Right Wing Nut House

Reading the dozens of blog posts about the apparent and imminent demise of Hillary Clinton’s campaign, you notice immediately how most writers tend to fall back on cliche infested encomiums or sometimes humorously imaginative “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” screeds of hate-spewing bile. There doesn’t seem to be much middle ground when talking about Hillary Clinton which is the way its been since at least her crack about not staying at home and baking cookies for her man during the 1992 presidential campaign.

That utterance placed her firmly on one side of the great cultural chasm that the man who vanquished her now promises to bridge. From what I can gather, the way Barack Obama intends to do this is by showing the rest of us that we are a bunch of red state goober chewin’, tobacco spittin’, flag wavin’, gun carryin’, bible thumpin’, interbreedin’ morons who cling to religion and hate the coloreds because we have yet to have experienced the healing powers of the messiah-lite.

Gee. I can’t wait.

Hillary actually made a more spirited effort to bridge that chasm during her campaign than Obama ever imagined. Yes, she may be a born again populist in the best sense of the word in that she attempted to speak to the concerns of the vast middle of her party and much of America. And yes, she sometimes shamelessly played the class card, trying to pit one class of Americans against another. But she was actually in the process of building an entirely new Democratic party coalition - one that resembled the old FDR New Deal grouping with not urban elites as the centerpiece of the machine but rather lunch pail Democrats and seniors as her base.

She would have returned the Democrats to advocating a strong national defense, a muscular foreign policy, and a newly discovered fiscal sanity. Hillary Clinton demonstrated over the course of this campaign that she has no illusions about the nature of our enemies nor does she share Obama’s faith in the efficacy of discourse unless the ground is well and truly fertilized beforehand.

Of course, national health insurance and other programs more identified with socialism would also have come along for the ride - reason enough not to vote for her from my point of view. But at least her policies would have been grounded in reality and not the pie in the sky, feel good rhetoric of Flim Flam Man Obama.

If it sounds like I’m sorry to see her retire, you’d be half right. A Clinton-McCain race would have been a barnburner, one for the ages. Both candidates would have been trying to appeal to basically the same voters while paying lip service to their rabid base. As a result, the hard left and right would slowly become unhinged - the entertainment value of such an occurrence worth charging admission for. The spectacle of both candidates being skewered by their own while fighting tooth and nail for the great middle of the American electorate would have been good for the country.

On the other hand, I can honestly say I am sick to death of the Clintons and their tactics. And the prospect of Bill Clinton slinking in and out of view during the campaign is enough for me to be grateful the Clintons will now be forced into a secondary role - even if by some miracle Obama were to offer her the Vice Presidential nomination.

Despite being imbued as he is with an elevated sense of his own abilities, Obama would be absolutely nuts to choose Hillary as a running mate. As Dick Morris has rightly pointed out, you wouldn’t just get Hillary in the deal. It would be a Menage a trois with Bill Clinton the wildest wild card who ever attached himself to any campaign in American history running loose and fancy free among the electorate.

Lock up your wives and daughters and hide the silverware if that were to happen.

But I don’t think we need worry too much about a Obamahill fusion ticket. There appears to be genuine animosity in the Obama camp directed against Clinton not only for their tactics but because she didn’t concede the race earlier despite having no chance at overtaking the frontrunner. The Obama camp was forced to spend tens of millions of dollars and maintain a schedule that concentrated on winning primaries rather than being allowed to pivot and start gearing up for the general election.

The only way a “Dream Ticket” will emerge is if Obama is absolutely convinced that he can’t win without her on the ticket. Despite some troubling numbers in blue states like Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York that show McCain very competitive against Obama, there is no proof that Obama will go down to defeat if he fails to add Hillary to the ticket. Hence, a more likely pick would be a national security Democrat or another woman.

So despite a valiant effort that has earned her the respect of some conservatives like myself, Hillary Clinton has come up short in realizing what is probably a life long dream to be President of the United States. Those of us who have had our dreams shattered can empathize with how she is feeling right about now. Some may enjoy kicking her when she’s down but that’s not for me. I will fight her hammer and tongs over what will be an effort to pass national health insurance regardless of who wins in November and her other schemes. But I will do it with a new found appreciation for her tenacity and a recognition that she is more than just an empty pantsuit.

Here’s a sample of my latest PJ Media column - a look at what’s ahead in the campaign:

 But regardless of how he achieved it, Obama’s victory is one of those “hinge” moments in American history where a door is opened and the country walks through it, leaving the past behind forever. Putting politics aside for one moment, the victory of this talented, passionate, brilliant man whose life story is perhaps even more incredible than his singular achievement in winning the nomination should be a source of enormous pride for all Americans. We should revel in it for a few moments, if only because there has been so little to truly unite us in recent years.

But once the sheen is off the novelty of the event, it’s back to business - the business of trying to figure a way to win enough states to get to 270 electoral votes. Nothing else matters from here on out and both candidates - John McCain and Obama - will mix and match the states on the electoral map, weighing every decision against how far it advances their plan for victory.

Last night saw the unveiling of the outline of those plans when both candidates gave speeches that, for all intents and purposes, kicked off the general election campaign. And for Hillary Clinton, last night was a strange and sad interlude. A campaign not suspended. A race not conceded. But a clear realization by the candidate that her consuming desire to be president would not be achieved.

Earlier in the day, she allowed her staff to mention that she would accept the Vice Presidential nomination if it was offered. But there is much more to that acknowledgment than meets the eye. One school of thought holds that she would not have put her name forward so aggressively if she thought it would be refused. Another side of the coin is that she allowed her name to be mentioned because she knew Obama would never choose her.

She doesn’t want to appear the supplicant begging for scraps from Obama’s table. But at the same time, she doesn’t want to be seen as thrusting herself forward either. It is a difficult position for her to be in, and over the next few days the two candidates and their staffs will probably feel each other out carefully, with Obama making the decision whether the “dream ticket” will become a reality.

You won’t want to miss tonight’s Rick Moran Show,, one of the most popular conservative talk shows on Blog Talk Radio. Tonight’s show will be co-hosted by American Thinker’s Political Correspondent Rich Baehr.

Tonight, we’ll have our last primary results show and talk about Hillary Clinton’s probable withdrawal from the race. And since Rich is at the AIPAC Conference in Washington, we’ll talk about Jewish reaction to Obama as well as the reaction of attendees to John McCain’s speech.

The show will air from 8:30 - 9:30 PM Central time. You can access the live stream here. A podcast will be available for streaming or download shortly after the end of the broadcast.

For the best in political analysis, click on the stream below and join in on what one wag called a “Wayne’s World for adults.” A podcast will be available for streaming or download around 15 minutes after the show ends.

The Chat Room will open around 15 minutes before the show opens,

Also, if you’d like to call in and put your two cents in, you can dial (718) 664-9764.

I’ve listened to several speeches over the last year by Barack Obama and read the transcripts to a few others and what strikes me the more I read and understand what the candidate is saying is the truly revolutionary nature of his campaign and that he is dead serious about turning this country leftward - radically leftward - in all areas of government and private life.

Now Americans by tradition are a mostly centrist bunch. We are extremely wary of politicians who promise dramatic change unless the times call for it. Even then, we rarely slip too far to the right or left - befitting a mature, responsible citizenry of a republic. Reagan may have been the most ideological president of the 20th century but no one can say he didn’t compromise to get most of what he wanted. Pragmatic conservatism was the order of the day with Reagan presiding over a revolution in the way people looked and felt about government.

But Obama comes from a different planet than Reagan. And you can start noticing the differences when Obama first graduated from college and, like many young people, began searching for something to give his life meaning:

He went to socialist conferences at Cooper Union and African cultural fairs in Brooklyn and started lecturing his relatives until they worried he’d become “one of those freaks you see on the streets around here.”

They had good cause to worry about Obama’s radicalism. You can trace his journey to the hard left by looking at his early employment record. Graduating from Colombia in 1983, Obama went to work for the staid, establishment capitalist concern Business International Corporation.

He didn’t stay there long. He moved on to the New York Public Interest Research Group (NYPIRG) - one of a network of Ralph Nader creations that boasts a consistent anti-business record of achievement - with mixed results.

But he must have been searching for something else - something that could get him more directly involved in radically altering the system. In 1985, he found just what he was looking for; he answered a help wanted ad for a position as a community organizer for the Developing Communities Project (DCP) of the Calumet Community Religious Conference (CCRC) in Chicago.

There are several different takes on Obama’s experience as an organizer. This hagiagraphic piece in US News paints a saintly picture of Obama - a selfless, hard working, mainstream black man only wanting to help the poor.

The reality was a little different. Trained in the Saul Alinsky method of organizing, Obama became quite adept at bringing the resentments and rage felt by African Americans against the white establishment to the surface:

He was a natural, the undisputed master of agitation, who could engage a room full of recruiting targets in a rapid-fire Socratic dialogue, nudging them to admit that they were not living up to their own standards. As with the panhandler, he could be aggressive and confrontational. With probing, sometimes personal questions, he would pinpoint the source of pain in their lives, tearing down their egos just enough before dangling a carrot of hope that they could make things better.”

It was during these years as a community organizer that Obama apparently met and befriended (or was befriended by) a young, passionate, radical priest named Father Michael Pfleger who was making quiet a name for himself as the youngest pastor in the Archdiocese of Chicago, ministering to a mostly African American congregation at St. Sabina’s on the south side. The two struck up a friendship that continues to this day.

What is it about Pfleger that attracted the young Obama? Was it Pfeger’s attempt to bridge the black experience in the protestant tradition with that of the Roman Catholic Church? This piece on Pfleger from 1989 shows that 1) the good father hasn’t changed much; and 2) why Obama may have been drawn to the then young priest:

But St. Sabina on Chicago’s South Side is not the typical black Catholic church. Ebony wood carvings, Ashanti foot stools and kinte cloths make the altar area look more like an African art gallery. Banners of red, black and green, the colors of African liberation, hang from the rafters, along with excerpts from the Black National Anthem. A 20-foot mural of a black Jesus looms over the altar.

Mass usually lasts two and a half hours, in which Father Pfleger assails racism and intolerance.

Recently, he defended Father Stallings. ”The cardinals say, ‘You’re mad,’ ” Father Pfleger said, his voice rising. ”You’re damn right I’m mad. And I need to be mad. We need to be mad. There comes a time when you can’t be satisfied waiting and waiting and being told changes come from within. You can’t change it from within if you’re not in the room that’s making the decision. If you got no power, you can’t do nothing.”

For a young man seeking to internalize his black identity in a white world, it is no wonder Pfleger and Obama hit it off.

But beyond what Pfleger could do for his soul, Obama recognized Pfleger as a comer in the Byzantine world of Chicago politics where preachers and moneymen hold hands with politicians and political operators to grease the wheels of commerce, charity, and corruption.

The power relationships in Chicago depend on two things; one’s ability to shake the money tree in order to get what you want and the equally important knowledge of where to go and who to see to shake that tree. There are literally dozens of foundations and community groups that dispense grants to help neighborhoods and Father Pfleger utilized this network of grant givers to slowly build something of a secular community empire that attempted to affect the lives of his parishioners and residents of his neighborhood at the most basic of levels. After school programs for kids, workshops on how to work with a landlord to fix the plumbing, a program for seniors on medicare - the list of good deeds done by Pfleger in the community - with a little help from his political friends - is nearly endless.

Pfleger’s political power base was his south side church and the network of community groups that dotted the political landscape of the nearly powerless African American ghetto in that part of town. His incendiary rhetoric had already brought him to the attention of radical preachers like Jeremiah Wright while he showed his political skills by tapping south side politicians for grants to fund his community outreach programs.

Pfleger is a very serious Christian and takes the words of Jesus Christ at their most literal. I have speculated before that one thing that attracts Obama to radicals like Pfleger, Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, and James Meeks is their utter and total certainty in the righteousness of their cause. And if you listen to Pfleger for five minutes, there is no doubting the man’s sincerity about making whitey pay for centuries of oppression.

I will have more on Pfleger in an article I am writing for another publication. But for now, we can simply ask ourselves why we should think Obama has changed his stripes from the radical community organizer, admirer of radical priests and preachers, to this supposedly centrist, non ideological creation of the presidential campaign.

I find it hard to believe he has altered his basic political beliefs from the far left idealism of his youth. And I find it equally difficult to believe that eventually, someone in the media is going to ask him to reconcile the two faces of Obama - the radical agitator and the smooth, adroit “post partisan” candidate for president.

Trying to come up with something original to blog about can be a real pain. That’s why many bloggers follow the lead of one of the bigger sites and write about the news of the day with their own special take on what’s happening.

But if you want to blog about something that hardly anyone in the MSM or the internet is writing about, might I suggest you write something about John McCain?

The poor fellow is, for all intents and purposes, being ignored. Now admittedly, the Democratic race (such as it is) holds out a lot more promise of being interesting on any given day. You just never know, for instance, what radical in Obama’s background is going to jump up and say something totally outrageous. After all, the guy has more leftist nuts associated with him than are found at a convention of Communist squirrels. And if you stick a microphone within 10 feet of Bill Clinton, you’re bound to hear something interesting, quotable, and off the wall - three attributes that are guaranteed to generate “controversy.”

Rarely have I seen the media in such lockstep. Each ginned up episode of outrage (as in the press releases from each camp always beginning “Senator Clinton’s outrageous statement…” or “Senator Clinton is outraged at Senator Obama’s statement…”) is dutifully and faithfully reported as if most people actually care about these things. Then to make matters worse, the gaffe or statement is parsed to death, milking every last drop of make believe as if there was something gravely important in it.

And then we are treated to the inevitable “apology” - a less than heartfelt but nevertheless entertaining interlude where we can watch the candidate squirm like a child only recently trained to use the commode . There have been more apologies made by both candidates in this race than a liberal speaking at a convention of oppressed minorities. In fact, perhaps we can just get the historical controversy out of the way and call this campaign the “I’m sorry as hell” election.

Obama’s sorry he hangs around with blatant bigots and anti-American fruitcakes. Hillary is sorry she has to be so mean to Obama but she wants to win so there you are.

And McCain? The GOP candidate is in a rather awkward position. If he tried to apologize for all of Bush’s mistakes, errors in judgement, blunders, misstatements, and outright incompetence, we’d have to pass a Constitutional amendment giving McCain a third term just so that he has time to get it all in.

Failing that, McCain could apologize for nothing and pretend he’s not a Republican - not much of a stretch for the Maverick but a hard sell to the voter nonetheless. There’s the matter of the GOP Convention he is going to have to show up for if he wants to be on the ticket in the fall. At the very least, he has to give an acceptance speech. Knowing McCain’s limitations on the stump, the GOP better hope that the networks are re-running American Gladiator and episodes of 2 and a Half Men. Otherwise, they will be lucky to top Keith Olbermann in the ratings.

But this is McCain’s major problem. Frankly, he’s boring. No one wants to write about an old man with white hair who wants to be in Iraq for 100 years. Or, at least that’s the spin we’re getting from the media.

But truth be told, McCain is, if not a bore, not Mr. Pizazz on the stump. His rhetoric doesn’t soar like Reagan’s. He doesn’t dramatically bite his lower lip when speaking like Clinton. He doesn’t screech like Hillary. And he doesn’t whine like Obama. He is vanilla in an age of pistachio.

And this election cycle, vanilla just might be enough to get the job done. We have been cursed to live in interesting times. So much action packed history has taken place over the last 7 years that we’ve got enough material for a Hollywood epic and at least 3 sequels. Barack Obama offers “change” and the conventional wisdom says that this is going to be enough to carry him to the White House. I say, not so fast. There are different kinds of “change” after all. And suppose the kind of boring, non-premium vanilla ice cream kind of change offered by John McCain is what the people truly want?

Obama doesn’t promise peace and tranquility. How can he when his kind of “change” will necessitate huge battles in Washington against entrenched interests and constant war with Republicans. Obama has never worked with the GOP leadership on anything so the idea that he can bring about meaningful reform is silly. His term in office will be one, long unbroken series of skirmishes, ambushes, and conflicts with everyone - including Democrats on occasion.

On the other hand, McCain has worked with the Democrats on a variety of issues. His kind of leadership promises if not peace, at least a certain respite from some of the partisan wars of the last 7 years. It just may be that this scenario is much more palatable to the American people than the Obama script. At the very least, it will make him competitive in November.

That’s because I predict that by election day, the American people will have grown weary of the exciting Mr. Obama. We really don’t want a rock star for president. Rock stars. as we all know, come with a lot of baggage. The long line of political and religious radicals trailing out behind Mr. Obama as he reaches the finish line in November may, in the end, simply make him too much of a risk for the voter when it comes to choosing a president.

McCain, in the classic tortoise-hare confrontation, will remain steady, uninspiring, and boring - a perfect combination for the majority of white, middle class, middle aged Americans who will be doing most of the voting in November. They don’t want milquetoast. Nor do they want some Gargantua on steroids. They want peace. They want quiet. They want time for the last 8 years to settle in their stomachs before moving on.

Will this kind of change be more palatable than Obama’s?

June 1, 1944

Former presidential friend and aide Harry Hopkins says in a new book that President Roosevelt “misled” the people of the United States about the war and has carried on an intimate relationship with another woman for many years.

Those are just two of the shocking revelations contained in What Actually Happened which goes on sale next week at bookstores. Hopkins, whose public falling out with Roosevelt last year made headlines, said he had to write the book because his conscience was bothering him and that reflecting on his tenure at the White House made him see the error of his ways.

Among the surprises in the book:

* Roosevelt misled the American people about the extent of damage done to our Pacific fleet on December 7 - a cover up that continues to this day. Hopkins didn’t give the exact number of ships damaged or sunk but he said it was “considerably more” than FDR let on and that casualties were in “the thousands.”

* The former friend also accuses Roosevelt of ignoring intelligence that pointed to an attack on Pearl Harbor. “Roosevelt had in his possession certain intercepted communications that proved the Japanese were about to strike,” writes Hopkins. But Roosevelt’s arrogance prevented him from seeing the truth, says the author.

* Hopkins also accused the President of failing to save the Philippines from falling into Japanese hands by not resupplying Corrigedor and allowing Bataan to fall without an effort to save it. “The fact is,” writes Hopkins, “There were plans that, if implemented, could have rescued the Philippines while saving our men on Bataan from the cruelty of the Death March.”

* The former aide also accused Roosevelt of incompetence at the Battle of Anzio. The president’s stubborn insistence on the landing despite knowledge of German strength in area as well as his continued belief in the capabilities of General Lucas led to a bloody, unnecessary stalemate.

* Hopkins also wrote that FDR deferred much too often to British PM Churchill and that by doing so, forced the US into premature action on several fronts.

* The most explosive revelation in the book has to do with a mistress the president is allegedly have kept for many years. Hopkins did not name the woman but said she visits the White House when Eleanor is out of town and has been to the Warm Springs resort several times as well.

* Hopkins called FDR “vindictive” and was someone who carried a grudge. This image is at odds with Roosevelt’s public demeanor of being even tempered and a happy, well adjusted man.

Hopkins has promised to donate some of the proceeds he receives from the book to the widows and orphans of Pearl Harbor…

He’s going to get away with it, of course. No one will dare point to the fact that once again, Barack Obama has disposed of a problem, not by addressing the cause but rather the political garbage that goes along with it.

After 20 years association, the near nominee has decided to end his association with Trinity United Church.

Was it because of the racist, hate mongering sermons of Jeremiah Wright?

Was it because his church has embraced Louis Farrakhan?\

Was it because the church allowed a Roman Catholic priest to preach sermons that ape the worst of Reverend Wright’s rants against whites and America?

Was it because almost everything about the church was far from mainstream Christian thought and that he finally rebelled against the message of hate that spewed from its pulpit for 20 years?

Not according to the candidate himself:

“We don’t want to have to answer for everything that’s stated in the church,” the Democratic front-runner said. “We also don’t want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes.”

Obama said he was resigning “with some sadness.”

“This is not a decision I come to lightly,” he said. Watch Obama discuss departure »

The resignation comes days after the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a visiting Catholic priest, mocked Obama’s Democratic rival during a sermon at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago, Illinois.

In the sermon, Pfleger wipes his eyes with a handkerchief and suggests that Sen. Hillary Clinton wept because she thought that as a white person and the wife of a former president, she was entitled to the presidency.

Pfleger is a Catholic priest at St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church on Chicago’s southwest side. He is also a friend of Trinity’s former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, from whom Obama distanced himself in April.

Obama said the Pfleger controversy made it clear that, as long as he remained a member of the Trinity congregation, remarks from the pulpit would be “imputed” to him, even if they conflicted with his personal views.

In addition to being friends with Wright, Pfleger is also a long time friend of Barack Obama, a relationship that goes back almost as far as the candidate’s relationship with Wright. While in the state senate, Obama steered around $300,000 to various programs headed up by Father Pfleger while the bigot priest gave Obama $1500 in political contributions over the years. Obama has also claimed Pfleger as one of his “spiritual mentors” and the priest has been hanging around the campaign off and on over the past year, offering his “mentoring” whenever the candidate has hit a rough patch.

I bring this up because CNN didn’t think it was newsworthy to mention the close, personal relationship Obama has with Pfleger - which is another reason why the candidate is going to slide on the real reason he is quitting the church.

Representative Robert Wexler of Florida gives the media its marching orders:

Some Obama supporters, including U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida, said that disconnecting from the church signaled a chance for the campaign to move on.

“I think it bodes well for us in the general election that we can put whatever issues there were behind us in respect to the church,” Wexler said.

Don’t worry, Bob. The media already never heard of Trinity Church, or Wright, or Moss, or Meeks, or Pfleger. They are now officially “non-associates” of Barack Obama and can be safely ignored.

What then, to make of Obama’s quitting Trinity Church? Once again, Obama has proven himself to lack any kind of political courage. He makes the Cowardly Lion look like Audie Murphy. He once again tries the straddle approach - trying to disentangle himself from a political problem without alienating his base. And once again, political expediency and not conscience or moral outrage guides his actions.

The calculating nature of this move is made obvious by asking the one, simple, question that no one in the media has yet even raised by my reading so far; what the hell took you so long, Barry? No one believes the candidate when he says he never heard Wright utter his foul diatribes against America and against white people over 20 years of sitting in the pews at Trinity Church. That doesn’t even pass the laugh test. Nor does anyone believe him when he says he was “surprised” at Father Pfleger’s rants. Everyone in Chicago is familiar with Pfleger’s views on whites and on America. Much more so than Wright, Pfleger has been a fixture on local news and is good for a colorful quote or two whenever the media needs one on race or housing or on the Iraq War.

To repeat, what took you so long Obama? The fact is, as long as belonging to Trinity was a political plus - contacts with the movers and shakers in the black community as well as demonstrating his “authentic” blackness to his constituents - Obama embraced his church.

But now, running for president and having his pastor and church exposed as radical adherents to Black Liberation Theology, Obama throws them under the bus without hesitation. (Would that he was so decisive in matters of policy.). They have become a drag, a hindrance to his ambitions and must go the way of his other friends and associates he has summarily dismissed from his royal presence.

You wonder what Tony Rezko is thinking after spending years in promoting the young Obama to where now he stands on the threshold of the presidency and because of his trial, the candidate makes out as if he barely knows Rezko. Same goes for Bill Ayers who plucked Obama from obscurity and made him head of Ayer’s baby - the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - only to see the candidate describe his close relationship with Ayers as him being “just a neighbor.”

He tried to downplay his relationship with Wright, with Pfleger, with Reverend James Meeks (another radical bigot) - anyone and everyone who has proven themselves to be a danger to his ambitions has either been tossed on the garbage heap or dismissed as inconsequential.

Anyone see a pattern here?

Let us take Obama at his word for the moment and pretend that he has a ghost of a chance in realizing his campaign promises to bring “change” to Washington. Doesn’t matter how (the candidate hasn’t told us anyway). Whatever plan he comes up with will demand political courage. He will be going up against the most entrenched of interests who will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privileges and access.

But Obama has shown no sign of possessing the kind of political courage it would take to realize any of his goals with regard to “changing” Washington. This should be obvious even to his most rabid supporters. He has never gone against his party. He has never crossed the aisle to work in a bi-partisan manner on anything consequential. (His anti-Iraq war stance took about as much political courage as an alley cat has. He wasn’t running for any federal office and his state senate district makes Berkley look like Utah as far as ideological makeup is concerned.). In short, Obama is a Flim-Flam Man who has gotten away (so far) with relying on a friendly media to cover his ass for him as he tries to put radical after radical in his past behind him.

Pretty soon, the media is going to have Obama looking like a mainstream politician - something I didn’t think was possible but now believe that is the ultimate goal of the campaign. The sad fact is, as long as Obama doesn’t murder some one between now and the election, he stands a very good chance of winning.