Obama Financing Flip Flop Widely Criticized

Obama's decision to become the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public financing system resulted in some of the most negative media coverage Obama has received during the campaign.

NBC Nightly News said the decision "created a firestorm," looked Obama's at pledge to "observe the limits if his opponent did," and showed excerpts from a February interview with Tim Russert in which he indicated he would seek to participate in the system. Watch Andrea Mitchell's video report:





ABC World News called the move "a direct contradiction" of Obama's early promises. CBS Evening News said Obama "abandoned a campaign pledge," adding, "it is a big reversal. Only months ago, Obama was signaling a willingness to preserve public financing. No wonder John McCain smelled a flip-flop."

Liz Sidoti of the Associated Press, said Obama "tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician -- one who means what he says and says what he means -- while undercutting his call for 'a new kind of politics.'"

Sidoti also blasted Obama's argument that he had to make the move to defend himself against independent groups running ads:

But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain.

So much for being a straight shooter.

McClatchy's David Lightman, said the decision "is not only a huge blow to the Watergate-era campaign finance system, but it could hurt the Democratic nominee's effort to paint himself as a reformer:"

But the Illinois senator, whose campaign mantra has been reform and change, has now put himself in the position of being the candidate who lit the match that allowed the ailing public financing system to finally implode.

Lightman quoted Brad Coker, managing partner of the Mason-Dixon Research polling firm:

"For him to go outside this framework leaves him open to charges of hypocrisy."

Even the New York Times saw fit to criticize Obama in an editorial:

The excitement underpinning Senator Barack Obama’s campaign rests considerably on his evocative vows to depart from self-interested politics. Unfortunately, Mr. Obama has come up short of that standard with his decision to reject public spending limitations and opt instead for unlimited private financing in the general election.

The Times also pointed out that "Obama’s description of public financing as 'broken' is only half true."

According to Democratic Senator Russ Feingold, "while the primary cycle’s public matching subsidies are 'broken' and need updating for inflation, 'the system for the general election is not.'"

The Washington Post also took Obama to task, editorializing, that Obama "had an opportunity here to demonstrate that he really is a different kind of politician, willing to put principles and the promises he has made above political calculation." Politicians "do what politicians need to do. But they ought to spare us the self-congratulatory back-patting while they're doing it:"

Pardon the sarcasm. But given Mr. Obama's earlier pledge to "aggressively pursue" an agreement with the Republican nominee to accept public financing, his effort to cloak his broken promise in the smug mantle of selfless dedication to the public good is a little hard to take.

Obama is making a huge mistake here. Candidates frequently prove you can't buy an election. And as the Watergate scandals demonstrated, too much money can corrupt campaigns, despite the best of intentions and disciplined management. More important, when is Obama going to stop changing his mind whenever it is politically expedient and offer some change we can count on.

Obama's The First

Obama reverses his financing pledge.

By changing his mind today, Obama becomes the first presidential candidate to opt out of the public financing since the system was enacted as part of the 1974 reforms demanded by public reaction to the Watergate Scandal.

In November 2007, Obama answered "Yes" to Common Cause when asked "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

According to Agence France-Presse, Obama "pledged last year to work 'aggressively' with the Republicans on a deal to preserve public financing, under which candidates limit their spending in return for matching funds from the federal Treasury."

As the McCain campaign correctly notes, this broken Obama pledge "will have far-reaching and extraordinary consequences that will weaken and undermine the public financing system."

Obama has once again revealed himself to be just another typical politician who will do and say whatever is most expedient for Barack Obama.

We should expect nothing more than such expediency from Obama. After all, he started this campaign by expediently breaking his word that he would not run for president in 2008:

On January 22, 2006, Obama stated flat out he wouldn't seek the presidency in 2008:

MR. RUSSERT: There’s been enormous speculation about your political future, Senator. The man you succeeded in the Senate, Peter Fitzgerald, a Republican, said this recently. “I think there’s a very good chance that Senator Obama is on the Democratic ticket in 2008 as the vice presidential nominee.” Do you agree?

SEN. OBAMA: No. You know, I can’t speculate on those kinds of things. What I have said is that, you know, I’m not focused on running for higher office, I’m focused on doing the job that the people of Illinois just sent me to do.

MR. RUSSERT: But there seems to be an evolution in your thinking. This is what you told the Chicago Tribune last month: “Have you ruled out running for another office before your term is up?” Obama answer: “It’s not something I anticipate doing.” But when we talked back in November of ‘04 after your election I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your six-year term as United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things. But my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: So you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

Can we count on anything Obama says? I mean, other than the fact that he will change his mind.

Obama Is Running For Jimmy Carter's Second Term

In an interview with NBC's Brian Williams, McCain said Obama seems to be running for a second Carter term:

Williams: Is it going to be tough to run with an incumbent party for the White House, given this economic backdrop?

McCain: I-- I think it's-- it's tough. But I think the American didn't, people didn't get to know me yesterday. They know me. They know that I have fought for restraining spending, which Senator Obama has been a big part of, with earmarking (UNINTEL) projects. They know that I have been a strong fiscal conservative, and they know I understand the challenges that they face.

They need a little break from-- from their gasoline taxes, and they -- and they know that -- we've got to get spending under control. And we've got to become independent of foreign oil. Sen. Obama says that I'm running for a Bush's third terms. It seems to me he's running for Jimmy Carter's second. (LAUGHTER)

It's an apt comparison. On July 15, 1979, Carter went on national television and gave what became known as his malaise speech. Among other things said this:

I'm asking you for your good and for your nation's security to take no unnecessary trips, to use carpools or public transportation whenever you can, to park your car one extra day per week, to obey the speed limit, and to set your thermostats to save fuel.

In Roseburg, Oregon recently, Obama sounded a lot like Jimmy Carter did when the former president gave that infamous speech:

All right. So that's what we want to do on global warming here in the United States. We are also going to have to negotiate with other countries. China, India, in particular Brazil. They are growing so fast that they are consuming more and more energy and pretty soon, if their carbon footprint even approaches ours, we're goners. That's part of the reason why we've got to make the investment. We got to lead by example. If we lead by example, if we lead by example, then we can actually export and license technologies that have been invented here to help them deal with their growth pains. But keep in mind, you're right, we can't tell them don't grow. We can't drive our SUVs and, you know, eat as much as we want and keep our homes on, you know, 72 degrees at all times, whether we're living in the desert or we're living in the tundra and then just expect every other country is going to say OK, you know, you guys go ahead keep on using 25 percent of the world's energy, even though you only account for 3 percent of the population, and we'll be fine. Don't worry about us. That's not leadership. [Transcript courtesy of CNN's Ballot Bowl]

Next thing you know, Obama will be talking about killer rabbits.

UPDATE: Baseball Crank has more.

Democrats' New Political Threat to U.S. Security

We have been through this time and time again.

The left and its media allies cannot accept that the country's leaders, especially those leaders with a Democrat "D" near their name, found it necessary to authorize the use force in the war the Islamic extremists continue to wage against us.

The left's solution has been to fabricate a myth that we were "mislead" into war. Despite the fact that no less than three exhaustive reviews have completely discredited this mythical lie, last week the Democrat controlled Senate Intelligence Committee, chaired by West Virginia Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV, tried to try and rewrite history and thereby breath new life into this despicable myth.

As a few Democrats realize, success in Iraq will be a problem for the Democrats. Now that the success of the surge is being recognized by the press, if not the Democrat's standard bearer, those that once supported the war but switched positions with the prevailing political winds are growing desperate. The only way those Democrats who once supported the war, and thereby offended the Democrats' agenda-setting antiwar left-wingers, can see to hold onto power is to blame their support for the war on being mislead.


Fred Hiatt takes a look at Rockefeller's new report revised history and finds Rockefeller has not yet accomplished the left's mission. Hiatt explains that if you bother to read Rockefeller's new report revised history you will find that it fails to support Rockefeller's assertion that the "administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when it was unsubstantiated, contradicted or even nonexistent:"

On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information." Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence." Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

As you read through the report, you begin to think maybe you've mistakenly picked up the minority dissent. But, no, this is the Rockefeller indictment. So, you think, the smoking gun must appear in the section on Bush's claims about Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to terrorism.

But statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments," and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information." The report is left to complain about "implications" and statements that "left the impression" that those contacts led to substantive Iraqi cooperation.

It is peculiar that it is Rockefeller who is now pushing the Bush Lied myth. Peculiar, because it was
Rockefeller, who said in October 2002 that the threat from Iraq was imminent:

"There has been some debate over how 'imminent' a threat Iraq poses. I do believe Iraq poses an imminent threat. I also believe after September 11, that question is increasingly outdated. . . . To insist on further evidence could put some of our fellow Americans at risk. Can we afford to take that chance? I do not think we can."

The committee's vice chairman, Senator Christopher Bond, along with three other Republican senators filed a minority dissent and assert that they were cut out of the report's preparation, allowing for a great deal of skewing and partisanship, but that even so, "the reports essentially validate what we have been saying all along: that policymakers' statements were substantiated by the intelligence."

Let us again review the facts, at least the way history stood before Rockefeller's attempt at rewriting history.

HISTORY (Before It Was Rewritten)

Again, no fewer than three exhaustive reviews have determined that we were not mislead into war.

The Bipartisan Senate Select Committee Report On The U.S. Intelligence Community's Prewar Intelligence Assessments On Iraq found no evidence of political pressure to change the intelligence community's judgments related to Iraq's weapons programs. At pages 284-285 the report states:

Conclusion 83. The Committee did not find any evidence that Administration officials attempted to coerce, influence or pressure analysts to change their judgments related to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

[Redacted]

Conclusion 84. The Committee found no evidence that the Vice President's visits to the Central Intelligence Agency were attempts to pressure analysts, were perceived as intended to pressure analysts by those who participated in the briefings on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs, or did pressure analysts to change their assessments.

The Robb-Silberman Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction likewise found "no evidence of political pressure." At pages 50-51 the Robb-Silberman report states:

The Commission found no evidence of political pressure to influence the Intelligence Community's pre-war assessments of Iraq's weapons programs. As we discuss in detail in the body of our report, analysts universally asserted that in no instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of their analytical judgments. We conclude that it was the paucity of intelligence and poor analytical tradecraft, rather than political pressure, that produced the inaccurate pre-war intelligence assessments.

The British Butler Report, Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction similarly "found no evidence of deliberate distortion." At page 110 the British Butler report states:

Treatment of intelligence material

449. In general, we found that the original intelligence material was correctly reported in [Joint Intelligence Committee] assessments. An exception was the '45 minute' report. But this sort of example was rare in the several hundred JIC assessments we read on Iraq. In general, we also found that the reliability of the original intelligence reports was fairly represented by the use of accompanying qualifications. We should record in particular that we have found no evidence of deliberate distortion or of culpable negligence.

The effect of departmental policy agendas

450. We examined JIC assessments to see whether there was evidence that the judgments inside them were systematically distorted by non-intelligence factors, in particular the influence of the policy positions of departments. We found no evidence of JIC assessments and the judgments inside them being pulled in any particular direction to meet the policy concerns of senior officials on the JIC.

REWRITTEN HISTORY

In the Committee's rewritten history, according to the New York Times the new report "concluded" that President Bush "and his aides built the public case for war against Iraq by exaggerating available intelligence and by ignoring disagreements among spy agencies about Iraq's weapons programs and Saddam Hussein's links to Al Qaeda:"

In a statement accompanying the report, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, the West Virginia Democrat who is chairman of the Intelligence Committee, said: “The president and his advisers undertook a relentless public campaign in the aftermath of the attacks to use the war against Al Qaeda as a justification for overthrowing Saddam Hussein.”

That's funny in the peculiar sort of way.

MORE HISTORY (Before It Was Rewritten)

Here is what Rockefeller and other Democrats said before the history was rewritten:

SEN. JAY ROCKFELLER (D-WV): "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons. And will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years. We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress that Saddam Hussein has been able to make in the development of weapons of mass destruction." (Sen. John Rockefeller, Congressional Record, S.10306, 10/10/02)

SEN. EVAN BAYH (D-IN): "Bill, I support the president's efforts to disarm Saddam Hussein. I think he was right on in his speech tonight. The lessons we learned following September 11 were that we can't wait to be attacked again, particularly when it involves weapons of mass destruction. So regrettably, Saddam has not done the right thing, which is to disarm, and we're left with no alternative but to take action." (Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor," 3/17/03)

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE): "We know he continues to attempt to gain access to additional capability, including nuclear capability." (NBC's "Meet The Press," 8/4/02)

SEN. CARL LEVIN (D-MI): "[Saddam] has ignored the mandates of the United Nations, is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." (Committee On Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Hearing, 09/19/02)

SEN. RUSS FEINGOLD (D-WI): "With regard to Iraq, I agree, Iraq presents a genuine threat, especially in the form of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological, and potentially nuclear weapons. I agree that Saddam Hussein is exceptionally dangerous and brutal, if not uniquely so, as the president argues." (Sen. Russell Feingold [D-WI], Congressional Record, S.10147, 10/9/02)

SEN. BARBARA BOXER (D-CA): "The weapons they [Iraq] have are a threat to the world. And mister president, the world must respond." (Sen. Barbara Boxer, Congressional Record, 10/10/02, p. S10252)

SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): "Saddam Hussein, in effect, has thumbed his nose at the world community. And I think that the President's approaching this in the right fashion." (CNN's "Inside Politics," 09/18/02)

SEN. HILLARY CLNTON (D-NY): "It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security." (Sen. Clinton, Congressional Record, S.10288, 10/10/02)

SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): "According to the CIA's report, all U.S. intelligence experts agree that Iraq is seeking nuclear weapons. There is little question that Saddam Hussein wants to develop nuclear weapons." (Sen. Kerry, Congressional Record, S.10172-3, 10/09/02)

SEN. CHRIS DODD (D-CT): "There is no question that Iraq possesses biological and chemical weapons and that he seeks to acquire additional weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons. That is not in debate." (Sen. Dodd, Congressional Record, S.10177, 10/09/02)

SEN. CHUCK SCHUMER (D-NY): "Saddam Hussein is an evil man, a dictator who oppresses his people and flouts the mandate of the international community. While this behavior is reprehensible, it is Hussein's vigorous pursuit of biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, and his present and potential future support for terrorist acts and organizations, that make him a terrible danger to the people to the United States." (Sen. Schumer, Congressional Record, S.10302, 10/10/02)

REP. NANCY PELOSI (D-CA): "As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I am keenly aware that the proliferation of chemical and biological weapons is an issue of grave importance to all nations. Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." (Rep. Pelosi, Press Release, 12/16/98)

The consensus that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction formed in the Clinton administration. The consensus was more than evident in 1998, when President Clinton was threatening to attack Iraq.

President Clinton:

If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons-of-mass-destruction program.

Secretary of State Madeline Albright:

"We must stop Saddam from ever again jeopardizing the stability and security of his neighbors with weapons of mass destruction," Albright said Sunday, addressing a news conference in Jerusalem.

"The chemical weapons Saddam has used and the biological weapons we know he has tested pay no attention to borders and nationalities."

POLITICIZING INTELLIGENCE

The Democrats have tried to politicize intelligence before. In January 2003, during the Senate's battle over how much money will go to each party to pay for committee staff, Senate Democrats successfully insisted on changing the staffing structure of the Select Committee on Intelligence. The Democrats’ change divided the committee's staff into two groups, reporting separately to the panel's Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman.

In a prescient moment, Senator Pat Roberts (R. Kansas), then the incoming chair of the Committee, warned:

"We should preserve our Intelligence Committee staff as a single unified staff that works for the committee as a whole under the supervision of the chairman and the vice chairman. The minority apparently wishes to divide the committee staff for the first time in history into majority — minority or partisan camps."

Jim Geraghty wrote:

Roberts said the panel has been a unique institution in the Senate and was envisioned from its start in 1976 to operate under different rules than other committees. He contends the committee has worked well and effectively with a professional nonpartisan staff as originally intended and should continue to do so.

The committee has made no comparable change in its history. When the committee was formed in 1976, members were allowed to nominate one staff member each to be placed on the panel's payroll and handle that member's committee issues. But over time, it became clear that the staffers felt a greater sense of loyalty to their sponsoring member rather than to the committee as an institution, and according to committee reports, some staffers worked on non-intelligence issues for their member. That system was scrapped at the beginning of the first session of the 104th Congress, and replaced with a system where staffers were assigned to work with specific senators on intelligence-related work.

By the end of 2003, it was revealed that the Democrats had gone even further in their efforts to politicizing intelligence. A leaked memo caught the Democrats plotting to use classified information against President Bush in the 2004 presidential campaign. The contents of the memo, drafted by the Senate Intelligence Committee's Democratic staff and reported by Fox News, can be found here.

You probably remember Democratic Senator Zell Miller's "Heads should roll" reaction:

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Zell Miller (D-GA) today released the following statement concerning a memo written by Democratic staff on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence that suggests ways to politicize intelligence data:

I have often said that the process in Washington is so politicized and polarized that it can’t even be put aside when we’re at war. Never has that been proved more true than the highly partisan and perhaps treasonous memo prepared for the Democrats on the Intelligence Committee.

Of all the committees, this is the one single committee that should unquestionably be above partisan politics. The information it deals with should never, never be distorted, compromised or politicized in any shape, form or fashion. For it involves the lives of our soldiers and our citizens. Its actions should always be above reproach; its words never politicized.

If what has happened here is not treason, it is its first cousin. The ones responsible - be they staff or elected or both should be dealt with quickly and severely sending a lesson to all that this kind of action will not be tolerated, ignored or excused.

Heads should roll!”

Former Democratic Senator Bob Kerrey, who served as vice-chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, was critical of this attempt to politicize intelligence. In an article entitled “A Political Threat to U.S. Security,” Kerrey wrote:

The production of a memo by an employee of a Democratic member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is an example of the destructive side of partisan politics. That it probably emerged as a consequence of an increasingly partisan environment in Washington and may have been provoked by equally destructive Republican acts is neither a comfort nor a defensible rationalization.

It is small comfort because the House and Senate intelligence oversight committees were established 30 years ago expressly and explicitly to be a unique refuge from the destructive forces of partisan politics. Keeping these committees non-partisan is vital for the nation's security because much of what is done to collect, process and disseminate intelligence needed by civilian and military leaders is done under conditions of rigorously regulated secrecy.

The Democrats have politicized intelligence before. They didn't get away with it in 2003 and they shouldn't get away with it now just because they attempt to do so under the guise of a poorly rewritten history.

Wright Won't Go Away

Just last week, Obama finally decided to do what most people of sound judgment would have done much, much sooner -- Obama finally resigned as a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ.

Now, Time Magazine's Steven Gray reports Reverend Wright, Barack Obama's former pastor and spiritual advisor of 20 years, refuses to relinquish his duties as senior pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ:

When Sen. Barack Obama severed ties with his Chicago church, most political observers saw the move as a way for the candidate to insulate himself from the controversies stirred by its retiring pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr.

Greta Van Susteren discusses the issue with Steven Gray in the following video:





Obama only expressed concern about his now former church after videos Wright's hateful sermons were made available on the internet:

In response, Obama delivered his widely praised March 18 speech on race, in which the candidate repeatedly referred to Wright as his "former pastor."

But Obama refused to dissociate himself from Wright or the church.

Only after Wright's taunting speech and question-and-answer session at the National Press Club, did Obama see fit to denounce Wright.

Like Obama's audacious arrogance in refusing to get the facts about the success of the surge in Iraq, and his 20-year association with the crook Rezko, Obama's decision to continue his relationship with his radical church and Reverend Wright, long after most people would have dissociated themselves from such blatant hateful preachings, raises serious questions about Obama's judgment.

Rezko And Obama's Judgement

Antoin Rezko, who raised money for Obama's U.S. and Illinois senate campaigns and, with whom Obama had some peculiar financial relationships, was convicted of federal corruption charges Wednesday for his part in an illegal kickback scheme.


Obama reacted to the news much as he did when we first learned about the hateful sermons of Obama's longtime spiritual adviser, Jeremiah Wright:

"This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew, but now he has been convicted by a jury on multiple charges that once again shine a spotlight on the need for reform," Obama said in a statement.

Obama sure doesn't seem to know the people he associates with.

The following video explains Obama's poor judgment in his 20-year association with this crook:





Obama did admit the appearance of impropriety in connection with a series of financial arrangements he made with Rezko to improve their adjoining properties. Nevertheless, Obama hasn't been as forthcoming about his relationship with Rezko as he should have been. A year ago, the Chicago Sun-Times reported Obama has collected at least $168,308 from Rezko and his circle. That was much more than Obama ackowledged until recently.

In March, Obama admitted the amount was $250,000:

Obama acknowledged that Rezko had raised $250,000 for him — about $100,000 more than had previously been disclosed and about five times more than Obama conveyed during a November 2006 question-and-answer exchange with the Sun-Times.

Like Obama's refusal to visit Iraq to see the results of the surge, his 20-year relationship with a crook like Rezko and Obama's 20-year relationship with his minister of hate, raise serious questions about Obama's poor judgment.

Obama's Stolen Nomination

Jack Shafer writes that "Hillary Didn't Lose. Barack Won." Shafer got it half right. Hillary didn't lose. The nomination was stolen from her fair and square.

As I posted in "The Way Democrats Count Every Vote," the Democrats' so-called Rules Committee engaged in a little of that creative count every vote thing the Democrats do so well:

According to CNN, Hillary managed to "win" the Michigan Primary:

Clinton - 55%
Uncommitted - 40%
Kucinich - 4%
Dodd - 1%
Gravel - 0%

Based upon the votes, Hillary earned 73 delegates and Obama none. Fifty five delegates should be uncommitted.

Instead of agreeing to seat a Michigan delegation based on the actual votes, the Democrats cut a deal to "let every vote count" that "allows" Hillary to have 69 delegates and gives Obama 59 delegates. That's right, even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and therefore no one voted for him, the Democrats are giving him 59 delegates.

As of 11:00 P.M. tonight, CNN reports Obama has 2,158 delegates. That is only 40 more than the 2,118 required to clinch the nomination. If the Rules Committee had not given Obama four of the delegates the voters said should go to Hillary and 55 delegates the voters said should be uncommitted, Obama would not yet be the Democrats' presumptive nominee.

I don't usually agree with Hillary about anything, but Hillary didn't lose and Obama didn't win. Nope, the Rules Committee simply stole delegates from Hillary and uncommitted and gave those stolen delegates, and the stolen nomination to Obama.

No wonder Hillary supporters are angry and are attempting to do something about it.

Audacious Arrogance

Arrogance - an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Mr. Hegseth, chairman of Vets for Freedom, returned to Iraq earlier this year, as an embedded reporter, and walked the same streets in Baghdad where he served as an infantry platoon leader in the 101st Airborne Division. He says the recent visit reinforced his understanding of how important it is to take the time to visit Iraq and talk with the troops on the front lines. Hegseth takes Obama to task for failing to go to Iraq to get the facts:

Obama was among those in January 2007 who stridently opposed the surge and confidently predicted its failure – even going so far as to vote against funding our soldiers in the field unless the Bush administration abandoned this new approach. It is now clear that Mr. Obama's judgment on the surge was spectacularly wrong.

Yet rather than admit his mistake, Mr. Obama has instead tried to downplay or disparage the gains our troops have achieved in the past 12 months, clinging to a set of talking points that increasingly seem as divorced from reality as some in the Bush administration were at the darkest moments of the war.

Obama's hasn't been to Iraq in 879 days - two and a half years. Much has changed in Iraq since Obama's visit in January 2006.

Senator McCain has been to Iraq eight times since 2003 – including three times since surge forces began to arrive in Baghdad. He has made it his mission to truly understand what is happening on the ground, in all its messy reality:

Indeed, Mr. McCain's own frequent and vociferous criticisms of former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his warnings, as early as 2003, that the Bush administration was pursuing a flawed strategy in Iraq, were directly informed by his firsthand interactions during his trips to Iraq. Troops and commanders warned him that we lacked sufficient forces to defeat al Qaeda and Iranian-backed militias, and they were correct.

In turn, Mr. McCain's early advocacy for the surge and his prescient conviction that it would succeed were rooted not only in his extensive knowledge of military affairs, but in his close consultations with troops serving in the theater. They recognized that the new strategy was succeeding far before the mainstream media in the U.S. was willing to acknowledge these gains.

Earlier this week, Peter Wehner noted "Obama Must Face Iraq’s Truth." Wehner cited four Iraq-related pieces:

Reuters:

U.S. troop deaths in Iraq fell to their lowest level last month since the 2003 invasion and officials said on Sunday improved security also helped the country boost oil production in May to a post-war high.

U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Iraq’s oil minister credited better security for the two milestones, which illustrated a dramatic turnabout in the fortunes of a country on the brink of all-out sectarian civil war just 12 months ago.

“We’ve still got a distance to go but I think lower casualty rates are a reflection of some real progress,” Gates told reporters in Singapore. “The key will be to continue to sustain the progress we have seen.”

The New York Times:

The recent successes in quieting violence in Basra and Sadr City appear to be stretching to the long-rebellious Sunni Arab district here in Mosul, raising hopes that the Iraqi Army may soon have tenuous control over all three of Iraq’s major cities.

In this city, never subdued by the increase of American troops in Iraq last year, weekly figures on attacks are down by half since May 10, when the Iraqi military began intensified operations here with the backing of the American military. Iraqi soldiers searching house to house, within American tank cordons, have arrested more than 1,000 people suspected of insurgent activity.

The Iraqi soldiers “are heady from the Basra experience,” Brig. Gen. Raymond A. Thomas III, the commander of American forces in Mosul, said in an interview. “They have learned the right lessons.”

[. . .]

American and Iraqi officials have called Mosul the last urban bastion of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia and other Sunni jihadist groups.

The Washington Post:

A little over two weeks ago, U.S. troops in Sadr City were on the front lines of fierce, unrelenting urban warfare. But virtually overnight, their main mission has become one of rebuilding portions of the vast, tattered Shiite district and building trust in neighborhoods where many residents despise Americans.

Reaching that point took a fragile cease-fire agreement that called for a limited U.S. role in military operations in Sadr City, a stronghold of militias loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr; thousands of Iraqi soldiers; and wads of cash.

“If we get Sadr City right and create irreversible momentum, there’s no turning back,” Brig. Gen. Mike Milano, deputy commander of U.S. forces responsible for Baghdad, said Saturday during a visit to Sadr City.

Washington Post Editorial:

Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the U.S. counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained "special groups" that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of Moqtada al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the U.S. and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments -- and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the "this-war-is-lost" caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

Gen. David H. Petraeus signaled one adjustment in recent testimony to Congress, saying that he would probably recommend troop reductions in the fall going beyond the ongoing pullback of the five "surge" brigades deployed last year. Gen. Petraeus pointed out that attacks in Iraq hit a four-year low in mid-May and that Iraqi forces were finally taking the lead in combat and on multiple fronts at once -- something that was inconceivable a year ago. As a result the Iraqi government of Nouri al-Maliki now has "unparalleled" public support, as Gen. Petraeus put it, and U.S. casualties are dropping sharply. Eighteen American soldiers died in May, the lowest total of the war and an 86 percent drop from the 126 who died in May 2007.

If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq's 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

Irregardless, of all the evidence to the contrary, Obama continues to insist that the surge has failed:

Obama continues to insist that "Iraq's political leaders have made no progress in resolving the political differences at the heart of their civil war" – despite the passage of numerous pieces of benchmark legislation by the Iraqi Parliament and unequivocal evidence of grassroots reconciliation across the country.

Mr. Obama also continues to claim that America has "simply thrown U.S. troops at the problem, and it has not worked" – despite the dramatic reduction in violence in precisely those areas of Iraq where American forces have surged, and since handed over to Iraqi Security Forces.

And of course, Mr. Obama persists in his pledge to withdraw all combat forces from Iraq, on a fixed timeline, beginning the moment he enters office – regardless of the recommendations of our commanders on the ground, regardless of conditions on the ground, and regardless, in short, of reality.

So we ask, what is Obama afraid of? Why is he afraid to look at facts inconsistent with his world view? Why does he promise to meet with tyrannical dictators, but refuse to meet with our commander in Iraq? Ignoring the successes of the of the surge and remaining ignorant of the facts is further evidence of Obama's poor judgment, stubbornness and audacious arrogance.

Democrats vs. Obama

hese Democrats say Obama is not ready to be president:

HILLARY CLINTON: In this election, we need a nominee who can pass the Commander-In-Chief test. Someone ready on day one, to defend our country and keep our families safe. And we need a President who passes that test.

JOHN EDWARDS: Rhetoric is not enough. High falutin language is not enough.

HILLARY CLINTON: ...No time for speeches and on the job training. Senator McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign, I will bring a lifetime of experience, and Senator Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You were asked "Is he ready?" You said "I think he can be ready, but right now I don't believe he is. The Presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training."
JOE BIDEN: I think that I stand by the statement.

BILL CLINTON: When's the last time we elected a President, based on one year of service in the Senate before he started running? He will have been a Senator longer by the time he is inaugurated, but essentially once you start running for President full time, you don't have time to do much else.

HILLARY CLINTON: I think it's imperative that each of us be able to demonstrate we can cross the Commander-In-Chief threshold. And, I believe that I have done that, certainly Senator McCain has done that, and you will have to ask Senator Obama with respect to his candidacy.

Watch the video:

McCain Invites Obama To Debates

On a conference call with bloggers this afternoon, Senator McCain congratulated, Senator Obama and announced that he invited Obama to a series of weekly town hall meetings:

Dear Senator Obama:

In 1963, Senator Barry Goldwater and President John F. Kennedy agreed to make presidential campaign history by flying together from town to town and debating each other face-to-face on the same stage. In Goldwater's words, those debates "would have done the country a lot of good." Unfortunately, with President Kennedy's untimely death, Americans lost the rare opportunity of witnessing candidates for the highest office in the land discuss civilly and extensively the great issues at stake in the election. What a welcome change it would be were presidential candidates in our time to treat each other and the people they seek to lead with respect and courtesy as they discussed the great issues of the day, without the empty sound bites and media-filtered exchanges that dominate our elections. It is in the spirit of President Kennedy's and Senator Goldwater's agreement, in the spirit of the politics of change, and to do our country good, that I invite you to join me in participating in town hall meetings across the country to discuss the most important issues facing Americans. I also suggest we fly together to the first town hall meeting as a symbolically important act embracing the politics of civility.

I propose these town hall meetings be as free from the regimented trappings, rules and spectacle of formal debates as possible, and that we pledge to the American people we will not allow the idea to die on the negotiation table as our campaigns work out the details. I suggest we agree to participate in at least ten town halls once a week with the first on June 11 or 12 in New York City at Federal Hall until the week before the Democratic Convention begins at locations to be determined by our campaigns. Federal Hall is particularly fitting as it was the place where George Washington took the oath of office as our first President and the birthplace of American government hosting the first Congress, Supreme Court and Executive Branch offices. These town halls should be attended by an audience of between two to four hundred selected by an independent polling agency, could be sixty to ninety minutes in length, have very limited moderation by an independent local moderator, take blind questions from the audience selected by the moderator and allow for equally proportional time for answers by each of us. All of these are suggestions that can be finalized by our campaigns. What is important is that we commit to participate in these history making meetings to join in the higher level of discourse that Americans clearly would prefer.

To show our good faith, we should both commit to the first town hall I have suggested. In the mean time, we can work out dates for future town hall meetings.

I look forward to your favorable reply and to the opportunity to work with you to give Americans a better opportunity to understand our differences, our agreements and the leadership we offer them.

Sincerely,

John McCain

During the conference call McCain said the town hall format is the best because it provides voters more participation and a greater voice in our democracy:

Unfortunately, the town hall debates aren't likely to happen. Obama wants changes to the format before accepting the invitation:

“As Barack Obama has said before, the idea of joint town halls is appealing and one that would allow a great conversation to take place about the need to change the direction of this country,” said Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. “We would recommend a format that is less structured and lengthier than the McCain campaign suggests, one that more closely resembles the historic debates between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas.”

That's consistent with my impression that Obama is usually heavily scripted and prefers to deliver long speeches from a teleprompter. Without that remote control from his handlers, Obama is prone to gaffes such as his infamous clingy remarks at that San Francisco fundraiser.

In the Lincoln-Douglas debate format preferred by Obamna, each candidate spoke for an hour, then the other candidate spoke for an hour and a half, and then the first candidate was allowed a half hour "rejoinder."

Hillary's Non-Concession

Despite many erroneous rumors, and incorrect news articles yesterday, Hillary did not concede last night:





Charlie Cook puts the demands that Hillary withdraw from the campaign in perspective:

Those pleas were wrong and unfair. When was the last time a presidential candidate who was still consistently winning primaries and getting healthy numbers of votes asked to step aside, particularly with more states to go?

In the same respect, if nobody would expect a football or basketball team that was trailing with a few minutes left in the game to leave the court before the buzzer, why should a candidate still winning drop out of the contest?

Besides, this intense primary process has been a tremendously effective voter registration and organizational effort for Democrats. Finally, the Democratic Party and its various constituencies owed the candidates a little latitude for their service over the years.

But after tonight, all that changes. After the final primaries in Montana and South Dakota, and with the issues involving Florida and Michigan resolved by the Democratic National Committee, the Clinton "stand and fight" arguments take on a shrillness and a futility that would put the Clintons' standing in the party in very grave danger.

I put it a little differently. Now Hillary sounds like one of those bitter people Obama spoke about in San Francisco. She is bitterly clinging to her supporters and the campaign.

Cook offers the Clintons some advice:

At this point, the Clintons should begin thinking about their future and standing in the party. What they do over the next five months will determine what their standing will be. Will they be seen as party unifiers and team players, or party wreckers and sore losers?

[. . . ]

If I were Hillary Clinton, I would bow out over the next few days, take a well-earned vacation and catch up on sleep.

After that, she needs to spend the rest of the summer and fall campaigning for Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and paying off her multimillion-dollar campaign debt.

No one would be able to say that Hillary and Bill Clinton didn't do all they could to help Obama win the general election. And in all honesty, she could also be praying every night that he loses, so she could give folks the "I told you so" look and have another shot in 2012.

Obama Wins Nomination

CNN projects Senator Obama has won the Democrats' nomination for president.


Congratulations to Senator Obama!

It is no small accomplishment to be the first African-American in U.S. history to lead a major-party ticket.

As expected, Obama picked up a slew of superdelegate endorsements on Tuesday. According to CNN, those endorsements, combined with the delegates he's projected to receive from South Dakota's primary, will put him past the 2,118 required to win the nomination.

Obama will claim victory during a speech in St. Paul, Minnesota, according to prepared remarks released by his campaign:

"Tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another -- a journey that will bring a new and better day to America," he's expected to say.

"Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States."

Hillary Wins South Dakota

Hillary is projected to be the winner in the Democrats' South Dakota primary.

Obama, the Democrats' apparent nominee, has lost a majority of the primary contests held since early March.

The Dems' Loathsome Campaign

Richard Cohen has an editorial in the Washington Post in which he writes about how he loathes the bitter fight between Hillary and Obama:

I loathe above all the resurgence of racism -- or maybe it is merely my appreciation of the fact that it is wider and deeper than I thought. I am stunned by the numbers of people who have come out to vote against Barack Obama because he is black. I am even more stunned that many of these people have no compunction about telling a pollster they voted on account of race -- one in five whites in Kentucky, for instance. Those voters didn't even know enough to lie, which is what, if you look at the numbers, others probably did in other states. Such honesty ought to be commendable. It is, instead, frightening.

I acknowledge that some people can find nonracial reasons to vote against Obama -- his youth, his inexperience, his uber-liberalism and, of course, his willingness to abide his minister's admiration for a racist demagogue (Louis Farrakhan) until it was way, way too late. But for too many people, Obama is first and foremost a black man and is rejected for that reason alone. This is very sad.

I loathe what has happened to Hillary Clinton. This person of no mean achievement has been witchified, turned into a shrew, so that almost any remark of hers is instantly interpreted as sinister and ugly. All she had to do, for instance, was note that it took Lyndon Johnson to implement Martin Luther King's dream, and somehow it became a racist statement. The Obama camp has been no help in this regard, expressing insincere regret instead of a sincere "that's not what she meant."

I loathe also what Hillary Clinton has done to herself. The incessant exaggerations, the cheap shots, the flights into hallucinatory history -- that sniper fire in Bosnia, for instance -- have turned her into a caricature of what her caricaturists long claimed she already was. In this campaign, Clinton has managed to come across as a hungry hack, a Janus looking both forward and backward and seeming to stand for nothing except winning. This, too, is sad.

I loathe what has happened to Bill Clinton.

Cohen discusses his editorial in the following video:




I agree. The playing of the race card and "exaggerations" gave us plenty to loathe.

Perhaps after his loathsome fight with Hillary, Obama will join McCain in a more civil debate about the important issues facing the nation.

Hillary Leads In Montana, Obama Leads In South Dakota

It will be funny if, on the day Obama claims the nomination, he loses another primary to Hillary.

A new American Research Group poll finds Hillary leading Obama 60% to 34% in South Dakota

Another new American Research Group poll finds Obama ahead in Montana 48% to 44%.

Obama's Chicago Politics

I got a chuckle out of this video:

Obama Set To Claim Victory

Obama will claim the Democrats' nomination and bring the long and divisive primary fight to an end today, after the last two primary contests are held in Montana and South Dakota.


James Clyburn, House majority whip and the top-ranking African-American in Congress will endorse Obama today.

Superdelegates will rally around Obama. As many as 34 of the undeclared superdelegates in the House will endorse Obama by Wednesday. Eighteen of those 34 members Congress will do so before the vote counting ends in South Dakota and Montana.

Most of the remaining 17 uncommitted Democratic senators will endorse Obama.

The 11 governors supporting Hillary are "set to sell switch to Obama."

Even Bill Clinton admits it:

This may be the last day I’m ever involved in a campaign of this kind. I thought I was out of politics, til Hillary decided to run. But it has been one of the greatest honors of my life to go around and campaign for her for President.

Watch Andrea Mitchell's report from last Monday's Nightly News broadcast:





There is more interesting analysis in the following video segment from Hardball:

McCain Urges Nations To Cut Funds To Iran

Today, outlining his vision For Israel's security and the Middle East, Senator John McCain called on states to cut funds to the rogue state of Iran.

McCain's remarks were made at the AIPAC Policy Conference, and came as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad again predicted Israel will soon disappear.

In his speech, McCain described a vision for the Middle East that includes the following points:

In A World Full Of Dangers, Israel And The United States Must Always Stand Together.

As the threats to Israel's security increase, John McCain believes America's commitment must also grow. He strongly supports the increase in military aid to Israel scheduled to begin in October, and is committed to making certain Israel maintains its qualitative military edge.

Addressing The Iranian Threat:

The Foremost Threat To Israel Is The Iranian Regime. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has called Israel a "stinking corpse" and for it to be "wiped off the map." Beyond the vile insults, the Iranian leadership acts in ways directly detrimental to the security of Israel and America.

Iran's Leadership Has Repeatedly Used Violence To Undermine Israel And The Middle East Peace Process. Iran sponsors both Hamas and Hezbollah. It has trained, financed, and equipped extremists in Iraq, and remains the world's chief sponsor of terrorism.

Iran's Continued Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Poses An Unacceptable Danger That We Cannot Allow. Emboldened by nuclear weapons, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that agreement obsolete and could induce others to join a nuclear arms race. There would be the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to terrorist networks. An Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel.

Rather Than Sitting Down Unconditionally With The Iranian President Or Supreme Leader, John McCain Will Work To Create Real-World Pressures To Peacefully But Decisively Change Iran's Behavior. John McCain has been a leader on these issues, having coauthored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act.

The United Nations Security Council Should Impose Progressively Tougher Political And Economic Sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to delay, the U.S. must lead like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework.

John McCain Has Proposed Applying Sanctions To Restrict Iran's Ability To Import Refined Petroleum Products. A severe limit on imports of gasoline would create immediate pressure on Iran's leadership to change course, and to cease in the pursuit of nuclear weapons.

We Will Encourage Those In The Region And Our European Partners To Impose Targeted Sanctions. These would include the denial of visas and freezing of assets.

We Will Impose Financial Sanctions On The Central Bank Of Iran, Which Aids In Iran's Terrorism And Weapons Proliferation.

We Will Apply The Full Force Of Law To Prevent Business Dealings With Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps. John McCain was pleased to join Sens. Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization. Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Sen. Obama.

We Will Launch A Worldwide Divestment Campaign. As more people, businesses, pension funds, and financial institutions across the world divest from companies doing business with Iran, the radical elite who run that country will become even more unpopular than they are already.

Supporting The Peace Process:

The Palestinian People Are Badly Served With Hamas In Charge Of Gaza. This is a group that refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist, to denounce violence, and to acknowledge prior peace commitments. They deliberately target Israeli civilians, spread hatred, and set back their people's cause with every new bombing.

We Hope That The Talks Between Israel And Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Will Yield Progress Toward Peace. While encouraging this process, we must also ensure that Israelis can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace. A peace process that places faith in terrorists can never end in peace.

Strengthening Our Allies In Lebanon:

The International Community Must Support Our Allies In Lebanon. Israel's chance for enduring peace with Lebanon depends on a Lebanese government that has a monopoly on authority within its country's borders. We can fully empower our allies – not only with military aid but also with the resources to undermine Hezbollah's appeal: better schools, hospitals, roads and power generation.

John McCain Will Bring More Attention To The Kidnapping Of Three Young Israelis In 2006. In the summer of 2006, Hamas and Hezbollah kidnapped three young Israelis and have held them ever since. John McCain has met with the families and will bring attention to their situation, insist that the Geneva Conventions are observed, and call for the swift release of these men.

Succeeding In Iraq:

Succeeding In Iraq Is Critical To Israeli And American Security. Our troops in Iraq have made hard-won progress under General Petraeus' new strategy. Iraqi political leaders have moved ahead. Sectarian violence has declined. Sunnis are cooperating in the fight against al Qaeda. Shia extremist militias no longer control Basra. Al Qaeda terrorists are on the run.

Senator Obama's Plan To Withdraw Regardless Of The Consequences Will Surely Result In Catastrophe. If our troops are ordered to retreat, we risk all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East. Allowing a potential terrorist sanctuary would profoundly affect the security of the United States, Israel, and our other friends.

McCain's entire speech, as prepared for delivery can be found this extended post at California Yankee.

The Democrats Don't Learn From History

Are the Democrats about to repeat 1972?



For those too young to remember, in 1972, George McGovern was defeated by Nixon, 60%-38% in the popular vote and 520 to 17 in the Electoral College. McGovern won only Massachusetts and Washington, D.C.

Young Hillary

I got a good chuckle out of this "never before seen footage of a Young Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama."

Hillary Wins Puerto Rico

Hillary, as expected, is projected to be the winner in Puerto Rico's Democratic primary by a wide margin.

After the defeat the Rules Committee handed Hillary, winning Puerto Rico hardly matters.

Hillary Supporters Aren't Happy

Hillary Supporter: “When you tell me that much bad news about someone, I start to panic. Suddenly it's no longer about being a Democrat. It's about being an American. It's about preserving the United States of America.”

Hillary's campaign issued the following statement about the way the Democrats decided to "count every vote" in Michigan:

Today’s results are a victory for the people of Florida who will have a voice in selecting our Party’s nominee and will see its delegates seated at our party’s convention. The decision by the Rules and Bylaws Committee honors the votes that were cast by the people of Florida and allocates the delegates accordingly.

We strongly object to the Committee’s decision to undercut its own rules in seating Michigan’s delegates without reflecting the votes of the people of Michigan.

The Committee awarded to Senator Obama not only the delegates won by Uncommitted, but four of the delegates won by Senator Clinton. This decision violates the bedrock principles of our democracy and our Party.

We reserve the right to challenge this decision before the Credentials Committee and appeal for a fair allocation of Michigan’s delegates that actually reflect the votes as they were cast.

No, Hillary supporters are not happy:

Hillary Supporter: “I’ll probably vote for McCain first. Actually, I’d vote for George Bush over Obama. He’s [Obama] pretty scary and I think he’d ruin our country. So if Hillary doesn’t get in I’m going to have to really consider who I’m going to vote for.”

The New York Times reported that after the agreement was reached by the rules committee, Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's chief advisers, declared that Hillary’s fight may not be over:

“Mrs. Clinton has instructed me to reserve her rights to take this to the credentials committee,” Mr. Ickes said before the final vote, raising the specter of a fight until that committee meets. His words drew cheers from Clinton supporters, including many who yelled, “Denver! Denver! Denver!” — implying that the fight could go all the way to the convention in that city.

Mr. Ickes said the outcome for Michigan was a hijacking of voters’ intent because it assigned delegates to Mr. Obama even though he did not win them as his name was not on the ballot.

No, Hillary Supporters are not happy:

The Way Democrats Count Every Vote

UPDATED WITH VIDEO.

Based on what the Press is reporting, about the Democrats' great compromise to allow the seating of the previously disenfranchised Florida and Michigan delegations, you may believe you understand that the Democrats reached a reasonable and fair compromise giving each Florida and Michigan delegate half a vote.

According to the press reports, the Democrats will allow each vote to count and still punish Florida and Michigan for violating the Party's rules about how soon primaries could be held.

That is what the Democrats did for Florida, but not Michigan.

No, for Michigan the Democrats decided to do a little of their creative counting of every vote.

According to CNN, Hillary managed to "win" the Michigan Primary:

Clinton - 55%
Uncommitted - 40%
Kucinich - 4%
Dodd - 1%
Gravel - 0%

Based upon the votes, Hillary earned 73 delegates and Obama none. Fifty five delegates should be uncommitted.

Instead of agreeing to seat a Michigan delegation based on the actual votes, the Democrats cut a deal to "let every vote count" that "allows" Hillary to have 69 delegates and gives Obama 59 delegates. That's right, even though Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot and therefore no one voted for him, the Democrats are giving him 59 delegates.

Watch Harold Ickes, one of Hillary's chief advisers, explain the undemocratic nature of the way the Democrats creatively counted Michigan votes:



The Rules and Bylaws Committee, 30 elite members of the Democrat Party substituted their judgment for 600,000 Michigan Voters and gave Obama four pledged delegates specifically won by Hillary and 55 delegates the voters said should be uncommitted.

Hillary supporters are not happy.

The Democrats' fuzzy math never ceases to amaze me. The way the Democrats decided to count every vote in Michigan reminds me of the way they tried to count Florida votes in 2000.