She was known as Hillary Rodham back then, a young lawyer hired at behest of a Kennedy crony to help investigate the Watergate affair and move towards possible impeachment of Richard Nixon.

That is a matter of public record, and a well known part of Senator Hillary Rodham ClintonÂ’s biography.

What is not known is that she was fired from her position on the staff for behavior that constituted a grave breach of legal ethics (not to mention fundamental fairness and decency) and denied a recommendation by the general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee – a lifelong Democrat.

Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy’s chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation – one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman’s 17-year career.

Why?

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Unethical. Dishonest. Contemptuous of the rules and the Constitution. Those are the same type of charges that others have made against Hillary for years.

But these go back to the very beginning of her career, when she was a nobody on the committee staff. These are not the charges of political partisans out to destroy her and her husband – and are documented by a diary that dates back to the time of her offenses.

How could a 27-year-old House staff member do all that? She couldn’t do it by herself, but Zeifman said she was one of several individuals – including Marshall, special counsel John Doar and senior associate special counsel (and future Clinton White House Counsel) Bernard Nussbaum – who engaged in a seemingly implausible scheme to deny Richard Nixon the right to counsel during the investigation.

Why would they want to do that? Because, according to Zeifman, they feared putting Watergate break-in mastermind E. Howard Hunt on the stand to be cross-examined by counsel to the president. Hunt, Zeifman said, had the goods on nefarious activities in the Kennedy Administration that would have made Watergate look like a day at the beach – including Kennedy’s purported complicity in the attempted assassination of Fidel Castro.

The actions of Hillary and her cohorts went directly against the judgment of top Democrats, up to and including then-House Majority Leader Tip OÂ’Neill, that Nixon clearly had the right to counsel. Zeifman says that Hillary, along with Marshall, Nussbaum and Doar, was determined to gain enough votes on the Judiciary Committee to change House rules and deny counsel to Nixon. And in order to pull this off, Zeifman says Hillary wrote a fraudulent legal brief, and confiscated public documents to hide her deception.

The brief involved precedent for representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding. When Hillary endeavored to write a legal brief arguing there is no right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding, Zeifman says, he told Hillary about the case of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, who faced an impeachment attempt in 1970.

* * *

“Hillary then removed all the Douglas files to the offices where she was located, which at that time was secured and inaccessible to the public,” Zeifman said. Hillary then proceeded to write a legal brief arguing there was no precedent for the right to representation by counsel during an impeachment proceeding – as if the Douglas case had never occurred.

The brief was so fraudulent and ridiculous, Zeifman believes Hillary would have been disbarred if she had submitted it to a judge.

Zeifman still has the diary, and is willing to make it available to those who are interested in what it contains. It reveals a lot about the character of the woman who would be president – or maybe that should be her lack of character.

UPDATE -- 4/1/08, 7:30 PM: Ed Morrissey over at HotAir catches up with this story, and offers some intriguing insights. STACLU has picked up on it, too.

Patterico links to this older piece by Zeifman himself. This Freeper archive dates the story back to 1999, and there is apparently a 1996 book that raised the story. I'm curious -- why no significant press coverage in all this time -- especially given Zeifman's claim of a contemporaneous record? Certainly there must be some intrepid journalist who would be willing to shell out the cash to authenticate the diary or debunk the claim.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT third world county, The Beauty Stop, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, , Conservative Cat, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Adeline and Hazel, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:55 AM | Comments (9) | Add Comment
Post contains 869 words, total size 7 kb.

I've written relatively little about the congressional race here in CD22 this year -- an oversight due in large part do to a string of family situations that have kept me from being nearly as involved as I would have wished. That said, today's article in the Houston Chronicle about the race deserves to be noted.

And I think the first line of the story is critical.

Since moving to Sugar Land last summer, Pete Olson has restricted his job search to a seat in the U.S. House.

Yeah, that's right. Pete Olson doesn't have a job. He has a wife, kids, and two houses (the family kept the one in the DC suburbs when Pete carpetbagged back to CD22). Heck, I suppose he may even have two mortgages, which I'm sure is tough to manage if you don't have job other than campaigning for Congress in a district where you have not been physically present for nearly two decades.

And this is why so many of us are opposed to Pete Olson. We already have a Democrat carpetbagger congressman who we want to get rid of in 2008 -- we don't want to replace him with a Republican carpetbagger, even if Olson is much closer to our political views.

Olson, a former staffer for two Republican U.S. senators from Texas, has had a two-fold answer. One, he grew up in the Clear Lake part of the district and attended Rice University and the University of Texas law school, so this is his home. Two, no one should begrudge his nine years as a Navy pilot and Pentagon worker and another nine years on the U.S. Senate staffs of Phil Gramm and John Cornyn.

And Pete Olson is quite disingenuous in his argument. No one I know "begrudges" him his military service. Indeed, all of us honor and respect it. But many of us who support Shelley Sekula Gibbs do have a problem with the fact that for the decade after that military service Olson has been a resident of the Virginia suburbs, owned his only home there, been a licensed driver there, and a registered voter there. Yes, he has been a top aide to two fine Texas senators, but we have concerns about the strength of his connection and commitment to our district.

And I always find it interesting that folks trot out this argument -- that Dr. Sekula Gibbs has not always been a conservative.

Sekula Gibbs acknowledges that she has reversed her position on abortion; she now says it should be illegal. She voted on the council to fund pavilions for day laborers, then opposed funding them because, she said, she learned that they made neighborhoods no safer and were used mostly by illegal immigrants.

In 2005, she did not strongly advocate for Houston police officers to question criminal suspects about immigration status. She did in 2006, as she ran for Congress and immediately after a policeman was killed by an illegal immigrant he had detained. Conservative and liberal council members, saying Sekula Gibbs was exploiting an officer's death for political gain, left their public meeting in protest when she spoke about changing the city's law enforcement policies on immigrants.

I'll be the first to recognize that there are elements of her past record that are less than conservative. But I also recognize that her increased conservatism over time, and her decades of service to our community here in CD22 for the last 20 years.

Besides, Ronald Reagan was at one time wrong on abortion. I think he did just fine.

And then there is this question that I like to ask -- after a loss in the runoff, what would these two candidates most likely do.

If she were to lose the election, I know for a fact that Shelley Sekula Gibbs will stay in our community, and continue to serve the people here as a respected medical professional.

Pete Olson? I have every reason to suspect that he will put the house in Sugar Land back on the market and head back inside the Beltway -- most likely as an employee of one of the lobbyists or politicians who contributed the seed money to start Olson's campaign in the first place. In other words, he'll go home again.

That dichotomy makes my choice in the runoff on April 8 really clear.

In the end, though, following the runoff I will support either of these candidates over Nick Lampson, because either of them is more representative of my views on the critical issues facing America than the incumbent is. I encourage my fellow voters to do the same.

UPDATE Welcome to readers of Ben DumbAss from RedState. As you've seen, my post takes exactly the opposite tack of what he claims. Let's hope he is more honest in his other posts -- and less touchy when others call him on a blatant lie.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT third world county, The Beauty Stop, Right Truth, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, Pirate's Cove, Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, , Conservative Cat, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Adeline and Hazel, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:12 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 878 words, total size 6 kb.

Good grief! Will the new governor of New York serve less time in office than William Henry Harrison did as president? Now we have even more ethical questions surrounding him -- and these not involving sex or campaign funds.

When Gov. David A. Paterson was the State Senate minority leader, he got in touch with Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a fellow Democrat, with what seemed like a routine request: Would he meet with a representative of a small Harlem hospital that was in need of financial assistance?

As it turned out, the hospitalÂ’s representative was Mr. PatersonÂ’s wife, Michelle Paige Paterson, who was responsible for lobbying the State Legislature for aid. Mr. Silver agreed to meet, but warned that it would be improper for the senator to be present. As a result, Mr. Paterson did not attend the session, held on April 7, 2003; he would later say that arranging the meeting was a mistake.

But that meeting was not the only thing Mr. Paterson did for his wife’s employer. He also directed state grants of at least $150,000 — with a pledge for as much as $500,000 more — to the hospital over the next two years, a period that overlapped substantially with his wife’s employment there from 2002 to 2005.

The fuller picture of Mr. PatersonÂ’s efforts on behalf of the hospital, North General, emerged from a review of documents, which revealed a previously unreported $50,000 state grant he made in 2003, and interviews with lawmakers and their aides, who said Mr. Paterson spoke with some of them about the need to avoid ethical conflicts that could arise because of his wifeÂ’s job.

Let's see -- his wife was working as a lobbyist, and he was arranging meetings for her? He was directing funding to the hospital that employed her at a rate that exceeded his prior efforts on its behalf -- and also in excess of what he directed there after her employment ended? The appearance of corruption is stunning!

Posted by: Greg at 02:53 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 339 words, total size 2 kb.

Those of you who are not subscribers to the National Review might not be familiar with the works of Rob Long, which is among the best satirical work you are likely to see in print today.

He takes on the current "pastor problem" involving Barack Obama's minister at Trinity United Church of Christ in a piece entitled Excerpts from: The Collected Sermons of Jeremiah Wrighte, Parson of the Angry Lord Church of Somerstowne, Massachusetts 1775–1798, Informal Spiritual Adviser to Presidents and Governors. (SUBSCRIPTION REQUIRED)

My personal favorite? This bit about the American Revolution itself.

WeÂ’ll get to Christmasse in a moment. Firste, IÂ’d like to talk a bit about the so-called War of Independence, currently being fought without oure Consent! How longe will this War last? So far, itÂ’s been a Faylure, a Quagmire! And for whom?

For the Power Structure, thatÂ’s for whom! ItÂ’s about Lyberty? Oh, really? I mean, Come onne! Lyberty? How do you figure that one?

When yr Little Ones are sick, do they get free Healthe Care? Doth the Docktor say, upon delivering the tonick, bleedynge, or cure, “Oh, this one’s on the House?” No he doth not! He demands Monnaies! So how can we be free? What’s wronge with our Countree?

My dear wife, liberal to the core, laughed out loud at Long's work -- and, as a graduate of a UCC affiliated seminary and former pastor of a UCC congregation, thinks that Long really did his homework on the denomination and picked up the flavor of much of the UCC in this section of his work.

May 30, 1784:

My friends, we have muche to be thankful for. And as Sinners all, much to atone for. But first, some Announcements.

The Dyversity Committee shalle assemble in the Parishe Hall directly followynge this service. Such topicks as it shall address during this Assemblee shall include the continuing Care and Outreache to our Gaye, Lesbianne, and Transgendred &c. members, all of whom we cherishe and respeckt. We will also be tayking up the Issue of our Friends in Morrocco, who have been Provocked by our owne Arrogance into boarding and pirating an American quote unquote sailing vessel.

Oh, weÂ’re Americans now? So what does that make our neighbors in Canada? Or to the Southe?

We brought thisse upon our Selves! Friends, pray not for the Americans, but insteade for the brown-skinne of the Marock, who merely wish to challenge the Hegemonie of the American War Contraption!

Please also remember to sign uppe for Choir Practice! Let us praye . . .

Now let me say this rather explicitly -- I don't take issue with Barack Obama, a liberal, being a member of the most liberal mainline Protestant denomination in America. I'm not interested in starting a theological inquisition. Obama's denominational affiliation is no more relevant than Romney's Mormonism. What I have and do question is his willingness to associate himself with the more outrageous POLITICAL statements -- and outright lies, such as the claim that the US government started AIDS to kill blacks and the US government supplied crack to the ghetto so as to lock up blacks -- that are preached from the pulpit there. The folks of Trinity UCC -- and Wright and Obama in particular -- are entitled to their own theology and their own faith, but not their own facts.

And you are entitled to the great satire of Rob Long -- and so you ought to subscribe to National Review!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Democrat = Socialist, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, A Newt One- MAF letter, Cao's Blog, The Amboy Times, Conservative Cat, D equals S, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, A Newt One, Rant It Up, Stageleft, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 02:42 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 669 words, total size 6 kb.

Indeed, tase 'em early and often.

Former White House advisor Karl Rove gave a speech at George Washington University on Friday that was disturbed by protestors from the anti-war group Code Pink.

As the "insurgents" were being removed from the Harry Harding Auditorium by security guards, students in attendance could be heard comically shouting "Tase 'em!"

Interesting, isn't it, that these anti-American left-wingers seem to believe that the Constitution does not protect the right of anyone except themselves to speak. Try to say a word they oppose, and they will do everything in their power to prevent you from speaking at all.

And it doesn't matter if it involves interrupting a political figure giving a speech or threatening to mount a campaign to get a teacher (me) fired for running a conservative political blog. Freedom is, for them, only a one-way street.

Posted by: Greg at 02:09 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

Too bad.

A federal judge on Friday ordered former Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal to pay $18,900 in sanctions after finding him in contempt of court for deleting more than 2,500 e-mails that had been subpoenaed for a federal civil rights lawsuit.

Additionally, U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt determined Scott Durfee, general counsel for the district attorney's office, was jointly responsible for paying $5,000 of that, finding Durfee failed to appropriately advise Rosenthal on how to comply with the subpoena.

Both Rosenthal and Durfee have until April 30 to pay their respective fines, according to the judge's order released late Friday afternoon.

Neither Rosenthal nor Durfee could be reached for comment.

Whether the county pays those sanctions with taxpayers' money is a question to be decided by Commissioners Court. The court must determine whether paying the sanctions would serve a public purpose, said County Attorney Mike Stafford.

I don't know that I agree with the fine against Durfee -- as an attorney, Rosenthal should have been well-aware of the requirements of an order to preserve all emails.

And I'll be honest -- I believe a little jail time should have been meted out here against Rosenthal for his misdeeds.

Let's hope he is quickly and permanently disbarred.

Oh, and by the way -- any member of the Commissioner's Court who votes to use taxpayer funds to pay these fines needs to be voted out of office immediately. And if that puts the government of Harris County in the hands of the Democrats, so be it.

Posted by: Greg at 12:06 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 262 words, total size 2 kb.

This time it is the Kentucky edition.

Thousands of Kentuckians who have switched political affiliations over the past three months in hopes of voting in May's Democratic presidential primary will instead be barred from casting ballots.

Secretary of State Trey Grayson alerted Kentuckians on Wednesday to a little-known state law that forbids people who change their party registration after December 31 to vote in the May 20 primary.

"We're getting a lot of reports of folks who are either independents or Republicans who are trying to become Democrats in order to vote in the primary," Grayson said. "In the presidential primary, they will not be eligible to vote."

Some 9,000 people have switched parties since Jan. 1. Grayson said voter registration drives by supporters of Democratic presidential candidates Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton could inadvertently cause the number of ineligible voters to grow.

Grayson said Obama's campaign requested 5,000 Kentucky voter registration cards earlier this week.

"They're obviously going to do a big push over the next three week to register voters," Grayson said. "I'm sure the Clinton campaign will do the same thing."

In other words, Democrat ignorance of Kentucky law has resulted in thousands of Kentuckians losing their right to vote – and these same Democrats are working hard to disenfranchise even more voters.

Funny, isn’t it, that these are the same Democrats who have been complaining about crossover voters in other states now trying to create them in Kentucky – but instead creating disenfranchised Americans.

Posted by: Greg at 09:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 257 words, total size 2 kb.

I’m curious – hasn’t the latest call of the Obama folks been that superdelegates ought to support the will of their given constituencies? If so, does this mean a switch to Hillary at the convention by Senator Bob Casey?

Pennsylvania Sen. Bob Casey plans to endorse Sen. Barack Obama for president today in Pittsburgh, sending a message both to the state's primary voters and to undecided superdelegates who might decide the close race for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Dan Pfeiffer, deputy communications director for the Obama campaign, confirmed that Casey would announce his support during a rally at the Soldiers and Sailors Military Museum and Memorial and that he would then set out with the Illinois senator on part of a six-day bus trip across the state.

The endorsement comes as something of a surprise. Casey, a deliberative and cautious politician, had been adamant about remaining neutral until after the April 22 primary. He had said he wanted to help unify the party after the intensifying fight between Obama and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"There are few stronger advocates for working families in Pennsylvania than Sen. Casey," Pfeiffer said.

By coming out for Obama, Casey puts himself at odds with many top state Democrats - including Gov. Rendell, Rep. John P. Murtha and Mayor Nutter - who are campaigning for Clinton.

Now polling data shows that Obama is going to take a real drubbing in Pennsylvania. Doesn’t that mean that the Obama campaign should have rejected Casey’s help – you know, in the interest of guaranteeing that the Pennsylvania senator doesn’t go against the will of Pennsylvania voters?

Or are their protestations about respecting the vote of the people simply more lip service to principle while hypocritically doing anything to win?

Posted by: Greg at 09:27 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 301 words, total size 2 kb.

That's what I see in this statement, which amounts to "I would have left Trinity UCC if Wright were still there when the press got clips of his racist, anti-American comments."

White House hopeful Barack Obama suggests he would have left his Chicago church had his longtime pastor, whose fiery anti-American comments about U.S. foreign policy and race relations threatened Obama's campaign, not stepped down.

"Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn't have felt comfortable staying at the church," Obama said Thursday during a taping of the ABC talk show, "The View." The interview will be broadcast Friday.

Now this is the THIRD different story Obama has tried to tell the American public.

I watched the weekend before "the speech", when Obama tried to sell the American people a bill of goods by claiming he had never known about Wright's incredibly offensive and factually incorrect statements.

There was then the celebrated speech, when he argued that he knew about the outrageous material, but would not abandon his close friend and spiritual mentor or the church -- but was willing to insult and denounce the white woman who raised him.

And now he is arguing that he would have separated himself from Wright and Trinity if not for the pastor's recent retirement -- even though the new pastor spent this past Sunday defending Wright and condemning those who take issue with his hate speech from the pulpit for "lynching" the retired pastor.

Barack Obama wants to have his cake and eat it too. I wonder what his position will be next week.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Adam's Blog, The Amboy Times, Cao's Blog, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, third world county, McCain Blogs, Woman Honor Thyself, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , Rant It Up, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 10:01 PM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 358 words, total size 3 kb.

Those folks who have expressed a belief that Republicans are going to desert John McCain en masse while the Democrats unite behind their candidate may want to consider this poll.

A new analysis of March polling data suggests that John McCain's cross-party support surpasses that of either Barack Obama or Hillary Rodham Clinton.

According to data provided by the Gallup Organization at PoliticoÂ’s request, in a hypothetical contest between McCain and Obama, McCain wins 17 percent of Democrats and those leaning Democratic, while Obama wins 10 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners.

In a potential contest with Clinton, McCain wins 14 percent of Democrats and Democratic-leaners while Clinton wins 8 percent of Republicans and Republican-leaners.

By way of comparison, exit polls in 2004 reported that George W. Bush won 11 percent of Democrats and John F. Kerry won 6 percent of Republicans.

The new analysis, calculated from a compilation of Gallup’s daily polls between March 7 and 22, seems to indicate that there are more “McCain Democrats” than the much-ballyhooed “Obama Republicans” — or “Obamacans,” as they are sometimes referred to.

Yes, John McCain has his problems among some vocal segments of the GOP -- I'll concede disappointment with the selection of the man as the nominee, but I consider him infinitely better than anyone the Dems will give us. And I know that there is a vocal minority of Republicans who are irreconcilably against McCain, but their numbers seem to be surpassed by those Dems who cannot reconcile themselves to one or the other of their party's potential nominees. So in the end, the percentages break in favor of McCain and the GOP.

And just imagine what it will be like after a couple of more months of Hillary and barack wrestling in the mud!

Posted by: Greg at 09:52 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 305 words, total size 2 kb.

Why else leave it out of this story?

A law enforcement official says Puerto Rico's governor has been charged in a long-running public corruption probe in the U.S. island territory.
A law enforcement official told The Associated Press on Thursday that Gov. Anibal Acevedo Vila is among several people named in a sealed indictment.
The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the indictment is still sealed.

An FBI spokesman in San Juan declined to comment, saying there would be a news conference later to discuss the first arrests in the probe.

A government official in San Juan also said Acevedo would be charged in the indictment and that the governor's attorneys were expected to appear in court later Thursday.

Now I DiDnÂ’t have any iDea what AceveDoÂ’s party affiliation was before I read the story from the AssociateD Press about the inDictment. I DiD a check of WikipeDia and founD that the AceveDo is a Democrat. I wonder why that Detail was excluded from this breaking news story?

Posted by: Greg at 10:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 179 words, total size 1 kb.

And they wonder why we question their patriotism.

The Justice Department said Wednesday that Saddam HusseinÂ’s principal foreign intelligence agency and an Iraqi-American man had organized and paid for a 2002 visit to Iraq by three House Democrats whose trip was harshly criticized by colleagues at the time.

The arrangements for the trip were described in the indictment of an Iraq-born former employee of a Detroit-area charity group who was charged Wednesday with accepting millions of dollarsÂ’ worth of Iraqi oil contracts in exchange for assisting the Iraqi spy agency in projects in the United States.

The indictment did not claim any wrongdoing by the three lawmakers, whose five-day trip to Iraq occurred in October 2002, five months before the American invasion.

Two continue to serve in the House: Jim McDermott of Washington State and Mike Thompson of California. The other, David E. Bonior of Michigan, has since retired from Congress.

“None of the Congressional representatives are accused of any wrongdoing, and we have no information whatsoever that any of them were aware of the involvement of the Iraqi Intelligence Service,” said Dean Boyd, a Justice spokesman.

Maybe there is no direct evidence, but it is rather interesting that at the exact time that tensions are rising between the US and iraq, three of the most strongly pro-Saddam Democrats just happen to get t trip illegally financed by the dictator. I'm curious -- now that they know the trip was illegally funded, will the threesome be expected to repay all expenses involved in the trip? Will they face ethics charges for not digging deeper.

In other words, will they face the same treatment that Democrats demanded when Tom DeLay took a couple of trips that later turned out to have been illegally funded without his knowledge? Or do such requirements only cut one way?

Oh, and interestingly enough, the indicted Saddamite is another former official with CAIR. How many terrorists and traitors need to spring from the leadership of that organization before the US government takes action against it?

Posted by: Greg at 10:00 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 359 words, total size 3 kb.

It must suck to have a race for the nomination so polarized that at least 1 out of every 5 voters for one candidate or the other will bolt to the GOP in November if the other candidate gets the nomination – meaning a 10% loss of voters committed enough to vote in the primary.

"A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination," the pollsters at Gallup report this morning. "This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters," they add, "more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee."

Gallup surveyed "6,657 national Democratic voters, aged 18 and older," from March 7-22. Of that group:

• 28% of those who support Sen. Clinton said they would vote for Republican Sen. McCain in the general election if Sen. Obama ends up being the Democratic presidential nominee.

• 19% of those who support Obama said they would vote for McCain in the general election if Clinton ends up being the Democratic nominee.

And notice that the hit is bigger if Barack Obama gets the nomination than if Hillary does.

WeÂ’ve seen a number of recent polls showing John McCain inching into the lead over both Democrats. That seems indicative of precisely the level of attrition caused by this very divisive primary fight.

And then there is this interesting tidbit from Rasmussen – 22% of Democrats want Hillary to quit the race immediately, while an identical percentage wants Obama to quit now. And 6% want both of the leading Democrats to quit the race. This sure isn’t good for them and bodes problems with “party unity”.

Posted by: Greg at 09:42 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 309 words, total size 2 kb.

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez believes that Hillary and Obama will be easier to get his way with work with than the Arizona Senator and war hero.

Chavez said he hopes the United States and Venezuela can work better together when his ideological foe, U.S. President George W. Bush, leaves the White House next year, but he said McCain seemed "warlike."

"Sometimes one says, 'worse than Bush is impossible,' but we don't know," Chavez told foreign correspondents. "McCain also seems to be a man of war."

* * *

He said on Tuesday that he had better communication with the administration of former U.S. President Bill Clinton.

"Independently of who wins the elections, we are hopeful and it is within our plans to enter an era of better relations with the U.S. government," he said. "At the least one would hope for the level of relations we had with ex-President Clinton."

He did not mention Democratic hopefuls Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton. Both are cautious about Chavez, although Obama has said he could meet him.

So it is clear who one of America’s enemies does not want in the White House, and his name is John McCain. Given Obama’s willingness to lend Chavez legitimacy by meeting with him and the explicitly praise of the policies of Senator Clinton’s husband, I think we can see who would be better for America – and who would be better for the dictator.

Posted by: Greg at 09:40 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 252 words, total size 2 kb.

HereÂ’s my favorite.

The government runs everything from the White House to the schoolhouse, from the Capitol to the Klan, white supremacy is clearly in chargeÂ…

The government runs the Klan? Really? Do you have any EVIDENCE for this contention? After all, you are making what you claim to be a statement of fact. Lay out your case, sir. Ditto your white supremacy claim.

Or is proving your contentions contrary to the tenets of Black Liberation Theology?

Otherwise, Rev. Wright, publicly concede that you are a liar and a racist. And seek out some psychiatric help.

And by the way, Jeremiah, if the government is so bad and so evil, you should want less of it – not a massive increase of the sort that your parishioner Barack Obama wishes to impose on America.

Posted by: Greg at 09:39 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 146 words, total size 1 kb.

These numbers concern me. And if these are actual cases of voters violating the law, I want to see them prosecuted.

But at the same time, I want to make sure that folks who did this are not prosecuted.

Robert Duran Jr. said he walked into the wrong room to vote in the March 4 primary. But he said he should not be indicted for it.

"It was an innocent mistake," said Duran, who works for an oil services company. "I just failed to read the sign."

Duran's name appeared on a list of "questionable voting cases" released Tuesday by Harris County Clerk Beverly Kaufman. The 1,148 individuals may have voted illegally, Kaufman said. She turned the list over to the district attorney's office for investigation and possible indictment.

Duran said he rushed to the polls after work, meaning to vote as a Republican. Duran was voting in his first primary, and he unthinkingly went to the same room he always does for general elections. But after Duran signed in the poll book and went to the booth, he saw the ballot had the names of the Democratic candidates, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama.

"I clicked on it and said, 'Whoa, this is not what I meant to do,' " Duran said.

We had about half-a-dozen folks at my precint do this. Despite signs saying REPUBLICAN PRIMARY" and the fact that the Democrats were voting over a mile away (there were signs directing them there) and questions about whether it was their intent to vote int eh Republican or Democrat primary, some folks still signed our poll book and then complained that Hillary and Obama were not on their ballot. We duly canceled out their ballots (it is a simple procedure), if done before the press cast ballot) -- and in such a case you are supposed to cross the voter's name out of the poll book. Did some election judges or poll workers overlook that step?

Sounds to me like some election judges failed to do their job correctly, if Duran's story is correct. That is a matter of concern for me. The same is true if someone managed to early vote and then vote on election day -- we have a list of all early/absentee voters and are supposed to mark them in the poll book before election day. Did some election judges not do that -- or did some poll worker ignore the information marked in the book?

But I also suspect that some voters committed real fraud. In such a case, they need to go directly to jail.

Posted by: Greg at 10:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 443 words, total size 3 kb.

It's a good thing that Andrew Sullivan does not hold himself out to be a real journalist, given this post.

"What does it take to be the most liberal member of the United States Senate – farther left than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or even Hillary Clinton? For the answer, take a look at a man who could be the next president of the United States: Barack Obama.

Sen. Obama was recently named the most liberal U.S. Senator, based on the annual voting analysis by the non-partisan and highly respected National Journal. If he emerges as the Democratic nominee, one of the critical jobs of Focus Action will be to uncover the real Barack Obama—not the feel-good orator who speaks of “change” and “hope,” but the man who would be the most left-wing president in our nation’s history.

Throughout our history, great Americans have stood up to grave challenges of all sorts. As this latest wave of secular liberalism threatens us, I look forward to standing shoulder to shoulder with you in prayer and action – in defense of the family," - James Dobson, in his latest email.

The problem is that Sullivan's source reports the email this way.

Dr. Dobson's Focus on the Family begins an e-mail sent out today with:

What does it take to be the most liberal member of the United States Senate – farther left than Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or even Hillary Clinton? For the answer, take a look at a man who could be the next president of the United States: Barack Obama.

Sen. Obama was recently named the most liberal U.S. Senator, based on the annual voting analysis by the non-partisan and highly respected National Journal. If he emerges as the Democratic nominee, one of the critical jobs of Focus Action will be to uncover the real Barack Obama—not the feel-good orator who speaks of “change” and “hope,” but the man who would be the most left-wing president in our nation’s history.

The e-mail ends with this:

Throughout our history, great Americans have stood up to grave challenges of all sorts. As this latest wave of secular liberalism threatens us, I look forward to standing shoulder to shoulder with you in prayer and action – in defense of the family.

Now Sullivan commits a cardinal sin here -- he takes two disconnected quotes and runs them together. Say what you want about the Sullivan's source and the conclusions made at the end of the post, but it is implied that there is a gap between those first two paragraphs and the last -- perhaps filled with some substantive discussion of issues. You know, discussion that might make that the conclusions found in that last paragraph somewhat more understandable (whether or not you accept all of Dobson's premises -- something I don't always do).

Pretty sloppy stuff, based upon the evidence we have here.

Anyone got the full text of the actual email -- since neither blogger provides the full context of the quotes in question?

Posted by: Greg at 10:07 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 509 words, total size 3 kb.

Not that it is particularly significant, but you do find some interesting family connections.

This could make for one odd family reunion: Barack Obama is a distant cousin of actor Brad Pitt, and Hillary Rodham Clinton is related to Pitt's girlfriend, Angelina Jolie.

Researchers at the New England Historic Genealogical Society found some remarkable family connections for the three presidential candidates — Democratic rivals Obama and Clinton, and Republican John McCain.

Clinton, who is of French-Canadian descent on her mother's side, is also a distant cousin of singers Madonna, Celine Dion and Alanis Morissette. Obama, the son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, can call six U.S. presidents, including George W. Bush, his cousins. McCain is a sixth cousin of first lady Laura Bush.

Now there really are some interesting connections turned up here, but they really are not that significant, especially when you see them in the historical context of those relationships. You find family connections between the candidates going back to the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which at first blush could lead one to ask questions about the importance of certain families and why those families consistently rise to the top.

But then you find bits of historical trivia like one I encountered last night while reading McCullough's excellent biography of John Adams (I don't get HBO, so I have to read the book instead of watching the miniseries). Some families, especially early American families, have been quite prolific. For example, John Adams' great-grandfather had no fewer than 89 grandchildren (including the second President's father). If one presumes that only 2/3 of those grandchildren had only 5 children each pretty small number for that era), the next generation would have been some 300 great-grandchildren -- and the generation after that would have been 1000 great-great-grandchildren. You can continue the exponential growth for the next couple of generations, at which point you will discover that within a couple more generations we are into the tens of thousands of descendants. And as one works one's way back the family tree from today, remember that by the time you drill back to the Civil War era, most living Americans are looking at 64 (or even 12 ancestors of that generation. Frankly, it would be shocking not to find a connection, however collateral, to the Adams family (or the prolific Lees of Virginia). In other words, the family connections signify nothing.

Posted by: Greg at 09:53 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 413 words, total size 3 kb.

Let no one say that John McCain doesn't merit the support of Reagan conservatives.

The keeper of the flame has endorsed the Arizona Senator.

Former first lady Nancy Reagan planned to endorse John McCain for president on Tuesday, as the Arizona senator continued to collect the backing of leading Republicans who might help him win over critical conservative voters.

Now certain to win the GOP nomination, McCain is on the West coast this week to raise money. He was to stop by the Southern California home of former President Ronald Reagan's widow to accept her endorsement.

In a statement before the event, Reagan said she typically waits until after the GOP convention to announce her support but she decided to do so now because it is clear the Republican Party has chosen its nominee.

"John McCain has been a good friend for over thirty years," Reagan said. "My husband and I first came to know him as a returning Vietnam War POW, and were impressed by the courage he had shown through his terrible ordeal. I believe John's record and experience have prepared him well to be our next president."

Nobody has more of a right than Nancy Reagan to speak for the fitness of John McCain to stand in the shoes of Ronald Reagan. Were John McCain unfit, she would doubtlessly have remained silent. So the time has come for the Reagan Conservatives to accept the wisdom of the one closest to Ronald Reagan and lend their support for John McCain -- or renounce their claim to the Reagan name and legacy.

H/T Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 01:11 PM | Comments (12) | Add Comment
Post contains 272 words, total size 2 kb.

Yeah, she is acting as a surrogate for Mom, and yeah, Mom is running for President, but Chelsea just doesn't think that the American people have the right to know about Mom's credibility in light of Dad's escapades.

Chelsea Clinton had a quick retort Tuesday when asked whether her mother's credibility had been hurt during the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

"Wow, you're the first person actually that's ever asked me that question in the, I don't know maybe, 70 college campuses I've now been to, and I do not think that is any of your business," Clinton said during a campaign visit for her mother, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

If Obama is called on the carpet about his relationship with his pastor, it certainly seems reasonable to ask questions about Hillary's relationship with Bill -- and the damage he did to both her credibility and the nation as a whole.

And if Chelsea can't handle the heat, maybe she needs to retreat back to that cushy bond trading job Mom and Dad got her.

UPDATE: Bill gets irritated about having to answer a substantive question.

More At Michelle Malkin, Hot Air

Posted by: Greg at 12:57 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 208 words, total size 2 kb.

Excuse me, "misspoke" means that you substituted the name of one city or country for another, or some other relatively minor gaffe. When you make up a story about dodging and weaving to avoid gunfire during an assault on an airport, it is called "lying".

Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign said she "misspoke" last week when saying she had landed under sniper fire during a trip to Bosnia as first lady in March 1996.

The Obama campaign suggested it was a deliberate exaggeration by Clinton, who often cites the goodwill trip with her daughter and several celebrities as an example of her foreign policy experience.

During a speech last Monday on Iraq, she said of the Bosnia trip: "I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base."

According to an Associated Press story at the time, Clinton was placed under no extraordinary risks on that trip. And one of her companions, comedian Sinbad, told The Washington Post he has no recollection either of the threat or reality of gunfire.

When asked Monday about the New York senator's remarks about the trip, Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson pointed to Clinton's written account of it in her book, "Living History," in which she described a shortened welcoming ceremony at Tuzla Air Base, Bosnia-Herzegovina.

"Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find," Clinton wrote.

"That is what she wrote in her book," Wolfson said. "That is what she has said many, many times and on one occasion she misspoke."

And just like Obama found out last week, Mrs. Clinton is discovering the YouTube can allow inconvenient facts to obscure undermine the immage one seeks to project.

Damn that contemporaneous video coverage of the event! No ducking and weaving and dodging -- and a VIP greeting for the then-First Lady.

Maybe Hillary Clinton needs a new campaign theme song.

More At Michelle Malkin, HotAir, Stop the ACLU

Posted by: Greg at 09:55 PM | Comments (14) | Add Comment
Post contains 392 words, total size 4 kb.

And my question is “Why?”

In a stunning and historic day, Kwame Kilpatrick was charged with perjury, obstruction of justice and misconduct in office Monday, the latest blow to the Detroit mayor embroiled in a text message scandal.

Kilpatrick could go to prison if convicted of any of the eight felonies filed against him by Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy. His former chief of staff, Christine Beatty, faces seven felonies.

"Our investigation has clearly shown that public dollars were used, people's lives were ruined, the justice system was severely mocked and the public trust trampled on," said a visibly angry Worthy. "This is as far from being a private matter as one can get."

Excuse me, but these charges are about nothing but sex. After all, doesnÂ’t everyone lie about sex? Yeah, it was under oath as but it was still about sex. And the misuse of oneÂ’s office to conduct a sexual affair with a subordinate, to reward that subordinate and to try to cover up the affair? Still, in the end, nothing but sex.

At least that was the argument that we heard about 10 years ago when another prominent Democrat politician lied under oath, engaged in a conspiracy to obstruct justice, and moved heaven and earth to feather the nest of his sugar baby. Indeed, Republicans were excoriated for attempting to hold Bill Clinton to precisely the standards that these charges are based upon. Why does Kwame Kilpatrick face jail time while Bill Clinton got to serve out his term, play elder statesman, and potentially become the first man to serve as First Lady?

Is it race?

Or is it just that the Clintons are above the rules that apply to mere mortals?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, , Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 348 words, total size 4 kb.

Set aside the question of whether we should elect a president by popular or electoral votes. The reality is that we do so using the electoral vote system.

That's why the Clinton campaign is now adopting an electoral vote strategy in wooing superdelegates.

Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who backs Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton for president, proposed another gauge Sunday by which superdelegates might judge whether to support Mrs. Clinton or Senator Barack Obama.

He suggested that they consider the electoral votes of the states that each of them has won.

“So who carried the states with the most Electoral College votes is an important factor to consider because ultimately, that’s how we choose the president of the United States,” Mr. Bayh said on CNN’s “Late Edition.”

In a primary, of course, electoral votes are not relevant, but the Clinton campaign is trying to use them as an unofficial measure of strength.

So far, Mrs. Clinton has won states with a total of 219 Electoral College votes, not counting Florida and Michigan, while Mr. Obama has won states with a total of 202 electoral votes.

It is a fascinating issue, don't you think? Should the will of the majority count more in the nominating contest, or the measure of strength in terms of the measure that actually counts in November? Of course, given the denunciation of the Electoral College system by Democrats -- including Mrs. Clinton -- to consider the weight of states based upon electoral votes seems a bit hypocritical.

But then again, when have the Clintons ever averse to a little hypocrisy in the service of political opportunism?

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, third world county, DragonLady's World, Adam's Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Big Dog's Weblog, , Right Voices, Adeline and Hazel, and D equals S, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 11:39 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 326 words, total size 3 kb.

We've seen the following changes in America.

Here are some of the outcomes of them being in control.

Up:

* Gasoline up from $2.19 to $3.35 or 53%
* Unemployment up from 4.5% to 5% or 11.1%
* National dept per ca pita was $27,677 then and now $31,551 or 14% higher.
* Congressional pay increase.

Down:

* Consumer confidence at multiple year lows.
* Equity value of mutual funds down $2.3 trillion.
* Home equity values down $1.2 trillion
* Congress's approval rating at all time low.

Remember, 2006 was all about change, according to the Democrats. And since the 2006 election, we've gotten plenty of change in the economy -- none of it good.

Indeed, it is likely that a Democrat victory in 2008 will result in Americans having nothing but change in their pockets and bank accounts by the time the next presidential election comes around.

Can America really afford any more of the "change" that the Democrats have given us?

Posted by: Greg at 09:29 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

Let no one say that the Clintons and their surrogates are keeping things polite.

“An act of betrayal,” said James Carville, an adviser to Mrs. Clinton and a friend of Mr. Clinton.

“Mr. Richardson’s endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic,” Mr. Carville said, referring to Holy Week.

Now once can (and should) question whether endorsing Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton really qualifies as the moral equivalent of betraying the Son of God to the Temple authorities. But one would have hoped that the Obama campaign would have considered the timing of the endorsement before choosing Good Friday as the day to make it public.

But then again, given the rhetoric of Obama's pastor comparing him to Jesus Christ in his 2007 Christmas sermon, perhaps the timing wasn't a coincidence.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, The Beauty Stop, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Stuck On Stupid, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, ARISTO_GATTA, third world county, Woman Honor Thyself, Miss Beth's Victory Dance, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, , , Right Voices, A Blog For All, 123beta, Adam's Blog, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Phastidio.net, Big Dog's Weblog, Cao's Blog, Conservative Cat, Faultline USA, Nuke Gingrich, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, The World According to Carl, Walls of the City, Blue Star Chronicles, Wolf Pangloss, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 05:36 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 249 words, total size 5 kb.

Here's hoping that folks in Wilmer, Texas, have the common sense and common decency to vote against this guy.

A registered sex offender is running for mayor of a Dallas-area town.

James Brian Sliter wants to be mayor of Wilmer. The election is May 10.

Records show that Sliter was arrested four years ago for arranging sex with someone he thought was a 15-year-old girl on the Internet. When Sliter got to the meeting place, he was greeted by police instead of a teenager.

Sliter, who is now 42, said he needs to prove that he can be an asset to his community. He says that he's truly sorry and hopes voters realize that people make mistakes.

Sliter was charged with attempting to sexually assault a child and placed on 10 years probation, according to state records. He's eligible to run because he received deferred adjudication and not a conviction.

First, attempting to arrange to have sex with a child is not "a mistake".

Second, I hope the Texas Legislature takes the time to fix state law so as to make any registered sex offender ineligible to run for office.

Posted by: Greg at 05:14 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 198 words, total size 1 kb.

I wrote this the other day regarding New York's new governor, David Paterson.

Oh, one last comment -- good luck to the people of New York and their new governor. Here's hoping that this story dies the death that it deserves -- because as I said above, an extramarital affair alone should not be fodder for the press or grounds for disqualification from office.

Man, I really hoped that my observation would be the last about his extramarital affairs, and those of his wife. After all, it appeared that they truly belonged in that personal zone of privacy that we ought to, but rarely do, afford politicians.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a little something more to this story that may mean it won't go away.

Concern is growing in Albany over the prospect that, even as Governor Paterson races to get on top of the budget crisis, the disclosures of his private sexual affairs have damaged — perhaps irreparably — his capacity to execute the state's highest office.

Dogged by suspicions that his campaign expenditures and his extramarital relationships were improperly entangled, Mr. Paterson heads into his second week on the job no longer the fresh face who symbolized a return to civility, but a weakened politician.

"Paterson's persona has been really damaged," a politics professor at Baruch College, Doug Muzzio, said. "On Monday, he was sitting on top of the world. It was, 'I am David Paterson and I am governor of New York.' It now becomes, 'I am David Paterson and I am this philandering, pay-for-it-with-other-people's-money type of guy,'"

For the third consecutive day, Mr. Paterson struggled to account for a 2002 payment, billed to the credit card of his campaign committee, for an Upper West Side hotel room where Mr. Paterson had a sexual liaison.

The governor, who served as lieutenant governor under Eliot Spitzer, has also been unable to explain the circumstances behind a $500 campaign payment to a woman with whom he was romantically involved.

Meanwhile, Paterson officials sought to provide details about more than $11,000 in payments that his campaign committee made between 2002 and 2007 to a 45-year-old woman, April Robbins-Bobyn, whose connection to Mr. Paterson is not clear.

Please tell me that he didn't expense the hotel room and sugar-daddy payments to his hot little honey. Please tell me that he didn't use funds that are regulated by ethics laws to pay for his affair.

But if he did, it looks like he has a major problem on his hands.

Tell me -- who is next in line of succession for the office of Governor of New York?

UPDATE: I just found the answer to the question.

One consequence of Mr. Paterson's elevation is that the next in line to be governor is the temporary president of the state Senate, Joseph Bruno, who has held that position since 1995, when newly-elected Governor Pataki and Senator D'Amato secured it for him.

Senator Bruno has repeatedly been described in the press as facing indictment for a variety of allegedly corrupt transactions, but so far he has escaped prosecution, and it is possible that he will never be charged.

If, however, Mr. Bruno became governor, and were subsequently forced to leave the office, whether for legal entanglements or for reasons of health — he was born in April 1929 — the next in line to be New York State's chief executive is Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, who has held that position since 1994 with increasing authority. In 2000, Mr. Silver crushed a revolt, punished the plotters, and solidified his power.

The denouement of this series of untimely events could be the accession of Shelly Silver as the 57th governor of New York State. A strong governor might control a dysfunctional legislature.

A Silver regime may cure the paralysis which has affected state government through decades of split responsibility and partisan conflict. However, it raises the issue of whether the taxpayers and voters of the state of New York would be better off with a divided, enfeebled legislature and governor than with officials who could really injure the people by their devotion to the special interests, labor, and business, and their persistent lobbyists, who in fact constitute the permanent government of the Empire State.

Posted by: Greg at 07:47 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 719 words, total size 5 kb.

Setting up a situation that I have long expected -- a high probability of a Barack Obama-Bill Richardson ticket this fall.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the nation's only Hispanic governor, is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama for president, calling him a "once-in-a- lifetime leader" who can unite the nation and restore America's international leadership.

Richardson, who dropped out of the Democratic race in January, is to appear with Obama on Friday at a campaign event in Portland, Ore., The Associated Press has learned.

On one level, this endorsement and the increased likelihood of an Obama-Richardson ticket is somewhat comforting -- it means that one member of an Obama Administration would actually have some foreign policy experience. But on the other hand, I don't know if the ticket would really do Obama much good among Hispanic voters -- as I've noted in the past, the general response I've heard from Hispanic students (both on the high school and college levels) regarding Bill Richardson is that they consider him to be a privileged white guy with a white name. Can that perception be overcome? And what about the betrayal of the Clinton's by this long-time Clintonoid?

Posted by: Greg at 03:56 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 200 words, total size 2 kb.

Well, now we understand why Barack Obama has stayed with Trinity UCC and racist Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- he holds to the views expressed by Wright from the pulpit that white people are inherently racist.

610 WIP (Philadelphia) host Angelo Cataldi asked Obama about his Tuesday morning speech on race at the National Constitution Center in which he referenced his own white grandmother and her prejudice. Obama told Cataldi that "The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

Excuse me -- "a typical white person"????????

Sounds like more of the same racial and ethnic insults that come from Rev. Wright -- the guy who rants about "white greed" and "the US of KKK-A". Could you imagine if Hillary or McCain commented on "typical black people"? There would be a shit-storm so big that it would make Hurricane Katrina look like a gentle spring rain shower.

And this from a guy who demanded that Imus be fired for his "nappy-headed ho" comment. This comment therefore seems like an offense sufficient enough to require that he withdraw from the presidential race -- except, of course, that as a black man no liberal Democrat would have the guts to call him on his racism and hold him to the same standards a white candidate would be held to. Proof again that Geraldine Ferraro got it exactly right, and that Barack Obama is nothing but an affirmative action candidate who is held to a lower standard than a similarly situated white candidate would be.

H/T Campaign Spot, Holy Coast, Hot Air, Michelle Malkin

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Miss Beth's Victory Dance, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 07:44 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 378 words, total size 5 kb.

The Washington Post unintentionally gives one more reason to vote Republican -- the cut-and-run plans of the Democrats will not only result in the abandonment of all the progress that has been made in Iraq, but will also directly lead to the civil war that they claim to want to avoid.

BOTH Mr. Obama and Ms. Clinton propose withdrawing U.S. troops at the most rapid pace the Pentagon says is possible -- one brigade a month. In the 16 months or so it would take to remove those forces, they envision the near-miraculous accomplishment of every political goal the Bush administration has aimed at for five years, from the establishment of a stable government to agreement by Iraq's neighbors to support it. They suppose that the knowledge that American forces were leaving would inspire these accords. In fact, it more likely would cause all sides to discount U.S. influence and prepare to violently seize the space left by the departing Americans.

With equal implausibility, the Democratic candidates say they would leave limited U.S. forces behind to prevent al-Qaeda from establishing bases. They assume that an Iraqi government that had just been abandoned by the United States would consent to the continued presence of American forces on its territory. In all, Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama speak as if they have no understanding of Iraqi leaders, whom they propose to treat as willing puppets.

If there was a glimmer of sense in Mr. Obama's speech, it lay in his acknowledgment that "we will have to make tactical adjustments, listening to our commanders on the ground, to ensure that our interests in a stable Iraq are met and to make sure our troops are secure." Ms. Clinton conceded that "the critical question is how we can end this war responsibly" and added "it won't be easy." In fact it will be terribly hard -- and it can't be done responsibly in the way or on the timeline the two Democrats are proposing. We can only hope that, behind their wildly unrealistic campaign rhetoric, the candidates understand that reality.

So let's see -- a liberal bastion like the Washington Post has labeled the plans of the two remaining Democrat contenders as "unrealistic", "irresponsible", "implausible", and "dangerous". Indeed, the title of the editorial makes it clear that the proposals are so far from reality as to enter the realm of fantasy. What the editorial does not say -- perhaps because those responsible for this piece are wedded to the notion that the Democrats must win in November -- is that the proper solution to Iraq lies in voting for the one candidate who actually has a realistic plan for dealing with Iraq. That would be the Republican, John McCain.

Posted by: Greg at 07:28 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 469 words, total size 3 kb.

No doubt sipping on tea on some porch somewhere at the behest of his wife Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson has spoken from on high about who has the necessary foreign policy credentials to serve as President. And the icon of the anti-Iraq War crowd says it ain't Obama.

Claims of superior intuitive judgment by his campaign and by him are self-evidently disingenuous, especially in light of disclosures about his long associations with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Tony Rezko. But his assertions of advanced judgment are also ludicrous when the question of what Obama has accomplished in his four years in the Senate is considered.

As the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee on Europe, he has not chaired a single substantive oversight hearing, even though the breakdown in our relations with Europe and NATO is harming our operations in Afghanistan. Nor did he take a single official trip to Europe as chairman. This is the sum total of his actions in the most important responsibility he has had in the Senate. What are his actual experiences that reassure us that when the phone rings at 3 a.m. he will know what to do, which levers of power to pull, or which world leaders he can count on?

Obama has stated that he will rely upon his advisers. But how will he know which ones to depend upon and how will he be able to evaluate what they say? Already, one of his chief foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power, has been compelled to resign for, among other indiscretions, honestly revealing on a British television program that Obama's public position on withdrawal from Iraq is not really his true position, nor does it reflect what he would do. Her gaffe exposed a vein of cynicism on national security. How confident can we be in his judgment? In fact, the hard truth is that he has no such experience.

Obama has tried to have it both ways on the issue of national security. On the one hand, he claims his intuition somehow would make him best equipped to handle the difficult challenges that face the next president. On the other hand, he tries to ridicule and dismiss as relatively insignificant the idea that actual experience with and intimate knowledge of foreign affairs and leaders, the U.S. military, the intelligence community, and the intricacies of diplomacy matter. He has even suggested that talking about the problems of national security amounts to exploitation of "fear." One of Obama's fervent supporters, a Harvard professor named Orlando Patterson, who has no expertise in foreign policy, wrote absurdly in a New York Times op-ed that the 3 a.m. ad wasn't about national security at all, but really a subliminal racist attack. Delusions aside, sometimes a discussion about national security is about national security.

Well, all you Bush-hating leftoids -- this is the man you label to be a hero and a supremely trustworthy voice on foreign policy (despite a bipartisan Senate finding that he lied about his mission to Niger). He says Obama is unqualified and that electing the man would constitute a danger to the United States. If you trusted his judgment then, why won't you trust it now?

Posted by: Greg at 06:45 AM | Comments (15) | Add Comment
Post contains 555 words, total size 3 kb.

Watch and listen to the Christmas sermon of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

Jeremiah Wright is clearly engaging in political speech on behalf of Barack Obama and against Hillary Clinton BY NAME from the pulpit in his sermon. Doesn't this violate IRS regulations? Or is there a special exemption for black churches? If so, doesn't that violate the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the First Amendment?

Oddly enough, the liberal anti-Christian group Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has not made any public statement about the status of Trinity UCC in light of the comments of its pastor. Why not? Could it be that Barry Lynn, the head of that organization, is an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ? Or is it that Barry Lynn is too busy going after conservative pastors who act within IRS regulations.

By the way -- does anyone catch the false historical assertion that Jesus was black. I guess that Rev. Wright has never seen a Jew.

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary's Thoughts, guerrilla radio, Adam's Blog, Right Truth, Leaning Straight Up, Pursuing Holiness, Allie is Wired, McCain Blogs, Miss Beth's Victory Dance, Blue Star Chronicles, Pirate's Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, A Newt One, Tilting At Windmill Farms, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 06:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 240 words, total size 4 kb.

OK -- it is supposed to be the speech to overcome the Jeremiah Wright situation. Let's take a look at the thing and see if it worked.

We the people, in order to form a more perfect union.

Two hundred and twenty one years ago, in a hall that still stands across the street, a group of men gathered and, with these simple words, launched AmericaÂ’s improbable experiment in democracy. Farmers and scholars; statesmen and patriots who had traveled across an ocean to escape tyranny and persecution finally made real their declaration of independence at a Philadelphia convention that lasted through the spring of 1787.

The document they produced was eventually signed but ultimately unfinished. It was stained by this nationÂ’s original sin of slavery, a question that divided the colonies and brought the convention to a stalemate until the founders chose to allow the slave trade to continue for at least twenty more years, and to leave any final resolution to future generations.

Of course, the answer to the slavery question was already embedded within our Constitution - a Constitution that had at is very core the ideal of equal citizenship under the law; a Constitution that promised its people liberty, and justice, and a union that could be and should be perfected over time.

And yet words on a parchment would not be enough to deliver slaves from bondage, or provide men and women of every color and creed their full rights and obligations as citizens of the United States. What would be needed were Americans in successive generations who were willing to do their part - through protests and struggle, on the streets and in the courts, through a civil war and civil disobedience and always at great risk - to narrow that gap between the promise of our ideals and the reality of their time.

Great words -- seriously great words. Indeed, words that I agree with completely, and will likely include in my course materials the next time I teach American government. Why? Because Obama has it exactly right here -- the Constitution is not and never has been a perfect document and can probably never be perfected due to the flaws of humanity -- what those of us from certain faith traditions call "Original Sin". But to the degree to which we work to perfect the Constitution, we fulfill the Founders' vision. I am struck, though, by the fact that Barack Obama left out the most important means by which we perfect that document -- though the process of amendment, which is the means by which the document was intended to grow and change, rather than through the activism of judges of either the Left or Right.

This was one of the tasks we set forth at the beginning of this campaign - to continue the long march of those who came before us, a march for a more just, more equal, more free, more caring and more prosperous America. I chose to run for the presidency at this moment in history because I believe deeply that we cannot solve the challenges of our time unless we solve them together - unless we perfect our union by understanding that we may have different stories, but we hold common hopes; that we may not look the same and we may not have come from the same place, but we all want to move in the same direction - towards a better future for of children and our grandchildren.

This belief comes from my unyielding faith in the decency and generosity of the American people. But it also comes from my own American story.

Beautiful rhetoric, but does it really mean anything? After all, every candidate argues that they are working to bring the hopes and dreams of Americans to fruition in the better futures of succeeding generations, and that they are best suited to make that happen. In other words, he's just said nothing of significance.

I am the son of a black man from Kenya and a white woman from Kansas. I was raised with the help of a white grandfather who survived a Depression to serve in PattonÂ’s Army during World War II and a white grandmother who worked on a bomber assembly line at Fort Leavenworth while he was overseas. IÂ’ve gone to some of the best schools in America and lived in one of the worlds poorest nations. I am married to a black American who carries within her the blood of slaves and slaveowners - an inheritance we pass on to our two precious daughters. I have brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, uncles and cousins, of every race and every hue, scattered across three continents, and for as long as I live, I will never forget that in no other country on Earth is my story even possible.

ItÂ’s a story that hasn't made me the most conventional candidate. But it is a story that has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts - that out of many, we are truly one.

True -- but do ancestry and biography really add up to competency?

Throughout the first year of this campaign, against all predictions to the contrary, we saw how hungry the American people were for this message of unity. Despite the temptation to view my candidacy through a purely racial lens, we won commanding victories in states with some of the whitest populations in the country. In South Carolina, where the Confederate Flag still flies, we built a powerful coalition of African Americans and white Americans.

This is not to say that race has not been an issue in the campaign. At various stages in the campaign, some commentators have deemed me either too black or not black enough. We saw racial tensions bubble to the surface during the week before the South Carolina primary. The press has scoured every exit poll for the latest evidence of racial polarization, not just in terms of white and black, but black and brown as well.

Indeed, it has been the folks on the Left who have engaged in that discussion, not those of us on the Right. We on the Right have long-since embraced the color-blind vision of Martin Luther King and other great Americans -- and when we echo his call we are accused of being unrealistic and insincere. I really don't care that Barack Hussein Obama is a man of mixed racial heritage whose father was raised in a faith other than Christianity -- I care solely about his competence and his character. Sadly, I find it necessary to question both because of the Wright affair.

And yet, it has only been in the last couple of weeks that the discussion of race in this campaign has taken a particularly divisive turn.

Because you say that your candidacy is not about race while playing upon your racial heritage -- and condemning any opponent who raises the same issues.

On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that its based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.

And it has only taken you two decades to recognize that those statements are offensive and say so in a public fashion. That, sir, is a sign that you are either oblivious to the extremist, racist rhetoric of your pastor or dishonest in the claims you have made over the last several days. Personally, I believe the latter to be the case, given your sudden exclusion of Rev. Wright from the festivities surrounding the announcement of your candidacy over a year ago AND the inclusion of some of his race-based rhetoric in your other writings, quoting Wright as describing the world as a place where "white folksÂ’ greed runs a world in need." You didn't denounce that rhetoric, sir -- you joined his church because you were inspired by it. That isn't my claim -- it is yours! You clearly cannot have it both ways.

I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy.

Except for the ones you have praised.

For some, nagging questions remain.

Such as, "Why is this man lying to the American people, and does he really believe that we are dumb enough to fall for it?"

Did I know him to be an occasionally fierce critic of American domestic and foreign policy? Of course.

And that is not, in and of itself, a problem. After all, many of us disagree with this or that element of American policy in very strong terms. But that isn't the issue, and you know it.

Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes.

Again, not a problem. I've been on both sides of that pulpit, sir, and I have both said and heard controversial things. That is not, in and of itself, a problem.

Did I strongly disagree with many of his political views? Absolutely - just as I'm sure many of you have heard remarks from your pastors, priests, or rabbis with which you strongly disagreed.

Sure I have -- at times I have felt that they have strayed from the Gospel, at other times I have thought that they were simply incorrect in their interpretation of Scripture or politically naive. And I include in that a particular former pastor of a United Church of Christ congregation with whom I chose to maintain a particularly close personal relationship -- my wife, who I love with all my heart even when I believe her to be dead wrong.

But the remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren't simply controversial. They weren't simply a religious leaderÂ’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead, they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country - a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.

As such, Reverend Wrights comments were not only wrong but divisive, divisive at a time when we need unity; racially charged at a time when we need to come together to solve a set of monumental problems - two wars, a terrorist threat, a falling economy, a chronic health care crisis and potentially devastating climate change; problems that are neither black or white or Latino or Asian, but rather problems that confront us all.

Well, at least you are honest enough to get to the heart of the problem. You are honest enough to condemn the indefensible -- statements that are incompatible with the Gospel and with patriotism. But you have been aware of these sorts of statements for a long time -- if not with the particular ones currently cited, then with similar ones made in your presence. You did and said nothing, and remained a member of this man's congregation, dedicated a book to him and proudly declared him to be your spiritual mentor? Where was your concern about bringing people together then, Senator? Or did that only become a priority when Wright's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Semitic rantings became public?

Given my background, my politics, and my professed values and ideals, there will no doubt be those for whom my statements of condemnation are not enough. Why associate myself with Reverend Wright in the first place, they may ask? Why not join another church? And I confess that if all that I knew of Reverend Wright were the snippets of those sermons that have run in an endless loop on the television and You Tube, or if Trinity United Church of Christ conformed to the caricatures being peddled by some commentators, there is no doubt that I would react in much the same way.

Indeed, Senator, renouncing your membership in Trinity UCC is precisely what you should have done at this point -- as well as calling for an IRS investigation of the church's tax-exempt status because of Wright's explicit support for you and attack upon your major opponent from the pulpit in his Christmas sermon. Instead you have begun an attack upon those who have brought the words of Jeremiah Wright into the light.

But the truth is, that isn't all that I know of the man. The man I met more than twenty years ago is a man who helped introduce me to my Christian faith, a man who spoke to me about our obligations to love one another; to care for the sick and lift up the poor. He is a man who served his country as a U.S. Marine; who has studied and lectured at some of the finest universities and seminaries in the country, and who for over thirty years led a church that serves the community by doing Gods work here on Earth - by housing the homeless, ministering to the needy, providing day care services and scholarships and prison ministries, and reaching out to those suffering from HIV/AIDS.

Yeah, he has done a lot of good things. However, that doesn't negate his hatemongering from the pulpit. But then again, given you include a domestic terrorist among your friends (William Ayers), I guess you have a high level of tolerance for those who hate America and attack this country rather than its enemies. That is not, however, a quality that is acceptable in a President.

In my first book, Dreams From My Father, I described the experience of my first service at Trinity:

People began to shout, to rise from their seats and clap and cry out, a forceful wind carrying the reverends voice up into the raftersÂ….And in that single note - hope! - I heard something else; at the foot of that cross, inside the thousands of churches across the city, I imagined the stories of ordinary black people merging with the stories of David and Goliath, Moses and Pharaoh, the Christians in the lions den, EzekielÂ’s field of dry bones. Those stories - of survival, and freedom, and hope - became our story, my story; the blood that had spilled was our blood, the tears our tears; until this black church, on this bright day, seemed once more a vessel carrying the story of a people into future generations and into a larger world. Our trials and triumphs became at once unique and universal, black and more than black; in chronicling our journey, the stories and songs gave us a means to reclaim memories that we didn't need to feel shame aboutÂ…memories that all people might study and cherish - and with which we could start to rebuild.

Interestingly enough, you fail to note that comment I mentioned earlier about "white folksÂ’ greed" -- despite the fact that it is quoted on the page just prior to this passage in your book. Great job with the creative editing -- but lousy job with the candor and honesty.

That has been my experience at Trinity. Like other predominantly black churches across the country, Trinity embodies the black community in its entirety - the doctor and the welfare mom, the model student and the former gang-banger. Like other black churches, Trinity's services are full of raucous laughter and sometimes bawdy humor. They are full of dancing, clapping, screaming and shouting that may seem jarring to the untrained ear. The church contains in full the kindness and cruelty, the fierce intelligence and the shocking ignorance, the struggles and successes, the love and yes, the bitterness and bias that make up the black experience in America.

So are you trying to say that anti-American rhetoric is a staple of the black church? If so, you have just set race relations back decades, Senator, and made it clear that while America may be ready for a black president, the black community is not fit to produce one.

That is not, fortunately, the case. Great Americans like JC Watts, Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas, Kenneth Blackwell, Michael Steele, and so many others have risen to great heights in this country and loved this country. That you choose to associate with those who do not love this country and embrace them shows your unfitness for office. I would gladly vote for any of the above individuals for any office -- but never, ever, for you. Not because of your race, but because of your willingness to defame your race to embrace the black equivalent of Fred Phelps.

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions - the good and the bad - of the community that he has served diligently for so many years.

But we now know that he does these things from the pulpit -- and yet you refuse to definitively break from him.

I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.

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

Again, you defame the black community to justify your embrace of a black David Duke. You are sowing division, sir, not unity. And let's not forget -- your grandmother merely echoes the words of Jesse Jackson when she expresses fear of young black men on the streets.

Some will see this as an attempt to justify or excuse comments that are simply inexcusable. I can assure you it is not.

Yes, Senator, it is. Quit lying to the American people.

I suppose the politically safe thing would be to move on from this episode and just hope that it fades into the woodwork. We can dismiss Reverend Wright as a crank or a demagogue, just as some have dismissed Geraldine Ferraro, in the aftermath of her recent statements, as harboring some deep-seated racial bias.

The difference, of course, being that Ferraro was correct and Wright is wrong. Ferraro made the truthful observation that it would be virtually impossible for a white candidate of such meager qualifications to be the front-runner for the nomination of either party's presidential nomination, while you have really gotten a pass up to this point because of the notion that your candidacy is the litmus test for America on race.

But race is an issue that I believe this nation cannot afford to ignore right now. We would be making the same mistake that Reverend Wright made in his offending sermons about America - to simplify and stereotype and amplify the negative to the point that it distorts reality.

The fact is that the comments that have been made and the issues that have surfaced over the last few weeks reflect the complexities of race in this country that we've never really worked through - a part of our union that we have yet to perfect. And if we walk away now, if we simply retreat into our respective corners, we will never be able to come together and solve challenges like health care, or education, or the need to find good jobs for every American.

So now your candidacy is about race? I thought it wasn't about race. or is it only about race when it is to your advantage to have your candidacy be about race?

Understanding this reality requires a reminder of how we arrived at this point. As William Faulkner once wrote, The past isn't dead and buried. In fact, it isn't even past. We do not need to recite here the history of racial injustice in this country. But we do need to remind ourselves that so many of the disparities that exist in the African-American community today can be directly traced to inequalities passed on from an earlier generation that suffered under the brutal legacy of slavery and Jim Crow.

Segregated schools were, and are, inferior schools; we still havenÂ’t fixed them, fifty years after Brown v. Board of Education, and the inferior education they provided, then and now, helps explain the pervasive achievement gap between todayÂ’s black and white students.

Legalized discrimination - where blacks were prevented, often through violence, from owning property, or loans were not granted to African-American business owners, or black homeowners could not access FHA mortgages, or blacks were excluded from unions, or the police force, or fire departments - meant that black families could not amass any meaningful wealth to bequeath to future generations. That history helps explain the wealth and income gap between black and white, and the concentrated pockets of poverty that persists in so many of todayÂ’s urban and rural communities.

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for ones family, contributed to the erosion of black families - a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened. And the lack of basic services in so many urban black neighborhoods - parks for kids to play in, police walking the beat, regular garbage pick-up and building code enforcement - all helped create a cycle of violence, blight and neglect that continue to haunt us.

Interesting -- you tell us we don't need to recite the litany of injustice and racism and then proceed to recite it. Why?

This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. WhatÂ’s remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.

But for all those who scratched and clawed their way to get a piece of the American Dream, there were many who didn't make it - those who were ultimately defeated, in one way or another, by discrimination. That legacy of defeat was passed on to future generations - those young men and increasingly young women who we see standing on street corners or languishing in our prisons, without hope or prospects for the future. Even for those blacks who did make it, questions of race, and racism, continue to define their worldview in fundamental ways. For the men and women of Reverend Wright's generation, the memories of humiliation and doubt and fear have not gone away; nor has the anger and the bitterness of those years. That anger may not get expressed in public, in front of white co-workers or white friends. But it does find voice in the barbershop or around the kitchen table. At times, that anger is exploited by politicians, to gin up votes along racial lines, or to make up for a politicians own failings.

And occasionally it finds voice in the church on Sunday morning, in the pulpit and in the pews. The fact that so many people are surprised to hear that anger in some of Reverend Wright's sermons simply reminds us of the old truism that the most segregated hour in American life occurs on Sunday morning. That anger is not always productive; indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems; it keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity in our condition, and prevents the African-American community from forging the alliances it needs to bring about real change. But the anger is real; it is powerful; and to simply wish it away, to condemn it without understanding its roots, only serves to widen the chasm of misunderstanding that exists between the races.

Actually, it is more important to condemn it than to understand it. And it is important to denounce and renounce the racial dinosaurs like Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Louis Farrakhan as apart of coming of age and unifying this country. Just as no one insists that we "understand" David Duke or Fred Phelps, it is wrong to extend such understanding to African-Americans who are equally bigoted in their beliefs and their rhetoric.

In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community. Most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience - as far as they're concerned, no ones handed them anything, they've built it from scratch. They've worked hard all their lives, many times only to see their jobs shipped overseas or their pension dumped after a lifetime of labor. They are anxious about their futures, and feel their dreams slipping away; in an era of stagnant wages and global competition, opportunity comes to be seen as a zero sum game, in which your dreams come at my expense. So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time.

In other words, the demands of the Jeremiah Wrights of this world and their willingness to denounce any criticism as racist has brought about a justified resentment.

Like the anger within the black community, these resentments aren't always expressed in polite company. But they have helped shape the political landscape for at least a generation. Anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan Coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime for their own electoral ends. Talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism.

Not true, Senator -- when we attempt to engage in those discussions we are told that we are guilty because of our race and that we have nothing to contribute. When we embrace the vision of Dr. King, we are told that the color of our skin somehow disqualifies us from actively participating in the conversation about race.

Just as black anger often proved counterproductive, so have these white resentments distracted attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze - a corporate culture rife with inside dealing, questionable accounting practices, and short-term greed; a Washington dominated by lobbyists and special interests; economic policies that favor the few over the many. And yet, to wish away the resentments of white Americans, to label them as misguided or even racist, without recognizing they are grounded in legitimate concerns - this too widens the racial divide, and blocks the path to understanding.

How much did your wife make in that corporate culture? And do you want to talk about the greed of associates like Tony Rezko and your insider dealings with him -- you know, the ones that your campaign tried to hide by dribbling them out on Friday during the height of the Wright crisis?

This is where we are right now. It’s a racial stalemate we've been stuck in for years. Contrary to the claims of some of my critics, black and white, I have never been so naïve as to believe that we can get beyond our racial divisions in a single election cycle, or with a single candidacy - particularly a candidacy as imperfect as my own.

How about if we try to get beyond our racial divisions by doing away with the racial spoils system that is affirmative action, and instead look at character, qualifications, and merit? Oh, that's right -- if America did that, your candidacy would be over.

But I have asserted a firm conviction - a conviction rooted in my faith in God and my faith in the American people - that working together we can move beyond some of our old racial wounds, and that in fact we have no choice is we are to continue on the path of a more perfect union.

For the African-American community, that path means embracing the burdens of our past without becoming victims of our past. It means continuing to insist on a full measure of justice in every aspect of American life. But it also means binding our particular grievances - for better health care, and better schools, and better jobs - to the larger aspirations of all Americans -- the white woman struggling to break the glass ceiling, the white man whose been laid off, the immigrant trying to feed his family. And it means taking full responsibility for own lives - by demanding more from our fathers, and spending more time with our children, and reading to them, and teaching them that while they may face challenges and discrimination in their own lives, they must never succumb to despair or cynicism; they must always believe that they can write their own destiny.

Ironically, this quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help found frequent expression in Reverend Wright's sermons. But what my former pastor too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change.

Well, then, Senator -- why don't you start embracing some of that conservative vision instead of promoting more left-wing, statist solutions that have failed again and again in the past. Government did the most to keep black people down in this country, and individuals who acted to bring about change.

The profound mistake of Reverend WrightÂ’s sermons is not that he spoke about racism in our society. Its that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made; as if this country - a country that has made it possible for one of his own members to run for the highest office in the land and build a coalition of white and black; Latino and Asian, rich and poor, young and old -- is still irrevocably bound to a tragic past. But what we know -- what we have seen - is that America can change. That is true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope - the audacity to hope - for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.

In the white community, the path to a more perfect union means acknowledging that what ails the African-American community does not just exist in the minds of black people; that the legacy of discrimination - and current incidents of discrimination, while less overt than in the past - are real and must be addressed. Not just with words, but with deeds - by investing in our schools and our communities; by enforcing our civil rights laws and ensuring fairness in our criminal justice system; by providing this generation with ladders of opportunity that were unavailable for previous generations. It requires all Americans to realize that your dreams do not have to come at the expense of my dreams; that investing in the health, welfare, and education of black and brown and white children will ultimately help all of America prosper.

I can agree with you here, sir -- but then again, that has been the view of conservatives during my entire lifetime. Why should we embrace your liberalism -- a philosophy that thrives on exploiting those divisions and the notion of victimhood -- to solve the very problems that liberalism needs to succeed?

In the end, then, what is called for is nothing more, and nothing less, than what all the worlds great religions demand - that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Let us be our brotherÂ’s keeper, Scripture tells us. Let us be our sisterÂ’s keeper. Let us find that common stake we all have in one another, and let our politics reflect that spirit as well.

There is a way to do that -- VOTE REPUBLICAN!

For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wrights sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.

And yet somehow the fact that 90% of blacks are voting for you can be ignored -- and will be called "playing the race card" if someone does comment upon that reality. And the fact that the white male vote is split between all three remaining candidates is a reality -- so quit building up strawmen.

We can do that.

And you have and you will.

But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.

That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, Not this time. This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.

And as a white man teaching in a classroom in which I am sometimes the only white person, I can offer you some suggestions. But it comes not from another government program, but by raising expectations from every segment of society. It comes from allowing us to hold students accountable for learning and behavior, and not having parents scream "racism" every time a kid gets in trouble or holding a protest march because someone doesn't like a decision or objects to an expectation.

This time we want to talk about how the lines in the Emergency Room are filled with whites and blacks and Hispanics who do not have health care; who don't have the power on their own to overcome the special interests in Washington, but who can take them on if we do it together.

Excuse me -- you will get treated in any emergency room in this country, and the government will pick up the tab. You don't even have to be a citizen -- or even in the country legally -- to get that benefit.

This time we want to talk about the shuttered mills that once provided a decent life for men and women of every race, and the homes for sale that once belonged to Americans from every religion, every region, every walk of life. This time we want to talk about the fact that the real problem is not that someone who doesn't look like you might take your job; its that the corporation you work for will ship it overseas for nothing more than a profit.

And your solution? More government intervention in the economy? Like that has worked! More government always equals less freedom.

This time we want to talk about the men and women of every color and creed who serve together, and fight together, and bleed together under the same proud flag. We want to talk about how to bring them home from a war that never should've been authorized and never should've been waged, and we want to talk about how well show our patriotism by caring for them, and their families, and giving them the benefits they have earned.

In other words, cut-and-run. And, as you and your aides have admitted, go back after allowing the enemy to rest, rebuild, and rearm.

I would not be running for President if I didn't believe with all my heart that this is what the vast majority of Americans want for this country. This union may never be perfect, but generation after generation has shown that it can always be perfected. And today, whenever I find myself feeling doubtful or cynical about this possibility, what gives me the most hope is the next generation - the young people whose attitudes and beliefs and openness to change have already made history in this election.

There is one story in particularly that I'd like to leave you with today - a story I told when I had the great honor of speaking on Dr. King's birthday at his home church, Ebenezer Baptist, in Atlanta.

There is a young, twenty-three year old white woman named Ashley Baia who organized for our campaign in Florence, South Carolina. She had been working to organize a mostly African-American community since the beginning of this campaign, and one day she was at a roundtable discussion where everyone went around telling their story and why they were there.

And Ashley said that when she was nine years old, her mother got cancer. And because she had to miss days of work, she was let go and lost her health care. They had to file for bankruptcy, and thats when Ashley decided that she had to do something to help her mom.

She knew that food was one of their most expensive costs, and so Ashley convinced her mother that what she really liked and really wanted to eat more than anything else was mustard and relish sandwiches. Because that was the cheapest way to eat.

She did this for a year until her mom got better, and she told everyone at the roundtable that the reason she joined our campaign was so that she could help the millions of other children in the country who want and need to help their parents too.

Now Ashley might have made a different choice. Perhaps somebody told her along the way that the source of her mother's problems were blacks who were on welfare and too lazy to work, or Hispanics who were coming into the country illegally. But she didn't. She sought out allies in her fight against injustice.

Anyway, Ashley finishes her story and then goes around the room and asks everyone else why they're supporting the campaign. They all have different stories and reasons. Many bring up a specific issue. And finally they come to this elderly black man who's been sitting there quietly the entire time. And Ashley asks him why heÂ’s there. And he does not bring up a specific issue. He does not say health care or the economy. He does not say education or the war. He does not say that he was there because of Barack Obama. He simply says to everyone in the room, I am here because of Ashley.

I'm here because of Ashley. By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children.

Nice fluff story -- but all it proves is that you believe that government's role is to take from the wealthy to give to the poor. That, sir, is not America.

But it is where we start. It is where our union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia, that is where the perfection begins.

Unfortunately, your vision is incompatible with the vision of the band of patriots you praise in your conclusion. They would stand against you and your vision for America. And so do I.

And since you won't take a forthright stand against your dear friend the anti-American racist who preaches hate from his pulpit, none of it really matters -- you are unfit for office.

Posted by: Greg at 01:15 PM | Comments (290) | Add Comment
Post contains 6966 words, total size 41 kb.

One of the things about being out of the loop for the last week was that I missed the Elliot Spitzer story when it was timely. I would, however, like to say a few words about it.

1) You know, I don't care about the extramarital affair part of the story. That truly is between him and his wife, and how they handle that situation is not for me to comment upon. Indeed, it would be my hope that an extramarital affair alone would be deemed not to be newsworthy by the media. The private failings of a human being are precisely that -- even when that human being is a public person, such a politician. It is why I don't care about the story that Democrats tried to push last week regarding John McCain. Marital infidelity alone is simply not a disqualifier for me.

2) What I do care about in this case is the issue of illegal conduct. In this case, "Client 9" broke the law against prostitution. Now we can argue about whether or not there SHOULD be a law against prostitution (after all, as my libertarian friends would argue, is there a compelling government interest in banning prostitution?), but the reality is that laws were broken by Spitzer -- laws against prostitution, against interstate trafficking in human beings, and regarding certain sorts of financial transactions. As such, his continuance in office really was not an option. Indeed, this is where my problem with Bill Clinton arose -- it was the perjury and other possible illegal actions related to his involvement with Monica Lewinsky that led me to believe he should be removed from office, not the sexual infidelity itself.

3) The fall-out. Spitzer was a big supporter of Hillary Clinton. As such, this should have really hurt her by calling to mind her husband's illicit deeds. I expected this to be a net positive for Barack Obama -- until it was overshadowed by the Jeremiah Wright story. Given the way that latter story broke, the Spitzer story becomes a was -- neither hurting nor helping either of the presidential contenders.

Oh, one last comment -- good luck to the people of New York and their new governor. Here's hoping that this story dies the death that it deserves -- because as I said above, an extramarital affair alone should not be fodder for the press or grounds for disqualification from office.

Posted by: Greg at 10:15 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 417 words, total size 3 kb.

But does Wyoming really matter?

Sen. Barack Obama captured the Wyoming Democratic caucuses Saturday, seizing a bit of momentum in the close, hard-fought race with rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton for the party's presidential nomination.

Obama generally has outperformed Clinton in caucuses, which reward organization and voter passion more than do primaries. The Illinois senator has now won 13 caucuses to Clinton's three.

Obama has also shown strength in the Mountain West, winning Idaho, Utah, Colorado and now Wyoming. The two split Nevada, with Clinton winning the popular vote and Obama more delegates.

Let's be honest here. We are talking a 7-5 split in caususes in a state so red that it is impossible to imagine it going Democrat in the fall. Given Obama's general success in caucus states, it strikes me that what we really have here is something of a draw. Yes, Obama can claim a win, but it was hardly decisive. And while Hillary lost, she can claim a moral victory in keeping it so close in a caucus situation.

What will matter is Pennsylvania on April 22. Until then, expect the race to be nasty.

Posted by: Greg at 07:32 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 195 words, total size 1 kb.

Eleanor Clift sees the Democrat convention needing more than one ballot to select a nominee -- and even proposes her own scenario regarding the outcome.

What happens if the superdelegates are just like the rest of the voters—i.e., they can't definitively decide between these two candidates? "What happens if they split the superdelegates?" asks an adviser to the Clinton campaign. The roughly 350 superdelegates who have not yet endorsed are all free agents. There's nothing that says they have to act in concert, and they'll work to avoid anything that fuels conspiracy theories. "My real worry is there is no back room," says this adviser. Clinton says she'll go all the way to the convention in August. If there's a stalemate, the superdelegates could decide to pass on the first ballot to test the candidates' strength at that juncture. We could then be way back to the future, the first time in the modern reform age that a candidate is not chosen on the first ballot.

If that happens, the convention could turn to a compromise candidate. Al Gore is the most obvious and perhaps the only contender who could head off a complete meltdown in the party. After all, he already won the popular vote for the presidency. It was only because of a fluke at the Supreme Court that he was denied his turn at the wheel. No one could deny that he's ready on day one to assume the presidency. "It's the rational choice if this turns into a goddamn mess, which it could," says the Clinton adviser, who doesn't want to be quoted seeming to waver about Clinton's chances of securing the nomination.

Really?

Al Gore?

The guy who has become a cartoon character over the last several years, with his promotion of the junk science of global warming?

Oh-please-oh-please-oh-please!!!!!!!!!!!!

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 08:31 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 376 words, total size 4 kb.

Good grief -- who would have ever thought I'd agree with McGovern on much of anything? But as Rick Sincere points out, the liberal icon makes a lot of sense from a libertarian, free market perspective in his column in the Wall Street Journal. After all, what else can you say about a call for both sides of the political spectrum to stop regulating behavior -- in particular, economic behavior -- because some individuals make bad economic choices?

Since leaving office I've written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I've come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.

Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don't take away cars because we don't like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don't operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.

The nature of freedom of choice is that some people will misuse their responsibility and hurt themselves in the process. We should do our best to educate them, but without diminishing choice for everyone else.

As McGovern points out, most folks who get payday loans and sub-prime mortgages do so with plenty of forethought and do not default on their loans. Why should the government limit or eliminate those options because of the few who do? Why should the government decide what health insurance options are available to the public, thereby pricing many folks out of the market completely (are you listening, Barack and Hillary -- McGovern sounds as if he likes the McCain plan)? Why doesn't the government trust the American people to make its own choices -- and allow those who make bad choices to suffer the consequences and learn from them?

MORE AT HotAir

Posted by: Greg at 05:43 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 330 words, total size 2 kb.

This guy is a gift that keeps on giving, isn't he.

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin says he is "a vagina-friendly Mayor."

Nagin made the remark while welcoming the author of the Vagina Monlogues, Eve Ensler to the city to promote the "V-Day" celebration in New Orleans next month.

* * *

Mayor Nagin began his comments at the news conference by saying, "How am I gonna stand up and say, I'm a 'vagina-friendly' Mayor to these cameras after 'Chocolate City' and some of the other stuff that I've done. But you know what? I'm in."

Unfortunately, though, Nagin is saying that in the context of endorsing a play that endorses sexual molestation of under-age girls as a liberating experience. Far from promoting the event, I'd argue that he should be condemning it. But that's just my opinion.

And let me offer this observation -- I'm no speech writer, but it seems to me that there are two sentences that should never be used together in the same paragraph.

"I'm a 'vagina-friendly' Mayor."

and

"I'm in."

And I say that as someone who is proud to be "vagina-friendly" (the friendlier the better, in my opinion).

H/T Michelle Malkin, Protein Wisdom

OPEN TRACKBACKING AT Rosemary's Thoughts, 123beta, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Big Dog's Weblog, The Amboy Times, Pursuing Holiness, Adeline and Hazel, Diary of the Mad Pigeon, third world county, Nuke Gingrich, Woman Honor Thyself, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, Wolf Pangloss, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Posted by: Greg at 03:52 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 278 words, total size 4 kb.

But don’t worry – he wants to make sure that you cough up your own hard-earned cash to pay for a government insurance scheme that will give many Americans worse coverage than they already have.

New York state has fined the personal corporation of Democratic Senate candidate Al Franken $25,000 for not carrying workers'-compensation insurance for almost three years.

The New York Workers' Compensation Board levied the fine against Alan Franken Inc. in August 2006 for failure to carry the insurance from June 2002 to March 2005.

Brian Keegan, a board spokesman, said a number of notices were sent to the address the New York agency had listed for Franken. But the TV personality and liberal political commentator didn't become aware of the fine until Tuesday, said campaign spokesman Andy Barr.

Three years of failure to pay for the insurance, and 18 months of failing to pay the fine. Could you imagine the media outrage – and left-wing rants – if this were Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity? But the outcry of the MSM chatterers and liberal pols has been quite subdued. After all, it is one of their own who has been caught.

Posted by: Greg at 09:45 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 214 words, total size 1 kb.

Well, according to this poll -- but is it relevant?

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) kicks off his general-election campaign trailing both potential Democratic nominees in hypothetical matchups, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) leads McCain, who captured the delegates needed to claim the Republican nomination Tuesday night, by 12 percentage points among all adults in the poll; Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) holds a six-point lead over the GOP nominee. Both Democrats are buoyed by moderates and independents when going head to head with McCain and benefit from sustained negative public assessments of President Bush and the war in Iraq.

The problem with this poll? First, it is eight months before the election. A lot can happen in that time, and will certainly include plenty of in-fighting among Democrats in this bitter race. Expect some of their supporters to peel away as that continues. Second, there will be the nomination of VP candidates, which can also blunt concerns about McCain's age while possibly exacerbating the Clinton/Obama split among Democrats. And then there is simply the tightening of the race that is inevitable as we see both sides get more balanced amounts of press coverage. So while i don't like these numbers, they don't necessarily frighten me.

Posted by: Greg at 11:23 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 218 words, total size 1 kb.