Byron York has good analysis in National Review Online

That, not Wright’s wide-ranging social theories, is what forced Obama to denounce Wright at a hastily arranged news conference Tuesday. By questioning Obama’s honesty, Wright was striking at the heart of the Obama campaign. The most damaging thing Wright could ever say is that he knows, based on his long personal relationship with Obama, that Obama agrees with him but can’t say so publicly for political reasons. Put another way, if voters believe that Obama fundamentally rejects Wright’s views, they might question Obama’s judgment in remaining close to Wright for 20 years. But if voters believe that Obama secretly agrees with Wright but is putting on another face to win an election, then all is lost. “People could ask why somebody with good judgment would take so long to do this,” a Democratic strategist told me Monday night. “But that’s certainly better than the subtext being that Obama is an angry black man, because if he’s an angry black man, then he simply cannot win, period.”

It’s a Democrat contortionist’s nightmare, and a Republican strategist’s Utopia. Obama’s greatest asset - his credibility - has been challenged in a most distructive way. He has had tried to have it both ways, and in the effort, has shown himself nothing more than an average politician, rising above absolutely nothing. The hope (sic “hype”) is dead. Long live the reality.

Not to say I don’t appreciate larger-than-life political leaders. We n�ed more of them, but Barack Obama never was in that class. He gave a good speech or two, rested on his laurels, and attempted to fly-over the Wright controvery as if his level of accountability rose above that of a mere mortal’s. His mentor is an unapologetic leftist, no different than the padowan Obama, but the learner has refused to pitch his true colors as part of his presidential campaign. He is being forced to decide. And in his speech yesterday, finally decrying Wright as a nut job, has left thinking people wondering what Obama is really about anyway.

Barack Obama has confirmed the old canard about a star that shines twice as bright lasts for half as long. In his case, his brightness was inflated by a complicit cheap-date media. Now we see him for what he is - a lightweight. I do hope he wins the nomination.

Kim McMillan’s interest in the governorship throws her in with already-declared (sorta) Congressman Lincoln Davis,likely candidate Harold Ford, Jr., and the lingering former Nashville mayor, Bill Purcell. Bill Frist and Ron Ramsey have shown interest on the Republican side, and there are rumors that Marsha Blackburn and Knoxville Mayor Bill Haslam are also considering a run as well.

I am curious to see McMillan’s income tax spin, as she was a vocal supporter back during the tax revolt days. Even better, with the state’s budget this year and next in the tank. If the state needed an income tax in 2002, when the last budget deficit loomed, why now does the state not need an income tax in in 2009 and 2010? Consistency and expediency are often cantankerous bed fellows, as McMillan will soon to find out.

This is utter poppy cock.

First, we are told by Obama himself that that he didn’t know much bad about Jeremiah Wright. Obama had no disdain for Wright at the beginning of the disclosure, only the things he said, which (ludicrously) Obama claimed to have not heard. Then, we heard that Wright isn’t just about what we hear - that his offensive remarks were outside his usual message of hope (hear Arizona, ocean front property, and bridge, Brooklyn). Finally, we are told by Obama today that Wright is “rambling”. Obama has thrown Wright under the bus, and Wright counters with a mean ECW move and tosses Obama under the bus. Both come off flat.

Take note. This is the Democrats’ frontrunner’s relationship with his pastor and mentor. Say that again. Hear it for what it is, not the utterly inane spin that Obama’s campaign is pushing.

Indeed, judge for yourself, those of you who have mentors, and /or pastors. Make a quick conclusion as to whether you’d entertain such a relationship in the first place. After twenty years of courting Wright’s church for political gain, Obama bails. Good move, Barack. You should have done it yesterday.

As the man who speaks to 20 million from noon to three said today, Obama is synonymous with “toast”.

This post is the result of my observations over the last month.

Barack Obama has had trouble in his quest to, well - be a politician. As in, not in the negative qualities we always project upon our pols, but in the everyday, rough and tumble aspects of public service. When he was politically spawned under the North Star at the Democrat convention in 2004, he was beyond reproach. During most of the campaign, and his legendary string of eleven primary victories, he was beyond reproach. An entire cable news network panted after him on a nightly basis.

Now, things are different. And they are largely different because Obama wasn’t ready for the sure-fall. He’s more Buffalo Bills than New England Patriots.

The Jeremiah Wright controversy is all his, and grows with every Robin Williams-like appearance his mentor makes. The total disregard he demonstrated about rural values, and the simultaneous dismissal of certain valued constitutional rights, is an ongoing liability. Even worse, whenever he is asked entirely relevant questions regarding these self-made issues, he gets perturbed. It’s as if, in running for the highest office in the land, anything that has veered off-script that may indicate his true views is beyond comment. That is, to twist the magic carpet he rode in on, truely hopeful.

Hillary Clinton is the tortoise. She has plodded along, but she has been there before. She is the beneficiary of Obama’s arrogance. None of Obama’s troubles have directly stemmed from the Clinton campaign. In fact, despite her husband’s apparent onsetting dementia, Hillary is still afloat. What was initially her biggest asset has turned into a straight-up liability, and she is still on the cusp of swaying the super delegates (see also the endorsement of North Carolina’s governor today). She had no money, she was in dire straights, and now she’s back.

Obama wasn’t ready for this. He faked it for awhile, but he isn’t prepared for this sort of campaign. If he does end up in the general, I hope all my liberal friends can make peace with the phrase “President McCain.”

Technorati tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

Del.icio.us tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

LiveJournal tags: hillary clinton, democrats, barack obama, road to the white house, politics

From the Associated Press

Roger Clemens had a decade-long relationship with country star Mindy McCready that began when she was a 15-year-old aspiring singer and the pitcher was a Boston Red Sox ace, the Daily News reported.

Clemens’ lawyer, Rusty Hardin, confirmed a long-term relationship but told the newspaper it was not sexual.

…

The story, which appeared on the newspaper’s Web site Sunday night and in editions Monday, quoted several people who asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the situation. It said Clemens sent cash to McCready to help her with legal issues and reached out to her when she was in jail last year in Tennessee for violating probation after allegedly hitting her mother.

Jeremiah Wright’s rambling screed yesterday in front of the NAACP can’t be good for Obama. Jim Henson himself would be proud, and maybe a little jealous, of the array of voices he has mastered. Wright does a mean Kennedy. He’s operatic, too.

Sadly for Obama, Wright spent a great portion of his remarks making excuses for the academic failure of black children in urban schools, focusing on the legitimization of ebonics and the differences in learning styles, as if that somehow explains high illegitimacy rates, fatherless homes, gang appeal, and a victim mentality. Yeah, it’s just that they’re different, and the white man doesn’t understand.

Barack Obama has lost the reigns on his mentor. Throwing the pastor under the bus seems to have rankled the relationship. Wright has scheduled a bona fide speaking tour, and is set for the National Press Club today. Presumably the message will be the same. Anyhow, it is clear that Jeremiah Wright no longer has a vested interest in a Barack Obama presidency.

Boggling the mind, there is apparently a Christian backlash against bottled water

Church groups (National Council of Churches, National Coalition of American Nuns, Presbyterians for Restoring Creation) are stirring opposition to ever-rising bottled water sales. They worry about a disturbing shift: If water becomes just another commodity or something expensive that only some people can afford, then the basic human right to water gets sold down the river.

Next week, Christ Church Cathedral downtown will remind worshippers that water is a divine gift, not just retail gold. The monthly First Friday service at 6 p.m. on May 2, called “Streams of Living Water,” will feature prayers, Bible readings, dance and visual arts — alternative expressions of spirituality and sacred space that mark this popular, unusual monthly cathedral ministry.

“Water is at the heart of our sacred story and of physical life,” says the Rev. Anne Stevenson of the cathedral, “and we are called to protect it and nourish it.”

Nourish it? Not “just another commodity?” If there was, in fact, a vast global water crisis, I daresay it could not be laid at the feet of Dasani. Then there is some throw-in about the 1.5 million barrels of oil annually it takes to transport bottled water. Anyone who knows the American economy uses nearly 21 million barrels per day can only chuckle at the attempted emotional appeal.

God help us rational Christians if bottled water coalesces into some new, crusade-like Christian movement. Woodmont Baptist, you’re on notice! If I hear a bottled water sermon, I’m getting up and leaving.

Barack Obama, take notes.

Fortunately, I have not had the need to call the police very often in my life. I have, however, had three instances within the last month.

I am happy to say that 911 answered and police units quickly responded several weeks ago when I called from I-40 in Hermitage to let them know a guy was hitting a woman outside of their shared car on the shoulder of the road. After some quality time watching cars whiz by on the interstate as statements were taken, I am now awaiting my opportunity to take the stand as a witness.

My experiences with police response has not been so great with my non-emergency attempts at communication. I’m sure all of the locals reading this know the jingle for 862-8600. If it’s an “urgent, non-emergency”, give the Metro police a call using that number. OK … no one is on fire and there wasn’t just a fatal shooting, but the word “urgent” still implies that some level of quick response is needed.

I first dialed the number earlier this month, when I saw a woman zoom around our cul de sac holding a baby, who looked to be about six months old, in her lap. I wasn’t about to let anyone “pull a Britney” in my neighborhood! She deposited the child at at a neighbor’s home and sped off. Since the emergency aspect was gone, I wrote down her license plate and called 862-8600. Well, a recorded message let me know that I was calling at a busy time (1:45pm). I could hold or call back later. I stayed on the line for close to ten minutes and, after hearing the same taped voice offering me the numbers for the fire department and other such services multiple times, I hung up. Repeated attempts throughout the afternoon brought the same result. I eventually called the Hermitage Police Precinct, only to be told that they don’t handle dispatches and I should try that handy 862-8600 number again.

I called the number again yesterday when I drove up to a brand-new accident near my house. I missed the actual collision, but the participants were just getting out of their cars. Everyone seemed fine, but the left lane was blocked. Seemed like an “urgent, non-emergency” to me. Guess what? As it turns out, 4:15pm is a really busy time as well. I never reached anyone.

What is the purpose of the 862-8600 if it is next to impossible to reach someone? Perhaps the jingle should be redone with new lyrics to encourage people to call for matters such as pesky squirrels who keep eating your bird food or a stop sign that tilted just so slightly to the right. That would be more appropriate considering the speed (and “urgency”!) with which calls are addressed.

Never has ten points loomed larger than its number than it does right now for Hillary Clinton. The New York Times (who, one may remember, endorsed Ms. Clinton earlier on) is pissy this morning. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann did everything last night but strike up a Hillary pinata and then burn her in effigy.

She is clearly going to lose North Carolina. However, outside of that and Oregon, she ought to be able to do well with the states that are left (Indiana, West Virginia Kentucky, Montana and South Dakota). She will go out on a winning streak. And if you count the Florida popular vote, which is a colorable proposition, Hillary and Obama are separated by approximately 200,000 votes.

The popular vote only gets one so far. Even if Obama keeps the popular vote lead, anything can happen with the super delegates. That’s what they exist for, anyway - the argument they should follow the popular vote is a silly one. The whole purpose of the Democrats’ super delegate system is to not follow the popular vote. It is designed to save the Democrat Party from the irrational exuberance of its base. As Democrats generally tend to be more emotional creatures, I give the 1968 era Democrat leadership kudos for their foresight.

Here is what Hillary’s campaign is doing right now. She has done all the opposition research on Obama. Her campaign knows as much as the Republican National Committee about his past and his skeletons. In the Democrat primary, there are a lot of attacks she cannot make, that the Republicans rightly will. The super delegates are the adults of the party. She is shopping this opposition research with the super delegates right now, attempting to sway all but the most enamored Obama supporters by convincing them that Obama will be shredded in the general election. But that argument can only be made if she is keeping things close.

The end is in sight. If she beats expectations in North Carolina, and wins the states she should win, carrying that momentum through Oregon, she can make her plan work. No longer is it just a numbers game.

I had no idea that Abercrombie & Fitch was so supportive of Barack Obama’s candidacy…

Over dinner, Sarah predicted Hillary by 6, and I predicted Hillary by 9. I think 9 is the more interesting number - it’s not quite double digits, but it’s enough to be considered a “convincing” margin of victory. A spread of 6 is a de facto win for Obama. Right now, at the time of this posting, the returns have Hillary by 8. I am anxiously awaiting the late night spin cycles.

If this keeps this up, she’ll be well fueled to continue the march to Waterloo … er, the convention. And don’t believe she won’t. If we’ve learned anything about the Clinton machine, we know it doesn’t give two spits in a bucket for the well-being of the Democrat Party. If there is a scintilla chance of her winning the nomination, she’s going to burn the whole house down doing it.

Ahem, two words: Operation Chaos.

UPDATE With 42% in, Hillary is up by ten. Her internals showing 12 may have been more accurate than anyone gave her credit for. Of course, it would be helpful if we knew what parts of the commonwealth had already reported.

I just received this text alert from the Barack Obama campaign

PA is voting for Barack today, South Carolina is next! Reply to this msg TVL & NAME if you can get to SC between now & the 5/6 primary

I heard about possible redo’s in Michigan and Florida, but not yet in South Carolina. Anyhow, all you South Carolina volunteers - get on down there, and quick!

And they say Republicans are the ones who play tricks like this.

UPDATE Heh. As I hit “publish”, a correction arrived.

Every now and again, the tired argument against the electoral college comes up. People forget we are a republic, and proceed to make suggestions consistent with another form of government. The Tennessean advances afoot with the title Make Electoral College Reflect Overall Popular Vote. Of course, if that is their actual position, the paper needs to close the logical loophole and simply advocate the complete abolition of the system.

The first amateurish argument is that

Technically, it would be possible for a candidate to win as few as 11 elector-rich states and be elected president. This fact in particular has helped fuel the national popular vote movement. Because a small number of states have become decisive, candidates have no incentive to campaign in two-thirds of the states; in effect, disenfranchising much of the electorate. According to nationalpopularvote.com, in the 2004 campaign, candidates concentrated more than 66 percent of money and visits in just five states.

Well, yes - the five states likely to swing, due to the electoral votes they possessed. If there wasn’t a focus on swing states, there would be a focus on swing cities. In any event, if the electoral college was abolished, the number of population centers focused upon would go down, not up. The smaller states get more votes per elector. This sort of ridiculous analysis by The Tennessean’s editorial board ought to have been crumpled up hours before the deadline.

The second installment of The Tennessean’s amateur hour comes in its description of the rationale for the electoral college

There was once a good reason for the Electoral College. The Founding Fathers feared that in direct popular elections, uninformed voters would choose only candidates from their own region, leading to chaotic election challenges.

But time has passed by this tenet of the usually timeless Constitution. The U.S. now has a strong party system and modern communication is such that presidential nominees are known nationwide.

The textbooks nowadays must be awful. From Federalist 68

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. It was also peculiarly desirable to afford as little opportunity as possible to tumult and disorder. This evil was not least to be dreaded in the election of a magistrate, who was to have so important an agency in the administration of the government as the President of the United States. But the precautions which have been so happily concerted in the system under consideration, promise an effectual security against this mischief.

In short, the electoral college is the one, last safeguard to preserve the republic. The reasons for its existence extend beyond regional prejudice, as The Tennessean erroneously implies. And if they think small states get short shrift now, just imagine how the smaller states will be treated by national campaigns when their populations are compared to that of the largest cities.

The electoral college is one of the geniuses of the Founders. Let’s not screw that up, too.

ten paces then draw

The Democrat Party, mired in division, is set for another iceberg collision in Pennsylvania tomorrow. Hillary Clinton is expected to win, and win in a convincing enough fashion to keep the lights on.

The laughable part of all this is how “divided” the Republicans were supposed to be. Since that mantra ceased being conventional knowledge, Obama and Clinton have shown what true division can be. The polls show that a significant number of Hillary’s supporters will not be good soldiers and support Obama. If Barack Obama cannot even unite his party, how does anyone sensibly believe he can unite the country?

The fact is, he can’t. The divisions wrought in the Democrats’ primary are merely the surface of Obama’s capacity for disunification. His uniting powers are great - if you already support him. As for who he really is, what he really stands for, and what he wants to do, he ought to unify as many people as George McGovern - minus, of course, the Hillary troops who go AWOL.

That’s just it, actually. “Unity” is Democrat-speak code for “agreeing with me”. If you disagree, you are a threat to unity. Ergo, disunity is bad. Ergo, we all should agree.

Well, I don’t want to agree with you guys. Ever.

In my view, having developed a traditional liberal and modern conservative philosophy, disunity is a mark of good governance. It means we don’t get much done. When it comes to government frolicking in the lives of men, that is a good thing. Unless you are a liberal, or a socialist, or Barack Obama.

Besides, the level of “disunity” we see in 2008 is minor in a historical context. The country was relatively fragmented when the Constitution was adopted. The Founders’ genius was in making unity a rare commodity, and pinning at our political framework’s core the adversarial system. Rightly in a democratic republic, everything should be hard. And it worked well, until the Supreme Court betrayed a century of jurisprudence in the 1930s, and then executed its own version of the Third Punic War on the Constitution in the 1960s and 1970s.

Obama’s rhetoric betrays his world view, and his view of the Constitution’s irrelevance. We know of his prior writings, his actions, and his voluntary associations, all of which tell a man more than his scripted words. I do hope Hillary continues to give him a run for his money - that is, all of it.

At some base level, all dictatorial types are hypocrites. Aggrandizing power involves a certain amount of demagoguery, and keeping that power usually involves projecting the societal problems that arise from totalitarian rule on a predictive bogeyman. Whether it’s Hitler and the Jews, or Sharia law, or Pol Pot, it’s always the blame game.

So long live the hypocrisy of Robert Mugabe, “president” of Zimbabwe

Mr Mugabe, who has been in power since independence in 1980, is under heavy international criticism for the delay in releasing results from a March 29 presidential election, which the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) says was won by its leader, Morgan Tsvangirai.

But the President was characteristically defiant in his speech, repeating a familiar line that Britain, not the MDC, was the real enemy. “Today they have perfected their tactics to a more subtle form by using money literally to buy some people to turn against their government. We are being bought like livestock,” he said.

Having been in power since 1980, Mugabe is a veteran of the tactic. Nevermind that things have gotten worse since Mugabe took over power from the British since … 1980. Last year the Zimbabwe economy shrunk by over five percent. Inflation is nearing 8,000 percent (yeah, that’s three zeros), and with a population of approximately 13 million, can only muster a miserly GDP of $400 million (do that math!).

Robert Mugabe is a disaster, and it’s all the Brits’ fault. Even by African standards, he has run his country into the ground.

I smell Jihad Jimmy

Maybe that rabbit knew something the rest of us didn’t back in 1979.

Of course, I was a wee one, and knew nothing of ferocious rabbits until watching Watership Down sometime later. Jimmy Carter, on the other hand, was a feral rabbit savant. It is clear now the rabbit knew something about President Carter none of the rest of us did. Some animals smell fear - the swamp rabbit smelled a human skunk.

But now, In 2008, Carter has moved on from whacking rabbits with paddles to the warm embrace of universally recognized terrorists

Carter, Meshaal and lower-level officials had a closed-door meeting that lasted more than an hour and a half.

The ex-president’s visits with top Hamas officials this week have drawn condemnation from the U.S. and Israeli governments. They said Carter is engaging in diplomacy with a group they consider a terrorist organization.

This comes on the heels of Carter’s moment of silence at Yasser Arafat’s grave (you know, the guy who invented airplane hijacking as a terrorist weapon)

Israel into the sea? Jews are monkeys? I’m just trying to understand

The only rational explanation is that Jimmy Carter is mentally ill, struck with some peculiar type of Palestinian-based Stockholm Syndrome. Next thing you know he’ll be hobnobbing with domestic terrorists and running as a write-in for president in November (watch out Obama - that’s your base he’s eying!).

UPDATE For the pope - not a rabbit, it’s only a beaver.

I truly expected Hillary Clinton to take the gloves off last night. Maybe her Democrat-loyal heart isn’t as small and black as I originally thought.

Notwithstanding her politness, Barack Obama looked as uncomfortable as I have yet seen him. And this discomfort, standing, yet essentially shuffling in place, arose due to some truly relevant questions that his Democrat opponents haven’t had the strategic fortitude to bring up.

Predictably missing the point, MSNBC’s Democrat super flak Keith Olbermann, better suited as ESPN Sportscenter anchor than political commentator, blames the messenger

The real story of his debate may not be found where they found the answers, but where one of the moderators found his questions: Sean Hannity of Fox News, and separately a local New York right wing radio host [presumably Steve Malzberg], each insisting during interviews this week with George Stephanopoulos of ABC that he ask Senator Obama about his tenuous past link to 60s and 70s terrorist radical William Ayers. Tonight, Stephanopoulos did that.

Yeah, um, okay. He shouldn’t have been the first one. The problem was in Obama’s answer, where he admits to not consulting with unrepentant terrorist William Ayers on a “regular basis”.

So, it’s just occasionally. Every now and then. Not enough to worry about. From The Washington Post’s blog

The former Weatherman, William Ayers, now holds the position of distinguished professor of education at the University of Illinois-Chicago. Although never convicted of any crime, he told the New York Times in September 2001, “I don’t regret setting bombs…I feel we didn’t do enough.”

Both Obama and Ayers were members of the board of an anti-poverty group, the Woods Fund of Chicago, between 1999 and 2002. In addition, Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s re-election fund to the Illinois State Senate in April 2001, as reported here. They lived within a few blocks of each other in the trendy Hyde Park section of Chicago, and moved in the same liberal-progressive circles.

How this is not a legitimate question only Keith can answer. It certainly was, and is, and will continue to be all the way to November, along with the never ending saga of Jeremiah Wright, and the outright socialist / Marxist public comments of Michelle Obama. This is not guilt by association - this is confirming proof of Barack Obama’s utter and complete lack of judgment.

UPDATE Bill Hobbs has more

Hillary Clinton follows up by filling in the blanks on the relationship between Obama and Ayers, and this article in The Politico makes clear that Obama and the unrepentant terrorist are not just casual neighbors, but political pals.

Hot Air says the article is “Proof that Obama’s not above schmoozing bomb-tossing commies — excuse me, reformed bomb-tossing commies - to advance his political career.”

They are as follows

From the Supreme Court, the guests are Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas.

I was going to make an abortion crack, but Kennedy slipped through.

The Tennessee State Senate Commerce Committee rightly dismissed a bill by a 9-2 vote that would have mandated pay for time taken off by employees working for businesses that employed twenty-five or more workers. Further establishing the “progressive” aversion to the benefits of economic freedom, the bill was sponsored by my illustrious senator, Joe Haynes

Haynes’ legislation would have set up a tiered system for how much paid sick and vacation time employers with more than 25 employees must offer their workers.

Employees would have to receive at least seven days of paid sick and vacation time for working more than 30 hours per week, at least four days for 20 to 30 hours per week or at least two days for 1,000 to 1,500 hours worked annually.

This certainly is something that the market is more than capable of addressing, and that the government has no business mandating.  But then, only a four term senator, among the most liberal in the state senate, and lawyer, would come up with such a cockamamie equation to apply to something that shouldn’t be meddled with in those first place. The “business lobby” (more aptly known as the “engine-of-our-country lobby” or the “we-make-the-money-you-spend lobby”) carried the day

Jim Brown, the state director of the National Federation of Independent Business, said Tennessee would have sent a signal that it was “unfriendly to business” if Haynes’ bill had become law.

“Businesses know best how to manage their business,” Brown said. “Entrepreneurs know how to effectively run their businesses. Government doesn’t.”

Haynes said that the business lobby “always” says that government shouldn’t get involved “anytime that we try to pass a law concerning trying to help people who are employees.”

Yeah, Joe, that’s right. In fact, your bill would only hurt employees in the long run, but I would feel bad consuming that much oxygen in an assuredly vain attempt to help you understand the economics behind your awful bill.  You would likely not be convinced, and then blame me for greenhouse gas emissions.

Among those voting against the bill was Senator Jack Johnson, the Republican who won Jim Bryson’s old seat in 2006. Johnson’s voting record has been superb since entering the senate. Indeed, we need more senators like him, and fewer like Haynes.