Fantasy Politics USA

Barack Obama held an impromptu press conference today to explain that he can’t be held responsible for the things Rev. Wright might say. “I have said before and I will repeat again that some of the comments that Reverend Wright has made offend me and I understand why they’ve offended the American people,” Obama told reporters. “He does not speak for me. He does not speak for the campaign and so he may make statements in the future that don’t reflect my values or concerns,” Obama said. Then he added, “I think certainly what the last three days indicate is that we’re not coordinating with him.” Obama really didn’t like it that Rev. Wright hinted that Obama tells us what we want to hear just to get elected. “What particularly angered me was his suggestion somehow that my previous denunciation of his remarks were somehow political posturing,” Obama said. He was referring to Rev. Wright saying, “If Obama did not say what he said, he wouldn’t get elected.” Obama later added, “He’s obviously free to speak his mind, but I just want to emphasis he is my former pastor. Many of the statements he made both to trigger this initial controversy, and that he’s made over the last couple days are not statements that I heard him make previously. They don’t represent my views and they don’t represent what this campaign is about. But he’s obviously free to make those statements.” Since Obama has apparently gone to this church for about 20 years, this would be like Hillary Clinton making a speech announcing she just found out Bill Clinton cheated on her. Is he just saying this because he is a politician, or does he mean it this time?
Alan Cosgrove

Here is video from Barack Obama’s speech on Rev. Wrght;

The Barack Obama campaign is looking into two sites that look a lot like official sites soliciting money on his behalf. These two unofficial sites where up and running and asking for money until last week. The Web sites, named donatetoobama.org and donatetobarackobama.com, were operated by a group calling itself “Concerned Citizens for Obama.” Both are now shut down, but in a google search you can see they were soliciting money on Obama’s behalf. The description of the last site says, “Donate to Barack Obama for President in 2008 online! Support Barack Obama for President and donate today!” The first one was advertised as a sponsored link on Google searches for “Barack Obama,” and would show up right next to the official Obama site. Both had pictures of Obama and displayed the Obama campaign logo. Obama campaign lawyer Robert Bauer wrote to the Department of Justice to ask them to look into these two sites. “These activities … appear clearly intended to deceive supporters of Barack Obama into believing they are contributing funds to our Committee,” Bauer wrote. The letter asks the Justice department to “initiate an immediate investigation of Concerned Citizens and the operation of these web sites.” The web sites are registered to Lou Kheriaty, an Internet developer and so called Obama supporter. He talked to the press and said he didn’t believe he was being misleading saying the banners were clear, saying donations were for “Concerned Citizens for Obama.” Kheriaty is not registered with the FEC, and he gave to George Bush’s campaign during the last election. He also owns a few other URL’s including; donatetogiuliani.com, donatetothompson.com, and anti-Hillary Clinton domain names including hillaryreveled.net. It is pretty clear this guy is a scammer. If you want to donate to any candidate, only go to their official web sites. Barack Obama’s official web site is www.barackobama.com/, and this would be the safest place to donate to his campaign.
Alan Cosgrove

The Democratic National Committee’s Rules and Bylaws Committee is planning a meeting late next month to try to resolve the Florida/Michigan fiasco. “The main item of business on the Committee’s agenda will be the consideration of two pending challenges,” in a memo sent to members Friday. “We hope you are able to attend this very important RBC meeting.” The meeting is scheduled for May 31st. DNC members Joel Ferguson of Michigan and Jon Ausman of Florida have proposed a plan to seat half-delegates based on the outcome of the state’s primary elections. If Florida’s elections were valid it would have given Clinton 105 delegates to Obama’s 73. In Michigan Clinton would have gotten 73 delegates, while 55 were uncommitted. Using the half-delegate plan will give Clinton 89 more delegates and Obama 33.5, with 27.5 uncommitted. This is still not enough for Clinton to overtake Obama. Clinton would like to seat the rogue state delegates, while Obama wants to split the delegates of the two states 50-50. Obama’s plan is the same as not counting them at all, but he believes that this is fair because all the candidates agreed to boycott the contests and his name wasn’t on Michigan’s ballot. The Florida primary was moved up by a Republican controlled state legislature with a Republican governor. The leading state Democrat tried to move the date back to Super Tuesday, but was voted down by a legislative body controlled by the Republicans . Obama’s camp likes to point out that he wasn’t even on the ballot in Michigan. John Edwards and Obama pulled their names from the ballot to show support for the DNC’s poor decision to ignore these two states. The Obama camp likes to say that Clinton was the only person on the ballot, but that is not true. Dennis Kucinich, Chris Dodd, and Mike Gravel all left their names on the ballot. Obama doesn’t mention the fact that he encouraged his surrogates to vote “uncommitted” in Michigan. Isn’t that a form of campaigning? He was also the only Democrat to have T.V. ads running in Florida. So when Obama says he agreed to some type of boycott, he lied, because he was only Democratic candidate campaigning in either of those two states. And now Obama is trying to make sure these two states are not counted, since he lost both of them. Many that don’t live in those two states are quick to punish the voters for something they had nothing to do with. They like to point out that the states broke the rules, but they fail to understand that the voters didn’t break any rules. And why doesn’t Nevada and South Carolina get punished for moving their elections up? Florida voters came to the polls in record numbers, and if the DNC doesn’t come up with something better than this these same voters will show up in November for John McCain. This proposed meeting is over a month away. I suppose they are hoping all this will just fix itself, and by then Florida and Michigan won’t matter anymore. The DNC can’t disenfranchise over 2 million voters and expect them to come back to the Democratic party like nothing happened. Howard Dean has taken a party that was a sure bet, and has turned it into a sure loser in about a year. The total incompetence of this Democratic leadership will guarantee a Republican victory despite President Bush’s disastrous 7 years.
Alan Cosgrove

Barack Obama’s campaign has predicted that Hillary Clinton “should win big” today. The Obama camp is playing on the media’s claim that Clinton has to have a blowout win in Pennsylvania to stay in the race, but she has already said she plans on staying in till Denver. “With all eyes on today’s contest, one thing is clear: Pennsylvania is considered a state tailor-made for Hillary Clinton, and by rights she should win big,” according to a campaign memo. “She has family roots in the state, she has the support of the Democratic establishment—including Governor [Ed] Rendell’s extensive network—and former President Clinton is fondly remembered. The bottom line is that if Senator Clinton is going to make meaningful inroads in this race for delegates, she will need a huge margin in Pennsylvania.” They want to claim that Pennsylvania really doesn’t matter that much anyway saying, “tonight’s outcome is unlikely to change the dynamic of this lengthy primary.” “Fully three quarters of the remaining delegates will be selected in states other than Pennsylvania,” the memo added. “We expect that by tomorrow morning, the overall structure of the race will remain unchanged—except for the fact that there will be 158 delegates off the table.” Clinton has a different outlook on the importance of todays race and sees it as pivotal. “I think the question maybe ought to be why can’t he close the deal,” Clinton asked reporter. “With his extraordinary financial advantage why can’t he win a state like this one if that’s the way it turns out. … The road to the White House for a Democrat leads right through Pennsylvania to Pennsylvania Avenue.” She doesn’t think she needs the blowout win the media is telling her she needs. “My opponent has outspent me probably three to one maybe four to one, an enormous effort on his part on TV, in radio, on the phones, in every way that is imaginable to try to win Pennsylvania. So I think a win under these circumstances is a tremendous accomplishment,” she said. Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson responded to the Obama camp claims by sayng, “I reject the notion in which we have to achieve a certain standard of victory other than victory. As I said in November you either win Pennsylvania by one (vote) against John McCain or you lose it, you either win Ohio by one vote against John McCain or you lose it. And assuming we win Pennsylvania it will again show that we are better positioned to win the big swing states that we need to win, that any Democrat needs to win in November.”
Alan Cosgrove

Bill Clinton was campaigning with Hillary and argued that Hillary would be winning under GOP rules. The Democrats award delegates through a proportional system, whereas the Republicans have a winner take all system with many states. Hillary has won the large states so far, and Barack Obama has won many of the smaller states but has stayed close to Clinton in the large states. “If we were under the Republican system, which is more like the Electoral College, she’d have a 300 delegate lead here,” Clinton told the Washington Post. “I mean, Senator McCain is already the nominee because they chose a system to produce that result, and we don’t have a nominee here, because the Democrats chose a system that prevents that result.” Obama has for the most part won only in the blue states which McCain should win easily this fall. He has also won most of the Caucuses which are nothing like the real election process. The flaws of the caucus system were pointed out by the Texas two step where Clinton won the primary part where people go into private booths and vote for their candidate. She lost the caucus part where the voting is based on peer pressure and bullying. The Obama maniacs like to use this to claim Obama won the state while more voters actually voted for Clinton. He did get the most delegates out of the state, and hence evidence of the the systems flaws. Bill Clinton is correct that the Democrats system has some major flaws, but it was during his tenure when most of this stuff was started.
Alan Cosgrove

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, owned and published by conservative Richard Mellon Scaife, has published an endorsement for Hillary Clinton
as the choice for Democrats. Scaife is a well known conservative that helped fund the The Arkansas Project, and many of the other investigations that led to President Clinton’s impeachment in 1998. He also funded a series of articles by The American Spectator magazine that dug into President Clinton’s sexual life while he was the governor of Arkansas. These articles eventually lead to the investigation that uncovered his relationship with intern Monica Lewensky. Hillary Clinton defended her husband at the time by saying it was all just a “vast right-wing conspiracy.” Now Scaife is calling Clinton “the wiser choice to represent Democrats this fall.” The editorial calls Barack Obama inexperienced writing, “Obama is long on soaring rhetoric yet painfully short on record.” They call Obama a “rock star,” and that is “no portfolio for a president…..certainly not when the nation is at war, the economy is struggling, and federal governance in general is adrift.” The board also sharply criticized Obama’s “private view of America.” The board wrote, “Everyone utters stupidities now and then. Yet taken together and uttered repeatedly, they sound like a pattern of thought in the Obama household. It’s a pattern the nation can’t afford in the White House.” “In sharp contrast, Clinton is far more experienced in government – as an engaged first lady to a governor and a president, as a second-term senator in her own right,” the paper said. “She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.” They also gave Kudo’s to Clinton because she sat down and talked with the board last month saying she showed courage “given our longstanding criticism of her.” Then they added, “Political courage is essential in a president. Clinton has demonstrated it; Obama has not. She has a real record. He doesn’t. She has experience of value to a president. He doesn’t.”
Alan Cosgrove