Bush, Obama, and Israel

Today President Bush said, in Israel:

"Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along"

"We have heard this foolish delusion before," Bush said in remarks to Israel's parliament, the Knesset.

"As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: 'Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is -- the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."

This, of course, to celebrate Israel's 60th anniversary. NOT! This was a cheap shot at Democratic leading candidate, Barack Obama. Why? Because Obama is willing to meet with enemy countries and try to negotiate peace, to lay out in clear terms what they must do in order to achieve peace.

Of course, Bush denies that his words were targeted at anyone in particular.

CNN.com reports:

Joe Biden, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, called Bush's comments "bulls**t" and said if the president disagrees so strongly with the idea of talking to Iran then he needs to fire his secretaries of State and Defense, both of whom Biden said have pushed to sit down with the Iranians.

[end quote]

Good for Senator Biden! It's a blind and insane policy to REFUSE TO TALK with countries that we deem our enemies. Why shouldn't we sit down with their leaders and tell them what we want them to do, negotiate, argue, make demands, perhaps make treaties. Obama isn't talking about sitting down with terrorists (he would NOT sit with Hammas), but he would talk to leaders of other countries...any country, no matter how insane...because TALKING is the peaceful way to resolve issues.

John McCain said: "It is a serious error on the part of Sen. Obama that shows naiveté and inexperience and lack of judgment to say that he wants to sit down across the table from an individual who leads a country who says that Israel is a stinking corpse"

Is it a serious error? Or is the bigger error to ignore Iran, let them say and do whatever they want, and never site down to talk. Simply let them alone until we're forced into another war.

Which is the more naivé, Mr. McCain? He who thinks issues should try, first, to be resolved with speech, or he who jumps right into war?

John McCain: WAR HAWK FOR PRESIDENT.

McCain vs Obama and the CLINTON FACTOR

The latest national polls show that 48% of the country would vote Obama, and 43% would vote McCain, if the two were running against each other.

What these polls don't take into account, is the CLINTON FACTOR. What is the CLINTON FACTOR? It works like this:

You support Clinton. A pollster asks you, would you vote Clinton in Clinton v. McCain. You say yes. Obama v. McCain? If you say yes, then the polls will reveal that Democrats, even those is support of Clinton, are cool with Obama. And if the polls show that anyone would vote for Obama, then independents, undecideds, and all kinds of people will vote for him, because they see that he has the support. So, you, the Clinton supporter, tell the pollster "No. I wouldn't vote for Obama".

As a result, you get crazy amounts of Clinton supporters refusing to vote for Obama...now. In May. But let me be the first to tell you; come November, it's all gonna change.

As soon as Obama is chosen the Democratic winner, Clinton supporters will realize the implications of their Clinton-Or-Nothing attitude...4 more years of Bush. And so, reluctantly perhaps, the Democrats will learn to love Obama.

Even now, with the CLINTON FACTOR in play, the majority of voters (48% of 91% reporting) would vote Obama over McCain. And if you just look at registered Democrats, 52% prefer Obama, and of Clinton supporters, 28% would vote McCain.

Let's do some math. Democratic Party = 100%. Obama Fans = 52%, Clinton Fans = 48%. Clinton Fans Voting Obama if he Wins = (100-28=72%), 72% x 48% = 35%. 52%+35%=87%.

Even with the CLINTON FACTOR, 87% of Democrats would vote Obama over McCain. That's the truth of the matter, regardless of what Fox News would like you to think. After the CLINTON FACTOR dies down? I predict that half the Clinton backers who claim to vote McCain will change their minds. That ends up becoming 93% of Democrats voting for Obama. So McCain gets 7%...or maybe 7% just don't vote.

That's not what the news has been making it sound like. Listening to radio or TV, and you'd think the Democrats were split 50/50. No way. Even now, 87% for Obama. My prediction: 93%. Let's see the results in November.

How Obama will Become President in 2008

Step 1. Secure Democratic Nomination
Obama just about 150 delegates away from the nomination, with 217 state and 246 Superdelegates yet to decide. That's about 33% of the remaining vote that Obama needs to win. If all states and Superdelegates go 33% Obama, 67% Clinton...Obama wins. So, Step 1 is pretty secure.

Nonetheless, tomorrow's West Virginia primary is going to show a HUGE win for Clinton...in percentages. She could win by 20, 30 , even 40 points. Even so, should she win by 100%, she would win 28 delegates. And she needs over 320.

Step 2. Remind Americans of the Iraq War
Polls show that roughly 68% of Americans oppose the war in Iraq...and also about 68% want some, or all troops pulled out.

Obama opposed the war from the start, and has a withdrawal timetable to force the Iraqi government to get its act together. McCain supports the war and would stay in Iraq another 100 years. And why are we even there?

Step 3. Explain the Future of Oil
McCain wants a summer gas holiday. That costs the government $15,000,000,000 in tax collection, gives Big Oil $15,000,000,000 to either take off their gas price, or pocket for themselves, and saves each American about $20-30.

Obama opposes the plan...and has an environmentally-geared program to reduce pollution, reduce dependence on foreign oil, find and implement alternate fuels, reduce the impact of America on the environment, and impose profit-based taxation on oil to reduce gas prices.

Step 4. McCain = Bush = Same
McCain and Bush, while different in many ways, have the same IRAQ and ECONOMIC policies. Most Americans agree, IRAQ and the ECONOMY are the most pressing issues in this election. Should we vote for 4 more years of G.W. Bush policy on these vital issues?

Step 5. Conquer the Map
Obama has shown he has influence in the 30+ states he has won so far. For others, like PA and OH, which voted Clinton in the Democratic primary, Obama, working with Clinton, should be able to convince voters that much of the same policies Clinton supports are supported by Obama. Once Obama secures the Clinton vote, he will be unstoppable.

That's how and why Obama will be our next President. He will be our youngest and first multi-racial President, not to mention the candidate to raise the most money from supporters of his cause.

OBAMA '08!

The Jewish Vote

With rumors of Obama being a Muslim, his association with Rev. Wright (who is then linked to Farrakhan), and the common misconception that Republicans are better for the state of Israel, one might think that Jewish voters favor McCain, or, at the very least, Clinton.

New findings by Gallup Polls, however, suggest that Jews are not coming out as strongly against Obama as you may think. In fact, the polls indicate, when asked "Obama or McCain?", 61% of Jewish voters said "Obama", and only 32% went "McCain". According to Gallup's national polls, the nation (currently, and with Clinton still in the race - the poll was taken throughout April) suggests that 45% of Americans favor Obama over McCain; 43% would vote McCain. This could be skewed due to the Clinton voters who claim they'd rather have McCain (and will hopefully change their minds). Still, this means that Jews favor Obama more than the national average.

The conclusion? Whereas Obama originally feared loosing the Jewish vote due to rumors about his past, his affiliations, and his lack of experience with Israeli politics, the opposite appears to be true. A large majority of Jews support Obama - which is good news to his campaign. He'll want all the support he can get in November.

Florida and Michigan

For people who haven't been following up on the news:

Florida and Michigan decided early on to ignore the DNC rules and hold their primaries whenever they felt like it. They moved up their primaries so that they could be in the spotlight. The DNC punished them by discounting their delegates.

210 delegates from Florida, 156 from Michigan. As you can imagine, residents of the two states are annoyed.

Some people argue that the F&M votes should count, especially Clinton supporters - Clinton won both primaries by a large margin. However, people should remember that Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan...and neither candidate campaigned a single second in Florida! So, the fact that Clinton won, means nothing. If F&M's votes were to count, the two candidates would have to campaign there, wasting time, money, and resources. Ultimately, there would most likely be a close tie, perhaps even in Clinton's favor. But the fact is, if 366 more delegates are added into the mix, and Obama can claim 183 of them...he has the nomination. Because that's how far he is from winning. Even if that doesn't happen, Obama and Clinton would both move up, the gap wouldn't get much smaller, and we'd be where we are today.

So, it wouldn't allow Clinton a chance EVEN IF F&M voted. But they won't vote. Why? Because they broke party rules, and to pardon them now for no reason other than that Clinton wants them pardoned simply makes no sense. The democrat of '08 is Obama. The only reason Clinton wants votes is to show she's almost as good as he is...maybe vice presidentially good?

Clinton's Chance is Gone; Time to Switch to Obama

Tonight, Obama won NC by 14 points, Clinton won Indiana by 2 points. And NC is worth more, too. Yet, whereas Obama's speech congratulated her and attacked McCain, hers subtly attacked Obama! And she had the audacity to claim that PA was hers, NC was Obama's, and Indiana was a tie breaker. Are you kidding? She wins PA by 10 and Indiana by 2, Obama wins NC by 14 - where's the tie breaker? And now Obama's up by about 150 delegates...and less than 200 away from the nomination. 200 Superdelegates vote for Obama, and he wins. How does Clinton have a chance?

CNN Delegate Counter Statistic: If all the remaining states are a wash, of the 277 undecided Superdelegates, Clinton would need to win 84% of them to beat Obama. 84 to 16? A 68 point lead? I don't think so. If Clinton wins the remaining states, each by 20 points (a 60/40 split), she needs 77% of the remaining Superdelegates.

Nonetheless, she keeps going. She has her fans screaming, she has people rilled up. She thinks she can win. It's NOT HAPPENING, and the sooner Democrats realize that Obama is our guy, the better. Because the B.S. about Clinton supporters who "won't vote Obama" is B.S. Come on people, McCain is the next George Bush! Everyone knows Clinton & Obama are almost identical on issues. Think of it like a movie tralier, or book review. If you liked "THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN" starring "Hillary Clinton", you'll love our new release - "OBAMA 08" with the SAME IDEAS.

So please people...get over Clinton fast, because if we're gonna beat the Republicans, it's not by siding with their oil tax move that serves NO PURPOSE other than it looks good. And it's not by being divided, when Obama is the only candidate left who can claim the nomination. It's not much of a stretch for me to say, now, Obama IS our nominee. We NEED him in the white house in '08.

A vote for...

• McCain
• Paul
  
• Nader
• No One

Is a vote for George W. Bush. We need all the votes we can get in November - vote Obama!

Democrat '08 - Attacks on Obama

I will start with today's CNN story on Obama being the target of the majority of new Republican ads. Why is that? Why isn't Hillary Clinton being targeted as much? There are some possible answers to this question.

#1. It is a know fact that top Republicans would rather put John McCain up against Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. Both Clinton and McCain are long time senators, both voted for the war in Iraq, both support the gas tax holiday, and in the view of Republicans, the two have so much in common, but McCain is the war hero. So, to many conservatives, he would beat out Clinton.

Obama, on the other hand, has huge advantages against McCain. Most Americans disapprove of the Iraq war; Obama didn't vote for it. Many Americans are sick of "corrupt" politics in Washington; Obama (as we've heard time and time again) hasn't been there long enough to been effected much. He is idealistic enough, or naive enough, to think he can change Washington politics. Obama opposes the gas tax holiday. The list goes on. In a McCain vs Obama showdown, Obama comes off as the young, charismatic, idealistic, unifying leader...McCain looks like an angry old white man. So that's one reason Republicans are going after Obama - in the hopes that it could cost him the Democratic Primary.

#2. Republicans may realize (as I mentioned in a previous post) that Obama will most likely be the Democratic Nominee, and they're getting a head start on the general election by trying to paint him in a dark light, even now.

#3. He's an easy target - Clinton has done most of the dirty work already. Making Obama look bad doesn't require digging up dirt; Senator Clinton has already taken the heat for dramatizing the "bitter" comment, Rev. Wright, and flag pins...so using them in a Republican ad just requires a little copy-pasting from the Clinton campaign.

---

Now, what's this all about experience? I had this idea for an experience comparison a while ago, and now is as good a time as any to explain it.


McCain, Clinton, Obama - they all have experience. But they all have different kinds of experience.

McCain: His experience is as a war hero. He's fought as a soldier in war, been captured by the enemy, and tortured. Plus, he's been in the Senate for a long time. In my opinion, this isn't a great Presidential qualification - the President doesn't fight wars, he orders them. If anything, a veteran running for office should oppose sending young men and women to war whenever possible - yet not John McCain. So for McCain, war experience doesn't mean more experience.

Clinton: Her experience is in Washington politics. She's was an active First Lady for 8 years, and a Senator for a long time. This experience, for me, is better than McCain's - she at least has legislative and negotiating experience from trips and events as First Lady. However, this means she's all wrapped up in corrupt politics - lobbyists, big-business endorsements, etc. That's not"change" - that's more of the same. That's the "experience" of another 4-8 years of Bush's and Clinton's in the white house.

Obama: His experience is in community organizing, bringing people together, and motivating people behind ideas and solutions to improve life in communities (as a community organizer), in his state (when he moved up to the State Senate) and in the country (as he now is one of our 100 US Senators). Okay, I'm biased, but come on - Obama has the kind of experience that will help this nation.

---


Finally, both Democratic candidates stress one point above all else. If you care about...

Bio-Fuels


Oil Prices


Working Class



Housing Crisis


Universal Healthcare


Iraq War


Federal Debt


Then VOTE DEMOCRAT in 08 - be it Hillary Clinton OR Barack Obama. Maybe you don't like them personally, but the effect they will have on this country is absolutely vital to the survival of this plant, this nation, and you.

Hey - no one likes Bush, but McCain's different, right? Check again.

Oops! I Meant "WMDs"

Yesterday, John McCain made a speaking "error", but, unlike his best friend, Mr. G. W. Bush, McCain didn't mispronounce nuclear. Instead, he accidentally told the American people, more or less, that we went into Iraq for oil. Now there's a surprise.

Of course, McCain says that his comment was misinterpreted. By all means, please, interpret it for yourself:

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East"

That's right. He has an energy policy that will eliminate dependence on oil from the Middle East, so that we won't have to keep going to war there. That's what he actually said. Really. Not edited. But McCain claims he was referring the the Gulf War (you know, the one between Iran and Iraq). So there's no correlation to the Iraq war of today. Of course not.

You see, McCain backed the Iraq War (along with Hillary Clinton) in the beginning, but unlike Clinton, he still supports Bush's war. After all, McCain is fine with staying in there fore 100 years; maybe more!

While we're on the subject of Bush and McCain and the war, check out http://MoveOn.org. You should find it interesting. There, you can learn about all kinds of neat stuff - like how incredibly similar McCain is to Bush. Enjoy!

In other news today: Top Stories that mean NOTHING:

-Barack Obama wins Guam by 7 votes. Talk about having your voice heard! Anyway, he and Clinton share the 4 delegates awarded, giving each another 2. This doesn't mean much to anyone at all.

-New polls show that Rev. Wright concerns many Americans. Big deal. Why am I not concerned? 1. Because Obama just severed his connection with Wright, and 2. Because "many Americans" doesn't mean squat. The ONLY Americans that matter now are those in the few remaining states yet to vote, and the few hundred Superdelegates. So as long as "most" Americans means those that already voted, and most Americans have, polls mean nothing.

-115 delegates are up for grabs in North Carolina. Obama is expected to win, and a CNN "poll of polls" made up by averaging various OTHER polls (in other words, 'borrowing' other people's work and calling it your own, like 'Google Images' or 'Answers.com', none of which I mean any dislike) shows him ahead by 9 points. So, they ran an article that Clinton is "gaining" because yesterday the poll said he was up by 10 points. She's gaining? The margin of error there has to be at least 5 points, so who are they kidding? The pollsters know NOTHING. But, if you want my educated guess: Obama wins by about 7 points. The gas tax holiday should hurt her...Obama's doing a good job of saying how McCain/Bush-ish the plan is. But really, no one knows what will happen.

McCain's Bright Idea

John McCain, Republican presumptive nominee for the presidency, has come out with a plan - one designed to solve our oil crisis and stabilize the economy.

NOT. McCain wants to remove the tax on gas over the summer months. What does this actually mean? It means the oil companies won't have to pay any tax for three months! And this is supposed to drive DOWN costs? Yeah, right! I predict (and many analysis agree) that big oil will keep the price the same...even higher, perhaps...and just pocket the extra $10 billion.

But even if the oil price doesn't rise...guess what the tax on oil is? It's about 18 cents a gallon. OK, so McCain wants to save every American $0.18 per gallon. Let's say your tank fills up on 12 gallons. That's $2.16 you save for every full tank of gas! Over the three months of summer, let's assume you fill up every week. You save $26! Wow, what a break. I'm glad I voted for McCain - he bought my vote for $26.

It gets better. Any idea what this will cost the government? Let's consider for a moment that we're in trillions of dollars in debt, we still need to pay for the Iraq war, and the economy SUCKS. So, McCain's plan gives everyone $26...and costs the treasury $10 billion in tax collection. This is as bad as Bush's government hand-out...give the Americans some pocket change, and it costs the government INSANE amounts of cash.

This, coming from the guy who wants to fix our economy? Who we're supposed to trust to preserve our environment and not hand it over to the oil companies?

OK - my favorite part. His plan is supported by NONE OTHER that the one - the only:

HILLARY CLINTON.

On the opposition? Barack Obama. His plan? Don't give the oil companies a BREAK. Create a tax on oil based on profit - the more they charge, the harsher the tax - one that, at current rates, would cost them $15 billion a year - that Obama would use (a small part of) to give tax breaks to working class Americans.

CNN Democratic Delegate Calculator

CNN, known for it's left-leaning news, is, of course, my ideal source of information.

I don't actually understand why they are seen as a left-leaning news corporation at all. I mean, FOX News, that's clearly right-leaning. Why? You could say it's because their interviewers always grill liberals with tough questions, interrupt their answers, and paint them in extremely negative lights. You could say it's because they run stories based on E-mail rumors, that actually turn out to be bogus. So how do they stay in business as a leading source of news? That's for another post. But as far as CNN goes; I don't get it. CNN doesn't run false or misleading stories about Republicans (only the New York Times does that). CNN doesn't falsify information to make it seem like the environment is headed down a path of doom and the economy is tanking. Though, they don't need to falsify that information; everyone already knows it.

My point: CNN has virtually no bias, they simply state facts. Facts are disconcerting to conservatives, because facts show that Bush's approval rating is the lowest of all time, that global warming is real, that evolution is real, and that gravity is real. Yes, startling.

But back to the point of this post. CNN has an interesting page in their Politics section: The CNN Democratic Delegate Calculator. The way it works is, you slide little sliders for each remaining Democratic Primary state toward Obama or Clinton, to control the percentage of the vote you think they will get in that state. Delegates are then distributed based on your predictions, and you can see how the election could turn out. There is also a section for Superdelegates.

So, I was inspired to try a little experiment. I gave Hillary Clinton (currently behind in delegates) a 56% to 44% lead in every state, and even the same 56/44 in Superdelegates. After all, she won Pennsylvania by 10 percentage points, so let's assume, best case scenario (for her), she does about as well again in every remaining contest. This is extremely unlikely; she was expected to win PA by a lot of points anyway, and she's NOT expected to win everything else, but let's assume. So I gave her a very definite 8 point lead in everything, even Superdelegates (giving her 165 and leaving only 129 for Obama).

Guess what? Total scores: Clinton, 1,986 delegates. Obama, 2,040 delegates. Wow. Obama wins the nomination; Clinton doesn't even qualify.

"But, wait!" people scream, "That's not accurate! Superdelegates could go 15, 20, 25 points toward a certain candidate! We don't know what they'll do!" OK, fair enough. So I took on a second experiment.

Let's assume Clinton wins all the states by 8 points. Now, what does she need to win Superdelegates by to win? If she wins Superdelegates 65% to 35% - an amazing 30 point victory - guess what? Obama wins the nomination - by 2 delegates. So, in order to get close to Obama, Clinton needs 30% more Superdelegates than Obama has.

In light of these statistics, I believe I can say with fair certainty that Obama will be the Democratic Nominee. Unfortunately for John McCain, who probably doesn't know how to use a computer, let alone read a Blog or go on CNN, he won't know this until the convention in August. Until then, he has to split up his efforts between Clinton and Obama - and we all know how exhausting that is for a man of his age.

So, Obama will most likely be the nominee. Does this mean that voting is as pointless for Democrats as it is for the Republicans? No. Whereas the Republicans chose a leader after just a few states, creating the momentum and pressure needed to force all competitors out of running and ensure that the remaining states' votes would not decide anyone but McCain, the Democrats are more...democratic. We count everyone's vote (unless they live in Michigan or Florida) up until the end. So please, go out and vote! Whether it's for Senator Obama, or that other person running, your vote DOES matter.

People whine about how unfair it is that the Superdelegates will decide the nomination. But that's simply not true. The Superdelegates just so happen to be voting last. The whole country had a chance to vote. If every state voted so that, come the Democratic Convention, one candidate had a clear lead, the Superdelegates wouldn't make a difference. Pretend, for a moment, that the Superdelegates vote first. Let's say they go 60/40 for Clinton, and THEN the rest of the country votes. Now, it appears as though the people decide the election. It's just how you look at it. If the Democrats can clearly come out in favor of someone, then the Superdelegates cannot override that support. In fact, they would most likely support the people's choice.

The point of the entire post: Obama will likely be the nominee, but we still all need to vote. OK, not everyone. Just people in North Carolina (115), Indiana (72), Puerto Rico (55), Oregon (52), Kentucky (51), West Virginia (28), Montana (16), South Dakota (15), and Guam (4). Wait - since when is Puerto Rico more important than 5 REAL states?