have we reached the promised land?

And the answer is: It depends.

We, as a people have reached the promised land, if you believe the old James Brown song of the late 1960s: "I don't want nobody/ to give me nothing,/ Just open up the door, I'll get it myself." How far has the door opened up?

It's obvious that black billionaires like Oprah Winfrey and Black Entertainment Television founder Robert Johnson have made it, thanks partly to hard-won opportunities that the civil rights movement opened up.

Yet how you feel about how well black America is doing can depend largely on where you sit on the nation's black-white, rich-poor cultural divide.

A young community organizer discovered that truism in 1985 on Chicago's South Side, where he came to work for a church-based group seeking to improve living conditions in high-crime, low-income neighborhoods.

One day the 24-year-old activist, a biracial Ivy League graduate, was trying to make a point to a prominent black pastor. Black problems were becoming more economic than racial, the organizer said. The minister wasn't buying it.

"Cops don't check my bank account when they pull me over and make me spread-eagle against the car," the pastor said. "These mis-educated brothers, like that sociologist at the University of Chicago, talking about 'the declining significance of race.' Now, what country is he living in?"

The allegedly "miseducated" black scholar was William Julius Wilson. His 1978 book, "The Declining Significance of Race," was changing the national conversation about where black America was headed. It analyzed the impact of shifting economic forces that were affecting Americans of all races and called for economic remedies over race-specific ones.

But the pastor was a proponent of black liberation theology who responded to every one of the younger man's class-based views with race-based answers. Even the growing black middle class brought no comfort. "Life's not safe for a black man in this country, Barack," the pastor said. "Never has been. Probably never will be."

Yes, the young organizer was now-Sen. Barack Obama. It was his first encounter with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ, as recounted in Obama's 1995 memoir, "Dreams From My Father."

The sharp contrast between their views takes on new significance, now that inflamatory snippets from Wright's sermons have turned Obama's 20-year membership in Wright's church into a political embarrassment. In a landmark Philadelphia speech Obama denounced Wright's remarks, but not Wright, and called for a new conversation on race.

Obama pointed out that the basis of black rage is real, but race relations in America are not static. America already has progressed enough to enable him to be the Democratic front runner for president. I'm sure King would agree.

At the time of his death, King was helping black Memphis garbage workers organize for better working conditions and the same respect that the city afforded white workers. In the wake of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, King was expanding his focus from fighting racism to fighting poverty.

Since then, black America has reduced its poverty rate from more than 50 percent to about 24 percent by the mid-1990s. Progress is being made by Americans of all races in living and working together. But not even a black president could do everything that needs to be done. The biblical promised land, it's important to remember, was not a place to relax. It was a place to work, provide for your family and achieve economic independence.

In that sense, I don't think we African Americans have reached the promised land. We're only beginning to see it from here.


5)Harold Ickes Confirms That Wright Is Key Topic In Discussions With Super-Delegates
By Greg Sargent

In an interview with me this morning, senior Hillary adviser Harold Ickes confirmed that Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a key topic in discussions with uncommitted super-delegates over whether Obama is electable in a general election.

The comments from Ickes, who is Hillary's chief delegate hunter, are to my knowledge the first on-the-record confirmation from a Hillary adviser that the Wright controversy is a subject in conversations between the Hillary campaign and the super-delegates her advisers are trying to win over to Hillary's side.

In the wide-ranging interview, Ickes also:

* Said that it was possible that Hillary forces on the convention credentials committee could bring a so-called "minority report" to a full convention vote, though he also said that this is something Hillary doesn't want to happen

* Confirmed that the Hillary campaign could still try to woo super-dels even if she lost the popular vote, with Michigan and Florida counted

* Said that there was no risk of Hillary's efforts "tearing the party apart," described the current campaign as "genteel," and dismissed those worrying about the damage the campaign could do to the party as "hand-wringers"

"Look what the Republicans did to a genuine war hero," Ickes said, in a reference to John Kerry.

"Super delegates have to take into account the strengths and weakness of both candidates and decide who would make the strongest candidate against what will undoubtedly be ferocious Republican attacks," Ickes continued. "I've had super delegates tell me that the Wright issue is a real issue for them."

In a reference to Wright's controversial views, Ickes continued: "Nobody thinks that Barack Obama harbors those thoughts. But that's not the issue. The issue is what Republicans [will do with them]...I think they're going to give him a very tough time."

Asked whether he was specifically bringing up Wright to super-delegates, Ickes said: "I've said what I've said...I tell people that they need to look at what they think Republicans may use against him. Wright comes up in the conversations."

When I asked Ickes if the Hillary campaign would still try to woo super-dels even if she was behind in the popular vote counting Florida and Michigan, he said: "I think being ahead in the popular vote is an important factor. I don't think it's dispositive...if at the end of the process she's running very slightly behind in the delegates overall, the popular vote vote will be important. I don't think it's absolutely critical."

Ickes added: "It seems to me that there's this great desire to rush to judgment...this has been a genteel debate for God's sake. People are wringing their hands, `oh, we're gonna tear party apart.' The party's a lot sturdier than these hand wringers in Washington would have you believe."

Ickes also said that it was possible that Hillary supporters on the convention credentials committee would bring a minority report to force a floor vote if the committee's solution on Florida and Michigan wasn't to the campaign's liking, but he predicted it likely wouldn't come to that and said Hillary doesn't want that to happen.

"My sense is it'll be resolved before then, but if it goes into the credentials committee we can always bring out a minority report and take it to the floor of the convention. Hillary does not want that. We don't think it's good for the party. We don't think it's good for the nominee."

Ickes pointed out that when he worked for Ted Kennedy's losing presidential primary run against Jimmy Carter in 1980, Kennedy aides brought a minority report calling for delegates to be able to vote their consciences, even though they "knew it was a foreordained conclusion" that it would lose.

"Look, there's always a possibility" that Hillary forces would produce a minority report, Ickes continued, but he added that it was not likely: "You don't do this lightly and only if you feel very very strongly...I think it will be resolved before then."

6)From a Canadian Perspective: There Is A Racist In The Race To Win The Presidency.
By Howard Galganov

I have to write about Barack Obama just because I have to.

I know that I should be focusing more writing time on my campaign to win an INDEPENDENT SEAT in Parliament, but the Obama story is just too compelling to ignore.

The Obama drama also has pertinence to what I have to deal with in the upcoming Canadian federal election which I will further explain in my next editorial.

First, I have to write about the media reaction concerning the big speech Obama gave the other day (March 18, 2008) in Philadelphia.

Whether you tuned into FOX, CNN or any of the other News providers, the critique of the style of his speech, not the substance, has been unanimous.

The general consensus amongst the media is that it was magnificent.

To me, this says much that is not flattering about the media.

Any television or movie star could have delivered as good a speech or better. But the people of America are not being asked to vote for a television or movie performer.

If you like watching Boston Legal, as I do, you hear unbelievably well crafted and impassioned speeches on every episode, as attorney Allan Shore dazzles the court with his sensational mastery of oratorical skills.

But we don't take it seriously, since it's all make-believe. Just like Obama's speech.

Obama READ from a very well written and highly crafted script, which I'm certain professional writers had a hand in creating. Just like the actors.

Let's look at what he said. And what he didn't say in his speech.

He didn't say his Pastor is a racist, bigot and inciter. Which he is.

He didn't say that he would quit this church that spews racism and hatred.

He didn't say I'm sorry.

He didn't say that he ever confronted the racist Reverend Wright.


He didn't say that he ever got up during a racist sermon and walked out the door.

He didn't say that he ever challenged the anti-White, anti-Semitic and anti-American views of Reverend Wright in front of the congregation or anywhere else.

HE SAID NONE OF THAT.

He did say that his White grandmother, who raised him, was a White racist.

He said that Reverend Wright said things that Ministers, Priests and Rabbis have said in their sermons. In my religious days, I attended Synagogue on the Jewish Sabbath for years, and I never heard any Rabbi speak anything like that.

I've also been to Protestant and Catholic services where I heard
their sermons, and like the Rabbis I've heard, their sermons were nothing like the race baiting of Jeremiah Wright, Obama's Pastor, mentor and spiritual guide.

Obama talked about the need to build bridges and tear down walls.

Whose walls does he want to tear down? And what bridges have to be built that don't already exist?

He didn't address Jeremiah Wright's speeches that called Israel a dirty word.

He didn't condemn Wright's visit with America;s worst anti-White and anti-Semite, Moslem leader Louis Farrakhan, to meet with the like-minded leader of Libya, the TERRORIST sponsor Qaddafi.

It was all a very well crafted, and incredibly polished Obama speech that delivered meaningless platitudes. As usual.

He didn't explain Wright's speech that said God Damn America. Or how
White Americans created AIDS to wipe out people of color. He didn't deal with
the message that White Americans through government agencies sell drugs to Blacks in order to destroy the Black culture. He also didn't make any mention of the fact that America had 9/11 coming to them, and somehow Israel was responsible.

He didn't even mention that Wright attacked fellow Blacks like Oprah, Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, and Golf sensation Tiger Wood for their success. He likened them to Uncle Toms.

There's a lot Obama didn't say.

He did say a week prior to his speech, that he NEVER directly heard any of these horrible comments made by his Pastor Wright.

But in his Philadelphia speech, he said he had DIRECTLY heard these racist anti-American utterances by Jeremiah Write while he was sitting in the pews.

This completely explains his wife's two remarkable comments about the USA.

First, when she said: For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country. I guess she isn't proud that the USA defeated Communism freeing billions of people from the hold and threat of tyranny.

She's not proud of the TRILLIONS of dollars America has spent helping the world in every way imaginable. She's not proud of America's stunning discoveries and inventions dealing with everything from the Internet and computers to health and welfare.

More recently she said America is just downright mean. America is in fact amongst the most compassionate of countries on this planet.

She was simply speaking her truth as she supports it, even though she and her husband have been blessed by being Black people in modern day America, where they both attended the finest schools and universities, earn about a half million dollars a year between them, and hold prestigious jobs in White America.

Barack Obama has campaigned relentlessly on a platform not to make this election about race. But it is. And in my opinion, Barack Obama and his embarrassing wife Michelle, are both racists.

The Obamas are racists not just by with whom they associate, but more so, by what they have said, and by what they have not said. I hope Oprah and the Leftist kiss ass Liberals who gave them, and continue to give them their unconditional support are proud.

The pity of all of this in a Canadian perspective, is that we have our own voting population who are also too stupid, or too committed to political correctness to see through the fog.