Obamas Earned $4.2 million in '07

Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, reported earning $4.2 million in 2007:

In tax returns the campaign released Wednesday, the Obamas reported a significant jump in their income from the previous year as profits from the books "Dreams From My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope" accounted for some $4 million. The Obamas paid federal taxes of $1.4 million and donated $240,370 to charity.

Their salaried income was $260,735, which included his $157,102 salary as a U.S. senator and hers of $103,633 as vice president of community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Medical Center.

For part of 2007, Michelle Obama collected a salary for serving on the board of Westchester, Ill.-based TreeHouse Foods Inc., which produces pickles, nondairy powdered creamer and other products. She resigned in May after two years on the board.

The position had generated some complaints because TreeHouse is a supplier to Wal-Mart, and Barack Obama has criticized some of Wal-Mart's policies and treatment of employees.

The Obamas reported $29,443 from Treehouse Foods.

$4.2 million is one heck of an increase from the $991,296 the Obamas made in 2006. Running for President must be more lucrative than I thought. But its not as good a deal as being a former president and first lady.

Who Won The Debate?

Trying a poll experiment at Right Side Politics. Vote for the winner of tonight's Democrat Debate.

McCain Better Able To Manage Economy

A new Reuters/Zogby poll finds voters see McCain as better for the economy than Hillary or Obama:

McCain was seen as a better steward of the economy than either Democrat despite their repeated criticism of his economic credentials. He led Obama by 3 points and Clinton by 5 points on the question of who would best manage the economy.

The new national poll was conducted April 10-12, before McCain's economic speech on Tuesday, and has a margin of error of 4.3 percent.

In his economic speech, McCain called for the following:

GAS PRICES: A Summer Gas Tax Holiday - suspension of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax and 24.4 cent diesel tax from Memorial Day to Labor Day.

STUDENT LOANS: A Student Loan Continuity Plan - calls on the federal government and the 50 governors to expand the lender-of-last resort capabilities for each state's guarantee agency.

MIDDLE CLASS TAX CUTS: Doubling the Personal Exemption for Dependents - raise the personal exemption for each dependent from $3,500 to $7,000.

A SIMPLER TAX CODE: An Alternative New and Simpler Tax System - give America a choice, all who wish can stay under the current system, but everyone else could choose a less complicated system with two tax rates and a generous standard deduction.

ALTERNATIVE MINIMUM TAX ELIMINATION: Phase out the Alternative Minimum Tax(AMT) - saving an average of $2,700 for a middle class family with children.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING: A One-Year Spending Pause - discretionary spending pause that should be used for a top-to-bottom review of the effectiveness of federal programs.

MEDICARE GROWTH: A reduction in the large subsidies in the Medicare drug program - limit Medicare prescription drug benefits to those who need them.

James Pethokoukis summed it up well -- one part Ronald Reagan (cut taxes, cut spending), one part Mike Huckabee (help for workers; Main Street is as important as Wall Street), and one part Teddy Roosevelt (criticism of "reckless CEOs and speculators").

Sounds good to me.

Two More Polls Find Dems Have A Deserter Problem

Two More polls find a significant number of Democrats will abandon the party's nominee in November to vote for Senator McCain:

A new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll:

There are some ominous signs that the party will not easily unify after a long and contentious primary fight. Fully 30% of Clinton supporters in North Carolina said they would switch to McCain if Obama was the nominee (only 14% of Obama backers would defect if Clinton was the nominee).

A Washington Post /ABC News poll:

Just 61 percent of Obama supporters say they'd definitely or probably vote for Clinton if she wins the nomination; 38 percent say they definitely or probably would not. It's very similar among Clinton supporters: Sixty-one percent say they'd be inclined to vote for Obama, 35 percent definitely or probably not.

Among core Democrats -- excluding Democratic-leaning independents -- about a third on each side say they're disinclined to kiss and make up.

That would be a highly unusual -- perhaps unprecedented -- level of party defections. From 1992-2004 just 10 or 11 percent of Democrats have voted Republican. In 1988 Mike Dukakis yielded 17 percent of Democrats; in 1980 and 1984, Ronald Reagan attracted a quarter of Democrats.

There are now at least seven recent polls that show, regardless of which Democrat wins the nomination, a significant number of Democrats deserters will vote for John McCain:

The Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday:

26 percent of Clinton supporters would switch to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican, in November if Obama were the Democratic nominee. Nineteen percent of Obama backers would switch to McCain if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

Gallup :

But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain.

[. . .]

Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party's nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

AP-Ipsos:

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Rasmussen Reports:

Only 61% of Hillary supporters say they are likely to vote for Obama against John McCain. On the other hand, if Hillary is nominated, only 67% of Obama supporters are likely to vote for her.

American Research Group:

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

To be fair, as ABC reported, polling about the Democrats' deserter problem is "one that will be more meaningfully measured after the Democrats pick their candidate and lick their wounds." In addition, ABC points out there is also the possibility of GOP crossover:

Fourteen percent of Republicans say they'd vote for Obama if he's the nominee; fewer, 7 percent, say they'd cross over for Clinton.

The longer Hillary and Obama fight it out, the more damage they do to each other. Nevertheless, according to the Washington Post's Dan Balz and Jon Cohen, the Democrats remain willing to let the bruising battle between Hillary and Obama continue. They report the new Washington Post/ABC News poll finds "little public pressure to bring the long and increasingly heated contest to an end."

The Best Ideas From Both Parties

Senator McCain's campaign has launched his "first general election ads in Ohio and Pennsylvania."

Titled "Ignite," the fast moving 30 second spot appeals to swing voters promising the best from both parties:

Announcer: As President, John McCain will take the best ideas from both parties to spur innovation, invest in people and create jobs.

Taxes — simpler, fairer. Energy — cleaner, cheaper. Health care — portable and affordable. Workers retrained, mortgage debt restructured, education transformed. Initiatives that will unite us and ignite our economy.

Big ideas for serious problems. John McCain.

Another well-done effort from McCain's video folks. The quick images of tax forms, wind turbines, medical professionals and office workers illustrate the script. Homes and children roll across the screen to make McCain's point.

Since McCain won the Republican nomination, his campaign has cranked out one terrific video after another. My favorites are Tolerance And Respect and Courageous Service, but there has been a whole series of great McCain videos.

Obama Loses Momentum

A new Quinnipiac University poll finds Hillary still holds a 6% lead over Obama in Pennsylvania, 50% to 44%. That is the same result Quinnipiac found last week.

Obama has lost his momentum. There doesn't seem to be any other impact from Obama's San Francisco remarks demeaning small town America:

"[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The new Quinnipiac poll also highlights the Democrat's deserter problem:

26 percent of Clinton supporters would switch to Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican, in November if Obama were the Democratic nominee. Nineteen percent of Obama backers would switch to McCain if Clinton were the Democratic nominee.

This is the fifth poll I've seen in the last three weeks documenting the Democrats' deserters problem.

Gallup :

But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain.

[. . .]

Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party's nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

AP-Ipsos:

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Rasmussen Reports:

Only 61% of Hillary supporters say they are likely to vote for Obama against John McCain. On the other hand, if Hillary is nominated, only 67% of Obama supporters are likely to vote for her.

American Research Group:

10% of all likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 24% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

I take the ARG poll with a bigger grain of salt because it found Hillary had a 20% lead, 57% TO 37%. Only a week before, ARG found the Democrats tied at 45%. Still, deserters appear to be a serious problem for the Democrats in November.

Right Side Politics Examiner

A little shameless self promotion.

For the last year, I have been blogging about Presidential Politics at the Examiner.com. The good folks there have decided to redesign the site and we have agreed to morph "Examining Presidential Politics" into "Right Side Politics Examiner."

As one of the new national Examiners, my Right Side Politics Examiner blog will be featured on all Examiner.com editions, including the three markets where there are print products. Examiners are writing about specific topics and my area of expertise is Politics as viewed from the right.

The newly redesigned site just launched today. Please take a few minutes and check it out. I am very interested in hearing what you all think about Right Side Politics Examiner and what I can do to make it better. Let me know.

You can access Right Side Politics Examiner here: http://www.examiner.com/x-268-Right-Side-Politics-Examiner

Thanks!

Voters Disagree With Obama's Comments Demeaning Small Town America

Rasmussen reports finds that 56% of voters nationwide disagree with Obama’s statement that people in small towns “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Only 25% agree with Obama and 19% are not sure.

Rasmussen confirms what many of us have been saying -- this is a bigger problem for Obama in November:

Partisan and ideological differences suggest that the comments are more likely to be a factor in the General Election than in the Primaries. A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%--agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.

Democrats are fairly evenly divided—34% agree with Obama and 43% disagree. Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton’s supporters disagree.

Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with the statement and unaffiliated voters disagree by a two-to-one margin.

Voters under 30 are evenly divided on Obama’s statement while their elders strongly disagree. Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-Americans agree with Obama’s statement while 29% disagree. White voters disagree by a 3-to-1 margin.

Forty-five percent (45%) say that Obama’s comments reflect an elitist view of small town voters. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree. Republicans overwhelmingly say that the statements are elitist and most Democrats disagree. Among unaffiliated voters, 40% say they represent an elitist view while 34% disagree.

This poll also confirms that Obama is winning the PR battle by keeping the main stream media focused on the "bitter" and "frustrated" part of his San Francisco comments rather than the part that offends small town America "[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations:"

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters agreed with Obama’s statement that “People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.” Just 32% disagree. Most Democrats and most unaffiliated voters agree with Obama on this point. Clinton’s campaign initially challenged Obama’s use of the word “bitter” but quickly changed its focus to the more controversial aspects of Obama’s statement.

The main stream media's coverage favoring Obama's talking points is further evidence the main stream media is still suffering from its admitted case of Obamamania.

McCain As Squadron Commander

The Los Angeles Times, has an interesting article about Senator McCain's military service following his return from Vietnam, including his return to flying status and his command of a Navy attack squadron:

But McCain surprised his doctors by making a dramatic comeback. With a ferocious determination to fly again and a tough physical therapy regimen, he got his wings back and not long after was awarded command of the Navy's largest aviation squadron, VA-174, at Cecil Field in Florida. Blue-chip connections in the Nixon administration helped.

[. . .]

A review of Navy records and interviews with more than a dozen of his former colleagues paint a picture of a commander who was lionized by his troops as a war hero and respected by aviators as a fair and effective manager. He had rugged good looks and a common touch, and was fiercely loyal to those who worked for him, his former colleagues say.

Read the whole thing and you will understand why McCain points to his command of that squadron when he is asked about his qualifications to lead and manage.

Obama Makes It Personal

NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan and NBC's Mark Murray report that Obama launched a personal attack against Hillary:

Shame on her! She knows better!

Obama was speaking to steel workers, when he launched into a personal attack against Hillary for going after Obama's San Francisco comments demeaning small town America:

[T]hey cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

In his attack on Hillary, Obama questioned her commitment to the 2nd Amendment, saying that Hillary's support of the right to bear arms was politics and said Hillary was trying to appear like "Annie Oakley."

"Now, I have to admit that I expected some of this out of John McCain. John McCain said I was out of touch, he said I was being condescending and elitist, 'people aren't bitter.'"

[. . .]

"So I expected this out of John McCain. But I've gotta say, I'm a little disappointed when I start hearing the exact same talking points coming out of my Democratic colleague Hillary Clinton. She knows better. She knows better! Shame on her! Shame on her! She knows better!"

"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the 2nd Amendment, she's talkin like she's Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton! I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds. Haha. Ya know, c'mon. When Hillary Clinton says I'm out of touch I just have to remind people of the track record."

You can watch Obama's personal attack against Hillary in the following video supplied by the Obama campaign:



I strongly disagree with Obama. His San Francisco comments are demeaning to small town America. As I said before, we cling to guns and religion, but not out of bitterness. Small town America clings to guns and religion because of tradition.

Once again, Obama demonstrates that his new kind of politics is nothing but nothing more than the old politics as usual.

The more vicious and personal Hillary's and Obama's attacks become, the more Democrat deserters will vote for Senator McCain in November.

Obama Feels The Heat

Obama concedes remarks about bitter working class voters who "cling to guns or religion" were "ill chosen:"

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.

Obama is still out of touch -- it's not how he said it, it's what he said:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The main stream media, still suffering from its admitted case of Obamamania, downplays the story. The Washington Post, for example, buried the Obama out of touch story on page 4.

Here's a good video report on the story which was broadcast yesterday on NBC:



I posted my thoughts on Obama not getting small town America here.

‘Out of Touch’ Obama Doesn't Get Small Town America

By now you must have heard about Obama's Liberal/Progressive elitist put down of small town America.

At a San Francisco fundraiser last Sunday, Obama revealed jut how removed he is from those who inhabit flyover country:

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

I was born and raised in flyover country. In my case, it was a rural agricultural community in Northern California. The small town America I know may cling to guns and religion, but it sure as hell isn't out of bitterness. No, my small town America clings to guns and religion because of tradition. It's the way we were 'raised. We are a self-reliant folk. We don't look to, nor do we expect, the government to coddle us or solve every problem that some Liberal/Progressive elitist politician can identify. Actually, like President Reagan, we tend to think government is more often the problem. The more we can keep the government out of lives, the better off we are.

I resent Obama's assertion that us country folk suffer from "antipathy" toward others. I find it personally offensive. I was raised to respect others and was taught that I should strive, like God, to be "no respecter of persons." I've always tried to do that, and so do the small town folk I know.

The McCain campaign gets it:

McCain sees working-class voters -- many of them once and possibly still "Reagan Democrats" -- as a critical constituency for his hopes of winning the White House. His advisers say Obama will have trouble locking down that support in the general election because his message has been focused more on changing the system than on delivering results.

"It's a remarkable statement and extremely revealing," McCain adviser Steve Schmidt said in a statement. "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking, it is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

When I first heard about Obama's insult to small town America, I thought his handlers would come up with some clever way to apologize. Instead, after initially dismissing criticism of Obama's remarks in a written statement, in Terre Haute, Indiana, Friday night, Obama repeated the insult.

Hillary issued several statements criticizing Mr. Obama, calling Obama "out of touch." The McCain campaign also weighed in:

“It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Obama's remarks aren't likely to cost him the Democratic nomination. Nevertheless, one only has to envision those red and blue electoral maps showing county by county the results of the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, to realize the "out of touch" Obama will now be even less likely to defeat Senator McCain in November.

Hillary Still Leads In Pennsylvania

A new Temple University poll finds Hillary continues to lead Obama in Pennsylvania, 44% to 35% percent among Pennsylvanians likely to vote in the Democratic presidential primary. That comfortable margin shrinks when undecided voters are included:

Nineteen percent remain undecided or refuse to express a preference, but that group leans toward Obama. Adding in the undecided voters who lean to one candidate or the other shrinks Clinton’s lead to 47 – 41 percent.

The Temple poll also found "stark demographic differences:"

• 83 percent of blacks favor Obama, compared to 31 percent of whites
• 79 percent under the age of 30 favor Obama, compared to 28 percent over 60 years old
• 55 percent of women favor Clinton, compared to 32 percent of men

A recent AP-Ipsos poll found Obama losing ground among some of those groups:

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women — from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.

A new Zogby poll finds Hillary's lead in Pennsylvania even smaller 47% to 43%. Hillary does better in western Pennsylvania, around Pittsburgh, and in the central part of the state. Obama is doing well in eastern Pennsylvania, near Philadelphia.

Michael G. Hagen, director of Temple’s Institute for Public Affairs, says the Pennsylvania contest could depend on turnout:

The race remains close enough that turnout will be critical, especially in the all-important allocation of convention delegates. The two sides bring different assets to the turnout contest. The Clinton campaign has the backing of more of Pennsylvania’s top elected officials, but the Obama campaign will have more money to spend to get out the vote.

Pennsylvania is one of those states Hillary has to win. Obama has a chance to deny her that victory and thereby the nomination, if he didn't completely blow it with his insult to small-town America.

McCain Catches Obama

A new AP-Ipsos poll finds that Senator John McCain, the Republican Presidential Nominee to be, has erased Obama's 10-point lead and is now tied with Obama 45%-45%.

Perhaps the constant hammering Obama has taken recently, from nonpartisan fact checkers and numerous media outlets, for his, and the Democrats', gross distortion of McCain's 100 years comment caught up with Obama.

The AP-Ipsos poll, like this recent Rasmussen poll, also provides more evidence that the Democrats face a serious problem with Democrat deserters:

About a quarter of Obama supporters say they'll vote for McCain if Clinton is the Democratic nominee. About a third of Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain if it's Obama.

Obama is losing ground among various groups:

Against McCain, Obama lost ground among women — from 57 percent in February to 47 percent in April. Obama dropped 12 points among women under 45, 14 points among suburban women and 15 points among married women.

He also lost nine points or more among voters under 35, high-income households, whites, Catholics, independents, Southerners, people living in the Northeast and those with a high school education or less.

Not a good omen for Obama.

Colin Powell On The Olympics, Iraq, Iran, Race And 2008

Diane Sawyer interviewed Colin Powell on "Good Morning America" and discussed the Olympics, Iraq, and Iran, race and the 2008 election.

Presidential Election

Powell insists he hasn't yet decided whom he'll back in the 2008 presidential election:

"I'm looking at all three candidates," Powell said in an exclusive interview with Diane Sawyer for Thursday's "Good Morning America" on ABC. "I know them all very, very well. I consider myself a friend of each and every one of them. And I have not decided who I will vote for yet."

Rejects Olympic Boycott

Powell rejects a boycott of the opening ceremonies of the Olympics in China:

"That's a judgment the president will have to make. I would not boycott the opening ceremony," Powell told Sawyer.

Powell insists that a boycott will not accomplish its objective:

"We always are aware and have been aware of Chinese human rights problems. And I think if you start to take this kind of action, it doesn't really serve the purpose of human rights," Powell told "Good Morning America."

"What is accomplished by boycotting the opening ceremony?" Powell asked rhetorically. "I don't think that makes the situation any better. It probably makes the situation a little more difficult for the Chinese because they will pull back even more."

Powell encouraged China to begin a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, the exiled spiritual leader of Tibet.

"I think we ought (to) recognize that these protests are legitimate, recognize that the Chinese ought to move forward and start having a dialogue with the Dalai Lama, and not just say, 'We're not going to talk to you.' (The) Dalai Lama has indicated flexibility. And I think that's what the Chinese should do," he said. "But I don't think that these kinds of actions, such as boycotting an opening ceremony, or even perhaps thinking twice about sending your team to the Olympics, has the desired effect."

"I very much supported in 2001, when I was secretary of state, that we give the Olympics to the Chinese because I thought it would put them under a spotlight. And they have responded to that spotlight," he said. "But they haven't with respect to Tibet. And these demonstrations show the Chinese leadership that the world is watching this."

Iraq

Powell expressed concern about the burden Iraq puts on the country's military:

"I'll tell you what they're all going to face -- whichever one of them becomes president on Jan. 21 of 2009 -- they will face a military force, a United States military force, that cannot sustain, continue to sustain, 140,000 people deployed in Iraq, and the 20 (to) 25,000 people we have deployed in Afghanistan, and our other deployments," Powell said.

[. . .]

"I think it's time to begin an orderly process of withdrawing our troops, start rebuilding our military and focusing on the challenges posed by Afghanistan," Clinton said during a Senate Armed Services hearing on Tuesday.

Iran

Powell, as a soldier, says while military options are always on the table, Iran would be a very tough target.

Race

Powell condemned controversial remarks by Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of 20 years, as "deplorable" but complimented Obama for his speech on race:

"Rev. Wright is also somebody who has made enormous contributions in his community and has turned a lot of lives around," Powell said, "And so, I have to put that in context with these very offensive comments that he made, which I reject out of hand."

[. . .]

"I think that Sen. Obama handled the issue well . . . he didn't look the other way. He didn't wait for the, for the, you know, for the storm to go over. He went on television, and I thought, gave a very, very thoughtful, direct speech. And he didn't abandon the minister who brought him closer to his faith," Powell told Sawyer.

You can watch the interview in the following video.



Powell was impressive in his ability to weave answers around tough questions and not offend any of the potential powers to be. Very diplomatic and thoughtful.

McCain Sees No Reason To Resign Senate

Senator McCain, campaigning in Connecticut yesterday, said he will not resign from the Senate while running for president:

McCain was asked whether he would resign this summer, and give his replacement the opportunity to run with McCain at the top of the ticket, rather than wait and resign only if he wins.

"No, I will not," McCain told the crowd at a town hall style meeting in Westport, Connecticut. "I have every confidence that there are a number of Republicans who would be elected in my place. So I do not envision a scenario of resigning my seat."

McCain also said he will think about whether or not it makes more sense to resign:

"I will go back and think about it, and think about the scenario that you just described," he continued. "But right now my intentions are to remain in the United States Senate."

Should McCain decide to resign, Arizona law requires that the governor appoint someone from the same party as the departing Senator. That person would serve until the next election in 2010.

McCain should consider posing a challenge to his Democrat opponents -- he will resign if they will. What do you think?

McCain/Rice Beats Dem's 'Dream Team'

The Democrats’ “Dream Ticket” is a nightmare in Democrat dominated New York.

A new WSNB/Marist poll finds a John McCain/Condoleezza Rice presidential ticket would defeat the Democrats' so-called dream team of Hillary/Obama --49% to 46%. The Republicans do even better if Obama is at the top of the ticket -- 49% to 44%.

Maybe this explains why Nancy Pelosi continues to say the Dems' dream team will not come to pass. Obama has dismissed the idea of a Democrat dream team as well.

Bill And Hillary Split

The Hillary Campaign acknowledges that, like Hillary's recently demoted strategist in chief Mark Penn, Bill Clinton "supports a free trade agreement with Colombia that she [Hillary] strenuously opposes:"

Campaign spokesman Jay Carson "said in response to a query from The Associated Press that the senator's opposition is 'clear and firm.' He added: 'Like other married couples who disagree on issues from time to time, she disagrees with her husband on this issue. President Clinton has been public about his support for Colombia's request for U.S. trade preferences since 2000.'"

Right -- just like other married couples.

The New York Post reports, Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 in speaking fees for his support of the Columbia free-trade deal:

In June 2005, Bill Clinton, who holds enormous sway as an adviser to his wife, was quoted by the Spanish-language news portal Terra as publicly backing the trade pact at an appearance with Colombia President Alvaro Uribe.

"I will raise your point when you return to the United States," Clinton said, according to a translation by Politico.com. "I am in favor of the free-trade agreement and it is my hope that we will find the right formula to reach the agreement."

The same month, Bill Clinton reaped the six-figure windfall from the Colombia-based development group Gold Service International - a booster of the trade agreement - for four speeches.

So will former President Clinton be fired demoted as was Penn?

Hillary is now faced with concerns with her management ability. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani addressed this last October:

She's never run a city; she's never run a state; she's never run a business; she's never met a payroll; she's never been responsible for the safety and security of millions of people, much less even hundreds of people. So I'm trying to figure out where the experience is here.

If she can't run a campaign, how can she run the federal government?

Another Obama Supporter Insults McCain

Obama backer, West Virginia Democratic Senator Jay Rockefeller, joined the Obama Democrats war on truth chorus and insulted Senator McCain:

Rockefeller believes McCain has become insensitive to many human issues. "McCain was a fighter pilot, who dropped laser-guided missiles from 35,000 feet. He was long gone when they hit.


"What happened when they [the missiles] get to the ground? He doesn't know. You have to care about the lives of people. McCain never gets into those issues."

Lt. Col. Orson Swindle, USMC (Ret.), who shared a cell with McCain in the Hanoi Hilton, demanded that Barack Obama denounce Senator Jay Rockefeller's smear against John McCain and the men and women of our military:

Senator Rockefeller's statement is an insult to all the men and women who are serving or have served in America's military. Had Senator Rockefeller served himself, he would appreciate and understand that most who have been to war emerge with a much deeper concern for humanity than they otherwise might. If he knew what he was talking about, he would know that John McCain wasn't dropping laser-guided missiles at 35,000 feet in 1967.

Barack Obama has a responsibility to denounce Senator Rockefeller's smear against John McCain's character and military record.

So what is it with Obama and his supporters? Instead of joining in Senator McCain's call for a civil discussion, they insist upon campaigning with insults and "'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying'"

Obama promised better. Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for Rockefeller's smear against McCain's character and military record.

Why doesn't Obama have the courage to stand up for the principles of 'new politics' he outlined in his book, "The Audacity of Hope?"

Image: A mob pulling John McCain from his plane after it was hit by a missile plunged into a lake.

More 'Distortion,' 'Rank Falsehood,' 'Seriously Misleading' and 'Outright Lying' From Obama

This morning on the “Today” Show, Barack Obama claimied he never leveled the dishonest attack that John McCain supports a 100-year war in Iraq:

MEREDITH VIEIRA: “Senator, both you and Senator Clinton have said Senator McCain favors 100 more years of war in Iraq. On Sunday in The New York Times, Frank Rich wrote, ‘really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain.’ That in fact he never said he wanted a 100 more years of war, he just felt American troops should be a long-term presence, the way they are in Japan and South Korea. So are you willing to admit that you've distorted his statements?”

SEN. OBAMA: “No. That's not accurate, Meredith. We can pull up the quotes on Youtube. What John McCain was saying was, that he was happy to have a potential long-term occupation in Iraq. Happy may be overstating it -- he is willing to have a long-term occupation of Iraq, as long as 100 years, in fact he said 10,000 years, however long it took.” (Barack Obama, NBC’s “Today,” 4/8/08)

Like Obama said, “we can pull up the quotes on Youtube.” Well, YES WE CAN. Those YouTube quotes, in Obama's own words, show Obama’s dishonest smear against McCain and that Obama lied on the Today Show:



We have been through this before, but Obama continues the distortions, even though Obama acknowledges McCain was speaking bbout a post-war situation like South Korea, not a 100-year war:

“At The End Of The Exchange Obama Admitted That He Understands McCain Is Talking About The Korean Style Bases And Not A Hot War Like Iraq …” (Sunlen Miller, “Obama Claims Characterization Of McCain’s Statement On Iraq Is Fair,” ABC News’ “Political Radar” Blog, www.abcnews.com, 3/31/08)

Non-Partisan Fact-Checkers Call It Distortiion:

Non-Partisan Factcheck.Org calls DNC attacks on “100 Years” comment a “serious distortion” and “a rank falsehood:” “

The DNC’s message portrays McCain as bent on fighting an ‘endless’ war in Iraq. DNC: We can’t afford four more years with a President who fights an endless war in Iraq. ... On the war, McCain scoffed at Bush’s call to leave troops in Iraq for 50 years, saying ‘Make it a hundred!’ That of course is a serious distortion of what McCain actually said to a town-hall meeting in New Hampshire back on Jan. 3. ... There’s little doubt that McCain is less ea ger than either Clinton or Obama to bring troops home without further suppression of insurgent attacks. But it’s a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage ‘endless war’ based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea.” (Factcheck.Org Website, www.factcheck.org, Accessed 3/25/08)

Non-Partisan Politifact.Com calls Obama attacks on “100 Years” comment “false:"

”“Obama twisted McCain’s words in the Cleveland debate. He said, ‘We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years.’ As we explain above, McCain was referring to a peacetime presence, not the war. So we find Obama’s statement False.” (Politifact.Com Website, www.politifact.com, Accessed 3/25/08)

The Washington Post's FactChecker -- Obama's false claims do not pass The Pinocchio Test:

McCain has never talked about wanting a 100-year war in Iraq. … [T]hey have twisted his words, by claiming that he 'wants' to fight a 100-year war.

Numerous Media Outlets Agree That Democrats Have Mischaracterized Senator McCain’s Position:

The New York Times’ Frank Rich -- “Really, Barack Obama And Hillary Clinton Should Be Ashamed Of Themselves For Libeling John McCain.”:

“Really, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is ‘willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq’ (as Mr. Obama said) or ‘willing to keep this war going for 100 years’ (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where ‘Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.’ See for yourself on YouTube.” (Frank Rich, Op-Ed, “Tet Happened, And No One Cared,” The New York Times, 4/6/08)

Columbia Journalism Review -- “Obama Is Seriously Misleading Voters -- If Not Outright Lying To Them -- About Exactly What McCain Said:”

“Ever since John McCain said at a town hall meeting in January that he could see U.S. troops staying in Iraq for a hundred years, the Democrats have been trying to use the quote to paint the Arizona senator as a dangerous warmonger. And lately, Barack Obama in particular has stepped up his attacks on McCain’s ‘100 years’ notion. But in doing so, Obama is seriously misleading voters -- if not outright lying to them -- about exactly what McCain said. And some in the press are failing to call him on it. … To be clear, if Obama wants to take issue with McCain’s willingness to keep U.S. troops in Iraq for a hundred years in any capacity, that’s obviously his right. But that’s not the same as misleading voters about what McCain is proposing. This matters. Obama has given every indication that his general election strategy on Iraq and foreign policy will be to portray McCain as dangerously bellicose. If he’s going to do so by distorting McCain’s words, the press should forcefully call him out on it each time.” (Zachary Roth, “The U.S., Iraq, and 100 Years,” Columbia Journalism Review, 4/1/08)

New Hampshire Union Leader -- “It Is Not Even Remotely True -- And They Know It:”

“You might have heard from the New Hampshire Democratic Party and Democratic Presidential candidates that Sen. John McCain wants 100 more years of war in Iraq. It is not even remotely true -- and they know it.” (Editorial, “McCain’s ‘100 Years’: The Democrats’ War On The Truth,” New Hampshire Union Leader, 4/6/08)

The New York Times -- Democrats “Mischaracterize And Distort” Sen. McCain’s “100 Years” Comment:

“But the timetables, flippantly tossed out, have been condensed into sound bites by his Democratic opponents, turned into fund-raising appeals and mashed into YouTube parodies. Many of the sound bites mischaracterize and distort what was said in Mr. McCain’s six-minute exchange on Jan. 3 …” (Kate Phillips, “McCain Said ‘100’; Opponents Latch On,” The New York Times, 3/27/08)

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder -- Obama’s “100-Year War” Attack “Is Simply Not What McCain Said:”

“[D]emocrats imply that McCain wants to keep US troops in Iraq for 100 years under the same conditions they’re fighting right now. Which is simply not what McCain said. McCain explicitly said that US presence in Iraq long-term would be predicated on the absence of violence and on the establishment of stability in the region.” (Marc Ambinder, “100 Years Of Solitude? McCain And Iraq,” The Atlantic’s “Marc Ambinder” Blog, www.theatlantic.com, 3/31/08)

The Associated Press -- “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq:”

“[Sen. McCain] and the Democrats vying to run against him in the fall are engaged in a debate of sorts over how long U.S. troops should stay in Iraq and under what circumstances. That’s a genuine point of contention. But Hillary Rodham Clinton and especially Barack Obama have distilled McCain’s position into sound bite oversimplifications, suggesting he foresees a war without end in anyone’s lifetime.” (Calvin Woodward, “Dems Take McCain Out Of Context On Iraq,” The Associated Press, 2/29/08)

USA Today -- McCain’s Comments Being “Distorted:”

“[Sen. McCain’s] offhand comment about keeping U.S. troops in Iraq for ‘100 years’ has been distorted (he said that meant as long as troops weren’t getting killed or wounded)...” (Editorial, “5 Years After ‘Shock And Awe,’ A Shallow Debate On Iraq,” USA Today, 3/18/08)

Roll Call’s Morton Kondracke -- “The Charge That McCain Wants To Carry On The War For 100 Years Is A Total Canard:”

“Well, the charge that McCain wants to carry on the war for 100 years is a total canard. ... What McCain said was, yes, we could stay in Iraq for 100 years on the same basis we have been in Korea ever since the end of the Korean War or Germany ever since the end of the second world war as long as our troops aren’t being shot. And it seems perfectly reasonable. And so they [Sens. Clinton And Obama] are mischaracterizing what he said badly.” (Fox News’ “Special Report,” 3/31/08)

The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer -- “A Serious Argument Is Not What Democrats Are Seeking:”

“But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: ‘Dems to hammer McCain for ‘100 years.’” (Charles Krauthammer, Op-Ed, “A Rank Falsehood,” The Washington Post, 3/28/08)

Richmond Times-Dispatch -- Democrats’ “Hyperventilating Criticism Suggests They Either Did Not Read His Words Or Deliberately Are Distorting Them:”

“Leftists claim the comments mean McCain supports a century of combat. Their hyperventilating criticism suggests they either did not read his words or deliberately are distorting them.” (Editorial, “100 Years,” Richmond Times-Dispatch, 4/1/08)

National Review -- “This Is So Obvious A Distortion That It Must Backfire Against Democrats Over Time. . .:”

“Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama have suggested that this means McCain ‘wants to fight a 100-year war,’ in Obama’s words. This is so obvious a distortion that it must backfire against Democrats over time, especially if they nominate Barack Obama, who has so loudly advertised his commitment to civil discourse...” (Editorial, “The 100 Years War,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

National Review’s Kathryn Jean Lopez -- “This Favorite Talking Point Of The Two Democrats Presidential Candidates Is Bogus:”

“Haven’t we been listening to talk of ‘100 years’ of war in Iraq for 100 years now? It certainly feels that way. But this favorite talking point of the two Democrats presidential candidates is bogus.” (Kathryn Jean Lopez, “100-Years’ Sideshow,” National Review, www.nationalreview.com, 3/26/08)

In his book, The Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that voters are “tired of distortion, name-calling, and sound bite solutions to complicated problems.” This is exactly the opposite of what Obama is doing with his continuing distortions and misrepresentations about what Senator McCain actually said.

Obama promised better. Obama should apologize to McCain, and the nation, for his blatant dishonesty, and join Senator McCain in his call for tolerance and respect. If Obama does perhaps we can engage in a new Politics -- a new civil politics different than Obama's Chicago rules.

Also posted at Examining Presidential Politics and RedState.

UPDATE: More at First Read, Marc Ambinder and Political Punch.

Clinton Charity Begins At Home

After earning more than $109 million over eight years, Hillary and Bill took tax write-offs totaling $10.2 million, about 9%, in charitable contributions. Most of that that money went to the Clinton Family Foundation, and a portion was distributed to charitable causes.

This is the same Clinton Family Foundation that Hillary failed to disclose as required by the Ethics in Government Act. The foundation was kept off of Hillary's Senate disclosure forms for 6 years.

The family foundation is based at the Clintons' Chappaqua, N.Y., home. Bill Clinton serves as its president, Hillary Clinton as secretary and treasurer, and daughter Chelsea as a director.

Between 2001 and 2006, the the Clintons put about $6 million into the foundation. The Clintons took a tax write-off for that money even though the foundation only gave away gave away about $2.5 million. foundation to other charities.

The Clinton Family Foundation gave $25,000 to the McGovern Library and Center for Leadership and Public Service in Mitchell, S.D., in early 2007. Did that have anything to do with McGovern's endorsement of Hillary in October? According to the Post, McGovern says no:

It was the furthest thought when I decided to endorse Hillary last October."

Tolerance And Respect

The McCain campaign is out with anther great video. This one speaks to the need for civil discussion among Americans:

ANNCR: We have our disagreements, we Americans.

We contend regularly and enthusiastically over many questions:

over the size and purposes of our government;

over the social responsibilities we accept in accord with the dictates of our conscience;

over our role in the world and how to defend our security interests and values in places where they are threatened.

These are important questions; worth arguing about.

We should contend over them with one another.

It is more than appropriate, it is necessary that even in times of crisis, especially in times of crisis, we fight among ourselves for the things we believe in.

It is not just our right, but our civic and moral obligation.

But we deserve more than tolerance from one another, we deserve each other's respect, whether we think each other right or wrong in our views, as long as our character and sincerity merit respect, and as long as we share, for all our differences, for all the noisy debates that enliven our politics, a mutual devotion to the sublime idea that this nation was conceived in -- that freedom is the inalienable right of mankind, and in accord with the laws of nature and nature's Creator.

Let us exercise our responsibilities as free people.

But let us remember, we are not enemies.

We are compatriots defending ourselves from a real enemy.

We have nothing to fear from each other.

We are arguing over the means to better secure our freedom, promote the general welfare and defend our ideals.

It should remain an argument among friends;

each of us struggling to hear our conscience, and heed its demands;

each of us, despite our differences, united in our great cause, and respectful of the goodness in each other.

Terrific! Watch the video:



If we could just get Obama on board so we can get on with a civil debate and be done with Chicago-style politics as usual and old-school deceive-and-distort politics.

There He Goes Again

Why can't we just have a civilized debate about important issues, such as the war Islamic extremists continue to wage against us?

The Democrats just won't do it. During the 2004 presidential campaign, Kerry started the negative campaign. In 2008 Obama seems determined to stick with his liberal Chicago-style politics as usual, instead of his promised "new kind of politics"

As I posted before, Obama's new politics amounts to nothing more than "distortion to the point of rank falsehood" and "seriously misleading voter -- if not outright lying to them."

Last night, Obama's opening up act, liberal talk show host Ed Schultz, called Senator McCain a 'warmonger.' This just days after Senator McCain's remarkable speech on foreign affairs, during which he shared views on the depravity of war:

I detest war. It might not be the worst thing to befall human beings, but it is wretched beyond all description. When nations seek to resolve their differences by force of arms, a million tragedies ensue. The lives of a nation's finest patriots are sacrificed. Innocent people suffer and die. Commerce is disrupted; economies are damaged; strategic interests shielded by years of patient statecraft are endangered as the exigencies of war and diplomacy conflict. Not the valor with which it is fought nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war. Whatever gains are secured, it is loss the veteran remembers most keenly. Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war. However heady the appeal of a call to arms, however just the cause, we should still shed a tear for all that is lost when war claims its wages from us.

How did Obama and his new politics respond to the hateful language Schultz used to describe John McCain? Obama didn't renounce the name calling. No, Obama thanked Schultz and called him the “voice of progressive radio.”

When Bill Cunningham, made a personal attack on Obama, prior to McCain’s arrival at a town hall meeting,
After McCain learned about Cunningham’s comments, McCain condemned the remarks and dissociated himself with the talk show host. McCain continues to run a “respectful” race and campaign, why can't Obama?

Obama owes McCain and America an apology, more than one actually. One for Obama's misrepresentations about McCain's comments about residual troops remaining in Iraq, and one for Schultz's hate filled and inflammatory language.

Dishonesty, Inexperience, Iraq

Gallup finds an important difference in the negative perceptions voters hold of the three remaining presidential candidates -- and its good news for McCain:

The most prevalent criticisms leveled against Obama and Clinton are all personal in nature: trustworthiness, likability, experience, and family connections. By contrast, the top criticisms of McCain are all more policy oriented: Iraq, associations with Bush, and being a Republican.

Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, summarizes why Americans don't want a particular candidate elected president in the following video:



Hillary: Don't Trust Her, Reservations About Bill, and Likability

The most prominent reason given by those opposed to Clinton being elected president is not trusting her -- mentioned by 24%. However, the 18% saying they don't want Bill Clinton back in the White House and the 16% saying they don't like Hillary Clinton rank a fairly close second and third, respectively.

Obama: "Not Qualified"

Nearly 4 in 10 of those who least want to see Obama elected (39%) say they believe he is "inexperienced" or "not qualified" to be president. All other explanations are much less frequently mentioned. The reason cited second most frequently is trustworthiness, mentioned by 15% of those opposed to his becoming president. However, nearly as prevalent (12%) as an explanation for not wanting Obama elected is the belief that he is a Muslim.

McCain: Iraq, Bush, and the GOP

Those who least want to see McCain elected president are most likely to cite his position on the Iraq war (27%), his similarity with President Bush (25%), or the fact that he is a Republican (23%). In line with these policy-oriented reasons for opposing him, an additional 8% say they "disagree with his views on most issues."

Like President Reagan, people might disagree with McCain on specific issues, but they like and trust him.

Wright Is Wrong And So Is Obama

Obama gave a speech today, touted as an effort to bridge the Democrats' widening racial divide, and an obvious attempt to control the damage resulting from the hate-filled speech of Obama's long time spiritual adviser, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.

Gallup finds race is the issue that divides the Democratic electorate more than any other:

In an aggregate of 6,721 interviews Gallup has conducted between March 1 and March 16, 80% of black Democrats support Obama while only 15% support Hillary Clinton. Non-Hispanic whites split 53% for Clinton and 38% for Obama, while white Hispanics are even stronger for Clinton, 59% to 37%.

In his speech, Obama says Reverend Wright’s comments aren’t simply controversial, Wright's preachings are a "profoundly distorted view of this country — a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."

The following video is a sampling of the "profoundly distorted" preachings of Obama's minister of hate:



Wright's "profoundly distorted" views are reminiscent of the maniacal rants spouted by radical Islam clerics, and just as wrong.

Wright is wrong when he calls on God to "damn America":

"The government gives them [African Americans] the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God damn America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."

Wright is wrong when he preaches that we support state terrorism against the Palestinians:

After September 11, 2001, he said: "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Wright is wrong when he says we invented HIV:

The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies.

Obama is just as wrong when he refuses to disassociate himself from Wright:

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community.

[. . .]

These people are a part of me. And they are a part of America, this country that I love.

Obama's refusal to dissociate himself from this preacher of "profoundly distorted" views is no different than the failure of Muslims to condemn the terrorism used by the Islamic extremists in the war they continue to wage against us.

The "profoundly distorted" views of reverend Wright, like those of the Islamic extremists, will not be overcome until the people of their own community disassociate themselves from the hate mongers.

Obama's speech might have been masterfully delivered by a great orator, but because of Obama's refusal to dissociate himself from the minister of hate, it was a speech that fails to help bridge the Democrat's racial devide.

You can read Obama's speech here or watch it here.

McCain Favorability Surges

John McCain's 67% favorable rating is the highest of any of the three major candidates running for president.

McCain's favorable rating has surged 26 percent since last summer, and 11percent since he won enough delegates to ensure his nomination.

Hillary's 53% favorable rating, 53%, is significantly lower than those of the other two candidates.

McCain also gets an extraordinary 52% favorable from Democrats and independents who lean Democratic, while Obama gets a 39% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners, and Hillary receives only a 20% favorable rating from Republicans and Republican leaners.

Gallup Poll Editor in Chief, Frank Newport, analyzes the ratings in the following video report:

McCain In Iraq

Senator McCain, the Republican's presidential candidate to be, is in Iraq meeting with U.S. and Iraqi officials, including Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Barham Saleh and General David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. troops in Iraq.

McCain is also scheduled to visit London, Paris, Jordan, and Israel this week, where he will meet with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicholas Sarkozy, Jordan's King Abdullah and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In London, McCain also plans to meet with Stavros Dimas, the European Union's commissioner for the environment, a leading advocate of combating global warming.

Visiting Iraq and world leaders allows McCain to highlight his foreign policy credentials while Hillary and Obama continue their nasty battle of political oneupmanship fighting for the Democratic nomination.

"For McCain, the visual of being seen with world leaders, talking about the great issues facing us while Obama and Clinton are pounding each other in Altoona and Wilkes Barre is great," said independent analyst Charlie Cook, publisher of the Cook Political Report, referring to two cities in Pennsylvania, which holds a presidential primary on April 22.

McCain, who is the ranking Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee, is accompanied on the fact-finding trip by Connecticut's Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and South Carolina Republican Senator Lindsey Graham. McCain will reimburse the federal government for the political aspects of the trip, including his airfare back to the U.S.

Photo credit: Master Sgt. Andy Dunaway/U.S. Air Force, via Associated Press.

Obama Wins Iowa Again

Obama expanded his delegate lead over Hillary on Saturday, picking up nine delegates as Iowa activists took the next step in picking delegates to the national convention.

With all the Iowa delegates now picked, Democratic Party projections indicate Obama increased his number of Iowa delegates by nine to a total of 25 compared with 14 for Hillary and six for Edwards. More than half the 14 Edwards delegates switched to Obama. Iowa also has 12 superdelegates. Obama has been endorsed by four of those and Hillary three, and the rest remain uncommitted.

Obama also closed the gap in California as that state's Democratic Party finalized the delegate counts from the February 5 primary. Obama gained five more pledged delegates, while Hillary only picked up two.

According to the Associated Press, counting Saturday's new figures from Iowa and California, Obama now leads the delegate tally 1,617 delegates to 1,498.

Neither Obama nor Clinton can win the 2,025 delegates required for nomination without some combination of elected delegates and superdelegates (party and elected officials who are automatic delegates to the Democrats' Denver convention this summer). About 800 of the approximately 4,000 delegates are superdelegates and several hundred of them remain uncommitted to either candidate.

Given the remaining contests, Obama's existing hundred-plus delegate lead, and the rules by which Democrats apportion delegates, it is a political and practical, if not mathematical, certainty that Obama will have an elected delegate lead at the end of the nomination contests. Hillary's only hope of winning the nomination is to overtake Obama's elected delegate lead by winning the bulk of the remaining superdelegates.

McCain's Journey to Freedom

On March 15, 1973, John McCain was released as a POW from the "Hanoi Hilton," having survived life-threatening and disabling injuries, along with the brutality of the POW experience. While a prisoner, McCain steadfastly resisted the North Vietnamese efforts to exploit him and his fellow POWs during his more than five years of captivity. The McCain campaign produced the following video to honor the 35-year anniversary his release:



The country is truly blesed to continue to be served by those with the character exhibited by John McCain.

Obama On The Democrats Deam Team

Obama takes apart the Clintons' suggestion he should be Hillary's Vice President.

According to Obama, the Clintons are trying to "hoodwink" and "bamboozle" Democrats into thinking they don't have to make a choice between the two candidate.

Watch the video:



That is a phenomenal rebuttal to Hillary's charge that Obama is not ready to be Commander-In-Chief. It was also very clever to refer back to Hillary's doublespeak.

Wait, We've Changed Our Minds

Saturday Night Live continues its series of opening skits making fun of Obama to Hillary's benefit. This week, the show's skit focused on Hillary's infamous ad featuing the 3:00 a.m. phone call. The skit ends with Hillary impersonator Amy Poehler encouraging voters to call the Democratic National Committee to tell them "Wait, we've changed our minds . . . . It's not too late, we can still turn this around. Yes we can."

Watch the following video:

Voters Want McCain to Answer The Call

Rasmussen Reports finds most voters said John McCain is the person they’d most want to answer the phone in the White House when a foreign policy crisis arrived.

Which candidate would be best President to answer a foreign policy crisis call?
John McCain - 42%
Hillary Clinton - 25%
Barack Obama - 25%

This is why Hillary's "experience" argument makes no sense. Senator McCain is by far the most experienced candidate, and the voters know it:

Among Republicans, 79% named McCain while neither Democrat reached double digits.

Among unaffiliated voters, 39% said McCain would be their top choice to handle such a crisis. Twenty-seven percent (27%) of unaffiliateds said they thought Obama was the best to handle the call while 18% named Clinton.

Among men, 51% preferred McCain, 21% Obama, and 19% Clinton. Women were evenly divided—33% for McCain and 30% for each of the Democrats.

Even Obama's senior foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, said that neither Democrat was prepared to take that 3:00 a.m. call. Watch the following Video:



Only Democrats prefer that Hillary answer the call - 46% said they’d like Hillary to take that call, while 36% prefer Obama.

McCain's New Ad

Senator McCain's new ad "Man In the Arena" is terrific.

McCain Wins Two More

Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican Presidential nominee won two more nominating contests.

The nine delegates to a national Republican convention from the U.S. Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas will all be supporting McCain.

The American Samoa Republican Party announced Saturday that all nine of the delegates of the American Samoa Republican Party will also support John McCain.

The delegates from American Samoa and the Northern Marianas give McCain 976 of the 1,191 delegates required to secure the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee remains far behind with 254 delegates.

Huckabee continues to reject calls that he drop out of the race.

New York Times Slanders McCain

This is so pathetic. The New York Times holds a story for months, endorses McCain to be the Republican Presidential nominee, and when he becomes the presumptive nominee the so-called newspaper publishes a gutter story implying that Senator McCain has engaged in some sort of impropriety.

Shout out to the Times - WHERE'S THE BEEF?

Fred Endorses McCain

WE SHOULD TOO

Fred Thompson, said late Friday he was endorsing McCain:

"This is no longer about past preferences or differences. It is about what is best for our country and for me that means that Republican should close ranks behind John McCain," Thompson said in a statement.

John McCain, in his new status as the presumptive Republican nominee has reached out to Conservatives. At the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., he was introduced by former Virginia Senator George Allen and Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn, a not so subtle blessing from respected Conservative leaders.

McCain offered to meet disaffected Conservatives halfway. He vowed to lower taxes, appoint judges "of the character and quality of Justices Roberts and Alito," and reject "big government" solutions to health care, reminded the audience of his continuing support for the war, declaring, "I intend to win the war."

What is most important, for those of us who have quibbles over some of McCain's positions, McCain promised to listen:

"We have had a few disagreements," McCain said. "And none of us will pretend that we won't continue to have a few. But even in disagreement, especially in disagreement, I will seek the counsel of my fellow conservatives. If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in accord."

We should follow Fred's example and respond to McCain's olive branch by also meeting the presumptive nominee halfway.

Sure, we all have at least some quibbles with McCain. We have some quibbles with everyone. But my quibbles with McCain, recede past the level of insignificance when compared to the enormous disagreements I have with either possible Democratic nominee.

We need not go through the list, issue by issue. It is more than enough to just briefly consider what the two possible Democratic presidential candidates, those darlings of the Liberal/Progressive left wing, promise they will do every time they recite their stump speeches: Retreat from Iraq, even as we are making significant progress in the longterm effort there; collect and spend billions an billions more in taxes expanding the big government nanny state so that it controls more and more of our lives; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

To those who say they think they would rather sit out the election than meet McCain halfway, I respectfully ask that you reconsider. Is such a course of action responsible? Does leaving the field to your opponents ever help your cause to prevail? I think not.

I'm not suggesting that you change your mind and advocate or support positions with which you disagree. The discussion on those points can continue until some common understanding is reached. No, all I ask is that you respond to the olive branch offered by John McCain and just meet the presumptive Republican presidential nominee half way.

Huckabee Wins West Virginia

Mike Huckabee wins the West Virginia Republican convention, getting all 18 of the state's delegates.

Romney led in the first round of voting but failed to achieve the majority required to win. Huckabee was projected the winner in the second round.


Huckabee - 52%
Romney - 47%
McCain - 1%
Giuliani - 0%
Paul - 0%

Republicans are holding nominating contests in contests in 20 other states today, while. Democrats are competing in 22 states.

UPDATE:

Marc Ambinder has the inside scoop on how Huckabee won:

After the first round of balloting in West Virginia, Mitt Romney was solidly in the lead with 41% of the votes, followed by Mike Huckabee with 33% and John McCain with 16%.

[. . .]

But sources say that representatives for John McCain called many of his reps in WV and asked them to vote for Huckabee...in order to thwart Romney on the second ballot.

Missing Fred

A little nostalgia for the Fred Heads.

Quibbling with McCain

I Will Vote For Romney. For Now.

I've been writing about the 2008 presidential campaign since April 2005. During that entire time I have been determined to remain uncommitted. I thought that would make for more objective observations about the campaign. It is also an admission that no candidate came along, whom I felt compelled to support.

As the number of possible nominees has dwindled, especially with Fred and Rudy proving that you can't leave the field to opponents and still prevail, I tried to warm up to Senator McCain. After McCain's South Carolina and Florida victories, it is clear he has again attained the dreaded status of front runner.

Embracing McCain ought to be easy for a security voter like me. If your main issue is victory in the War the Islamic Extremists are waging against us, supporting McCain should not be a difficult thing.

Yet I have quibbles with Senator McCain. And they're not going away, even with the Florida results and the Giuliani and Schwarzenegger endorsements.

There are the usual policy quibbles, which have been repeated so often they have become cliche. Yet like all cliches, they are based on truth:

I continue to wonder if President Bush's tax cuts would now be permanent if only Senator McCain supported the tax cuts in 2001.

I object to the 2002 McCain/Feingold so-called campaign finance reform, which I still consider an abominable infringement on my constitutional rights, even though the Supreme Court says it isn't.

There is also the McCain/Kennedy so-called immigration reform, both versions -- the 2005 edition and the 2007 McCain/Kennedy II -- amount to little more than a dressed up amnesty that like the failed 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act will encourage additional illegal immigration.

More recently, we have been forced to grapple with the McCain/Lieberman Gore-like energy tax that is somehow suppose to magically reverse global climate change.

Even so, as I said, a week ago I was thinking I could set these quibbles aside and support Senator McCain's presidential candidacy. Then the Senator went Hillary -- telling lies about Mitt Romney's position on Iraq. Even in the face of Romney's objections and denials, McCain repeated this criticism in the Reagan Library debate the other night.

Senator McCain, on NBC's "Meet the Press," said that last year Romney wanted to set a secret timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. That plan, similar to what Democrats have proposed, would lead to a victory for al-Qaeda. Romney, on CNN's "Late Edition," said McCain's description of his position was "dishonest." I'm going to rely on upon Paul Mirengoff's "Did he or didn't he?" post to resolve this dispute between the two presidential contenders:

McCain apparently is referring to a statement Romney made last April in which he assumed President Bush and the head of the Iraqi government might discuss timetables and troop levels in Iraq. I don't think Romney's statement fairly can be construed as advocating setting a date for our withdrawal.

I take Mirengoff's post to mean Romney was saying let's see if the surge works and be prepared for it not to. He also says Mitt was definitely less gung-ho than McCain on the surge. Mirengoff's conclusions are also supported by Byron York's "McCain, Romney, and Timetables" post. This presents me with yet another quibble about McCain. This one about my most important issue -- achieving victory in the war the Islamic extremists are waging against us.

There is more to Mirengoff's post, and he credits McCain for being right about Iraq and advocating an approach to Iraq that is "essentially the one that’s working now." So I thought maybe I could overlook this quibble as well. Then I started to think seriously about McCain as Commander in Chief. The more I look into what Senator McCain has actually advocated in Iraq the more quibbles I have about supporting his presidential candidacy.

I may vote for Governor Romney on Tuesday. But I understand the reality of the situation, and that pretty soon my choice will be not between Romney and McCain, but between McCain and Hillary (or Obama). So I hereby pose my quibbles to Senator McCain in the hopes that he will rise to this challenge and make his case to this security voter as to why Senator McCain should be Commander in Chief.

Senator McCain has consistently advocated the deployment of many more troops into Iraq. The Senator's version of a surge envisioned some 100,000 additional troops, and he has been all over Donald Rumsfeld for failing to deploy such a large additional force as early as 2004. Here, I have another problem with McCain's position. We simply don't have enough combat brigades and Marine equivalents to throw into the fight in the numbers the Senator insistently says we should have.

With troops tied down in Central European bases, Bosnia and South Korea, and still others fighting in Afghanistan, the combat units required to make the deployments advocated by Senator McCain don't exist. He has advocated increasing the size of the armed forces, but the additional troops such increases might have produced would not have been available at the time Mr. McCain wanted to deploy them.

The 30,000 or so troops that were used for the surge pretty much used all the available forces. Note that Army Chief of Staff George Casey recently declared that the surge has "sucked all the flexibility" out of the system in a year. General Casey predicts that much of the lost flexibility will be restored if the troops can be drawn down over the next six months, but the current enhanced deployment level is not sustainable for a long period of time. In an encouraging sign, the New York Times quotes Defense Secretary Gates as saying by next summer the number of U.S. combat brigades in Iraq will be reduced to 15.

Senator McCain has opposed the redeployment of troops out of Germany and South Korea. In doing so he ensures that those forces cannot be used in the current war. I know Senator McCain has called for increasing the armed forces, but given the time it would take to recruit, train and deploy these still on-paper troops, how does he answer the quibble of how he would have staffed his enhanced version of the surge?

I'm willing to give Senator McCain credit for advocating a change in strategy in Iraq. Perhaps he can make an argument that we should have done it sooner. I'm not sure that he can, it seems to me that the key to the success of the surge was a lot of hard work -- blood sweat and tears -- in the years leading up to the surge. More Iraqi forces had been trained to a level where they could be effectively used to support counterinsurgency strategy being used by General Petraeus. The Anbar awakening occurred before the deployment of the surge troops making it more likely the surge would succeed. Plopping down another 100,000 or so troops, even if such numbers were available, years earlier as advocated by Senator McCain may not have had the same effect in 2004 as did the 30,000 troops surged in 2007.

I also have a problem with Senator McCain pinning the perceived lack of instant success in Iraq on Rumsfeld. He has come up with a very simplistic story that Rumsfeld was bad and Petreaus is good. But successful counterinsurgency campaigns take time. A lot of time. More than a year. Everyone, including Senator McCain is willing to credit General Petraeus with the success of the surge. But maybe we should look at the General's first two tours in Iraq for the secrets of his success, and maybe we should consider who promoted General Petraeus, more than once, and who recommended General Petraeus to be the Iraq commander--the very same Donald Rumsfeld that McCain vilifies.

I could go on here, but I think I've made my point, which is that McCain takes too much credit for the surge, especially since I'm not sure he was as involved in the strategy shift as he says he was. This makes me wonder about how he will behave as Commander in Chief. Will the military appreciate his eagerness to grab the limelight and denigrate the long, difficult and frequently unpopular work that leads to success in a mission like Iraq?

I certainly admire the Senator's service during Vietnam, and I respect him as a hero. Nevertheless I don't think he has demonstrated that he is more qualified to be the civilian commander in chief than has Romney. Nor do I think his decades in the Senate and his experience leading a naval air squadron is the type of executive experience I want to see in a president.

Therefore, as things now stand, when I step up to the voting machine on super Tuesday, I will be registering my vote for Mitt Romney. He has executive experience, both in the private sector, where he made a fortune turning around troubled companies, in the public sector as a successful governor and don't forget his rescue of the Salt Lake City Olympics.

I don't find the Governor's positions on Iraq objectionable. Nor do I find the fact that he has changed certain views over the years to be a bad thing. I tend to prefer the newer views and appreciate that he saw the need to change. But I will also give John McCain his fair shake, and I would like to know how he would answer my quibbles, should he chance to see them.