“I have a much broader base to build a winning coalition on” than Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton has told USA TODAY.

She cited an Associated Press article “that found how Sen. Obama’s support among working, hard-working Americans, white Americans, is weakening again, and how whites in both states who had not completed college were supporting me.”

“There’s a pattern emerging here,” said Hillary. “These are the people you have to win if you’re a Democrat in sufficient numbers to actually win the election. Everybody knows that.”

The Democratic Party can’t win with just “eggheads and African-Americans,” Paul Begala added helpfully.

What Hillary and Begala are saying is politically incorrect, but it is also patently true. Hillary was describing what may now fairly be called the Hillary Democrats — a.k.a. the ex-Reagan Democrats who did not vote for Obama and may defect to John McCain.

If Obama can win over these voters who gave Hillary big victories in Ohio and Pennsylvania, he is the 44th president. If McCain does not win a goodly slice of these Democrats, he will lose.

Who, exactly, are the Hillocrats, half of whom said in the exit polls from North Carolina and Indiana that, if she loses the nomination, they will stay home or vote for McCain?

They are white, working- and middle-class, Catholic, small-town, rural, unionized, middle-age and seniors, and surviving on less than $50,000 a year. They are the people most belittled by the condescending commentary of Barack behind closed doors out at Sodom on the Bay.

“You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, (where) the jobs have been gone now for 25 years. … 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.”

In 40 years, two Democrats have won the presidency, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton, and both did so only after connecting with these folks.

People forget. In 1976, Carter ran as a Naval Academy grad and nuclear engineer, a born-again Baptist and peanut farmer from Plains, Ga., who, in Philadelphia, talked about preserving the “ethnic purity” of the neighborhoods. Clinton first ran as a death-penalty Democrat.

It was Ronald Reagan who cemented the GOP hold of these Nixon-Agnew New Majority Democrats, who are now headed back home.

And it was George H.W. Bush and Lee Atwater who turned a 17-point deficit as of Aug. 1, 1988, into an eight-point lead Bush never lost on Labor Day — by eviscerating Michael Dukakis on the social and cultural issues: Dukakis’ veto of a Pledge-of-Allegiance-to-the-Flag bill, his opposition to capital punishment, his pride in being “a card-carrying member of the ACLU,” his weekend furloughs for convicted criminals and killers like Willy Horton.

Bush lost the presidency in 1992 when, under fire, he retreated from the social and cultural issues and sought to win on foreign policy, and on the economy, where his approval rating was 16 percent.

In 1992, cultural, social and moral issues could have derailed Clinton, which is why James Carville told the War Room to stay laser-focused. “It’s the economy, stupid!” Bush and James Baker deemed social and cultural issues unworthy of a president. And so it was that George H.W. Bush ceased to be president.

His son did not make that mistake. In the primaries and general election in 2000, Bush embraced the Christian conservatives and their agenda.

Since Pennsylvania, Barack has recognized this deficiency and sought to portray himself as a reflexive patriot who enjoys a bottle of Bud just like the next guy, a kid raised in poverty by a single mom, who turned his back on Wall Street offers to fight for steelworkers laid off when their mills closed in South Chicago and moved to China.

McCain, a war hero and POW, is a natural for Middle Pennsylvania and Middle Ohio. His problems, however, are these:

He is failing to energize the Republican base, one-fourth of which is still voting against him in primaries. On the great populist issues of 2008 — outsourcing of American jobs to Mexico, Asia and China, and the illegal alien invasion — he stands foursquare with K Street — for amnesty and NAFTA — and against Main Street.

And like Gerald Ford and Bob Dole, McCain recoils from cultural and social issues. He berated Tarheel Republicans for linking Barack, the Rev. Wright and local Democrats, and denounced a conservative talk show host who introduced him for mocking Barack’s middle name.

This may solidify McCain’s standing with his core constituency, the liberal commentariat. But these folks will depart in the fall. And the Republican base and the Hillary Democrats had better be there, or McCain will do what moderate Republicans nominees do best. Lose gracefully.

Keep an eye on West Virginia. The votes Hillary gets, and the way she gets them, may provide a road map for how the GOP can hold the White House this fall, if they are not too squeamish to follow it.

Pat Buchanan is America’s leading populist conservative, was a senior advisor to three American Presidents, ran twice for the Republican nomination in 1992 and 1996, and was the Reform Party’s Presidential candidate in 2000. The author of eight books, including the mega-bestsellers, The Death of the West and Where the Right Went Wrong, as well as other bestsellers, Right from the Beginning, and A Republic, Not an Empire, Mr. Buchanan is a syndicated columnist, a political analyst for MSNBC, and a founding member of three of America’s foremost public affairs shows, NBC’s The McLaughlin Group, and CNN’s The Capitol Gang and Crossfire. He is also Editor Emeritus of the political magazine, The American Conservative.. Stiff Right Jab invites you to visit Buchanan.org to get your copy of Pat's latest book and to access his full archives.

The Washington Post reports on another grim news event for Hillary Clinton: confirmation that her campaign is $20 million in debt.

With her campaign falling ever deeper into debt, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton spent a rainy Mother's Day seeking votes ahead of Tuesday's primary here, turning a deaf ear to calls for her to leave a Democratic presidential contest she has little hope of winning.

Campaign Chair Terry McAuliffe suggested Clinton might lend her campaign more money:

Terry McAuliffe, the Clinton campaign chairman, told Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" that he spoke to Clinton about the possibility of contributing more money and "she said that she would be willing to do it." However, McAuliffe insists, "We haven't needed it."

WTF do you mean you don't need it?  Ya'll are leaving venders high and dry!  You're not paying your bills? 

Wow.  She's not just operating with NO disregard for Obama and his reputation, she's operating with no regard for anydamnthing.  As long as she get's to campaign, that's all that matters.

She's like a terminally ill woman with a perfect credit score which she's subsiquently run into the ground financing all of her lifelong dreams before lying down for one last time.

We like WTF Award nominees.  Think we'll keep it up.  We'll announce a winner at the end of the week.

 

 

"People seem to be hungry for change, what can we do?" Sen Clinton asked.
"Let's make sure we're the candidate who represents the status-quo in Washington!" replied Mark Penn.
"Yeah, yeah," Harold Ickes said, "experience says it all. People who want change will love that!"

"Obama is offering hope, what do we say?" asked Clinton.
"We say we're against hope!" said Penn. "Let's dash the hopes and dreams of a generation of young people who adore Obama and replace it with a shrill appeal to the worst in human nature!"

"Some people are writing that this is a turning point in the racial life of America, one in which the accumulated assimilation of black folks into the mainstream of American life is second-nature to everyone under the age of 40," Hillary said. "How can we make that work for us?"
"We can't," said Bill Clinton, "Let's belittle Obama's accomplishment, tell the public that Americans won't vote for a Black man for President and say that White folks are on our side."

Sidney Blumenthal piped up, "I've been doing a good job sending out these emails about how Obama is a Muslim but how can we maximize that?"

"Oh, I know," said Hillary brightly, "when Sixty Minutes asks me about it, I'll make sure I leave doubts in the minds of the viewers that he just might be a Muslim after all!"
"And that's why we love you, Hil," said Blumenthal, licking the bottoms of her shoes.

And then picking up a chart at a meeting last week, Howard Wolfson said, turning it one way and then another, "I can't make this chart work. No matter which way I turn it, we lose...pledged delegates, super delegates, popular vote, number of states won...what do we say?"

Hillary threw a glass of expensive wine at him and said, "We say we're winning. Look, the best way to make sure I'm elected President of the United States is to change the perception Democrats have of the Clinton family and get America to hate us!"

Mission Accomplished, Mr. President and Madame Senator.

My projections for Kentucky are:

Hillary Clinton 58.13
Barack Obama 30.78

Hillary's lead has fallen from a peak of 35.71% on April 14th to just over 25%. However, this is still a crushing lead.

There's more of this brilliant post available! CLICK HERE!!!!

My latest projection for West Virginia is

Hillary Clinton 60.84
Barack Obama 22.92

Although Obama has closed the gap when compared with the last poll, he is still doing worse than he was doing at the start of this month. Unless he can get the margin to below 25%, Hillary will be on her way to becoming a plausible candidate again.

Well today we have another day before a primary election and I like millions of others have turned off the television. Though I will only watch Hannity, Greta and O'Reilly tonight.  I am tired of hearing the spin talking heads out there telling Hillary Clinton to get out of the race.  I see several problems with this line of thinking.  This is the first one:

http://www.correntewire.com/hillary_clinton_must_be_the_democratic_nominee_do_the_math

Next I want to know why the media is trying to control the race?  They are out there and telling people it is over and done with?  What is their point in this?  Actually what are conventions for?  Kennedy and Kerry took their case to the convention, Bush also took his to the convention but Hillary is being told to get out of the way for King Obama?  What are they scared of?  Don't tell me it is party unity as that is moot.  There is no way this Democratic party is going to all go gushy and back Obama if he is the nominee.  Donna Brazile has made it clear that they do not need working class, Catholics, women, gays, Latinos to win since their new party is black, elitist and more urban with college students.  She stated very plainly that they do not need us to win the presidency.  John McCain does though. Someone here turned the TV on this morning to the news and before I told them to shut it off I heard a commentator talking about it. He said if Obama gets the nomination then McCain knows he has a win for sure.  He is correct as millions of us Hillary people will back him in a heartbeat.  The Obama people are bashing us for saying that we would withstand another 4 years of Bush.  We can and we will because at least we will know the person in the oval office truly does love America.  It is worth it. 

Why announce yourself King before the magic number of 2209 is reached? They say Florida and Michigan are being brought into play so the stake gets raised up to the true number of 2209 not 2025 without them.  Why try and again disenfranchise voters of the states who have NOT casted their ballots?  This is the current WV polls at:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/ky/kentucky_democratic_primary-638.html

These are the latest Kentucky polls:

These states are asking the following question: Has anyone seen Obama in Kentucky or West Virginia?

Why leave the rest of the superdelegates in the dust?  These people do not matter?  What about the Democratic convention?  Hillary is not allowed the same privileges as the rest of the nation so she should NOT go to the convention? Why are HER rights being denied?  Why did Howard Dean hand pick the people for the convention who are ALL people who will back his will which is clearly for Obama?  Why are ALL the cards in the deck being stacked against Hillary? Why do the pundits say that people hate Hillary when they are clearly backing her?  Apparently these people do not realize the more they bash her, the more it makes her supporters surround her and become more furious with their attitudes.

Stop watching the news.  MSNBC which is banned by Hillary supporters has been driven down to just above 30 and CNN is down to the lower 20’s in ratings.  Fox News which we will tolerate is in the top 5 on ratings.  Doesn’t this tell them anything? People want to know, yes we do but we want the truth.  We do not want to sit there and hear Hillary Clinton bashed over and over again, the same old crap before every election with Obama being touted as the king. Even when Hillary does win, it is shoved in the toilet and they spin her wins to look like they are Obama’s wins.  It is disgusting and sickening. Still, amidst all of their garbage they throw at her she is still standing and fighting strong.  Still the people come out to vote for her and show her they stand behind her.  Must give Obamabots fits, lol. 

Obama Who?  He has shown that he cannot win over Hillary’s supporters. Now his new one is that he is courting female individuals and promising them VP slots.  The total is at three so far as we know.  This is nothing more than a slap in the face to her people.  He thinks we are voting for her because she is a woman?  This man is clueless. 

http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/05/12/obama-wants-a-woman-to-be-vice-president/#more-2476

Obama is not electable at all, period.  The maps show it, the math shows it, the people who vote for Hillary are screaming it and yet all of us are being ignored?  The bottom line is what to heck is he promising all these people to back him? Could it be, Oh I don’t know maybe…money?  How many men has he promised the VP slot to?  Or cabinet positions?  He throws people under the bus when he is done with them and the people think he is honest?  He is out for himself and himself only.  Do we really want this at a presidential state house dinner with foreign dignitaries?

YouTube - Barack & Michelle Obama Eating Pancakes - Bad Etiquette

This is another good and I mean very good reason for women and men who love their wives and girlfriends to back her fight and vote for Hillary.  Who does these negative attack ads?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ke64670GkZ8

This is another powerful video that gives something to think about: It makes some good connections about Obama. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOfRPCdRXyA

Yes! Finally an investigative reporter who is willing to speak up and dig up items on Obama.  This is posted at http://www.rezkowatch.blogspot.com/  Kudos to EVELYN PRINGLE and please keep up the great work:

http://www.countercurrents.org/pringle070408.htm

FYI: In other news: Massachusetts delegate Arthur Powell yesterday announced his support for Hillary.

Kudos to himJ

It outlined, that for various unclear reasons, each media outlet has a different delegate and superdelegate count for Obamara and Clinton.  CNN had Obama the furthest behind Clinton in Supers, which is why when ABC called Obama ahead last week, CNN yawned and went back to covering the O man's jeans, a game of Taboo, and his walk outside the captial; gee, that all seems so...news worthy, doesn't it?

Alas, CNN nowa grees Obama is in the lead with Superdelegates, Clinton's last claim to fame:

With the endorsement of Congressman and Senate candidate Tom Allen, Barack Obama has pulled ahead of Hillary Clinton in CNN’s count of Democratic superdelegates, 274-273.

In a statement released by the Obama campaign Monday, Allen said both Democratic candidates were “supremely qualified” to be president.

“I have been friends for a very long time with former President Clinton and Senator Clinton. I respect their service to our nation. Hillary Clinton has run a vigorous campaign and has attracted a passionate following in Maine and around the country. She loves this country and is a true leader. For her service, I am grateful,” he said.

“Most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign. We now need to unify the Democratic Party and focus on electing Senator Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate…”

Allen first met former President Bill Clinton when both were Oxford University students four decades ago.

Full story

O New York Times dá-nos conta disso.

É esperado que Obama tente passar a mensagem de que John McCain será um herdeiro das políticas de George W. Bush. e que foque a sua rejeição do direito à interrupção voluntária da gravidez. Já o candidato republicano deverá apostar em salientar a inexperiência de Barack Obama, bem como o seu liberalismo e o seu carácter elitista. Este último argumento será então um resquício da intensa campanha, no seio do Partido Democrata, com Hillary Clinton. Este, bem como outros episódios, poderão fazer a diferença, a favor de John McCain, em Novembro próximo.

Outro questão que tem sido levantada por John  McCain é a preferência do Hamas pela vitória do Senador do Illinois na corrida à Casa Branca. Joe Lieberman, destacado apoiante de John McCain, levanta de novo esta questão.

In a few hours the voters of West Virginia will be going to the polls to vote for the person they feel will best represent their wants, needs, and aspirations in the November election for president. Is that person the democratic party's "presumptive nominee" Barack Obama? No!

Its Hillary Clinton. She is projected to beat Obama by 40% or more. Are you kidding me? Our presumptive nominee can't beat her in West Virginia, and we are to accept this as a validation of his candidacy? And still, Hillary fights on for her supporters and the country; that pesky woman just can't take a hint, can she?

If Barak is such a terrific candidate, why isn't he sweeping through the balance of the states? The truth is, he isn't that terrific and 16.9 million Hillary voters have said so. If he were, Hillary would have been long gone. She's still in this race because so much of America doesn't like or trust Barack's brand of politics. Don't bother jumping ugly. This has nothing to do with the color of his skin or the cut of his suit . . . it is about his believes, his lack of experience, and his lack of courage. If the situation was reversed, do really think Barack would be fighting on?

You see, if BO scores a win its important and if Hillary scores a win, it was expected. Ahhh, it was expected and therefore, to be discounted. See the difference? No? Neither do I.

The truth is there has been so much finagling and hypocrisy on the part of Dean, others within the DNC to give Obama the nomination that words like breathtaking don’t come close to describing the travesty, and the thumping democracy has taken.

Turns out, Dean has always had a solution to Florida and Michigan situation. According to Terry McAuliffe, the rules already give Dean the ability to take 50% of the delegates away from Florida and Michigan for holding their primaries early. The votes would be proportionally divided the candidates. Dean never had to use a nuclear option of taking a 100% of the delegates away, despite misrepresentations to the contrary.

Bet you didn't hear that on MSNBC! This cable network has stepped over the line so many times; it should be dubbed the OBAMA PROPAGANDA MACHINE, not a news organization.

Remember this folks, if Barack moves from "presumptive nominee" to nominee of the democratic party, you can expect another Republican president thanks to some of folks already noted in this post.

Many of these people are the same political genius' that gave us McGovern (was only able to win 2 states in the presidential election), Mondale (was only able to win 1 states in the presidential election), and Carter, a failed four year democratic president.

See that puff of smoke? What's that sound? . . . boom! Ah, yes the McGovern death spiral. Thanks, guys!

Over the last few months Hillary Clinton has been running what her campaign has called a "kitchen-sink" strategy, whereby she has thrown everything she could think of at Obama, in the hope that something would stick. At times that has meant going very close to the line of what is acceptable to say about someone on the same team as you, and sometimes it meant blatantly crossing that line, like when she suggested that the other party's nominee John McCain is more qualified than Obama (43 second video).

Well, guess what? That sort of thing works. Not well enough to win, in this instance, but well enough to galvanize her supporters sufficiently against Obama that over half of them said in the last exit polls that they wouldn't vote for Obama in the general election. I was reading the user comments on an ABC News election article a few days ago, and some of the Clinton supporters are vitriolic about Obama. I probably don't need to say it, but that's a disaster.

So it seems to me that Clinton now wields an enormous amount of power. There's no doubt that she'll support Obama when he's finally nominated, but I think the enthusiasm and believability of that support will be crucial. I really hope that she spends every day for the next six months telling the world that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, because I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that her influence over her supporters could very well decide the result of the general election.

First, I see Lifeway Bookstores, owned by the Southern Baptist Convention, selling TD Jakes' doctrinal error (oneness pentecostalism and the Word of Faith/prosperity doctrine are but a few of his MANY problems) and now the National Religious Broadcasters are using this guy. I had been using the NRB as a sort of a refuge from the blatant charismania that you will find on The Word Network, Trinity Broadcasting Network, Daystar, etc. So I just ignored the heavy Pat Robertson presence on the channel, as well as their "white Europeans are the descendants of the children of Israel ... the Danube River is so named because of the tribe of Dan" show that comes on early in the morning. I also ignored their embrace of the Ellen White Seventh Day Adventist cult. So I suppose that I cannot cast NRB aside on Jakes' account, since the ones that I just named are hardly better - if anything some might be worse - or else I would be reacting out of a personal dislike for Jakes rather than on principle. (On the other hand, Slice of Laodicea has criticized NRB, albeit for different reasons, such as this post stating that not one red cent of NRB's $5 BILLION IN ASSETS is being used to defend the faith from Oprah Winfrey.)

Incidentally, speaking of TD Jakes and PR spots, he has another one out (I did not catch the sponsor!) promoting single sex education, saying that "boys need their own schools so that they will be able to, you know, romp and stuff (his choice of words not mine!) and that boys learn differently from girls and needed their own classrooms in order to be accommodated. So ... it looks like Jakes is not that far removed from Jeremiah Wright's separatist doctrines after all? 

I have to be honest, back when I was part of the religious right and allowing my worldview to be shaped by the Washington Times and the National Review, I was in full agreement. But now ... I just recall reading about this inner city public school that went all male. Sure, the discipline problems decreased and the test scores went up. But when they interviewed the boys that attended the school, EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM WANTED THEM TO BRING THE GIRLS BACK! Why? Because, er ... BOYS LIKE GIRLS! Or at least they are supposed to anyway. Perhaps now that T.D. Jakes is on board with the new world order's gay rights agenda (and yes this is relevant ... perhaps due to his son) he thinks it is OK. To me, the whole single sex education thing ... who wants it? Certainly not the kids. Not the administrators or teachers. Parents go for it only because they are desperate for any hook or angle to improve the failing school systems that the government is ruining on purpose. Not even the old fashioned religious sorts - of which I am one - think that it is a good idea anymore, where you were supposed to keep boys and girls separate in their little boarding or finishing schools (where they were supposed to look OH SO CUTE in their little uniforms I guess) UNTIL GRADUATION DAY WHEN YOU MARRY THEM OFF.

Sorry people, but society has changed. Not all of the changes have been for the good, but methinks that one of the most important things for a boy to learn from school is how to treat a lady and how to behave yourself in their presence. For some of us guys, those things do not come naturally, and you only learn them through trial and error. Especially error. (If you don't learn to handle competition and rejection in junior high and high school, how on earth are you supposed to handle being turned down for jobs, promotions, college choices, etc. later in life?) So ... HOW ON EARTH ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO LEARN THOSE THINGS IF THERE ARE NO GIRLS AROUND TO LEARN THEM FROM? 

Like I said, TD Jakes may have his own reasons for wanting to turn your local public school into Morehouse College or similar, and whatever they are I oppose them 100%. All the more reason why the Southern Baptist Convention should not be selling this guy's books and NRB shouldn't be using him for their get out the vote campaign. But I suppose that this oneness anti - Trinitarian heretic is just too good at making money and moving public opinion for these people to pass up. That is, unless they are actually along with Jakes, on his side. After all, the Southern Baptists refuse to do anything about the likes of New Age heretic Erwin McManus and Council on Foreign Relations worker Rick Warren (and Richard Land too?), and as stated earlier, Al Sharpton Al Gore global warming propagandist partner Pat Robertson is a major partner with the NRB. 

Check out this cover of the New Republic.  The media would never do this to Obama or McCain.  For every single person shouting that she should get out of the race because she is wrecking the democratic party, this is the resounding echo.  Hillary is exercising her right to run and while the media may be exercising their right to a voice, they are truly the ones tearing apart the democrats. 

With Barack in the lead and Hillary no longer "attacking" him, there is no longer a need (and there never was) to villainize her. There may be a need for ol' Hill in the near future, so its in the best interest of the party to not completely crucify her. 

For example, what if some calamity arise, a catastrophe orccurs, a Baracktastrophe? Perhaps it's something that makes the Rev. Wright circus look like the two cent dog and pony show held behind the local church or maybe he chokes on his waffles when shooing the press. Sure, it's not probable, but it is possible and its best to error on the side of caution when it involves the potential for four more years with a republican in office.

So really, for the good of the party, leave Hillary alone.

Environmental crisis is more than oil.  Climate change is also driving the food cost.  The ethanol market is now driving food prices world wide.  It is also driving the agricultural land prices up as well.  Consequently, we are now having a farm bill that is trying to cut down on the farm subsidy, see Forbes.

This is the first time that a Republican President is saying the cut in farm subsidy is not enough.  And this insufficient in farm subsidy cut is the cited reason for veto.  

On the contrary, a Democrat constituency group would want to support a farm bill and may even want to decrease the cuts in order to lower food prices. 

McCain may not have been explicit about his position in farm subsidy.  However, a thorough environmental policy will eventually lead to that point: cut farm subsidy.  

Environmental crisis is eventually down to this point: efficiency on resources, i.e. economics.  Traditional tree huggers, the ones from 60’s, cannot tolerate the word “economics”.  However, this is what it will go down to.  And McCain will feel very comfortable if he will be able to define this issue.  

If McCain is able to define environmental crisis well, McCain will be able not only to fight Obama better than any Republican can, but also expand Republican base to a new territory and grab the traditionally Democrat constituency group over: intellectuals, and some religious left (both Christians and otherwise).  More importantly, McCain can do something other countries have not been successful: take the green voters to the right wing rather than letting left wing to hog them.  Better yet, eliminate the possibility of growth for the Green Party.  

Green parties are getting strong footholds everywhere around the world.  Germany had Green Party to be part of the ruling coalition.  Green parties in Canada are getting 10% of the world both federally and provincially.  The way to starve off your competitor is to offer products the buyers have been looking for.   

Any third party can successfully come out and stay alive if it can find an issue that

In a statement released by the Obama campaign Monday, Allen said both Democratic candidates were “supremely qualified” to be president.

“I have been friends for a very long time with former President Clinton and Senator Clinton. I respect their service to our nation. Hillary Clinton has run a vigorous campaign and has attracted a passionate following in Maine and around the country. She loves this country and is a true leader. For her service, I am grateful,” he said.

“Most of the primary voters across the nation have now spoken. It is time to bring a graceful end to the primary campaign. We now need to unify the Democratic Party and focus on electing Senator Obama and a working majority in the United States Senate…”

Allen first met former President Bill Clinton when both were Oxford University students four decades ago.

Full story

Hello All. The Days of Clinton are history, it seems. The race between Obama and McCain is on and European newspapers are happy to join the fray:

The Times tells Senator Obama what to expect:

“There’s plenty of stuff out there, I’m kinda like in a candy store,” said Floyd Brown, who has been responsible for some of the most negative Republican advertising in previous elections.

One proposed TV advert is said to show a series of Democratic politicians, except for Mr Obama, wearing a Stars and Stripes lapel pin, before a message fills screens asking: “What’s he got against the American flag?”(more...)

The Telegraph is on the lookout for a VP:

Al Gore, also tipped by some observers, is verging on the absurd. Why bother? Done it for eight years, won the Oscar, won the Nobel.

John Edwards is more realistic but there he brings the spectre of failure with him from 2004, and does not represent a swing state.

Bill Richardson too has Clinton-era baggage about him and doubts about whether his personal conduct would withstand the exposure of a White House campaign.(more...)

The Guardian tells about preparations for townhall debates for McCain vs Obama:

With the nomination nearly wrapped up, Axelrod said his camp was in discussions with McCain on the Republican's proposal for a series of town hall debates. The proposal would potentially match Obama and McCain on several more occasions than the usual schedule of three televised debates for a presidential election.(more...)

The Independent says bye-bye to Hillary and reminds us of Edgar Allan Poe:

But there is a broader aspect to this high political drama, a sense that not merely a campaign but also a political lineage is approaching its end. In Edgar Allan Poe's macabre masterpiece The Fall of the House of Usher, set in a decaying castle, Roderick Usher's sister Madeline has been buried alive, consigned to the living dead. In the final moments of the tale she reappears to die, and the castle crumbles, vanishing for ever. As Clinton's inevitable defeat at the hands of Barack Obama draws closer, we are witnessing its political, albeit less gothic, equivalent – the Fall of the House of Clinton.(more...)

Der Spiegel prints the op-ed by Susan Faludi of their partner newspaper "New York Times":

Notable in the Indiana and North Carolina primary results (more...) and in many recent polls are signs of a change in the gender weather: white men are warming to Hillary Clinton -- at least enough to vote for her. It’s no small shift. These men have historically been her fiercest antagonists. Their conversion may point less to a new kind of male voter than to a new kind of female vote-getter. (more...)

In the last case, I beg to differ. To me the case makes it look more like "racism is a stronger emotion than sexism" in the white Clinton voting male.

Ed Koch Commentary May 10, 2008

Senator Barack Obama won the North Carolina primary by 14 percentage points. Senator Hillary Clinton won the Indiana primary by a narrower margin of two percent. Neither candidate scored a knockout punch, but Obama came out ahead.

Clearly Senator Obama who had the most to lose – it would have been considered a huge loss if Indiana went big for Hillary – also had the most to gain. The race goes on and will go on until a decision is made at the Democratic National Convention in Denver. The fat lady here is Hillary, and she won’t sing. I’m part of her primary campaign until she wins or withdraws. I simply do not trust Senator Obama’s judgment.

Obama’s actions in not standing up to Rev. Jeremiah Wright and protest the minister’s attacks on white America, the United States government and the State of Israel, and his support of Minister Louis Farrakhan, are important matters. No one accuses Obama of adopting any of Rev. Wright’s positions as his own. Indeed, he has denounced them. But his denouncement comes 20 years too late and only after Rev. Wright denounced his heretofore devoted congregant as a hypocrite for conveying his disagreement with his minister, stating at the National Press Club on April 28th, "We both know that, if Senator Obama did not say what he said, he would never get elected. Politicians say what they say and do what they do based on electability, based on sound bites, based on polls, Huffington, whoever's doing the polls. Preachers say what they say because they're pastors."

Yes, it is true that not many people would stand up in a church or synagogue and publicly argue with their minister, but surely, there are some who would argue privately – which was not done here – and even more who would leave a church or synagogue that was led by someone spouting hateful speech.

In any event, we expect more courage from a candidate for president of this great country. We are now engaged in a war against Islamic terrorism and are in need of someone who can be trusted to advocate on behalf of the United States. Senator Obama, regrettably, was silent for too long.

An even more telling incident recently occurred. Hillary Clinton responded to the threats of the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has stated, “The annihilation of the Zionist regime will come…Israel must be wiped off the map…And God willing…we shall soon experience a world without the United States and Zionism.”

This week, according to The New York Times, “Ahmadinejad called Israel ‘a stinking corpse’ that was doomed to fail, and warned countries that they would ‘burn in the fire of their people’s hatred’ if they helped Israel, the news agency IRNA reported. ‘Today the reason for Zionist regime’s existence is questioned, and this regime is on its way to annihilation,’ he said in a speech on the 60th anniversary of the Jewish state.”

We know that were Iran, which is on the verge of creating nuclear weapons and already has the capacity to deliver them, ever to launch such missiles at the United States or any NATO ally, it could expect immediate oblivion as the result of the U.S. response. Hillary recently attempted to warn Iran that were it to launch nuclear weapons against Israel, the U.S. “would be able to totally obliterate them.” Hillary’s comments were totally in keeping with the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction which kept the Soviet Union at bay during the Cold War when it threatened its European neighbors and members of NATO.

Instead of joining Hillary in a similar warning to Iran, Senator Obama on “Meet The Press” criticized Hillary stating, “It’s language reflective of George Bush…This kind of language is not helpful.”

Hillary’s language is exactly what was warranted. The Soviet Union understood the meaning of mutually assured destruction and consequently refrained from using its nuclear inventory. Lesser language conveying not destruction or obliteration, but simply lesser punishment encourages fanatical countries like Iran to believe they can attack our allies and survive.

Hillary’s statement regarding Iran and Israel was consistent with U.S. policy towards Israel. As Vice President Dick Cheney has said, “America’s commitment to Israel’s security is enduring and unshakable, as is our commitment to Israel’s right to defend itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other threats from forces dedicated to Israel’s destruction. The United States will never pressure Israel to take steps that threaten its security.”

We now know just how far Senator Obama is prepared to go to defend our friends and allies. It is not far enough.

Has anybody told Hillary Clinton that every time she says she can win the Democratic nomination, she sounds just like George Bush talking about Iraq and many other things?

As a white female, it’s been painful for me to watch the nomination slip through Hillary’s claws, but it has. I accept that it’s time to support the black cat.

Even if Hillary and Bill somehow managed to rig the numbers – like counting Michigan when Obama wasn’t even on that ballot – everyone knows she’d just be stealing it. After the past two suspicious election outcomes, why is she trying for a third?

The last thing this country needs is another president who cheats and refuses to face reality. We’ll never get out reputation in the world out of the litterbox at this rate.

Hillary’s been saying, in so many words, that she’s the only candidate who appeals to racists and under-educated and ill-informed voters. Who wants them picking the president anyway?

At this point, it’s only diehard Clinton brainwash cases who believe Hillary would make a vastly superior president to Obama. To the rest of us, she just looks more maniacally power-hungry every day she persists.

Hillary’s expecting a big bounce out of the West Virginia primary tomorrow, where she's supposedly leading 66 to 23 percent. So what? Since when did West Virginia become a trend-setter? Hell, even Virginia ignores West Virginia.

Hillary, it’s time to give it up. You still have a day job in the Senate. Stop distracting Obama. He needs to start making mincemeat of McCain and all his Bush-like ideas.

As posições reacionárias de Barack Obama para a América Latinaº

º publicado originalmente (em inglês) em ZNet no dia 23 de Março de 2008 e (em português) em Z.O. na Venezuela no dia 05 de maio de 2008.
* Chris Carlson, 27, é um jornalista e ativista político norte-americano. Escreve para Venezuelanalysis.com e Socialistworker.org

Enquanto os progressistas dos Estados Unidos estão surfando uma onda de euforia com a esperança Democráta Barack Obama e sua promessa de mudança, as pessoas na América Latina tem muito menos razão para gozá-la. Na verdade, considerando alguns comentários recentes, a América Latina pode esperar inclusive mais agressividade política de Barack Obama do que viu durante o governo Bush.

A América Latina tem sido considerada há muito, como o quintal tanto pelos governantes dos EUA, como pelos críticos do imperialismo americano. Movimentos nacionalistas e revolucionários na América Latina expressam seu desejo de fugir dessa condição, e adquirir um desenvolvimento económico soberano.

No entanto, os governantes dos EUA, da Doutrina Monroe à Truman, sempre viram a América Latina como uma região estratégica, com vastos recursos naturais e lucrativos mercados, que devem permanecer dentro da influência norte-americana, independentemente da vontade dos povos.

Barack Obama aparentemente tem as mesmas idéias. Algumas semanas atrás, ele expressou-as, chegando inclusive a usar o rótulo “quintal” (“backyard”).

“Nós temos sido tão obcecados com o Iraque e com o Oriente Médio, que temos negligenciado a América Latina, no nosso próprio quintal” disse ele em um discurso de campanha em Alexandria, Estado Virginia. [1]

Ele tem razão. O enfoque no Oriente Médio dado pelo governo Bush, deu algum espaço para que a América Latina respirasse da subversão e do intervencionismo dos EUA, tão comuns ao largo de sua história. No meio tempo, líderes da esquerda chegaram ao poder em toda a região, como nunca antes na série de revoluções democráticas denominadas de “Maré Rosa” (“Pink Tide” [NT1]).

Muitas pessoas de esquerda, tem visto esses acontecimentos como um gigantesco florescer de democracia popular e participação das massas, e uma clara ruptura com as democracias elitistas do passado. As massas têm sido relativamente livres para escolher esquerdistas e líderes nacionalistas nas eleições democráticas, sem que eles fossem derrubados pela intervenção dos EUA, com algumas exceções. [2]

Mas Barack Obama não vê dessa forma. Na realidade, ele aparentemente interpreta esses acontecimentos como problemas, que foram negligenciados pelo governo Bush, como alertou recentemente:

“A China tem enviado diplomatas, especialistas em desenvolvimento económico e fazendo conexões por toda América Latina. Eles tem garantido acordos comerciais e contratos. E nós ignoramos a América Latina para nosso próprio risco. [3]

Em outras palavras, a negligência dos EUA no seu quintal, permitiu que a América Latina tivesse liberdade de comercializar com outros países, como a China; seguramente uma ameaça aos interesses das corporações norte-americanas. Na verdade, a guinada à esquerda da América Latina ameaça os interesses económicos dos EUA à medida em que os países buscam tomar o controle de seus recursos naturais, diversificar suas economias, e romper com a dependencia de importações dos Estados Unidos.

É, óbviamente, direito de qualquer nação soberana fazer essas coisas, se assim o desejar, e os líderes da América Latina, como Hugo Chávez da Venezuela e Rafael Correa do Equador, argumentariam que essas medidas são absolutamente essenciais para o desenvolvimento da região.

Mas Barack Obama vê isso como um problema; como resultado do abandono dos EUA na região e aparentemente esperando reverter essas mudanças democráticas na América Latina. Durante a participação em um debate recente, em Austin, no Estado do Texas, ele insinuou que o descuido dos EUA na região, permitiu que líderes como Hugo Chávez, da Venezuela, tivessem liberdade demais.

“Nossa atenção na América Latina foi desviada… Não é nenhuma surpresa, então, que vejamos pessoas como Hugo Chávez e países como a China, ocuparem o espaço, porque nós temos sido negligentes com isso” disse ele. [4]

E Chávez, parece ser um problema particular para Obama; a ponto de levá-lo a incluir a Venezuela na lista de Estados bandidos (“rogue states”), junto com Cuba, Irã e Síria, e expressar sua oposição ao presidente venezuelano em um discurso recente:

“Eu geralmente não concordo com as políticas de Chávez e como ele têm tratado seu povo” disse. [5]

Aparentemente não importa se o povo venezuelano concorda com as políticas de Chávez, e tem mostrado em repetidas ocasiões apoio à ele em eleições democráticas e abertas. Obama evidentemente vê a Venezuela como um “Estado bandido” não porque é uma ameaça à segurança, mas porque “[Chávez] têm usado as receitas petroleiras para trazer problemas aos EUA” como disse recentemente. [6]

Realmente, muitos países latino-americanos têm ficado “loucos” com a idéia de que podem usar seus recursos naturais como queiram, sem precisar respeitar os interesses dos Estados Unidos. A Venezuela de Chávez e a Bolívia de Evo Morales são alguns dos quais nacionalizaram seus recursos naturais, e começaram a usar sua receita como lhes parece correto.

Em especial Hugo Chávez, tem usado as receitas petroleiras da Venezuela para financiar projetos conjuntos com outros países e para incrementar o comércio regional entre os países da América Latina. Suas políticas têm o objetivo de diversificar a economia venezuelana, comprometendo a dependencia da região com os EUA. [7]

Se isso é ao que Obama se refere como trazer problema (“stirring up trouble”), ele tem razão de que essas políticas não atendem aos interesses das corporações norte-americanas, que buscam dominar os mercados e recursos dos países da América Latina. No entanto, os povos da América Latina não deveriam decidir como usar as receitas de seus recursos naturais? Ou essa é uma decisão que deve vir de Washington?

Tudo isso nos faz pensar como Barack Obama pode agir para a América Latina se ele for eleito em Novembro. O senador já disse que está disposto a se reunir com os adversários dos EUA, incluíndo Raul Castro de Cuba e Hugo Chávez da Venezuela, no entanto ele não disse nada sobre se vai ou não continuar a antiga política dos Estados Unidos de subverter governos de esquerda na região.

Realmente, se os comentários de sua assessora para política internacional, Samantha Power, são algum indicativo, não é uma imagem muito promissora. Samantha Power, uma grande defensora dos bombardeios dos EUA na Sérvia, em 1999, se referiu às políticas internas de Chávez como “muito problemáticas” em uma entrevista recente, e sugeriu que Obama estaria procurando mudanças nas políticas venezuelanas.

“Se... Chávez continua a desviar-se do que Obama considera como normas internacionais para a política interna, então isso é um problema”, disse Power. [8]

Power foi além e disse que o governo Obama enfocaria no “que Chávez faz de errado do ponto de vista do povo venezuelano.” Isso pede uma pergunta óbvia: não é tarefa de o povo venezuelano decidir isso?

No entanto, apesar de Obama promover a “mudança” nos Estados Unidos, ele aparentemente não apoia mudanças progressistas no quintal da América. Por mais de um século, a subversão e intervencionismo dos EUA na região tem sido constantes, tanto por parte de governos Democratas como Republicanos, derrubando ou neutralizando toda e qualquer ameaça ao domínio dos EUA. Assim, apesar de ele ser o mais progressista dos candidatos presidenciais, parece muito pouco provável que ele aceite os esforços da América Latina para liberar-se.

Ao contrário, parece que a maior preocupação de Obama é o declínio da influência dos Estados Unidos na região. Ao contrário do governo Bush, que esteve ocupado com o Oriente Médio, Barack Obama parece convencido a virar o olhar (“gaze” NT2) de Washington para o seu “quintal” do sul.

Ele vem promovendo a criação de uma “nova aliança pelo progresso”, em alusão à política original de John F. Kennedy para frustrar revoluções sociais na América Latina e salvaguardar os interesses e domínio dos EUA. Apesar de esporádicamente criticar o Acordo de Livre Comércio da América do Norte, NAFTA, (o que recentemente se decubriu que era mera retórica política [9]), Obama também sugeriu que haverá pouca mudança nas ações de Washington pelo livre-comércio, uma doutrina que tem sido amplamente rejeitada pela maioria dos países latino-americanos.

Tudo isso poderia trazer sérias consequências para a expansão de movimentos de esquerda na América Latina, e podería significar um aumento nas ações abertas e ocultas para minar seus governos, inclusive com o aumento do apoio e transferencias financeiras, com respeito ao governo Bush, a grupos de direita alinhados com os EUA e outras forças contra-revolucionárias.

Obama também fez planos para aumentar as forças armadas dos EUA, o que parece significar que ele não teria aversão a ações militares. A assessora principal de Obama para Política Externa, Samantha Power certamente não teria, como ela manifestou em uma entrevista recente:

“Existem desafio à segurança nacional e humanitários lá fora, que exigirão a atenção da América, e às vezes isso exigirá atenção militar” disse ela. [10]

Se os países da América Latina podem esperar algo da presidencia de Barack Obama, é mais atenção de Washington. Se a história serve como indicador, isso não será favorável para a recente onde de revoluções democráticas na região.

Referências:

1. Durante discurso de campanha em Alexandria, Virginia, 10 de Fevereiro, 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gopuefFpcx0 (inglês)

2. O ex-presidente do Haiti, Jean Bertrand Aristide e o presidente venezuelano Hugo Chávez são duas raras exceções. O primeiro foi derrubado pelas forças armadas dos EUA em 2004 e o segundo foi temporáriamente deposto em um golpe apoiado pelos EUA em 2002.

3. Durante discurso de campanha em Alexandria, Virginia, 10 de Fevereiro 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gopuefFpcx0

4. Do Debate Democrático da CNN em Austin, Texas, 21 de Fevereiro, 2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/21/debate.transcript/

5. Durante discurso de campanha em Alexandria, Virginia, 10 de Fevereiro, 2008: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gopuefFpcx0 (inglês)

6. Ibid.

7. Ver o artigo de Steve Elner, "Using Oil Diplomacy to Sever Venezuela's Dependence," 03 de Outubro de 2007, http://www.venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/2677

8. Durante uma entrevista em DemocracyNow! em 22 de Fevereiro, 2008: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/25/barack_obamas_senior_foreign_policy_adviser

9. Notícia: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/16200437.html

10. Durante uma entrevista em DemocracyNow! em 22 de Fevereiro, 2008: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/25/barack_obamas_senior_foreign_policy_adviser

NT1 (nota do tradutor): termo usado nos EUA para descrever a recente onda de eleições de políticos nacionalistas e de esquerda na América Latina.

NT2 (nota do tradutor): olhar fixamente

Also, the additional $6.4 million loan Clinton gave to her own campaign means she's probably gonna be cash-strapped for the remaining contests too.  Really, who wants to donate to someone that's probably going to lose anyway?  It's basically throwing money away.

Yes yes, Clinton will win West Virginia tomorrow, but nobody expected Obama to win that anyway, so it's gonna be a nonevent.