TexasDarlin

Cross posted at mydd.com

Senator Hillary Clinton had a point when she declared that the “tide is turning” after her impressive victory in Pennsylvania last week.

Since then, senior Party leaders have been speaking up, and changing their tune.  

Not too long ago, Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean was urging unpledged “super delegates” to decide “now!” and warning them not to overturn the “will of the people.” But in the past week Dean’s message has changed significantly.  A few  days ago he told the Financial Times that “The Democratic party’s “superdelegates” have every right to…choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election.”  And today ABC News reported that Dean wants the super delegates to make a decision by the end of June, after all the voters have “had their say.”

Donna Brazile, a super delegate who has previously expressed a preference for Obama may be having second thoughts. Yesterday on ABC’s This Week Roundtable Brazille said:

I talked to the same super delegates you talked to…They want to win.  They want a candidate who can beat John McCain.  At the end of the day they’re going to look at the (electoral college) math…and say..”okay, who is the best candidate to take on John McCain?”  They’ll look at the weaknesses of both candidates and… we will determine who will be the best President. (emphasis added)

Ms. Brazile’s remarks are timely.   Perhaps she received a heads-up about the new AP General Election poll released today:

Clinton 50:  McCain 41

Obama 46:  McCain 44

Of special note to super delegates is the AP’s accompanying analysis explaining the upward trends for Clinton:

Helped by independents, young people and seniors, Clinton gained ground.

“I don’t think there’s any question that over the last three weeks her stature has improved,” said Harrison Hickman, a Democratic pollster unaligned in the primary. He attributed Clinton’s gains to people moving from the “infatuation stage” of choosing the candidate they like the most to a “decision-making stage” where they determine who would make the best president.

Added Steve Lombardo, a GOP pollster: “This just reinforces the sentiment that a lot of Republican strategists are having right now — that Clinton might actually be the more formidable fall candidate for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is that Obama can’t seem to get his footing back.” (emphasis added)

Is Donna Brazile acknowledging that Clinton is the more formidable candidate against John McCain?

Other polls demonstrate similar strength for Clinton.  According to Real Clear Politics averages, for example: Clinton and McCain are tied in Florida, while Obama trails McCain by 12 points; Clinton leads McCain in Pennsylvania and Ohio by more than 5 points, while Obama trails McCain in both states.

At this moment, the MyDD 2008 Poll Watcher at the top corners of your screen also predicts an electoral victory for Clinton but a loss for Obama:  Clinton 286 to McCain 252 and McCain 278 to Obama 243.

Clinton’s wins in California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Ohio, New Jersey, Florida, and New York, despite Obama’s historic advertising expenditures, reinforce her campaign’s claim to a winning coalition of core Democrats.  I have previously written about that here and here.

As the AP noted in its analysis, Clinton has even gained strength among young people.

And Politico commented yesterday:

Barack Obama’s difficulty attracting older voters now far exceeds Hillary Rodham Clinton’s own weaknesses with youth.

Repeatedly during the tight race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama, who’s been defined in part by his popularity among young voters, has seen that strength undercut by his failings with seniors.

In the Pennsylvania and Ohio primaries, Obama lost older whites by 30 percentage points, while Clinton split white voters under age 30 in both critical contests. Obama’s senior problem is even greater among Hispanics. The Illinois senator lost older Latinos by 40 to 60 percentage points in Texas, New Mexico and California.

For all the excitement generated by Obama’s campaign, and despite his laudable success in caucus states, Obama has failed to draw critical blocs of Democrats into his coalition, a problem which has been exacerbated by off-the-record remarks belittling small-town Americans and ongoing coverage of his fiery pastor.  These are not just “gaffes” that Sen. Obama can cleverly manage; rather they contribute to core perceptions.  It’s not difficult to comprehend why 32% of Clinton supporters in Pennsylvania recently told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama.

Donna Brazile and the other super delegates clearly are paying attention.

Cross posted at mydd.com

[Updated 4x at end]

Barack Obama, as it turns out, is just another old-school politician in the finest quid-pro-quo Chicago tradition.

Although Obama has worked tirelessly to promote the image of himself as a 21st Century leader “dedicated to transparency and sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest,” writes the L.A. Times, he traded favors with Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. during a time when Obama was struggling financially.  According to the Times:

After an unsuccessful campaign for Congress in 2000, Illinois state Sen. Barack Obama faced serious financial pressure: numerous debts, limited cash and a law practice he had neglected for a year. Help arrived in early 2001 from a significant new legal client — a longtime political supporter.

Chicago entrepreneur Robert Blackwell Jr. paid Obama an $8,000-a-month retainer to give legal advice to his growing technology firm, Electronic Knowledge Interchange. It allowed Obama to supplement his $58,000 part-time state Senate salary for over a year with regular payments from Blackwell’s firm that eventually totaled $112,000.

A few months after receiving his final payment from EKI, Obama sent a request on state Senate letterhead urging Illinois officials to provide a $50,000 tourism promotion grant to another Blackwell company, Killerspin.

Obama’s campaign, of course, vigorously denies even the appearance of impropriety:

“Any implication that Sen. Obama would risk an ethical breach in order to secure a small grant for a pingpong tournament is nuts,” said David Axelrod, Obama’s chief political advisor..

~snip~

Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs…said Obama did nothing wrong acting on behalf of Killerspin. He said the state senator simply wrote a letter backing a worthy project developed by a constituent.

But the day after Obama wrote his letter soliciting state funds for Blackwell’s company, Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign received a $1,000 donation from Blackwell.

Maybe he didn’t “do anything wrong” (but see update) yet isn’t this the sort of backroom wheeling-dealing Obama decries?  It seems especially hypocritical in light of his heightened attacks against Hillary Clinton as a “compromised Washington insider.”  It seems that  Clinton was onto something when she replied that “Mr. Obama’s message of hope had given way to old-style politics and asked Democrats to take a harder look at him.” Source.

While acknowledging that there were likely no technical violations in the tit-for-tat arrangement with Blackwell, the Times strongly implies that Obama does not, in fact, live up to the image he promotes…

Business relationships between lawmakers and people with government interests are not illegal or uncommon in Illinois or other states with a part-time Legislature, where lawmakers supplement their state salaries with income from the private sector.

But Obama portrays himself as a lawmaker dedicated to transparency and sensitive to even the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Recently, Obama expressed regret over a property deal with Illinois power broker Tony Rezko after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate in 2004. In an interview this spring with the Chicago Sun-Times, Obama said his regret was not just because the real estate and restaurant entrepreneur was under criminal scrutiny, but because he was “a contributor and someone doing business before the state.”

~snip~

Killerspin’s owner, Blackwell, was a political supporter and friend as well. Both men lived on Chicago’s South Side. Blackwell, a savvy and successful entrepreneur, was one of the first donors to Obama’s early campaigns, including the state senator’s failed bid for a congressional seat in 2000. In the presidential race he is credited on Obama’s website with committing to raise $100,000 to $200,000 for Obama’s campaign.

When Blackwell sought backing for his table tennis tournament in 2002, other politicians…offered support…But Obama was the only one who provided a letter that became part of the initial application for state funds…In addition, he wrote a state Senate proclamation heralding the first tournament and an official letter that welcomed “table tennis friends” to the 2004 contest and thanked spectators for helping to “make Chicago the table tennis capital of this nation.” (emphasis added)

Keep in mind, this is the politician whose campaign had the audacity to say:

“Sen. Clinton is the most secretive politician in America today. This has been a pattern throughout her career of the lack of disclosure.”   Source.

There is nothing “new” about Barack Obama.  He may be younger than his peers, but Obama has been an obedient student of traditional Chicago politics, and he learned early on how to keep his bread buttered. Now American voters don’t necessarily have a problem with conventional politicians.  But I’m pretty sure that people dislike hypocritical ones.

UPDATED 4/27/08 5:55 PM PST: This update, originally posted at 1:45 PM PST, included a citation to Andy Martin. Due to objections in the comment threads of this post, I have deleted that reference. The question, however, is valid, which is what legal “services” Obama provided to earn $112,000 from Blackwell’s company. Is there a record? Note: I am currently researching this question and will update accordingly.

UPDATED 4/27/08 4:00 PM PST: Over at Talk Left, I came across this comment today in response to the LA Times story:

Being a lawyer myself (5.00 / 3) (#23)
by angie on Sun Apr 27, 2008 at 02:36:49 PM EST:

I would like to see Obama’s time sheets for the work he did for EIK. The simple fact is that what most people call a retainer today is really an advance — the money you get from the client goes into a trust account and as you actually do the work then that money can be moved from the trust account to your general account — only at that point (after the work is actually done and billed) is the money the attorney’s. A true retainer is a set amount of money given to an attorney to ensure that the attorney is available for whatever work you may have for him. The difference is that a true retainer is the attorney’s money from the moment he gets it, and without any work being done. This true retainer arrangement simply doesn’t happen any more, and in the rare case that it does, the attorney would have to be on par with Clarence Darrow. I cannot believe that Obama is/was such an attorney — not so new out of law school as the timing of this story. So, while I can’t say it is money laundering based on what I’m reading here, it does not pass the smell test for me and should raise some serious questions with the IL bar.

Cross posted at mydd.com

It’s kind of funny, if you’ve been paying attention…

Before Super Tuesday (Feb. 5th), people said Hillary had to win California plus a couple of states in the Northeast besides New York.

She did.  

Before March 4th, people said Hillary had to win Texas and Ohio.

She did (yes she won Texas, by more than 100,000 votes).

Then, people said she had to win Pennsylvania.

She did.

And now, people, especially Obama people desperate for Hillary’s demise, are frantically shouting from the rooftops that Clinton must win Indiana, North Carolina, or both.

But  that is false.  Where does it say in the RULES that Hillary Clinton must win Indiana or North Carolina?  Fact is, Clinton or Obama could…win or lose…either or both…state, and still win the nomination.

Now I am an optimistic Hillary supporter, and I believe she has an excellent chance of carrying Indiana, despite Obama’s plans to ramp up negative attacks against her, such as this fallacious mailer, and outspend her again by at least double.  But Indiana is a neighboring state to Obama’s home of Illinois, and that may tip a slight win his way.  North Carolina is more challenging for Sen. Clinton because the race-baiting underway by surrogates such as Rep. James Clyburn, who ridiculously insists he’s still neutral, will likely drive Obama to victory there. (Isn’t Clyburn’s recent interview remarkably similar to one he gave right before the South Carolina primary?)

Everyone should pause for a moment and evaluate the situation realistically.  Remember, neither Clinton nor Obama will have enough pledged delegates on June 4th, following the last primary, to secure the nomination.  Either one of them will need a sufficient number of votes from the super delegates to reach the magic number.  Yes, the super delegates….those Democratic leaders charged with ensuring that the Party nominate the strongest General Election candidate.

Currently the super delegates reflect the will of the people, in that their preferences are fairly evenly divided. (C259 to O236, according to the The Associated Press.)

And even Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, has finally acknowledged that super delegates will not be bound by the results of the primaries.  Per the Financial Times:

The Democratic party’s “superdelegates” have every right to…choose the candidate they believe would be best equipped to defeat John McCain in a general election, according to Dean.

He said there was nothing in the DNC’s rules that would prevent the party’s unelected superdelegates, who make up about a fifth of the overall delegate tally and who will ultimately pick the winner, from “doing what they want”.

“If it’s very very close, they [the superdelegates] will do what they want anyway,” said Mr Dean.

Yes, folks, this race is still a tie, especially if Florida and Michigan are acknowledged at all…Side note:  Hillary supported re-votes in those states; Obama just keeps running away from them as if over 2 million Democrats don’t count!

Now, anyone paying attention knows this race is extremely close but desperate people work very hard to spin a narrative that some state or another is a “must win” for Clinton.  Never mind that Obama lost California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania. (Correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure that a primary candidate has never in history lost all those major states and won the presidency).

So let’s not forget the 8 states that still need to vote (plus Guam).

Here is the calendar for the rest of the primaries:

May 4: Guam — 4 pledged delegates (PDs)

May 6: North Carolina — 115 PDs

May 6: Indiana — 72 PDs

May 13: West Virginia — 28 PDs

May 20:  Kentucky — 51 PDs

May 20:  Oregon — 52 PDs

June 1:  Puerto Rico — 55 PDs

June 3: Montana — 16 PDs

June 3: South Dakota — 15 PDs

Total Pledged Delegates remaining = 408

Number of people remaining who will likely vote = 5 million, according to CNN estimates.

Five million people still plan to vote!  In fact, new voters are registering in upcoming primary states in record numbers because they want their voices to be heard.

So, spin, spin, spin all you like, but there will be 9 more primaries in which 408 more pledged delegates are contested, and neither candidate must win any of the remaining races to win the Democratic nomination.  By all accounts, there will still be a virtual tie when all the voting has finally concluded.

Then, it will be in the hands of the super delegates.  And, as Howard Dean said about their decision:

“I think the race is going to come down to the perception in the last six or eight races of who the best opponent for McCain will be.”

Who the best opponent for McCain will be…

Cross posted at mydd.com and hillarysbloggers.com

Barack Obama, “the presumptive nominee” of the Democratic Party, must feel lousy today after losing Pennsylvania by more than 200,000 votes yesterday, despite waging an aggressive and negative  campaign against Hillary Clinton, in which he outspent her 3 to 1.   It’s not hard to imagine how much greater Clinton’s win would have been had advertising budgets been equalized.

Democratic strategists and experts, such as George Stephanopoulos, have said that a win of 5 points or less by Clinton in Pennsylvania would have effectively secured the nomination for Obama.  But he was unable to crack Clinton’s winning coalition of union households, women, white people,  seniors, blue-collar workers, Catholics, and Jews.  As proven in other states, Hispanics bolster her nationwide coalition even more.

The results across Pennsylvania were impressive for Senator Clinton:

According to exit polls, Hillary won voters most concerned about the economy by 16 points (58-42) and union households by 18 points (59-41). She won those with incomes between 100K and 150K by 20 points (60-40); white women by 32 points (66-34) and Catholics by 38 points (69-31). She won those who decided on the last day (59-41), the last three days (58-42) and the last week (54-46). Hillary Clinton press release.

Additionally, Clinton once again demonstrated her appeal in rural and suburban America, winning nearly all counties across the state.  And her succcess in Pittsburgh serves as a reminder that she too can carry urban areas.

As expected, Obama held on firmly to his coalition of African Americans and the wealthy (over $150,000 annual income).

But the AP asks why Obama “can’t close the deal.”

The sobering reality is that Obama’s coalition is too weak and shallow to win a major cross-section of core Democrats from shore to shore.  Losses in one or two major states would hardly be noteworthy, but accumulated losses over the past 3-and-a-half months starkly reveal a problem for this “frontrunner.” California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, to name a few, offer classic Democratic demographics .  Surely the super delegates must wonder whether Obama, the most successful presidential fundraiser in history, can assemble a winning Democratic coalition in any of these electorally rich states.

Also, questions about Obama’s character, experience, judgment, and ability to empathize with common folk have increasingly plagued him. Red flags are popping up on a daily basis:

The company he keeps, as described by conservative commentator Andrew McCarthy is an inconvenient truth.  Obama’s ambition and charisma conceal his thin senatorial records, explains Todd Spivak.  Truthfulness about an assortment of matters, from meeting Nadhmi Auchi to what he actually knew about Rev. Wright’s bitter rhetoric, is also problematic.  And Obama’s arrogance, most vividly displayed recently when he “flipped off” Hillary Clinton doesn’t help his image with average Americans either.  Along the same lines, today David Axelrod audaciously insulted white working class voters by declaring them irrelevant to a Democratic victory.  That dismissive attitude, along with patriotism gaffes, likely explains why 32% of Democratic voters in Pennsylvania told a pollster that they would never vote for Barack Obama. In the words of another writer:

If he becomes the Democratic Party’s nominee for President, Sen. Barack Obama will lose the general election for this reason: When the smiles and platitudes are set aside, Obama’s campaign and the philosophy of his cadre amount to one big put-down of America. Source.

One no longer needs to imagine how the GOP and 527’s will attack Obama where he’s most vulnerable.  The North Carolina GOP has already unveiled a television ad featuring Rev. Wright’s damning of America, as reported today by Marc Ambinder of The Atlantic.  Although the ad is short and crude, the devastating potential of similar assaults is indisputable.  You can view it here.

Obama’s narrow delegate lead can be largely attributed  to an effective strategy in caucus states (for which his campaign deserves credit) in addition to a hypnotized mass media.  However, the media is slowing waking up, as ABC News demonstrated in last week’s debate.  And legitimate questions have now been raised about whether caucuses accurately reflect the peoples’ will (as illustrated most clearly in Texas, where Clinton won the popular vote by more than 100,000 but “lost” the caucuses) and whether caucus irregularities have created an unlevel playing field.

And speaking of the will of the people, Hillary Clinton now boasts a lead of 123,358 in the popular vote when results from Florida and Michigan primaries are included, according to Real Clear Politics.

Super delegates probably hoped to avoid the serious task at hand.  But because Obama can’t close the deal on his own, their votes will now be determinative.  And while General Election polls should be evaluated cautiously at this early date — indicators of Obama’s electability problems are evident.  For example, in Massachusetts, where Obama enjoys the support of Senators Kerry and Kennedy as well as Gov. Patrick, there is disturbing news for Sen. Obama, as reported by The Boston Herald:

While Hillary Clinton soundly beats McCain in Massachusetts in the new SurveyUSA poll, 56 percent to 41 percent, the Obama/McCain number is 48 percent to 46 percent, well within the margin of error.

A Democrat struggling here in 2008? An unpopular war, a collapsing housing market and $4 gas - if Britney Spears were running as a Democrat, she’d pull at least 50 percent of the Massachusetts vote.

John McCain poses another threat to Obama, which is the potential to attract Hispanics, a voting bloc that can make or break a general election candidate. Clinton, on the other hand, has already established her good will among Latinos.

Obama is inclined to continuously blame Hillary for his election problems. But each candidate must be accountable for his or her weaknesses.  And that is one reason I admire Hillary Clinton.  Not only has she adapted her campaign strategy and structure when necessary, Clinton doesn’t take the onslaught of assaults personally.  In fact, I’d guess that her grit and determination in the face of adversity have won over more voters.  Obama, on the other hand, is an incessant whiner, which of course is an unappealing quality in a friend, colleague, or spouse.  But in a general election candidate for President, petulance is a sure recipe for disaster.

All in all, the super delegates have many factors to consider.  At this stage, they should have a fairly complete picture of each candidate’s advantages and disadvantages for the General Election, including their judgment, credentials, and demographic coalitions. It would not be surprising, therefore, if super delegates begin to break towards Clinton as the primary season finally winds down.

by TexasDarlin

Note: TexasDarlin has just returned from mandatory travels, and will begin blogging again in earnest very soon…

There are a few news items about Obama’s abyssmal record of accomplishment as a State Senator. One of the most comprehensive is Todd Spivak’s investigative piece in the Houston Press. Spivak used to cover Obama in Chicago. Read the full article here. Here’s an excerpt:

On the stump, Obama has frequently invoked his experiences as a community organizer on the Chicago South Side in the early 1990s, when he passed on six-figure salary offers at corporate law firms after graduating from Harvard Law School to direct a massive voter-registration drive.

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues, from historic preservation to the rapid demolition of nearby public-housing projects, according to many South Siders.

Harold Lucas, a veteran South Side community organizer who remembers when Obama was “just a big-eared kid fresh out of school,” says he didn’t finally decide to support Obama’s presidential bid until he was actually inside the voting booth on Super Tuesday.

“I’m not happy about the quality of life in my community,” says Lucas, who now heads a black-heritage tourism business in Chicago. “As a local elected official, he had a primary role in that.”

Here is an excerpt from my Mystery Man Obama blog about Barack’s missing paper trail from those days:

“It appears that Obama never kept records of his time in the Illinois state legislature, or he discarded them….Either way, he clearly intended to leave no paper trail.” Source:

“You know I’m not certain, Lynn,” Obama said. “I didn’t have the resources to ensure that all this stuff was archived in some way; it could have been thrown out. I haven’t been in the state senate now for some time. I’m not sure, Lynn. I don’t know.” Source

But, as a state senator, Obama evaded leadership on a host of critical community issues…according to many South Siders. “He’s been given a pass,” says Harold Lucas, the community organizer in Chicago. “His career has been such a meteoric rise that he has not had the time to set a record.” Source

Imagine the disappointment of having a Freedom of Information Act effort, only to find that no data exists to acquire….they no longer exist, and may never have at all. Source

And here’s a YouTube video by Flineo called “Obama’s Forgotten People” about the neglected constituents in Barack Obama’s own Illinois Senate district…

Previously entitled “Grown-ups only for President, please!”

Even my 74-year old mom took one look at this, and said: he’s giving the finger!

Obama’s own campaign posted this on You Tube in support of his candidacy. What does that say about his character, maturity, arrogance, respect for women, and respect for Hillary? Who’s Barack’s target audience? What is the message he means to convey? This is the guy who says he’ll sit down with enemy leaders around the world and diplomatically discuss our differences?

And he did it twice!  At 2 separate events…same speech, same pause, same gesture — proving that Barack Obama deliberately flipped off Hillary.

Here is the short video version of the second time Obama made the obscene gesture while talking about Hillary’s debate performance.

And here is the longer version of the same incident. You can see by the audience reaction and Barack’s own smirks that there was no ambiguity as to what was intended.

Long version…

In the words of my 22-year-old niece: “If you’re going to have the audacity to flip someone off as a presidential candidate, then at least have the chutzpah to actually flip them off….how old are you that you have to scratch your face with your middle finger instead?  If he had done it directly, he’d still be a jack ass, but now he’s a jack ass and juvenile.”

For more detail , including the mainstream media outlets which are now running the story, there are a couple of excellent posts at No Quarter.

Cross posted at mydd.com

Hillary dominates Philadelphia focus group. “NYDIA HAN: The real take away is this. We now know who won the debate according to our focus group. Take a look. Senator Clinton is the debate winner, at least according to our focus group. 23% believe Senator Obama won while 50% believed Senator Clinton won.” [WPVI Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]

ABC News’ Rick Klein – ‘Clinton is back to the strong presence we saw early in the cycle.’ [ABC News Political Radar, 4/16/08]

NBC News’ Chuck Todd – Obama ‘did not have a good night.’ [MSNBC Post-Debate Analysis, 4/16/08]

NBC News’ Chuck Todd—Obama’s answer on Ayers and the flag ‘were simply weak.’ “His answer on Ayers and the flag question were simply weak; He seemed unprepared for them; Kinda surprising because he normally has a decent rant against “old politics” and yet “old politics” questions seemed to stump him.” [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]

The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder – [T]here’s no way Obama could fared worse. [The Atlantic’s Marc Ambinder, 4/16/08]

Washington Post’ Chris Cillizza— Obama ‘struggled quite a bit’ when asked about Rev. Wright. “…He struggled quite a bit more when asked to answer for Wright, his former pastor.” [Washington Post, The Fix, 4/16/08]

New York Times’ Katharine Seeyle: Hillary’s ‘in her element as she goes into details.’ “She’s becoming expansive, seemingly in her element as she goes into details; Mr. Obama does not look as thrilled to be still standing there.” [New York Times, The Caucus, 4/16/08]

Talking Points Memo’s Josh Marshall – Hillary ‘certainly seems more self-assured.’ “She certainly seems more self-assured on the Iran question than Obama did. The question of extending an American security umbrella to Israel is very dicey. And he could clearly see he was on delicate territory.” [Talking Points Memo, 4/16/08]

Philadelphia Inquirer blog – ‘Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit.’ “Obama is again less certain, and rambles a bit when asked about the Washington D.C. gun ban. Gibson asks him to deny that he has ever advocated a complete ban on hand guns in 1996. Obama says no. But whatever the truth, no other answer is possible.” [Philadelphia Inquirer Blog, 4/16/08]

NBC News’ Matthew Berger – Obama ‘tried to have it both ways’ with Israel. “Obama’s answer on an Iranian attack on Israel tried to seem to have it both ways: highlight his support for Israel but not lock him into treating an attack on Israel like an attack on the U.S. But it may have looked more like a no because it wasn’t a firm yes. Clinton’s answer seemed more direct.” [NBC First Read, 4/16/08]

Source: http://blog.hillaryclinton.com/

A few notes from the blogosphere submitted by TexasDarlin, who’s sneaking this in while on mandatory vacation…

Larry Johnson at No Quarter writes about the “unofficial endorsement” of Barack Obama by the terrorist organization Hamas:

Yousuf said that in Hamas’ view, Obama has “a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with humiliation and arrogance…

In another post called Can We Fill The Holes in Barack’s Story?, Larry raises the intriguing question of why Obama moved to Chicago in the first place. Might it have something to do with his lifelong pattern of seeking out radical/socialist friends and mentors, as explored in Mystery Man Obama?

And for more information on the company he keeps check out dianej’s impressive blog called REZKO, AUCHI, AYERS, DORHN, KHALIDI and SENATOR OBAMA, which concisely explores Barack’s association with those disreputable men, and again begs the question: how much should we measure a presidential contender based on the friends he makes, the mentors he selects, the associates he supports, the person he weds….

Speaking of Michelle, who’s weirdly been styled to resemble Jackie Onassis, Barack’s wife proves once again that she doesn’t possess a fraction of the grace or class which defined John F. Kennedy’s wife. As reported by AOL’s Political Machine Michelle defended hubby’s proclamation that small-town Americans hug guns and God out of resentment:

“We live in isolation, and because of that isolation we fear one another.

“Because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.

“Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual; uninvolved, uninformed.” (emphasis added)

Michelle may think she married the messiah, good for her. But I don’t need a President who wants to save my soul.

Video of Michelle Obama in Winston-Salem explaining how Americans are “motivated by fear.”

Finally…Taylor Marsh blogs about Rev. Wright’s new 10,000 square foot mansion, which apparently was purchased by Trinity United Church of Christ:

BACKGROUND: At a fundraiser in San Francisco last week, Senator Obama shared his views of Americans from small towns: “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.”

To Whom It May Concern:

We wish to express our sincere disappointment with comments made by Senator Obama at a San Francisco fundraiser last week–comments which demeaned the values of small Midwestern towns. These views are offensive to millions of hardworking Hoosiers who strive everyday to provide for our families, lift up our communities and strengthen our country.

We embrace our faith not out of frustration but as a foundation of the values that guide us – the values we inherit and the values we pass on. We have faced difficult times. However, Hoosiers are resilient, optimistic and unwavering in our commitment to our families and country. After seven years of a president who refused to talk to us, the last thing we need is a presidential candidate who talks down to us.
(more…)

Introduction by TexasDarlin:
The company he keeps, it keeps raising eyebrows. From his earliest days, Barack has befriended and associated with one questionable character after another. If there were one bad apple along the way, it would barely be noticed. But Barack and Michelle seem to be attracted to ex-terrorists, crooks, American-haters, anti-semites, supremacists, Marxists….When will it strike the collective conscience that this guy’s baggage is just too explosive? — td

You have heard of him. His name is Nadhmi Auchi and he is VERY wealthy. And you might also know that he is a good friend of slumlord and political fixer, Tony Rezko. The same Tony Rezko that is a good friend of Barack Obama. The same guy that helped finance his political career. And the very same Tony Rezko that helped Barack and Michelle Obama buy their nice mansion. But here are a few things you might not know about Nadhmi Auchi.

IRAQ: British tycoon in quiz over ties to Labour

· Was tried alongside Saddam Hussein for his involvement in a conspiracy to assassinate an Iraqi prime minister in Baghdad in the 1950s;

· Used money from military contracts in Iraq to establish a business and banking empire in Britain and Luxembourg;

and

· Was employed to pay alleged bribes from Italian companies to win oil contracts in Iraq because of his close links to the regime.

He was buds with Saddam Hussein back in the day. And he used to pay bribes and collect commissions for contracts. Sounds like an upright fellow, eh? Well, maybe in Chicago he is. And speak of the devil….

Witness at Rezko trial says Obama attended party for billionaire

The government’s star witness at the fraud trial of political fundraiser Antoin “Tony” Rezko testified Monday that he attended a party for a British billionaire at Rezko’s home, where Sen. Barack Obama and his wife also were among the guests.

Attorney Stuart Levine testified that the party took place in April 2004 and was held to honor Iraqi-born, London-based billionaire Nadhmi Auchi, who was visiting the United States at the time.

(more…)