National Poll Average Shows Obama’s Lead Dwindling

What’s going on? In the national poll average posted by Real Clear Politics this morning, Obama’s lead over McCain has dwindled from over 7 points to 4.9 points: Obama 48.8 vs. McCain 43.9.

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin: Big Hitters in Their Respective Parties

Weird. Sen. Hillary Clinton and Gov. Sarah Palin stand out this morning as big hitters in their respective parties. When the Democrats, allied with the media, trashed Clinton in their corrupt primary and the media recently tried to launch similar attacks against Palin, not many of us would have predicted the current impact of these two women on the political scene.

In today’s Washington Post, Chris Cillizza and Shalaigh Murray report first the recent campaign activities of Sen. Clinton, followed by a report on the “Sarah Palin effect.”

Read more.

Sarah Palin Replaces Hillary Clinton in the Chauvinist Left’s Crosshairs

I never thought I’d see the day when I’d link from Katalusis to an article by Bill Kristol in the Weekly Standard. But this headline in the Huffington Post just did it for me: Sara Palin: Dems Pounce on McCain Pick. And pounce the Dems did with the same vituperation mustered in their concerted efforts - in collusion with their media allies - to force Hillary Clinton out of the race for the Democratic nomination. Always at the ready, Obama’s online shock troops quickly chimed in by savaging the Alaska governor with over 7,500 readers’ comments. If you can stomach the vilification of the youthful Palin, go here.

Over at the Weekly Standard, none of the above came as a surprise. Bill Kristol’s piece titled Let Palin be Palin: Why the Left is scared to death by McCain’s running mate now seems prescient. Kristol writes:

"A spectre is haunting the liberal elites of New York and Washington--the spectre of a young, attractive, unapologetic conservatism, rising out of the American countryside, free of the taint (fair or unfair) of the Bush administration and the recent Republican Congress, able to invigorate a McCain administration and to govern beyond it.

"That spectre has a name--Sarah Palin, the 44-year-old governor of Alaska chosen by John McCain on Friday to be his running mate. There she is: a working woman who's a proud wife and mother; a traditionalist in important matters who's broken through all kinds of barriers; a reformer who's a Republican; a challenger of a corrupt good-old-boy establishment who's a conservative; a successful woman whose life is unapologetically grounded in religious belief; a lady who's a leader.

"So what we will see in the next days and weeks--what we have already seen in the hours after her nomination--is an effort by all the powers of the old liberalism, both in the Democratic party and the mainstream media, to exorcise this spectre. They will ridicule her and patronize her. They will distort her words and caricature her biography. They will appeal, sometimes explicitly, to anti-small town and anti-religious prejudice. All of this will be in the cause of trying to prevent the American people from arriving at their own judgment of Sarah Palin."

Here’s the link I thought I’d never make: to read Kristol’s piece in its entirety, go here. By the way, note Kristol’s sustained tone of civility. Wonder if the Left will ever master that particular skill. I doubt it.

‘Yes we can'? Make that: ‘Oops, we may not'

Gerard Baker at the Times is right: “Barack Obama suddenly looks vulnerable. And the more the focus is on him, the less likely he is to become president.”

Baker writes:

“There's trouble in paradise. Cancel the coronation. Send back the commemorative medals. Put those “Yes We Can” T-shirts up on eBay. Keep the Change.

“Barack Obama's historic procession to the American presidency has been rudely interrupted. The global healing he promised is in jeopardy. If you're prone to emotional breakdown, you might want to take a seat before I say this. He might not win.

“How can it be, you ask? Didn't we see him just last month speaking to 200,000 adoring Germans in Berlin? Didn't he get the red carpet treatment in France - France of all places? Doesn't every British politician want to be seen clutching the hem of his garment?

“All true. But as cruel geography and the selfish designs of the American Founding Fathers would have it, Europeans don't get to choose the US president. Somewhere along the way to the Obama presidency, somebody forgot to ask the American people.”

Baker points out:

So we arrive this weekend at the true starting line of the US presidential race and the rituals that begin the real election campaign: the selection of the vice-presidential running-mates, and the back-to-back party nominating conventions. A year and a half after the warm-ups began, the two remaining candidates are more or less tied. Senator Obama's summer lead in the opinion polls has evaporated. John McCain, that grumpy, grisly, gnarled old Republican, that Gollum to Senator Obama's Bilbo Baggins, might, just might, actually win this thing.

“What happened?”

Baker concludes:

“The key to understanding the presidential campaign as it enters its phase of maximum intensity is this. The more the campaign is about the concerns of the American voter, especially the state of the economy but also the general anxiety about the direction of the country, the more likely they are to throw the Republicans out.

“But the uncomfortable truth for the many devoted fans of Senator Obama is that the more the race is about him, the less likely he is to win it.”

To read Baker’s thought-provoking analysis of the general election race in its entirety, go here.

Wake Up Call for Democrats: Obama Offers Hope for What?

Hillary Clinton tried to tell Democrats during their primary that a rousing motivational speaker talking about generic hope and change wouldn’t cut it in the general election. But it’s taken repeated match ups in national polls showing a dead heat between Barack Obama and John McCain for Democratic Party leaders to get the message.

In today’s NY Times, Patrick Healy writes:

“As Senator Barack Obama prepares to accept the Democratic presidential nomination next week, party leaders in battleground states say the fight ahead against Senator John McCain looks tougher than they imagined, with Mr. Obama vulnerable on multiple fronts despite weeks of cross-country and overseas campaigning.

“These Democrats — 15 governors, members of Congress and state party leaders — say Mr. Obama has yet to convert his popularity among many Americans into solutions to crucial electoral challenges: showing ownership of an issue, like economic stewardship or national security; winning over supporters of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton; and minimizing his race and experience level as concerns for voters.

“Mr. Obama has run for the last 18 months as the candidate of hope. Yet party leaders — while enthusiastic about Mr. Obama and his state-by-state campaign operations — say he must do more to convince the many undecided Democrats and independents that he would address their financial anxieties rather than run, by and large, as an agent of change — given that change, they note, is not an issue.”

How about that? Change is not an issue.

Read more.

A Three-Week Moment in the General Election

In today’s Washington Post, Dan Balz lays out a compressed calendar of events covering the next three weeks in the general election for candidates Obama and McCain, while noting the uncertainty of what might happen in Denver with Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot.

Dan Balz’s Take is worth reading for the heads up it offers those of us who remain intensely engaged this time around in America’s process for picking the next president. But perhaps Balz’s most tantalizing comment is this one buried in the middle of the piece:

“…Still, there are at least a few veterans who understand the unpredictable dynamics of a convention floor. They worry that the plan to put Clinton's name in nomination could spin in directions neither Clinton nor Obama anticipates. Their view is that with as many delegates as Clinton will have in Denver, that moment could produce spontaneous emotions that will retard rather than accelerate the process of unifying the party.”

Read more:

Rising Above the Fascism of America’s Extreme Left and Extreme Right

In the heat of the Democratic primary, the netroots were on the leading edge of the extreme left. Predominantly young, white, and male these kings of the internet could be accurately described as progressive in most ways other than their ugly sexism and misogyny, which they unleashed on Hillary Clinton, and their equally cruel and abusive ageism targeting John McCain.

I soon concluded there was little difference between the extreme left and the extreme right, as they obviously mirror each other in their fascist behavior.

Charles M. Blow’s op-ed in today’s NY Times concurs with my conclusion. He begins:

“Can you hear that? I can. It’s the sound of political action committees and party extremists sharpening their wedge issues and setting the timers on their bombshells. The fall’s battle is looming. It’s going to get ugly.”

Here’s the picture, Blow explains:

“Once again they’ll cast the opposition as binary caricatures to rally their bases, swing the independents and capture the defectors.

“The left will be reduced to fist-bumping blacks and intellectual elites with gun aversions and gay agendas. An amoral, tale-tucking lot that coddles criminals, raises taxes and has gone Chicken Little over global warming.

“The right will be lambasted as ultra-conservative cretins who want to conflate the Constitution and the Bible, are pro-life before birth and pro-death after trial and blindly follow war-hungry fear-mongers who obsess over “terrorists” like a Tootsie Roll commercial.

“And, never the twain shall meet. Left or right? That narrow view is just wrong. Americans are much more complex. Sadly, battle cries drown out nuance in campaigns.”

Blow guides us to a deeper understanding of the major issues our country is facing:

“So, in these relative calm days of summer, with Barack Obama on his way back from a rock-star tour of the other side of the pond and John McCain shadowboxing the media stateside, let’s pause and recognize that Americans overwhelmingly agree on many of the big issues and are changing their minds on others. It’s just that those shifting views, when taken as a whole, don’t neatly line up with either party’s platform.

“Here are a few examples, according to Gallup polls taken over the last eight years:

“• Six in 10 Americans believe that conservation should be emphasized to solve the energy problem, 7 in 10 favor the death penalty for murder and don’t want to ban the sale of handguns, and 8 in 10 believe in God but also believe that abortion should be legal, at least under certain circumstances.

“• Nearly half now believe that we are unlikely to win the war in Iraq and that the war has made us less safe from terrorism.

“• An increasing number of people believe that religion as a whole is losing its influence on American life and an increasing number want it to have less influence.

“• While more bemoan the worsening state of moral values in the country, we are increasingly shifting our opinion on what is morally acceptable. Now most believe that getting divorced, engaging in premarital sex and having babies outside of marriage are morally acceptable. Nearly half also say that gay relationships are morally acceptable.”

In effect, as Blow explains, the middle ground is the higher ground to which we are called:

“Remember this when the attack ads start up and the divisive rhetoric starts to bore into our brains. Remember that campaigns are not just about the people on the placards but about parties and power, and that the wizards behind the curtains specialize in amplifying differences that stoke our fears. Remember, and resist.”

I suggest we do more than resist. It is especially important for Americans to stand up and let our political leaders and the media know that discrimination and hate mongering against any group of people - whether it’s based on religion, race, gender, age, sexual preference, or national origin – will no longer be tolerated.

P.S.
It’s past time for members of the netroots to grow up.

Poll Shows Obama’s Image Damaged as Arbiter of New Politics

The latest Newsweek poll shows Barack Obama already paying a price for his lunges to the Right in recent weeks. Obama now leads McCain by only 3 points, 44 percent to 41 percent. In last month’s Newsweek poll, Obama led McCain by 15 points, 51 percent to 36 percent.

Newsweek’s Jonathon Darman reports:

“Obama's reversal on FISA legislation, his support of faith-based initiatives and his decision to opt out of the campaign public-financing system left him open to charges he was a flip-flopper. In the new poll, 53 percent of voters (and 50 percent of former Hillary Clinton supporters) believe that Obama has changed his position on key issues in order to gain political advantage.

“More seriously, some Obama supporters worry that the spectacle of their candidate eagerly embracing his old rival, Hillary Clinton, and traveling the country courting big donors at lavish fund-raisers, may have done lasting damage to his image as an arbiter of a new kind of politics. This is a major concern since Obama's outsider credentials, have, in the past, played a large part in his appeal to moderate, swing voters. In the new poll, McCain leads Obama among independents 41 percent to 34 percent, with 25 percent favoring neither candidate. In June's NEWSWEEK Poll, Obama bested McCain among independent voters, 48 percent to 36 percent.”

The Newsweek poll shows Obama and McCain with nearly identical favorable and unfavorable ratings of respectively 56 to 32 and 55 to 32.

Obama Can’t Use Brandenburg Gate as Campaign Backdrop

Geir Moulson reports at the Huffington Post: “German Chancellor Angela Merkel has signaled unease over the prospect of a possible speech by Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama at Berlin's historic Brandenburg Gate, a spokesman said Wednesday.”

The Obama campaign has begun to use increasingly dramatic show business techniques on behalf of the candidate, e.g., moving his planned acceptance speech at the convention in Denver to Invesco Field at Mile High, which can accommodate over 75,000 fans.

Evidently Obama’s advisors had envisioned him following in the footsteps of Ronald Reagan who spoke at the Brandenburg Gate in 1987 and Bill Clinton who spoke on the east side of the historic site in 1994 to announce, “Berlin is free.”

Moulson reported via Merkel's spokesperson that the chancellor had expressed “skepticism” about plans to use the Brandenburg Gate as a “campaign backdrop.”

Skepticism, indeed. With Obama’s scant record of achievement on the national or international scene, it must be difficult for his handlers to figure out ways to elevate his stature at the onset of the general election.

Obama's skimpy resume (not all that outstanding even as a legislator in his home state of Ill.) might also explains the fake presidential seal his campaign came up with awhile back. That idea tanked pretty fast, too.

NY Times’ Bob Herbert Grieves Over “Obama’s Lurches to the Right”

Photo credits: AP

The past week or so has been a time of awakening for Obama supporters, and I’m trying to shake off the impulse to say - nay, to scream - “I told you so!” Still, I feel at least a trace of compassion for the disillusionment of the hordes of computer-savvy youth who were so swept up in Obamania they would not have moved aside if a 16-wheeler had threatened to plough through their ranks.

But for middle-aged adults, especially among the punditry, I’m having trouble finding sympathy. Yesterday in the NY Times it was Frank Rich grieving for the Obama he thought he knew and this morning on the same op-ed page, it’s Bob Herbert, who throughout the primary resorted to every devious trick in the trade to trash Hillary Clinton for the sake of his haloed Obama.

Like Rich, Herbert has obviously entered the early stages of grief. He begins his lament: ‘“In one of the numbers from ‘Fiddler on the Roof,’ Tevye sings, with a mixture of emotions: ‘We haven’t got the man ... we had when we began.”’

Sorrowfully our man at the Times continues:

“Back in January when Barack Obama pulled off his stunning win in the Iowa caucuses, and people were lining up in the cold and snow for hours just to get a glimpse of him, there was a wide and growing belief — encouraged to the max by the candidate — that something new in American politics had arrived.

Get that, dear readers, “a wide and growing belief…that something new in American politics had arrived.” We are forced to ask Mr. Herbert’s age, I mean, after all.

Needless to say Herbert continues his sad reminiscence:

‘“His {Obama’s} brilliant, nationally televised victory speech in Des Moines sent a shiver of hope through much of the electorate. ‘The time has come for a president who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face,’ said Senator Obama, ‘who will listen to you and learn from you, even when we disagree, who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”’

(Don’t forget, Mr. Herbert, that shiver even went up Chris Matthews’ leg.)

The travail goes on:

“Only an idiot would think or hope that a politician going through the crucible of a presidential campaign could hold fast to every position, steer clear of the stumbling blocks of nuance and never make a mistake. But Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader — more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.”

Did you get that, Katalusis readers? “Barack Obama went out of his way to create the impression that he was a new kind of political leader – more honest, less cynical and less relentlessly calculating than most.”

I guess it must have been the evident purity emanating from Barack Obama that justified the Left’s borrowing from the Right all that sexism and misogyny to throw at Hillary Clinton to repeatedly try to force her out of the race. You can just hear the good old boys chortling, “That’ll teach those uppity women like Alice Palmer and Hillary Clinton once and for all to “sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”

But back to Herbert’s op-ed; he thinks it would have been okay, if Obama had deceived voters only a tad here and there:

“One issue or another might not have made much difference. Tacking toward the center in a general election is as common as kissing babies in a campaign, and lord knows the Democrats need to expand their coalition.

“But Senator Obama is not just tacking gently toward the center. He’s lurching right when it suits him, and he’s zigging with the kind of reckless abandon that’s guaranteed to cause disillusion, if not whiplash.”

Barack Obama, “lurching toward the right when it suits him.” Can you beat that?

If you’d like to read the rest of Herbert’s column, go here. But don’t forget to take your Kleenex.

Obama’s Fuzziness on the Constitutional Separation of Church and State

As a member of the Unitarian-Universalist Church, I continue to feel uneasy about Barack Obama’s notion of strengthening and embellishing the Bush Administration’s faith-based initiative when and if he is elected president.

In the days since he became the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, Obama has been attempting to broaden his base beyond the extreme left, which - as lefty guru Arianna Huffington recently reminded her pick - brought him to the dance in the first place.

In the process Obama has pandered to the right on FISA, abortion rights, public campaign funding in the general election, wearing a flag pin, gun control, the death penalty, and in the little matter of the constitutional separation of church and state.

Obama has said that he found Christ at Trinity UCC in Chicago where he was a member for 20 years before the Rev. Wright controversy erupted and threatened to throw his drive to the presidency off course.

If Trinity is indeed where Obama was introduced to Christianity, he very likely learned the version offered by liberation theology. And in that case, he is left with a very naïve theological understanding that can be construed to mean that God takes sides and condones the use of violence in resolving conflicts.

Other theological perspectives teach that God leads by invitation, not by coercion, and seeks to transform, rather than destroy those who are guilty of wrongdoing - that would be the image of God modeled in scripture by Jesus.

It’s hard to determine how much Trinity UCC influenced Obama’s faith perspective. We know from the viral videos of first Rev. Wright and then Father Pfleger that politics and religion – church and state – were not separate in the venom spewing from Trinity’s pulpit. First Wright, then Pfleger, used his office to ridicule and mock Hillary Clinton, Obama’s main adversary in the Democratic primary.

As noted earlier, since first arriving at the dance on the arm of his left-wing partner, the Democratic presumptive nominee has quickly slipped out of his liberal guise to – among other flip-flops - snatch the faith-based initiative out of Dubya’s hands and use it to appeal to the evangelical crowd.

Who knows where the theologically naïve, but politically astute Obama will move next as he attempts to straddle the centerline on the road to Denver.

If you’d like to read more on this topic, I recommend James Carroll’s thoughtful column in today’s Boston Globe titled Secular Rule Benefits the Faithful, Too; and Jacques Berlinerblau’s post at On Faith (WashingtonPost/Newsweek) titled Obama’s Faith-Based Initiative: a Dissent.

Support for Hillary Clinton Climbs Since Democratic Primary

Egalia at Tennessee Guerilla Women reports recent CNN poll results showing that nearly one-third of Hillary Clinton’s supporters are planning to stay home in November; that number is up from 22% from a poll taken in June.

Egalia continues:

“The number who say they will cast a protest vote for McCain has declined.

“According to the CNN poll, strong support and preference for Hillary Rodham Clinton to be the Democratic nominee has increased since the closing days of the primary:

“In another sign the wounds of the heated primary race have yet to heal, 43 percent of registered Democrats polled still say they would prefer Clinton to be the party's presidential nominee. That number is significantly higher than it was in early June, when 35 percent of Democrats polled said they preferred Clinton to lead the party's presidential ticket. . Obama won 59 percent of support from registered Democrats polled in June; now he garners 54 percent.”

Interesting: throughout the Democratic primary, Obama repeatedly labeled Clinton as polarizing and divisive, while describing himself as a uniter, not a divider. Based on the above CNN poll, the presumptive nominee is having some difficulty uniting his own party.

Obama Giving Ammo to the GOP?

Sen. Obama’s “What was he thinking?” moments are accumulating. The AP’s Jennifer Loven analyzes positions taken in rapid-fire order by the junior senator from Ill. since he was anointed titular head of the Democratic Party – seems just like yesterday, doesn’t it?

Loven reminds us of those over-sized flip-flop sandals created by the Republicans to ridicule John Kerry in the last presidential election:

“Fair or not, Kerry never recovered and lost to President Bush.

“It's now the Republican weapon of choice against Obama.”

Loven explains:

“The Illinois senator has excited many with the notion that he is a new, transcendent type of politician. But he is giving the GOP effort ammunition and endangering his "Change We Can Believe In" motto with several shifts to the center, most recently on the Iraq war, his campaign's defining issue.”

Loven goes on to list Obama’s sudden policy shifts:

“On Iraq, Obama said Thursday that his upcoming trip there might lead him to refine his promise to quickly remove U.S. troops from the war.

“He now supports broader authority for the government's eavesdropping program and legal immunity for telecommunications companies that participated in it, supporting the bill after some protections were added.

“The handgun control proponent reacted to the Supreme Court overturning the District of Columbia's gun ban by saying he favors both an individual's right to own a gun as well as government's right to regulate ownership.

“Obama became the first major-party candidate to reject public financing for the general election after earlier promises to accept it.

“He not only embraced but promised to expand Bush's program to give more anti-poverty grants to religious groups, a split with Democratic orthodoxy.

“He objected to the Supreme Court's decision outlawing the death penalty for child rapists, drawing attention to his support for the death penalty if used only for the "most egregious" crimes.

‘“Obama also said ‘mental distress’ should not count as a health exception that would permit a late-term abortion, saying "it has to be a serious physical issue," addressing a matter considered crucial to abortion rights activists.”

Loven notes the GOP’s response to Obama’s opportunistic dash to the center:

“The GOP increasingly has sought to take advantage of any opportunity to permanently pin the flip-flopper label on Obama, with all its unappealing associations, and strip him of the shiny-new-penny one he's cultivated up to now.

‘“There appears to be no issue that Barack Obama is not willing to reverse himself on for the sake of political expedience,' said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the national Republican Party.

“It might be working. Despite disarray in Republican John McCain's camp, Bush's dismal approval ratings and just 17 percent of the public saying the nation is moving in the right direction, recent polls show Obama unable to build a solid lead over his GOP rival.”

Loven details Obama’s recent squirming on his Iraq position:

“For Obama, there is no more important issue than Iraq.

“Unequivocal opposition to the war drove his entrance into the race. It helped him defeat Hillary Rodham Clinton for the nomination. It made him a darling of the anti-war activists who are now prominent and influential in the Democratic Party.

‘“Those forces won't like Thursday's statement-bordering-on-a-promise that ‘I'll ... continue to refine my policy’ on Iraq, particularly after he visits and makes what he said would be a 'thorough assessment.'

“Obama's problem on Iraq isn't that he is changing his position drastically, because he isn't.

“Obama has always said his promise to end the war would require consultations with military commanders and, possibly, flexibility.

"This, in fact, is the only reasonable stance for a U.S. commander in chief to take.

“His problem is that his change in emphasis to flexibility from a hard-nosed end-the-war stance — including his recent position that withdrawing combat troops could take as long as 16 months — will now be heard loud and clear by an anti-war camp that may have ignored it before. So he could face a double-whammy in their feelings of betrayal and other voters' belief in the Republican charge that he is craven.

“It was Obama's messy series of comments Thursday, coming after weeks in which Republicans had been goading him to change his withdrawal policy in light of reduced violence, that put an unfortunate spotlight on his quandary.

‘“After his remark at a news conference about refining policy exploded onto the political scene, he called a do-over four hours later to ‘try this again.’ He said the refining wouldn't be related to his promise to remove combat forces within 16 months of taking office, but to the number of troops needed to train Iraqis and fight al-Qaida. But then he acknowledged that the 16-month timeline could indeed slip if removing troops risked their safety or Iraqi stability.

‘“Still, he said, ‘I will bring this war to a close. ... I am not searching for maneuvering room with respect to that position.’

According to Loven, Obama also wants us to know that even though his left-wing supporters – as Arianna Huffington recently pointed out, “brought him to the dance” - he’s not glued to left-wing priorities.

(Uh-oh, that’s got to be a shocker for all those computer-savvy supporters who have been swarming the Internet on his behalf.)

Loven quotes Obama:

‘“Obama said his overall problem is that he was incorrectly tagged to begin with as being a product solely of his party's left wing, so that statements displaying a broad ideological range are portrayed as shifts when they are not. ‘When I simply describe what has been my position consistently, then suddenly people act surprised,’ he lamented earlier this week.

“But his problem may in fact be that he's not handling the shifts quietly enough — and maybe not forgivably either.”

Obama’s False Advertising in the Democratic Primary

Photo credits: Getty

If the left-most wing of the Democratic party could sue the Obama Campaign for false advertising, they would likely win their case. You can hear the outraged howling of technology–savvy Obamaphiles across the blogosphere. They spent months stalking Hillary Clinton online to spew sexist, misogynous garbage at the senator from New York to ensure their hero was nominated, and what have they got for their trouble?

Big-time betrayal, that’s what!

The NY Times editorial board on this 4th of July sums up the difference between the haloed Obama of the Democratic primary and the well-practiced, old Chicago style politician who has quickly emerged in the general election campaign.

Titled New and Not Improved, the Times editorial begins:

“Senator Barack Obama stirred his legions of supporters, and raised our hopes, promising to change the old order of things. He spoke with passion about breaking out of the partisan mold of bickering and catering to special pleaders, promised to end President Bush’s abuses of power and subverting of the Constitution and disowned the big-money power brokers who have corrupted Washington politics.”

The Times board laments:

“Now there seems to be a new Barack Obama on the hustings. First, he broke his promise to try to keep both major parties within public-financing limits for the general election. His team explained that, saying he had a grass-roots-based model and that while he was forgoing public money, he also was eschewing gold-plated fund-raisers. These days he’s on a high-roller hunt.

“Penny Pritzker, suggests that the magic of $20 donations from the Web was less a matter of principle than of scheduling. “We have not been able to have much of the senator’s time during the primaries, so we have had to rely more on the Internet,” she explained as she and her team busily scheduled more than a dozen big-ticket events over the next few weeks at which the target price for quality time with the candidate is more than $30,000 per person.

“The new Barack Obama has abandoned his vow to filibuster an electronic wiretapping bill if it includes an immunity clause for telecommunications companies that amounts to a sanctioned cover-up of Mr. Bush’s unlawful eavesdropping after 9/11.”

You can’t blame the Times for wistfully recalling:

“In January, when he was battling for Super Tuesday votes, Mr. Obama said that the 1978 law requiring warrants for wiretapping, and the special court it created, worked. “We can trace, track down and take out terrorists while ensuring that our actions are subject to vigorous oversight and do not undermine the very laws and freedom that we are fighting to defend,” he declared.”

The Times notes Obama’s current cynical political turnabout:

“Now, he supports the immunity clause as part of what he calls a compromise but actually is a classic, cynical Washington deal that erodes the power of the special court, virtually eliminates “vigorous oversight” and allows more warrantless eavesdropping than ever.”

The Times is surprised(?) that the candidate who presented himself as the second coming now supports Dubya’s faith-based initiative?

“The Barack Obama of the primary season used to brag that he would stand before interest groups and tell them tough truths. The new Mr. Obama tells evangelical Christians that he wants to expand President Bush’s policy of funneling public money for social spending to religious-based organizations — a policy that violates the separation of church and state and turns a government function into a charitable donation.

“He says he would not allow those groups to discriminate in employment, as Mr. Bush did, which is nice. But the Constitution exists to protect democracy, no matter who is president and how good his intentions may be.”

Finally the Times editorial board goes after BO’s switcheroo on the death penalty and gun control:

“On top of these perplexing shifts in position, we find ourselves disagreeing powerfully with Mr. Obama on two other issues: the death penalty and gun control.

“Mr. Obama endorsed the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the District of Columbia’s gun-control law. We knew he ascribed to the anti-gun-control groups’ misreading of the Constitution as implying an individual right to bear arms. But it was distressing to see him declare that the court provided a guide to “reasonable regulations enacted by local communities to keep their streets safe.”

“What could be more reasonable than a city restricting handguns, or requiring that firearms be stored in ways that do not present a mortal threat to children?

“We were equally distressed by Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Supreme Court’s barring the death penalty for crimes that do not involve murder.

The Times concludes by pointing out the obvious to Obama’s scattered defenders weakly arguing that his behavior is simply a typical transition:

“We are not shocked when a candidate moves to the center for the general election. But Mr. Obama’s shifts are striking because he was the candidate who proposed to change the face of politics, the man of passionate convictions who did not play old political games.”

And about that change we can believe in?

““There are still vital differences between Mr. Obama and Senator John McCain on issues like the war in Iraq, taxes, health care and Supreme Court nominations. We don’t want any ‘redefining’ on these big questions. This country needs change it can believe in.”’

Actually we need Hillary Clinton, the candidate endorsed early on by the New York Times, before the Democratic party elite colluded with the good old boys’ network in the media and its codependent female allies to hand the nomination to Obama - despite the fact that Clinton won the popular vote.

Obama is still the “presumptive” nominee; the delegates have not voted yet. Support the Denver Group in its efforts to keep the Democratic Party democratic by ensuring that Hillary Clinton’s name is on the ballot at the convention in August.

The Heads of Obama’s Base About to Explode!

Photo credits: MSNBC

Obama’s sudden metamorphosis from rock star idol of his extreme left-wing base, anchored in the blogosphere at big-name sites like Huffington Post and Daily Kos, to Mr. Flag-Waving Average Guy sauntering down the center line of the roadway to Denver has left his most dedicated supporters in disarray.

At the Huffington Post this morning, Allison Kilkenny is taking no prisoners. She leads off her piece titled ironically “Pray Yourself Better: It's The American Way!” with these words:

“Ideological contortionist, Barack Obama, marches toward his personal goal of causing one million progressives' heads to simultaneously explode.”

Kilkenny points to Kos:

“He {Obama} obtained an essential first step toward this aim when he capitulated on FISA, a move so contradictory to the core of the Progressive movement that outraged midget, Markos "Dailykos" Moulitsas, yanked a generous contribution from Obama's bony fingers as punishment for the sneaky, immoral maneuver. Moveon.org was also unhappy with Obama, all of which brings to mind the ancient expression: If You Wrong The Progressives, Protect Your Crotch.”


Kilkenny’s litany of Obama’s sellouts continues:

“These burns aren't going to heal any time soon. John Kerry turned out to be an empty shell of a candidate, but Barack Obama had real potential, or so the Progressives thought. They sunk their time and money into Obama, and as thanks, he turned around and bit the hands that fed him.

“Selling out his Progressive base on FISA was bad enough, but then Obama followed up his gradual tumble toward triangulation when he recently vowed to expand Bush's faith-based programs.

“Defenders of Obama's latest selling-out point claim churches are an essential party of American society because the institutions provide basic services like feeding the poor. Except, churches have no business substituting for the government in anti-poverty campaigns.

“If churches hold the occasional bake sale to help the Harper family pay for Little Matty's liver transplant, that's all well and good. However, any politician seriously claiming churches should substitute for government programs needs to have their head examined. It's the job of the state to care for its citizens, namely because the state is Constitutionally secular, forbidding government agents to deny care on the grounds of theological loyalty.

“In a way, asking the church to step up and care for the poor in lieu of a comprehensive, meaty welfare program is like abandoning the American post office in favor of using FedEx. It's yet another dig at the innards of the American infrastructure. It's yet another way to privatize a normal function of the government. Of course, in this case, it's selling out pro bono because the church claims to operate without the explicit intent of profit. I guess we're not counting those basket donations...

‘“Even if Obama proposed the expansion as an accessory program where the church just gets to ‘come along for the poverty ride,’ the idea is still worse than dumb, it's downright insulting. When will a progressive candidate have the courage to admit they have no business dictating moral values? When will a progressive acknowledge that triangulation brought us to this place, where the American people have no bargaining chips left? They're poor, they're losing their jobs because of triangulating land mines like NAFTA, and those jobs are not coming back. They have no health care, their food and environment are poisoned, and Barack Obama tells them to go to church and pray for a miracle.

“And that's the progressive talking. Just imaging the steaming pile of shit resting on John McCain's tongue.”

Kilkenny’s not having any of Obama’s excuses:

‘“The challenges we face today ... are simply too big for government to solve alone,’ Obama explained when confronted by foaming-at-the-mouths Progressives.

“Um, what? So let me get this straight: We pay taxes for a government unable to do its job. We elect representatives, like Barack Obama, to overhaul a broken system that has abandoned its own constituents, and instead of creating a bold, radical agenda, Obama perpetuates the status quo. Obama chooses to invest his trust in the church instead of in the political system that has invested in him this great and rare opportunity to fix an ailing society. He chooses to entrust a brothel of fairy tales with the safety of the people instead of a responsible, secular government.

“What the hell is he thinking? Unless there's a business model somewhere where "priest molestations" plus "dangerous ignorance" equals "profit" that I don't know about, this appears to be yet another grave error from the Obama camp.”

Nor is Kilkenny having any excuses from a few hangers on among progressives:

‘“More surprising than Obama selling out his progressive base is the stubbornness with which some progressives have reacted during these gradual moves toward triangulation. One such supporter explained to me, ‘You can't drive the bus without the keys,’ meaning Obama is just faking his way into the White House with these ‘moderate’ moves and bushels of ‘compromises.’

“But this kind of logic ignores Quid Pro Quo, where Wall Street lobbyists, who have sunk nearly twice as much money into Obama as they have McCain, will demand favors in exchange for their generosity.

“Obama is already in debt, but the progressives seem to think he'll experience a kind of miraculous spell of transubstantiation during his inauguration where his past corruptions will turn into delicious wine and universal health care. It ain't, as they say, gonna happen, folks. At least, it won't happen without the motivation of a seriously pissed-off base.

It should be obvious by now that believing Obama was the second coming was misguided faith on the part of progressives:

“Of course, the motivation of his pissed-off base was supposed to have been what was going to keep Obama on track in the first place. With that not working, progressives have few options left, and their trust is waning in the last great savior for the so-called progressive movement.”

The Ongoing Disillusionment of Obama’s Left-Leaning Supporters

Left-leaning pundits who swooned at Obama’s feet throughout the Democratic primary are currently back-pedaling as fast as they can from the haloed presumptive nominee who recently revealed himself in his post-primary dash to the center as just another old-style politician.

Pundits with celebrity status like Arianna Huffington are faced with the additional problem of calling Obama to account without admitting – God forbid – that they made the wrong choice in backing him over Hillary Clinton.

So in her “Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers” at yesterday’s Huffington Post, it was to be expected that Arianna would first make clear that in her not-to-be-questioned opinion, Sen. Clinton was among the losers to whom she was referring.

What Arianna failed to note, however, was that neither Clinton, nor her campaign, ever presented her as the second coming; thanks to Oprah, Obama was presented as “the one we’ve been waiting for.”

Here are the details:

Barack Obama rode forth as the harbinger of the new politics, and he and his followers touted his most outstanding characteristic as authenticity, never mind his skimpy resume and his lack of substance, apparent to any semi-conscious human being.

Obama was the candidate best known for his ability to make speeches that could quickly turn a political rally into a revival meeting.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton presented her qualifications as wisdom, experience, dedication, and compassion for those in need She also boasted a reputation for hard work and the ability to cooperate with the opposition party in the nation’s best interests.

Clinton was the candidate best known for getting things done.

In a relatively short time since he was anointed by the Democratic party elite in collusion with the good old boys network in the media (and its co-dependent female allies like Arianna), Obama has managed to disillusion his most dedicated supporters.

Evidently in mourning, Arianna quotes the previously unsullied Obama:

"What's stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics -- the ease with which we're distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions, our preference for scoring cheap political points instead of rolling up our sleeves and building a working consensus to tackle big problems.... The time for that politics is over. It's time to turn the page."

Saddened by her guy’s recent defection, our celebrity female media guru continues to lament the one she thought she knew back when:

‘“That was Barack Obama in February of 2007, announcing his run for the White House. ‘I know I haven't spent a lot of time learning the ways of Washington,’ he said that day, ‘but I've been there long enough to know that the ways of Washington must change.”’

Understandably, Arianna is now forced to ask:

‘“Was that just ‘overheated and amplified’ rhetoric?’

‘“The Obama brand has always been about inspiration, a new kind of politics, the audacity of hope, and ‘change we can believe in.’ I like that brand. More importantly, voters -- especially unlikely voters -- like that brand.’

“Pulling it off the shelf and replacing it with a political product geared to pleasing America's vacillating swing voters -- the ones who will be most susceptible to the fear-mongering avalanche that has already begun -- would be a fatal blunder.”

Arianna concludes with the kind of zinger she’s noted for:

“Realpolitik is one thing. Realstupidpolitik is quite another.”

Hate to tell you, Arianna, but we Clinton supporters knew that long before you and your countless readers caught on.

To read more, Google Arianna’s “Memo to Obama: Moving to the Middle is for Losers” at the Huffington Post.

Better yet, check in for the latest developments at the Denver Group, working hard to keep Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot at the Democratic convention in August.

I’m Barack Obama, the “whatever you want me to be” candidate

Posting at the PoliGazette this morning, Michael van der Galien, editor-in-chief, takes a look at the phenomenon of the one-time darling of the left-wing, Barack Obama, twisting and turning in the early days of the general election to appeal to as many voters as possible.

Van der Galien begins:

“There’s a fascinating debate going on in the liberal blogosphere about the ideology of Barack Obama. Early on in the primaries most liberal bloggers embraced Obama, believing him to be a truly progressive candidate who could actually win a national election. Quite some of them thought highly of John Edwards but, they feared, he can’t win. Hillary Clinton was considered to be a politician like her husband; much more of a centrist and realist than a progressive idealist.

“But Obama, they thought, was different.

“Sure he may talk about unity, etc., but the change he talked about, they thought, was progressive. The hope was progressive. His entire agenda was progressive.

“So they supported him in big numbers. They helped him win the nomination, and went after his Democratic opponents with a passion normally reserved for Republicans.”

Now comes the Left’s abrupt disillusionment:

“But then, at the very moment he won the nomination, Obama started to change his rhetoric. Suddenly he apologized for using too strong words to describe policies most progressives disagreed with. He backpedaled on NAFTA. He suddenly supported a bill that grants immunity to telecom providers while, only a couple of months ago, he said he would not.”

And the pundits begin to ask questions:

“The result: both Glenn Greenwald and Chris Bowers are wondering whether Obama’s shift to the center is an indication that he may not be as progressive as many thought, or whether he’s simply doing it for pragmatical reasons. Many Democratic strategists, Greenwald explains, believe that a Democrat cannot win if he run as a true progressive; no, he has to shift to the center (Greenwald disagrees with that theory). So, it could very well be that Obama is a progressive at heart, who’s simply lying to moderate voters right now, hoping they will vote for him if they believe him to be one of them, just like progressives believe he’s one of them as well.

“Chris Bowers deals with that view in quite an intelligent manner; there comes a time when you’ve got to take people at their word. Obama has said in the past, and is repeating it nowadays, that he’s not a progressive, but a moderate. A pragmatist. Progressive activists can assume he’s lying, because he wants to win, but they can also start taking Obama at his word; if he’s truly a moderate, well, then progressive activists can expect less ‘progressive change’ from him than they hope(d).”

An interesting debate?

“It’s an interesting debate, but it all boils down to one simple observation I made months ago; Obama will have to disappoint millions of people. He bragged in the past about him being a white sheet, upon which people write whatever they believe. They project themselves on Obama, which is something Obama considers to be a strength. And it is.

“But he seems to have forgotten that it is also a weakness. When you’re a ‘whatever you want me to be’ candidate, people are bound to be disappointed. Why? Because he can’t be all things to everyone once elected. He will have to favor specific policies, he will have to implement specific plans. This means that either moderates or liberals are going to be disappointed.”

The remaining question:

“The only question left right now is how Obama will rule? Like Bill Clinton… or like a progressive version of Ronald Reagan? As Paul Krugman points out, Obama’s rhetoric sounds a whole lot like Clinton’s back in 1992. He’s almost the same kind of candidate. Many progressives hoped that Clinton would be a progressive Reagan but, instead, he ruled like a centrist (pretty much).

“At this moment, I think it’s too early to tell. Obama has a liberal record, a very liberal record even, but he often presents himself as a moderate. But he can’t be both.”

In the meantime, let the debate continue:

“We’ll find out what he is if he wins. Until that time; expect liberals and moderates who support Obama to thoroughly and passionately debate about this subject.”

And as long as we’re engaging in debate, Barack Obama is only the “presumptive” nominee until the delegates have voted. Sign on with the Denver Group in its efforts to make sure that Hillary Clinton’s name is on the ballot August 27 at the Democratic convention. Need I remind you that Hillary is the better qualified candidate?

Does Barack Obama Have Any Core Beliefs?

Photo credits: AP

Obama’s mantra in the Democratic primary was “change you can believe in.” He rode to victory in the Democratic primary as the harbinger of the “new politics,” and the punditry swooned at his feet right along with his intoxicated and predominantly youthful following.

Now the pundits are asking: “Does Barack Obama have any core beliefs?”

Salon’s Glenn Greenwald reminds us that ‘“Bush's ability to project ‘Strength’ came not from advocacy of specific policies, but from his claim to stand by his beliefs even when they were politically unpopular.”’

Greenwald then gets to the point:

‘“For that reason, isn't the perception that Obama is abandoning his own core beliefs -- or, worse, that he has none -- a much greater political danger than a failure to move to the so-called ‘Center’ by suddenly adopting Bush/Cheney Terrorism policies? As a result of Obama's reversal on FISA, his very noticeable change in approach regarding Israel, his conspicuous embrace of the Scalia/Thomas view in recent Supreme Court cases, and a general shift in tone, a very strong media narrative is arising that Obama is abandoning his core beliefs for political gain. That narrative -- that he's afraid to stand by his own beliefs -- appears far more likely to result in a perception that Obama is ‘Weak’ than a refusal to embrace Bush/Cheney national security positions.

Greenwald goes on to question the assumption that GOP positions on major issues are at the center in American politics and he contends:

‘“What's most amazing about the unexamined premise that Democrats must ‘move to the Center’ (i.e., adopt GOP views) is that this is the same advice Democrats have been following over and over and which keeps leading to their abject failure. It's the advice Kerry followed in 2004. It's why Democrats rejected Howard Dean and chose John Kerry instead.”’

Greenwald then mentions an insight from David Sirota recently cited in the Washington Post:

"American voters tend to reward politicians who take clear stands," said David Sirota, a former Democratic aide on Capitol Hill and author of the new populist-themed book "The Uprising." "When Obama takes these mushy positions, it could speak to a character issue. Voters that don't pay a lot of attention look at one thing: 'Does the guy believe in something?' They may be saying the guy is afraid of his own shadow."

During one of her many debates with Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton observed, “That’s not change you can believe in; that’s change you can Xerox.”

Obama’s mantra looks a little more tattered around the edges the further we move into the general election - all the more reason to keep Hillary Clinton’s name on the ballot in Denver.

Think about it.

What?!! Extremely High Levels of Testosterone in the 2008 General Election?!!

Photo credits: Associated Press File Photo

As described in Dan Balz’s Take (Washington Post) this morning, the two male candidates in the 2008 general election have launched an aggressive, old-style political campaign with testosterone levels that appear extremely high.

Balz’s observation would most likely not surprise anyone with the exception of the few remaining Obama supporters who have not yet been stripped of their naïve faith in the guy they believe is destined to lead the nation into a new political era, sans corruption of any kind.

McCain’s believers – remember the “Straight Talk Express” – probably brought to the general election a little less naivete and a more mature grasp of the reality of the political process, still…

Nevertheless, to a Clinton supporter who has gradually become a more or less anthropological observer of the race since my candidate conceded to the haloed Obama, it’s still rather stunning to read how deeply mired the sterling male standard bearers of the two major parties have already become in the politics of the past.

Balz observes:

“Both candidates have contributed to this. Obama tarnished his reputation as a new style politician by deciding not to take public funds for the fall campaign, despite a pledge to do so if his Republican opponent would do the same. He had promised to sit down with McCain to discuss the whole issue of money before making any decision.

“Obama's decision may have made political sense, but it was a demonstration of old politics, not new politics, and his reasoning for refusing public funds was as tortured as anything he has had to say in his campaign.

“McCain has hurt himself and his reputation as an independent thinker by reversing course on past positions, whether Bush tax cuts -- which he did long ago -- or opening up coastal areas to offshore drilling. His campaign, in the view of some of his own supporters, has allowed itself to show an angry and resentful face that they believe is contrary to McCain at his best.

“It is difficult to believe that Americans are enjoying all this -- or even paying close attention to it. The attack-counterattack cycle is so quick that only the most devoted of political aficionados can keep up, and the tone is so relentlessly critical that only the most partisan will applaud it.”

Balz couldn’t resist comparing the state of the general election campaign to the Democratic primary contest between Obama and Clinton:

“The long battle between Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, for all its intensity and competitiveness, rarely reached the levels of negativity and petulance seen in the opening weeks of the general election. Whenever Obama and Clinton crossed a line, they seemed quickly to step back, mindful of the consequences of letting their contest get out of hand. So far there seems to be no such impulse governing either the Obama or McCain campaigns as they go after each other.”

As far as Obama and McCain both showing their true colors as old-style pols at this early stage of the general election, 18 million Clinton supporters are shaking their heads sagely while modestly restraining themselves from saying, “We told you so.”

“Two Men Who Really Want to be President”

Joan Venochi, writing for the Boston Globe, doesn’t mention Hillary Clinton’s name, but I couldn’t help thinking of the first serious female candidate when I read Venochi’s lead:

‘“THERE IS no ‘straight talk.’ There isn't ‘a different kind of politics.’ There are just two men who really want to be president.”

Two men who want to be president, indeed, plus the haunting presence of the woman the media repeatedly and brutally bashed in their efforts to force her out of the Democratic race.

Venochi sounds fed up with Barack Obama and John McCain in her op-ed this morning, and what rational American citizen would not be? She goes on to catalog Obama’s fall from his haloed posturing throughout the Democratic primary to “politics as usual” and McCain’s abandonment of any pretense to come clean with the public on where he actually stands on major issues.

Clinton supporters still numb with grief for how their candidate was treated throughout the primary can only shake their heads at Obama’s suddenly more visible old Chicago-style inner politician, recently nicknamed “Fast Eddie” by David Brooks.

To read Venochi’s entire column, go here.