Category Archives: john mccain

OBSERVATION: The stupid politics of evil

As an Illinois resident, I have bipartisan disgust.

There is a saying that America is governed by two parties – the evil party and the stupid party. This was always a good insider joke for political gatherings. In the Land of Lincoln, the joke has become a reality. Given the number of indictments and convictions of mistitled “public servants,” there is no doubt that the Democrats have the clear advantage in taking the gold medal in the evil contest. It is equally clear that the clueless and inept Republican leadership has secured the gold with world record breaking stupidity.
Now there are exceptions. Republican Governor/felon George Ryan is most certainly a strong contender in any evil event. After all, his corruption killed a bunch of people, including six little kids, while sparing heinous murders their call to justice. How evil is that? While Democrat Governor/soon-to-be-felon Rod Blagojevich and his team are gold medalwinners in evil, who can deny Blago an individual gold for stupidity?
Notwithstanding occasional personal exceptions, the Democrats have a lock on evil in Illinois, and the Republicans dominate stupidity. The evil of the Democrats is seen all over the judicial system. Scores of indictments and innumerable media expose over scores of years layout the intimate details of their evil. It covers every branch and level of government. The Dem leadership gives life to such sayings as … power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely … and … money is the root of all evil.
To their credit, evil makes more sense than stupidity … in fact, it trumps stupidity. That is why the Democrats hold all the major power in Illinois – and now nationally — while the doofus GOP looks like the Keystone Kops in a Mack Sennett comedy.
The elephant party can take comfort in the fact that stupidity rarely gets a person indicted. Of course, it does not get a person elected, either. GOP stupidity cleared the path for Barack Obama to travel from the obscurity of the Illinois State Senate to his historic world hero election to the presidency. The U.S. Senate campaign of millionaire Jack Ryan collapsed due to the bumbled handling of a “sex scandal” that had no sex.
But this was just the precursor of what might be considered the most incredibly stupid political tactic in American history. The Illinois GOP gave the winnable Senate nomination to a black out-of-stater on the theory that a black Republican trumps a black Democrat. Worse yet. The black right-wing, out-of-stater, Alan Keyes, was a perennial lunatic candidate who has unsuccessfully run for a number of public offices, including the presidency, to the great embarrassment of the Republican party and us normal conservatives.
Keyes is a Bible quoting, homo hating gadfly with some of the most outrageous public policy proposals conceived by man. Think of the ramifications of this stupidity. Thanks to the failure of the loco … oooops …. I mean local … GOP to stop Obama when he was merely another ambitious, but undistinguished, Illinois politician, he led the Dems to an unprecedented victory on the national scene.
Of course, the Obama juggernaut could have been stopped at the national level, but the stupid party proved its calling with the nomination of John McCain. He, in turn, ran a stupid race.
Three times Obama came to office against all odds because the GOP handed him the victory through applied stupidity. The danger for the GOP is that Obama may turn out not to be evil and not to be stupid. In which case, the Republicans will be relegated to a long era of stupidity in the kiddie pool of politics.
(Click on pics to read inscriptions.)
Advertisements

OBSERVATION: Smiling all the way to the White House

As a long time political consultant and advisor (no, I was not the guy who suggested that Lincoln take an evening off and go to the theater), I have come to the conclusion that one of the most important factors in a successful candidacy is rarely analyzed in the post-election punditry. Sure, we get all kinds of thoughtful opinions on issues and strategies, but not much on one of the biggest factors — likeability. Yeah. Likeability. Frankly, I think it is more important than issues and strategies — although they play a role.

We often use the word “like” when we mean prefer. I preferred John McCain, but Icannot say I liked him. In fact, I did not like him very much at all from the first time I met him privately in person.

Does anyone doubt that Barack Obama was more likeable than the strident and intense Hillary Clinton or the grumpy and testy McCain. You can disagree with Obama on issues, and even wonder about his dubious past associations, but it is damn near impossible not to like him. It also extends to his family. They look like a magazine advertisement for Better Homes and Gardens.

One of the reasons Obama could score high on the likeability scale is that he is a non-scary black guy. This is the reason those other black presidential candidates — Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Shirley Chisholm — did not fare so well. Can you imagine … President Jesse Jackson? It would be a cross between Halloween and April Fool’s Day.

Then there is that smile. Obama has the best presidential smile since Dwight Eisenhower – who was so likeable that his campaign slogan was simply “I like Ike.” Ike was the first president to make the smile a political asset. Most of his predecessors posed for portraits or photographs with haughty seriousness. I mean … have you ever seen a smile on Thomas Jefferson or a clear look at George Washington’s fabled wooden teeth? I recall a photo of Abraham Lincoln with a slight grin, and Franklin Roosevelt sometimes held his fancy cigarette holder clenched between his upturned lips, but grins don’t count. You have to show teeth.

If you project the likeability factor across the political spectrum, you can see why the GOP took a drubbing. Can you name the Republicans who are just plain likeable? Oh sure, Ronald Reagan, but he’s dead. (But can you ever forget that smile?) Issues/shmissues. If the GOP hopes to do better next time, they need to find likeable candidates with big ear-to-ear smiles.

>OBSERVATION: How to spell Obama? D-A-V-I-D- A-X-E-L-R-O-D

>When looking at the making of the president 2008, the most important single factor has been largely overlooked or under appreciated by the press. David Axelrod.

Sure, he has appeared on a few interview programs and taken the podium at some press conferences, but for a guy in his position, he has maintained a surprisingly low profile — at least before Election Day. That is the Axelrod style.

As political consultants in the same Chicago political arena for many years, but on opposite ends of the political spectrum, I have had modest association with him on various campaign trials. I have known him, and of him, since he was a reporter. We have been counterpoints on any number of talk shows. Can’t say I know him well personally, but I do know him professionally.

David is probably the most determined and aggressive political guru in America, but he has almost no desire to be a celebrity in his own right. He keeps his total focus on his clients, and he has impressive ones – Mayor Daley, Bill Clinton and a number of leading Democrat candidates across the country. He does not confuse celebrity with success, as many political advisors do.

I would argue against anyone who says that Barack Obama could have made it to the White House without David. Frankly, without David, I think Obama would still be a community-based activist. Don’t get me wrong. Obama is brilliant, articulate and ambitious, and he brings a lot of natural candidate talent to the table — but so do a lot of other people.

Obama is a great raw product, but with many distasteful features. David is the genius who could not only package and sell Obama by highlighting and playing on his strong points, but who to make the other products unpalatable by comparison.

I never thought Obama could make it to the White House without a major crises and an inept opponent (and he got both). He has run for office four times. With more ambition than brains, he took on Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush in a Democrat primary. He didn’t win against this seasoned and savvy opponent, but he did get noticed. Lowering his sights, Obama went for the Illinois State Senate. Rather than risk a competent opponent, Obama, with the help of the fabled Chicago Democrat machine, used aggressive technical challenges — and the cooperation of machine election officials — to remove all his opponents form the ballot — including the incumbent. He ran unopposed.

His jump to the U.S. Senate was a bold endeavor for a neophyte state legislator. Again, it was ambition over brains, but this time he got lucky. He signed up David Axelrod. Then he got even luckier. The hapless Illinois GOP first floundered with millionaire businessman Jack Ryan, a worthy opponent until it was revealed that he and his movie star wife (Jeri Ryan) had visited sex clubs in New York and Paris.

The Republicans, in an effort to advance their reputation as the stupid party, imported conservative gadfly Alan Keyes, a kooky black perennial presidential candidate. After only a couple undistinguished years in the Senate, Obama succumbed to the siren call of the presidency. Again it as a precocious move – challenging the all but certain nomination of Hillary Clinton. This time Obama was facing real competition, but he got lucky again. The Early primaries featured a bunch of moderate white candidates to divide up the vote – leaving Obama with a unified black/progressive core.

Once he secured the nomination, he was just another unelectable Democrat … unless … unless there was some seismic political event or the GOP opponent screwed up. Again, he was lucky. Instead of “or,” Obama got “and.” The economy tanked at just the right time – as the Republicans were experiencing the beginning of a post-election surge. AND … the Republicans offered up maverick John McCain, who proceeded to run one of the worse campaigns in American history.

But, what about David Axelrod?

NONE of this would have gotten Obama elected had it not been for the genius of Axelrod. Conversely, I am convinced David would have guided Clinton to the Oval Office had he accepted her invitation to be part of the Clinton team, as he was in the past.

No defection cost Clinton more than David Axelrod. David IS strategy. You hire him, you get the Axelrod method — and a winning one it is. The Clinton campaign should have made him an offer he could not refuse. The decision to let him go doomed her candidacy, as it turned out.

David never believed in the conventional political wisdom that you do not respond to negative attacks. In fact, David takes the position that no attack, no matter how seemingly insignificant, should go unchallenged. Without this aggressive and effective strategy of refutation, Obama’s candidacy would have sunk early on under the weight of mini-scandals, questionable associations, a cloudy, if not shady, past and a political philosophy far too liberal for mainstream America.

Rather than allow his past to be discovered by others, like his one time opponent, Jack Ryan, Obama laid out most of it in his books. As the political jargon goes, he “inoculated” against criticism. This is classic Axelrod.

David knew that to become the President, Obama had to look and sound presidential. Orating like Jesse Jackson was a kiss of death. Obama’s Harvard education and artidulation were natural tools. David created and controlled the visual and verbal imagery. He treated Obama like an actor, and he, David, would show him how to play the part of President of the United States. The clothes, the staging, the photos, the gestures, the oratory. All very carefully crafted and scripted.
Just as important as David’s craftsmanship was Obama’s willingness to stick to the script. He played the part to perfection. In an amazing turn-about, the first black candidate for the presidency actually looked, acted and sounded more presidential than the classic gray-haired white guy.

More than any consultant I know, David understands the issue of credibility. Having taught college-level course in credibility, and having invented a credibility management concept, I have always been in awe of David. He never took one of my courses, but he is a natural. He knows, that if you destroy an opponents credibility, there is nothing they can say or do to convince the public of anything.

If you look at the Obama campaign through the credibility lens, you can see how the campaign used every possible technique to strip first Hillary Clinton, then McCain, and finally the whole Republican Party, or their credibility. Every time McCain changed his mind, or said something that seemed at odds with an earlier statement, the Obama campaign trumpeted it. These “inconsistencies” were then elevated to lies. McCain lies. Palin lies. Bush lies. Lies. Lies. Lies. Republican = lies.

The success of this strategy was even more impressive since McCain came into this campaign aboard the “straight talk express.” HE was the straight talker. HE was the man good as his word. HE was the tell-it-like-it-is guy. Thanks to Axelrod, the straight talk express got derailed, and McCain limped into town with the reputation of a snake oil salesman — or more specifically, the third term of the unpopular George Bush. With the very credibility of the Repbulican brand damaged, Obama’s every word became gospel and McCain could say nothing believeable to the electorate.

David also has a great talent for generating discipline. Rarely will one see a campaign were the entire team worked so well together. Through his own example, David was able to get the team to set aside the usual political differences and prima donna attitudes and focus on two things — candidate and message.

Wherever Axelrod lands in the coming months – White House aide, outside consultant – he will play a major role in guiding the entire Democrat ship as its guru-in-chief. He will be the strategy connection between his President, the Democrat National Committee, and the Senate and house campaign committees. He will be issuing the guidelines to the state parties and candidates. David could well be the most powerful political figure in America next to President Obama. He is the personification of the Chicago machine coming to Washington. He is Karl Rove on steroids.

Just you watch.

>AFTERMATH: Please pass the crow.

>I spent the better part of a year explaining why Barack Obama was unelectable. I made my prediction despite my longstanding belief that John McCain was the least electable Republican candidate (see blog: Is McCain able?). In terms of Obama, boy, was I wrong. Well … only partially. I quote from my blog of February 20, 2008:

Okay, I will risk being made the fool. I don’t think Barack Obama can win a general election, short of some catastrophic political event or campaign stupidity that would wipe out McCain. (Hmmm! Perhaps I should not be so bold in my prediction)

Well, Obama was the benefactor of BOTH a “catastrophic political event” and “campaign stupidity” by McCain.

As soon as the economic meltdown reached atomic levels, I surrendered to the notion that Obama was electable (see blog: President Obama? Arrrrrrgh!). In terms of “campaign stupidity,” the list of examples is far too long to delineate here — but you do not have to go much past Sarah Palin to identify self-inflicted mortal political wounds. Yes, Sarah got roughed up by a very biased press, but that still leaves a lot of room for justifiable criticism.

Given the closeness of the popular vote, I stand by my original analysis that Obama could not have been elected without both of the aforementioned conditions. Even the pollsters say the rush to Obama came at the time of the bailout. Oh yeah! The bailout. Major stupidity number two for McCain.

Having made my excuses, I will now admit that the scope of Obama’s victory was impressive. Even before the polls closed on the west coast, he was already the winner. Since I preferred his opponent without much enthusiasm, I am not overly chagrined by Obama’s victory.

Outside of the black vote, it was pleasant to see that America is not nearly as racially prejudiced as those politically correct liberals like to contend.

Bottom line … Obama won … and I get a serving of humble pie a la crow.

>MORE TIDBITS: A surprisingly tranquil election night.

>1. Barack Obama ran one of best presidential campaigns in American History. The strategy was brilliant, the tactics uniformly effective, and the implementation flawless. Conversely, John McCain ran one of the worst campaigns in modern times.

2. The late New York Senator Patrick Moynihan once advised President Richard Nixon: “If you are going to act like a Tory, speak like a Whig, and if you are going to act like a Whig, speak like a Tory.” Obama understands this concept. The Dems stole the rhetoric of the right. Middle class values. Tax cuts for most Americans. A call for individual contribution. Coming to the campaign as the most liberal senator in Washington, Obama gave speeches that could have comfortably flowed from the lips of Ronald Reagan.

3. Despite the historic breakthrough, the heated rhetoric of the campaign, and the paranoia about vote fraud, election night was remarkably devoid of controversies. It was a BIG election, with highly volatile issues, but even the television talking heads noted the absence of any vote stealing or major “machine malfunction” stories to report. By 9:00 p.m. eastern time, the nation had a President-elect. There was a gracious concession speech and an inspirational acceptance speech.

4. In a previous blog is predicted that the pollsters would be wrong as usual. Gallup gave Obama a ten point lead. The results were way outside their margin of error. And those who now claim to be correct chose a more conservative spread with Obama on top. Of course, given the margins of error, their accuracy was no better than an educated guess.

5. It is amazing how quickly the Republican Party of Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich – the party of values, ideas and issues – has descended into a party of greed, incompetency and divisiveness.

6. In his concession speech, McCain said the GOP’s poor showing was his fault. His hometown crowd considerately shouted their disagreement with that assessment. However … he was right. It was his to lose, and he did. His sinking coatails dragged down the Repbublican brand all over America.

7. For a lot of reasons, right and wrong, Sarah Palin did not sell well to the voting public — including a lot of conservative Republicans. The wise guys in the GOP as saying she is the future of the party, and the heir to the presidential nomination in 2012. Apparently the Repbulican wise guys have learned nothing. Why not Dick Cheney, while they’re at it?

>REACT: Only in America …

>There are a number of interesting things to analyze in the amazing path of Barack Obama from community organizer in Chicago to President of the United States. In the days to come, I will reflect on some of these. For the moment, however, the bell has rung on the final round of the 2008 presidential bout — and we the people have scored the victory for Obama. Maybe a split decision, but no lingering doubts. Like it or not, he is our president.

On election night, the candidates respectively gave the best concession speech and acceptance speech in my memory. Had John McCain been able to articulate himself so eloquently during the campaign, he might have been more successful. If Obama lives up to the spirit of his speech, his place in history could be more than breaking the color barrier. He has the potential for true greatness.

In the months to come, the world will witness the high point of democracy as political adversaries undertake a peaceful and cordial transition of power from one party to another. More than just a change of political party, Obama led a peaceful revolution in the tradition of Reagan, Roosevelt and Lincoln.

At the core of our continuing experiment in democracy is our bipartisan efforts to make the Obama administration a success — both by supporting its good works and opposing its mistakes. We will not all see those from the same perspective, but in a democracy, the majority is usually right.

If we cannot celebrate the victory of our candidate, we can still celebrate our system of government. So, before I go to bed on this election night, I say congratulations to President-elect Barack Obama … and may God bless him … and this great country.

>TIDBITS: What do the polls really show?

>1. If you believe in polls, the latest news from Michigan is that Barack Obama is ahead of John McCain by 53 to 37. So sayeth the Detroit Free Press/WDIV-TV poll. The so-called “margin of error” is plus or minus 4 percent. The poll shows non-blacks dividing evenly and all blacks voting for Obama (except a few undecideds). Yep! According to the poll, no black voter is casting a ballot for John McCain … not one in the whole state of Michigan. If there is any validity to this poll … and I would give it precious little … you can draw one conclusion. Blacks are a lot more racist than non-blacks.

2. This bring up another point. Almost all national discussion on the Bradley Effect centers on non-blacks lying to pollsters because they don’t want to sound like racists if they vote for McCain. Up until now, it has been a black and white issue. However, this year we have a new wrinkle. Little has been said about the awesome intimidation of black voters who prefer McCain. The Michigan polling shows the black side of the Bradley Effect very clearly. McCain will get black votes from those who are pro-life, pro-gun ownership. Affluent blacks have the same concerns as affluent non-blacks over taxation. If the poll shows McCain at zero, some people are lying — and you will see it on Election Day.

3. Gallup just released a poll (Sunday evening) that gives Obama a ten point lead, 52 t0 42. Just four days earlier, Gallup called the race for Obama 49 to 47. This latest would mean that at least 5 percent of those who were voting for McCain a couple days ago changed their minds. I say “at least 5 percent” since it is likely higher to offset some undecideds who have decided for McCain in the meantime. Gallup can call it a shift, but basically, one of these polls is just … wrong. Maybe both. We’ll find out in a couple days.

4. About the same time Gallup was showing Obama breaking away in a romp, the poll that claims to have been the most accurate in 2004, the IBD/TIPP poll, claims the race is closing in with Obama’s lead shrinking to 46.7 to 44.6. While Gallup has the undecideds stampeding to Obama, IBD/TIPP has them flowing to McCain. If they are right, the 8.7 percent undecides will put McCain over the top. Stay tuned.

5. They say that there maybe be around 130 million voters this election. The typlical poll registers the opinion of between 600 and 1000 of them. Using the higher figure, this means that each person being polled stands for 130,000 voters. So, when I fib and say I am voting for Obama, but I actually go in and vote for McCain, my impact on the election is a 260,000 vote difference — the 130,000 I take away from Obama and the 130,000 I add to McCain. (If I use the 600 sampling, the impact is more than 430,0000 vote difference.) If you have a 5 percent error in the sample population (including fibbers, like me), the projected error is between 13 and 22.5 million votes.

6. Wonder why pollsters usually say an election is closing in at the end? Because you can’t be wrong in predicting a close election. If you give both Obama and McCain 50 percent, with a margin of error of 4 percent, the election can go to 54 percent to 46 percent either way and the pollster will pat himself on the back for an accurate prediction. And how many presidential elections are outside the 54 to 46 range? Damn few.

So … you can see why I think polls are a bunch of hogwash.

>OBSERVATION: The polls are wrong … as usual.

>

We soon will have completed voting for the 2008 Presidential Election. There is a reasonable chance that we will know who the next President of the United States will be sometime on Wednesday. There is also a chance we may be in a prolonged 2000-like ballot counting tug-o-war right up to the time the Electoral College convenes to settle the matter to the satisfaction of the law, if not the satisfaction of the voters – at least half of them. We are, after all, a “house divided.”

As I write this, a flurry of pollsters are attempting to justify their existence by predicting the outcome.

Before we address the current numbers, there is something you should know about polls. They are all bullsh*t. Yep! They are about as accurate and scientific as newspaper horoscopes. If you think I am being too harsh, ask your self these questions.

Why do different polls taken at the same time get such widely different results? Where is the “science” in that?
Why are the results of an election often outside the “margin of error.” That should be impossible. Obviously, the margin of error is as bogus as the poll itself.

You also have to keep in mind the tricks pollsters use to allow them to claim legitimacy.

First, there is the margin of error, itself. If you have a poll showing the candidates at 52 and 48 percent respectively, with a margin of error of 4 percent, the pollster can claim accuracy if the race is 56 to 44 – or even 48 to 52 with the “other” candidate winning. Even I can predict elections within that range without getting anyone else’s opinion.

You don’t believe me? Okay. I think John McCain will win 49 to 48 with 3 percent going to other candidates. My margin of error is 4 percent. So, if McCain wins 53 to 44, I’m right. If Obama wins 52 to 45, I’m right. Check back with me on Wednesday.

Also, pollsters often claim to have missed the mark due to a major last minute change of heart by the voters. Now … ask yourself: How many people do you know who change their mind the last weekend before an election? I have been involved in elections for more than 40 years, and I find very few undecideds in the last month. Rather than say their last poll was WRONG, pollsters invent this fake phenomenon of last minute voter switches.

You see, pollsters always claim their polls are right at the time they are taken. They can do this because they are comparing them to an unknown – the REAL sentiment of the electorate.

Another trick is the “undecides.” Now place close attention. After the election, the pollsters will say that most of the “undecideds” broke for McCain. They almost always break for the Republican. You know why? Because the polls are almost always erroneously biased in favor of the Democrats. So to explain the wrong prediction, the pollsters say that the “undecideds” all went to the GOP. Again, based on my experience, there are very few “undecideds” at this stage. Those who say they are, are lying. They may tell the pollster they are undecided, but they know damn well who they are voting for. Hmmm. Maybe more Bradley Effect.

To more fully appreciate the uselessness of voting surveys, take a look at the exit polls. There are no undecideds in exit polls. If there is any validity to the “science” of polling, then these should be spot-on predictors. But noooooo! Based on exit polls, the media gave the 2004 election to Democrat John Kerry in their rush-to-judgment early reports. When the votes were counted, George Bush won by a wide margin. Even in exit polls, the science is flawed and the public fibs. I mean … if you decided to lie about who you are going to vote for, why would you ‘fess up who you did vote for?

(Die hard liberals like to say that the 2004 election was stolen, but there is no evidence that GOP shenanigans tipped the scale – and of course, they overlook the counterbalancing Democrat shenanigans. Yeah folks, the Dems are gold medalists when it comes to stealing votes. I come from Chicago, the Harvard of vote fraud.)

Now that we know opinion polls are nothing more than semi-educated manipulated guesses, let’s take a look at this year’s offerings. Since even a good guess requires reliance on past experience, we can conclude that the polls will be based on more b-s this year than usual.

There is no history to draw upon. We have never had a black candidate, a woman candidate, the oldest candidate. Never before has one candidate had such enormous financial resources. The economy has tanked. Though biased, the media has never been so determined to influence the outcome. Can they? These issues cut in all directions.

At this moment, the pollsters mostly give the election to Barack Obama. This has led liberal Democrat pundits and partisans to express optimism to the point of anticipating a blowout or landslide. Methinks this is not sound thinking.

There are some things that may not have changed in this historic year. Polls are almost always wrong, and the GOP almost always does better with the voters than the pollsters. Since polling bias is driven by media bias (the pollsters’ clients), and since the media bias is particularly acute this year, the polls maybe be much to generous to Obama than even past Democrat candidates.. If this is still the case, then this election is very close indeed. It is also true that black candidates poll better than their final vote totals – that old Bradley Effect. Will this again be the case?

The great assumption in this election is that a huge turn out the voters clamoring for Obama’s promise of change. The campaign and its supporters have so idolized the candidate, that they project their rabid enthusiasm on the general public. They also site some early election exit polling as evidence of this trend – not appreciating that those lying to the pollsters last week will lie on their way out of the polling booth.

I expect there to be a Bradley Effect in this election, and it may become quite significant. I say this because the media has so glamorized Obama, and demonized John McCain, that a lot of people don’t want to wear their vote on their sleeve. Right or wrong, people worry about there cars being vandalized or windows broken for supporting such a seemingly unpopular candidate as McCain.

Hey! I’m one of them. I usually put on a bumper sticker and display a window sign for my candidate, but this year I don’t feel comfortable doing that. Keep in mind, I live in Illinois. If a pollster calls me, I will say I am voting for Obama just because I think undermining the pollsters is a patriotic duty. Now I figure, if I am doing that, there are probably a lot more like me out there. Conversely, there is little reason or evidence to suggest that Obama voters are lying to pollsters.

I recently attended a Chicago Democrat fundraiser. Sure … the speakers spoke well of Obama, but the more intimate chat around the room revealed a surprising number of white Democrats – even some office holders – who were not voting for their “favorite son.” You can bet this folks would be lying to pollsters for sure.

So … what does all this mean? For me, it means that the polls are untrustworthy in general, and more so this year. It is impossible to know who is winning this race at this moment … and I would not completely rule out a McCain/Palin victory. The theory right now is that McCain needs to win all the so-called “battleground states.” But, what if one or two of those perceived solid blue states, like Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Mexico, etc., comes in red? Remember, they are only solid blue becasue the pollsters say so.

Always remember what it is called when a pollster is right. Luck.

>OBSERVATION: Obama’s Jewish problem

>Obama has a Jewish problem. They are not voting for the Democrat candidate in traditional numbers. Some say it is this Muslim myth. Well … get real. Barack Obama NOT a Muslim. However, that silly debate takes away from a more serious issue. Okay, Obama may not be a face-the-East, pork rejecting, dress like and actor in a biblical movie Muslim but he IS the most pro Arab candidate for President since the creation of Israel.

Though he pays lip service to a strong and secure Jewish state as a political necessity, and has notable Jewish personalities on his team (including key members the powerful Pritzker family), there is not doubt that Obama is more comfortable with and appreciating of the Arab ambitions in the Middle East.

His popularity in the Arab world is not without justification. From his earliest days, he was surrounded by Muslim influences. He was raised in a Muslim environment. He have visited the Arab enclaves, and conferred with its leaders. He has given encouragement to Arab causes. What little record he has created in his remarkably undocumented life shows his sympathy of Arab aspirations.

His maladroit offer to sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (right) was indicative of Obama’s own belief that he can be a persuasive “friend” to achieve concessions. Of more concern to Jewish-Americans are the concessions Obama is willing to make for “peace in our time.”

Next to African-Americans**, Arab-Americans support Obama in the highest percentages. World Arab leaders have expressed their hope in an Obama victory — even the Arab terrorist factions. Arab money, both domestic and international, legal and illegal, have flowed into the Obama coffers. In this day of world communication, Middle East phone banks have barraged U.S. Arabs with get-out-the-vote calls.

While Obama says he would defend Israel from an unlikely Arab invasion or all-out attack, it is his view on the source of the problems and the complex negotiations required to bring about evenutal peace in the region that is most relevant. Most alarming to the Jewish community is the almost certainty that Obama will change the long-standing American view that
Arab terrorism is the primary problem, with Israel as the victim. Obama’s pre-campaign views are more sympathetic to the hopes and apirations of the

All this has led to an understandable anxiety and concern on the part of American Jews — especially those with deeper emotional commitments to the preservation and security of Israel.

**Whether it is because they share the African continent or due to historic prejdices against Jewish merchants in the inner cities, or both, African-American leaders have been among the most consistent ethnic groups in supporte of Arab positions. If not anti-Semitism, there is certainly a pro-Arab bias in the black culture. This was reflected in Jesse Jackson’s derogatory reference to New York City as “Hymietown.”

>OP ED: Skinheads and William Ayers

>Thanks to good police work, it appears that two racist skinheads were arrested before they would unleash their heinous terrorist attack on the black community and on democracy, itself, by murdering more than 100 African-Americans, including Senator Barack Obama.

One should keep in mind, however, that the only difference between these degenerates and William Ayers and his wife, Bernadine Dohrn, is that the latter actually implemented their deadly plans. Their bombs went off, and people died.

I wonder if these hate monger skinheads will also wind up as “distinguished college professors” at prestigious universities one day.