The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Clinton!

WSJ Reported... "The Democrats Have a Nominee: It's Obama! Other than ensuring the Greatest Show on Earth will continue, does it matter that Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama Tuesday in Pennsylvania by nine-plus points? Barack Obama is the nominee."

This reporting though, fails to take certain things into account. The first is the entire reason why the 'Super Delegates' were created in the first place. It wasn't to mirror what the party wanted, it was created for exactly the reasons that the WSJ stated about the Democrat Party Primary Process, "No centrist can secure the party's nomination in a primary system dominated by left-liberal activists". Which is fine, if left leaning leberals are electable, but as the past has shown us, they are not. Obama, is nothing more than a modern day McGovern, completely unelectable, or did the newspaper not get the news? They wrote in this same article that McGovern (1972), Mondale ('84), Dukakis ('88), Gore ('00) and Kerry ('04), were exactly the types of far leaning left liberals that Middle America won't vote for. Obama is no different.
North Carolina is a perfect example of the massive problems the Democrats have if they side with Obama, According to Rasmussen, even though as of April 5th, Obama leads Clinton by 20 points, over half of Clinton Supporters say they won't vote for Obama against McCain, if he wins the nomination. North Carolina is just one of the 30 States that went with Bush in the 2000 General election against Gore, and they're also one of the 31 States that went with Bush in the 2004 General Election vs Kerry. The WSJ fails to see that in addition to having a huge block of voters that won't vote for Obama in the general election, Clinton has also won the states with the Most Electoral College votes. Ultimately most Obama voters would vote for Clinton in the General Election, which makes her the more electable of the two candidates. Also, Obama voters tend to be younger and less likely to vote than the Older voters that Clinton has.
One last thing that the WSJ fails to see is that both Florida and Michigan's vote WILL count in the general election, and if the Democrat Party fails to take them into account, they will lose the general election.
If the Super Delegates don't see this or won't act on it, then why have the Super Delegate system in the first place? They might as well adopt the same system the Republicans have and avoid all these headaches in the future.

read more | digg story

Bush Answers - How Presidential Candidates Would Handle a Zombie Threat

I found this story about how the Candidates would handle the issue of Zombie's but, Apparently, only Bush has answered this question so far. Bush again shows leadership in an issue where there are few leaders to be found.

read more | digg story

(Just a bit of a comedy break guys, don't take it too seriously)

Run and Hide Obama, Run and Hide

The Washington Post reported how Obama, is opting not to engage Clinton in debates anymore, since apparently she does better in that format. I really wish I had good video editing software, I can envision the scene in Oceans 11, where once the owner of the Bellagio realizes what's going on, he says... "So I have complied with your every request that you made of me".. "Good".... "Now I have one request of you"... Run and Hide Obama, Run and Hide.

In all seriousness though, do we really want a president that's afraid to engage and forcefully put forth his vision for America? Why wouldn't he want to answer the tough questions, if he so strongly believes in his answers? This also begs other questions, like how would he push through any reforms, if he's afraid of engaging those who disagree with him once he's in the White house? Actually though, I think he just doesn't want to answer any more questions about his associates. There's also his lies about not taking money from the Oil industry and other "Mis-spoken words". The biggest problem with Obama is that the more he goes "Off Script", the more "Problems" he has with the media.

read more | digg story

Obama Cash Machine - Overrun by 'Operation Chaos'

Obama outspent Clinton by 3 to 1 and in some markets as much as 5 to 1, yet he was unable to close the margin of Clintons victory to less than 10 points. Conceding that he didn't think he could win, Obama was at least hoping to close the margin down to single digits. A very close victory for Clinton here, would have signaled that the Democrat Primary race was pretty much over, but now it doesn't look like this will happen. Or did it? A full 14% of all Democrats voting in yesterday's Pennsylvania Primary, were brand spanking new registered Democrats. How many of those were operatives in Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos? Did Operation Chaos tip the vote in Clinton's favor, extending the Chaos going on in the Democrat party?

Clinton, emboldened by her victory, entered the Philadelphia auditorium singing, "I'll stand my ground, and I won't back down!" and then said "Some people counted me out and said to drop out, but the American people don't quit and they deserve a president who doesn't quit either"

My analisis of this situation raises some questions though, the problem that I have with this, is the fact that Clinton's Cash Machine, only raised 20 Million in the month of March, about a 50% decline from February, while Obama's Cash Machine raised 40 Million in March, while still a drop from February (super Tuesday month), the drop wasn't nearly as huge as Clinton's drop in contributions. If Clinton is surging ahead of Obama this way, why haven't her finance number's reflected this? This leads me to believe that Obama really did win among true democrats and her margin of victory is almost entirely attributed to Rush Limbaugh's Operation Chaos. While true, that now that she's shown a win, her contributions have soared, but prior to this win, it seems that her support was waning with calls among democrats to drop out of the election.

Rush Limbaugh, commenting on their last debate relished on what he sees is his pivotal "Operatives" changing the outcome of the vote, claiming that "Obama is Damaged Goods, but Radical Hillary Can't Close the Deal".

At the same time, the other side is that Exit polls showed that the vast majority of new registrants voted for Obama, so this begs the question. Did Rush's Operation Chaos win the race for Clinton, or did she win because all of Obama's issues are starting to catch up to him. Are Obama's chickens "coming home to roost"?