Right Wing Nut House

If you’ve been saving old electoral college maps from the 2000 and 2004 election so you can follow the action in 2008, I would suggest you toss them on the rubbish heap of history. While both candidates will enjoy support from many of their base states - the GOP in the south and the Democrats along both coasts - the rest of the nation is literally up for grabs this time around. No less than 17 states by my count will be heavily contested by both candidates as they seek to raid each other’s territory in order to maximize their chances to hit the magic number of 270 electoral votes on election day.

It’s hard to see where one candidate or the other has an advantage in this contest but it appears by my calculations that John McCain will have to defend more of his own territory which will necessarily limit his opportunities to raid in blue states. Couple that with a probable huge disparity in cash on hand to spend vis a vis Obama and McCain would, on paper, appear to be at a decided disadvantage.

Not so. McCain’s best chances for a breakthrough blue state win are in the big states of Pennsylvania and Michigan. If McCain can take any one of those two states (while holding on to Ohio) he can afford to lose a couple of the smaller red states Obama has his heart set on and still top 270 electoral votes.

Obama, on the other hand, only need take the state of Ohio to scramble McCain’s chances for the presidency. It is hard to come up with a winning electoral college scenario for the GOP without both Ohio and Florida in the mix. That’s because Obama has a very good chance of breaking through in one or more previously Republican states like Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico. With Ohio, McCain can afford to lose one or two of those states by taking Pennsylvania or Michigan. Without Ohio, even those two states put together wouldn’t be enough. The Arizona senator would probably need a breakthrough in two blue states like Minnesota and Wisconsin in order to top 270.

OBAMA’S BEST TARGETS

Most experts agree that Virginia is ripe for the plucking by a Democrat in 2008 - especially an African American Democrat like Obama.

Looking at recent statewide races for governor, it is clear that the Washington, D.C. metro area - filled as it is with federal workers and many dependent on government for their livlihood - probably holds the key to a Democratic win. The area has witnessed explosive growth in the last decade with previously rural, Republican counties like Loudon and Prince William filling up with Democratic voters. Along with the Democratic vote from Richmond, this may be enough to offset Republican strength in the Piedmont region along the border with North Carolina as well as counties bordering Tennessee where the GOP routinely hits 70%.

The loss of Virginia’s 13 electoral votes would not be a catastrophe. But Obama will have his sights set on other targets as well. And his best chance at further breakthroughs appear to me to be out west where radically changing demographics have put in play three states - Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

Nevada is probably ready to tip in 2008. Unheard of growth in Las Vegas (Clark County) - 600,000 new residents since 2000 or a 40% increase - will probably mean an end to long time GOP domination in Presidential elections. Consider that in 1980 Ronald Reagan won Nevada with 62% of the vote while George Bush eked out a 21,000 vote win in 2004.

The union vote in Las Vegas and Reno will probably be enough to give the state to Obama this time around. Couple Nevada’s 5 electoral votes with Virginia’s 13 and it forces McCain to win either Pennsylvania’s 21 electoral votes or Michigan’s 17 to reach 270.

But Obama has two other western states in his cross hairs. New Mexico and Colorado have both experienced rapid growth in the past decade largely made up of an influx of Hispanics. Colorado may be a little more of a long shot for Obama as growth in liberal areas as slacked off in recent years and McCain could get a larger percentage of Hispanic voters than Bush in 2004. But given Obama’s superior organization and his cash on hand, a maximum effort just might pay off in Colorado.

New Mexico would seem to be a more realistic target. George Bush won by barely 6,000 votes in 2004 and with Democratic governor Bill Richardson on board, Obama could very well flip the state blue.

If Obama were to take all four states - CO, NM, VA, and NV - he would take 32 electoral votes away from George Bush’s total of 286 in 2004. You can do the math as well as I can if you take all or a combination of 2 or three of those states away from McCain. Where does he make it up?

McCAIN’S BEST TARGETS

I pointed out earlier that McCain’s best shots appear to be in Pennsylvania and Michigan - for different reasons.

Pennsylvania is ripe for an upset. It’s hard to imagine a Democrat who is less attractive to the voters in that state than Barack Obama - at least according to the primary exit polls where he was slaughtered by Hillary Clinton. Even in a Democratic year, the state sets up nicely for McCain running against Obama. The most recent Rasmussen survey from May 21 shows only a two point lead for Obama, well within the margin for error. Among key groups like older voters and white working class voters, McCain leads comfortably. Among independents, McCain also enjoys an advantage.

This state more than most will be a turnout election: Reagan Democrats versus African Americans. The fault lines will be obvious and dramatic - appeals to race will no doubt play a part in determining Pennsylvania’s fate.

Michigan is an entirely different target of opportunity for McCain. Ordinarily a reliable Democratic state, Michigan Democrats have botched it but good in the last 4 years and as mad as people might be at the GOP in Michigan they are just as angry at the Democrats. McCain has a real chance here, running slightly ahead of Obama at this point. Will McCain have the money to compete with Obama? Will he have the organization? It will be interesting to watch as McCain commits his limited resources to either protecting states like Virginia or gambling for the much bigger prizes in Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Other less likely marks for the McCain campaign would be Midwestern states like Minnesota and Wisconsin. Iowa, as always, will be in play and if McCain were to lose there, taking one of the other two Midwestern states would almost become a necessity. Bush lost Wisconsin in 2004 by only 11,000 votes and McCain is up 47-43 in the state according to the last Rasumussen poll. McCain has much broader appeal than Bush in a state chock full of Reagan Democrats and independents. Making prospects for a maximum effort even more likely on McCain’s part is that it is a relatively cheap ad buy - a bigger bang for his ad bucks.

But Wisconsin is a state of ornery voters who love the reformer who challenges orthodoxy. McCain should look long and hard before committing to winning this state.

There are other states that may be in play this fall. The New York Times has a good list of them here. They add Missouri, North Carolina, Georgia, and Montana to Obama’s list of targets.

Georgia and Montana are pipe dreams for the Democrat. His thinking in Georgia is that he can win a three way race with Libertarian Bob Barr and McCain splitting the conservative vote while he sweeps the African American vote and ends up with a plurality. He should glance at the polls more often. Barr is a blip in Georgia and he would have to take more than 15% of the vote for Obama to have a chance. That scenario simply isn’t very likely.

Montana is a different story but still a very long shot for Obama. Here, Barr may do very well indeed - he might even hit the 10% threshold. But Democrats are scarce in Montana and McCain should still win easily.

Missouri and North Carolina offer a slightly better battleground for Obama. But unless he can show better with white, working class voters, Missouri is out of reach and North Carolina is a stretch. Look for less of an effort in those two states the closer we get to the election.

In the end, as it has the last two elections and as it has been true many times in the past, the entire kit and caboodle will probably come down to Ohio. Here is where McCain must make a stand and where Obama has the best chance to derail his opponent’s prospects.

All of this is assuming the economy will not get much worse than it is now. If it really goes south, all bets are off and Obama’s landslide scenario comes into play. Perhaps not so much in the popular vote. But winning 400 electoral votes is a mandate any way you look at it and the potential is there if unemployment and inflation begin to bite.

Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul.
(An actual adult named Mark Morford who presumably wrote this on a weekend pass from an insane asylum)

I put it to my fellow bloggers; who would you really prefer having as president for the next four years?

An old, plodding, boring, war horse and hero John McCain whose followers are so vanilla that their idea of a wild time is deliberately jamming the ball return at the bowling alley with empty bottles of Nehi on Saturday night.

Or would you rather be able to write about Barack Obama and his fellow Lightworkers as they save the planet, protect the universe, and make America safe for snake oil salesmen once again.

Judging by Mr. Morford’s eye popping idiocy, the next 4 years are either going to be the most monumental in the history of the human race - or at least since another Lightworker trod the earth for 3 years a couple of milenia ago - or we’re all going to be so imbued with the Obama spirit that whatever the neophyte does will be seen as proof of his godlike gifts.

Seriously, now. Don’t you look forward to commenting on stuff like this?

To them I say, all right, you want to know what it is? The appeal, the pull, the ethereal and magical thing that seems to enthrall millions of people from all over the world, that keeps opening up and firing into new channels of the culture normally completely unaffected by politics?

No, it’s not merely his youthful vigor, or handsomeness, or even inspiring rhetoric. It is not fresh ideas or cool charisma or the fact that a black president will be historic and revolutionary in about a thousand different ways. It is something more. Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn’t have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

“High vibration integrity?” I always wondered why women swooned at his speeches. Turns out its not the heat or, the ambient temperature we’re talking about. Rather it’s Obama the sex toy that is getting all these women hot and bothered.

Might I suggest, ladies, sticking to your pocket rockets and resist going for “the big one” with Obama? After all, with Obama all you get is one speed not to mention a complete lack of penetrating ideas. And the guy couldn’t find the “G” - or any other kind of Spot - to save his life.

(I will be available for free consultations on “Achieving bliss without Obama” immediately following the publishing of this article.)

See how much more fun we’re having and the guy isn’t even elected yet? I challenge you to find anything sexual about John McCain at all. Listening to McCain speak does not remind anyone of “powerful luminosity” or “vibrations” of any kind - sexual or otherwise. Rather, McCain’s speeches are like a combination of Metamucil and Sominex - regular and predictable with softening agents to help everything come out okay along with a singular ability to induce drowsiness. Face it; if McCain somehow manages to win, the next four years are going to be the equivalent of playing checkers and listening to Perry Como records at your grandmother’s house.

Not so if our wunderkind wins the election.

Warning: If you are a rigid pragmatist/literalist, itchingly evangelical, a scowler, a doubter, a burned-out former ’60s radical with no hope left, or are otherwise unable or unwilling to parse alternative New Age speak, click away right now, because you ain’t gonna like this one little bit.

Ready? It goes likes this:

Barack Obama isn’t really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.

This is what I find myself offering up more and more in response to the whiners and the frowners and to those with broken or sadly dysfunctional karmic antennae - or no antennae at all - to all those who just don’t understand and maybe even actively recoil against all this chatter about Obama’s aura and feel and MLK/JFK-like vibe.

No parody, no satirical screed can do justice to this kind of slam bang, out of your mind stupidity. It would be hugely frightening if it weren’t so extraordinarily funny. Is this what the left has been reduced to in America? Taking a candidate with literally no experience doing anything (except getting people riled up at the “system”) - a man with no record of achievement save a run at the state senate where he used electoral tomfoolery to get his opponents kicked off the ballot and a run at the US senate where his GOP challenger self destructed over a messy divorce made public by his allies in the media?

It is because of his lack of a record, lack of accomplishments, lack of anything anyone would consider attributes even the worst president should have that the left feels the only way to get people to vote for Obama is to turn him into a secular super-prophet or demigod. It is the equivalent of a sleight-of-hand card trick. Pay no attention to the magicians hands as he deals from the bottom of the deck only to come up with ace after ace.

We are asked to suspend judgement, suspend, logic, suspend belief itself and pretend that Obama is the next step in human evolution. I don’t have a feel for how many of his supporters are swallowing this tripe but judging by the kinds of comments I get here and see on other sites, the number has to be in the millions. It is a full blown Cult of Personality that will make Bushbots seem intelligent by comparison. This is the kind of personal movement that would get serious about pushing for a constitutional amendment to remove presidential term limits.

Then again, with guys like this shilling for Obama, it may be easier to paint him as the leader of some kind of nutcase brigade:

Are you rolling your eyes and scoffing? Fine by me. But you gotta wonder, why has, say, the JFK legacy lasted so long, is so vital to our national identity? Yes, the assassination canonized his legend. The Kennedy family is our version of royalty. But there’s something more. Those attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things, these people say JFK wasn’t assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It’s because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side. And it killed him.

Now, Obama. The next step. Another try. And perhaps, as Bush laid waste to the land and embarrassed the country and pummeled our national spirit into disenchanted pulp and yet ironically, in so doing has helped set the stage for an even larger and more fascinating evolutionary burp, we are finally truly ready for another Lightworker to step up.

The “JFK legacy” has not lasted at all. It is gone - if it was ever there in the first place. This “peacemaker” sent 16,000 troops to Viet Nam, tried to kill Castro, threatened to annihilate the planet over Cuba, and was otherwise one of the most bellicose presidents in US history. Only the marvelous PR talents of the Kennedy family entourage - including Arthur Schlessinger and Ted Sorenson - turned a mediocre, weak president into some kind of liberal lion standing up for peace (by bombing Vietnamese) and civil rights (while allowing the Freedom Riders to get beaten bloody down south and only introduced legislation after better men than him forced it upon him).

The Kennedy legacy of tax cutting and big defense increases never seems to get mentioned by liberals when talking about him. But that’s alright - we’re headed for an “evolutionary burp” with Obama. And beyond everything else, we are promised that things like magic, the occult, and remote viewing are possible as long as you are one of “[t]hose attuned to energies beyond the literal meanings of things.” Far be it for me to stick with simply the “literal meaning of things” when so much more - like Obama’s magical evolutionary burps - can be made transparent as long as you’re in the right frame of mind - or take the required hallucinogen.

The candidate himself will be entertaining enough for any 10 bloggers to never run out of things to write.

But it is Obama’s slavish devotees and their breathless belief in his otherworldliness and out and out Deity that is going to make the next 4 years the most productive in the history of blogging.

This article first appeared on June 6, 2006

It was 62 years ago that US Rangers stormed the cliffs of Pointe Du Hoc near Omaha Beach. And as the veterans of that day grow oh so gray and bent, mere shadows of the lithe and limber youths who pulled themselves up the jagged bluffs, one hand over another, their comrades falling all about them, we are reminded that the word “courage” came alive that day.

Too often, we use that word in a base and cavalier way. A Hollywood movie star has “courage” because she revealed to the world that she’s a drug addict. A comic has “courage” because he made fun of the President of the United States to his face. A filmaker has “courage” because he made millions of dollars shooting a “documentary” which shows the US government complicit in the mass murder on 9/11.

And so instead of “courage” being a word with inexpressible significance and meaning beyond its simple definition, it has become a self congratulatory epithet, a hollowed out expression of empty promise and insincerity. Today, the purveyors of myth and shapers of opinion use the word to tell the rest of us who to admire and what to respect. No longer does courage imply sacrifice or a willingness to give all that one has for a cause greater than oneself. Instead, courage defines the selfish desires and overwrought egos of an ideology that sees more irony in the word than reverence.

All of this was in the future 62 years ago when the Rangers lived the word courage by taking the bluffs above the beach. And a short distance away at Omaha, Americans were dying, never knowing that their sacrifice was redefining the word courage for all time. For in their last bloody moments on earth, a titanic struggle was taking place between good and evil that 10,000 years from now, poets will still be singing songs and human beings will still be shaking their heads at in wonder and awestruck disbelief.

It takes genuine courage to confront evil. By its very nature, evil must defend itself by lashing out and destroying anything that attempts to get in its path, lest it perish ignominiously. Those representing good realize this which makes the confrontation between good and evil always a life threatening proposition and thus, an exercise in self-denial and sacrifice. The Rangers on the bluffs and the men in transports speeding toward bloody Omaha that terrible day 62 years ago knew full well what they were in for. They were willing to pay the price to defeat evil.

There were more than 700 war ships on the waters of Normandy that day, firepower never before seen on the open ocean. The men would be landing with tanks and guns and grenades and enough explosives to blow up a small town. But their most potent weapon by far was the courage to face their foes in open combat with the full knowledge that doing so was likely to get them killed. We ask ourselves quite properly, would I have been capable of such a feat? The answer will likely tell us much about ourselves.

Because in those last frantic minutes before hitting the beach, as grown men wept and prayed and steeled themselves for the supreme test of their young lives, they must have found something deep within themselves, something they could mentally and emotionally grasp and hold onto so real and palpable it must have been. What was it? An image of their family? A remembrance of love and closeness that wrapped itself around them and made them feel safe? Or perhaps it was the simple recognition of the here and now with a sublime faith that He that arbitrates our fate has placed me in His keeping and if these be my last moments, let them be meaningful ones.

Whatever rushed thoughts were coursing through their minds as they splashed ashore under some of the most intense combat ever experienced by American fighting men, their courage allowed them to disobey the most primal of instincts to flee for safety and walk into the teeth of the enemy’s fire. And then, the supreme test. Historian Stephen Ambrose:

They were getting butchered where they were all the sea wall because the Germans had it all zeroed in with their mortars that were coming down on top of them. And, “Over here, Captain,” “Over here, Lieutenant, over here.” A sergeant looked at this situation and said, “The hell with this. If I’m going to get killed, I’m going to take some Germans with me.” And he would call out, “Follow me,” and up he would start. Hitler didn’t believe this was ever possible. Hitler was certain that the soft, effeminate children of democracy could never become soldiers. Hitler was certain that the Nazi youth would always outfight the Boy Scouts, and Hitler was wrong.

The Boy Scouts took them on D-Day. Joe Dawson led Company G. He started off with 200 men. He got to the top of the bluff with 20 men, but he got to the top. He was the first one to get there. He’s going to be introducing President Clinton tomorrow at Omaha Beach. John Spaulding was another. He was a lieutenant. Many of them are nameless. I don’t know their names. I’ve talked to men who’ve said, “I saw this lieutenant and he tossed a grenade into the embrasure of that fortification, and out came four Germans with their hands up. I thought to myself, hell, if he can do that, I can do that.” “What was his name?” I will ask. “Geez, I don’t know. I never found out his name. I never saw him before, and I never saw him again, but he was a great man. He got me up that bluff.”

“Unknown but to God” and history, I suspect. In the end, whatever gave them the inner strength to keep going in the face of such murderous opposition, it was as inspirational then as it is today.

It is fitting and proper that we remember their courage today, the young men who lived and died the word courage. But we must also question ourselves about our commitment to that memory. Does it have meaning beyond the misty eyed reminisces of old men? Can we still summon forth the will to perform great deeds in a cause that reaches far beyond our narrow little corner of planet earth in which we live and love and die?

At the moment, the answer to that last question is unknown. But I daresay the fate of the nation rests upon a positive response. For unless we are willing to propel ourselves beyond our own selfish, comfortable existence and find the strength to confront the evil that seeks to destroy us, we are more likely to end up a victim of our own hubris rather than triumphant with the knowledge that we, like the men of D-Day, brought to life the word courage and made it once again something to be lived and felt in our hearts, ever mindful of the sacrifice of those who came before us.

Most of you know that Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama held a secret meeting at an undisclosed location in Washington, D.C. yesterday.

What you don’t know is that The House has obtained a super secret transcript of their brief but telling conversation.

The meeting took place at a secret hideway used by Mrs. Clinton to decompress after especially tough days on the Hill or the campaign trail. The joint statement released by both sides only gives the bare bones of what was discussed:

“Senator Clinton and Senator Obama met tonight and had a productive discussion about the important work that needs to be done to succeed in November,” their campaigns said in joint statement.

Herre’s what really went on.

*******************************************************
HRC: (Opening door): Senator Obama, how nice of you to come.

BHO: My pleasure, Senator Clinton. I sincerely hope we can paper over any differences we might have and bring this party together in order to defeat the Republicans in November.

HRC: (Giggling) Um…sure Barry. Whatever you say. Won’t you sit down?

BHO:  Alright. (Glances at coffee table top) I’m not sure I appreciate the symbolism of the dueling pistols, Hillary.

HRC: (Innocently) Er, symbolism? Oh, those old things? They belonged to Andy Jackson, you know.

BHO: Jackson was a slaveowner.

HRC: And a man who knew how to settle political arguments (eyes gleaming). Shall we say dawn, in front of the Lincoln Memorial, at 20 paces?

BHO: Did you bring me over here to challenge me to a duel?

HRC: You said you wanted to settle our differences. I think we should explore all the options.

BHO: I think not.

HRC: Oh, very well. Rock, paper, scissors it is then.

BHO: What are you talking about?

HRC: Rock beats scissors, scissors beats paper…are you telling me you never played that game?

BHO: Hillay, can we please get serious about this? We’re talking about the future of the country here.

HRC: So it’s serious you want to be? Very well then, I’ll cut you for the nomination - high card wins.

BHO: (Exasperated) Senator Clinton, in case you haven’t noticed, I’ve already sewn up the nomination. I’ve got the delegates. I’ve got the Superdelegates. Howard Dean loves me. The press adores me.

HRC: No.

BHO: (Smiling patiently) Now Hillary, you’ve got to face the facts.

HRC: No.

BHO: I won fair and square. You’ve got to accept that it’s over for you.

HRC: (Voice rising) Over? Who says it’s over? Nothing is over until I say it is.

(Male voice from the bedroom) You tell ‘em hon.

BHO: Who’s that. Don’t tell me it’s…

HRC: For God’s sake, Bill. You really can’t keep your mouth shut about anything, can you? C’mon out now. No use trying to hide.

WJC: (Sheepishly) I’s just takin’ a nap, is all.

BHO: You’re not even supposed to be here, Mr. President.

HRC: He’s right, Bill. Run along now.

WJC: But pumpkin, you need me.

HRC: No, Barry’s right. This is between us. You go sit at the bar across the street and I’ll meet you there when this is over.

WJC: Yes sugar.

HRC: And Bill - keep your hands off the waitresses.

(Exit a chastened WJC)

BHO: (Wryly) Any more surprises?

HRC: Perhaps we should cut to the chase. I am prepared to offer you the Ambassadorship to Senegal if you concede the nomination.

BHO: (Losing patience) Now see here, I’ve had just about enough of this nonsense. If you…

HRC: Not good enough for you, eh? Very well. How about Secretary of Commerce? We could use a bright lad like you in the cabinet.

BHO: (Incredulous) Do you live in a dreamworld? I’m it! I’m the chosen one! The party has spoken.

HRC: These kinds of temporary setbacks are common in politics. I’m still very much alive in this race.

BHO: How can you say that? Every network, every wire service, every major newspaper has annointed me as the nominee.

HRC: But only on paper, Barry. We both know that the people support me, that their hearts belong to me. Ask any white, middle class Democrat and they’ll tell you who should be the nominee.

BHO: Still playing the race card? I thought better of you once.

HRC: Not at all my half Kenyan friend. Facts are facts. And since I’m feeling especially generous today, I’ll tell you what I’ll do. If you concede the nomination, once I’m president I’ll make you Ambassador to the United Nations and back your bid for Illinois governor in 2012.

BHO: I feel like I’ve landed on another planet.

HRC: Sorry, I promised that post to Edwards.

BHO: Do I have to publicly humiliate you to get you to see reason? I didn’t want to do this but I must tell you, I have pictures…

HRC: Pictures?

BHO: Of your husband. In the bridal suite of the International Hotel in Bangkok.

HRC: What’s he doing?

BHO: Do you remember the “Miss Universe Pageant” held there a few months ago? Let’s just say that Bill was engaged in a little private judging with three of the contestants in the “out of swimsuit” category.

HRC: I see. Well, that almost tops my tape of Michelle going off about “Whitey” at Trinity United from a few years ago.

BHO: You…you actually have that tape.

HRC: Yup.

BHO: Yes, but that still doesn’t change the fact that I’m the nominee and that you appear to be prepared to wreck the party to contest that notion.

HRC: (Resigned) Oh, very well. With the press in your pocket, there really doesn’t appear to be much hope for me anyway. So when are you going to name me your Vice Presidential nominee?

BHO: (Sputtering) You can’t be serious. Why your husband alone is enough to keep you off the ticket. He’s a time bomb waiting to go off not to mention how truly nasty he was all throughout the campaign. Besides, I don’t feel like hiring a food taster every time we sit down to eat. Never - never in a million years would I even consider naming you vice president on the ticket.

HRC: Right. But when are you going to make the announcement?

BHO: I need an aspirin…

(End of transcript)

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…