Politics News

Roni Deutch asked:


Higher Taxes on Top Earning AmericansSenator Obama is a big believer in our progressive tax system – and he is not afraid to hide that. So one of the first things Obama is set to do is letting President Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts to selectively expire. He also advocates increasing the income cap on payroll taxes. This would essentially be a huge tax increase for taxpayers earning between $97,000.00 and $250,000.00, which goes against Obama’s prior commitment to not raise taxes on individuals making less than $250,000.00. Although higher taxes on the rich is a popular thought for many liberals, you cannot expect to only tax the rich and cut taxes for the poor. The American public is not likely to support unbalanced tax increases and this could harm his chances in the general election.Close Corporate Loop-HolesAnother major component of Obama’s tax plan is to close hundreds of corporate “loop-holes” that allow massive corporations to questionably reduce their tax liability. “Instead of having all of us pay our fair share, we’ve got over $1 trillion worth of loopholes in the corporate tax code,” he claimed. “This isn’t the invisible hand of the market at work. It’s the successful work of special interests.” This plan would be highly efficient at creating new revenue for the federal government, but at what cost? Huge corporations are already moving factories and offices to countries with cheaper labor and more favorable corporate taxes. If the tax rates increase too much, then more corporations would likely move out of the country and it could result in thousands of lost jobs.Senior Citizen Tax BreaksAlthough it seems like an attempt to get the attention of the “senior voters” and the AARP, Obama is hoping to provide relief to millions of seniors struggling to make ends meet. His plan would eliminate federal taxes on seniors making less then $50,000.00 per year, which would account for $7 million dollars in total relief. It seems quite unlikely that the country would get behind this tax plan. I also have my own reservations – what about single mothers making less than $50,000 per year – that I expressed in a previous entry.Make Work Pay Tax CreditWith his Make Work Pay tax credit, Obama is hoping to encourage Americans to take control of their lives, while providing tax relief to both low and middle income taxes. “I’d reward work by providing an income tax cut of up to $500 per person – or $1,000 for each working family – to offset the payroll tax that they’re already paying,” claimed Obama. “Because this credit would be greater than their income tax bill, my proposal would effectively eliminate all income taxes for 10 million working Americans.”Capital Gain Tax IncreaseObama’s desire to increase the Capital Gains rate is probably the biggest actual increase of his tax plan. The current tax rate on Capital Gains is 15%, and Obama hopes to raise it to 28%. But although the Capital Gains tax rate is much lower today than it was a decade ago, it is being levied on a lot more people. Investing is not only for the rich, as there are millions of middle income Americans investing in stocks, retirement accounts, and mutual funds. In a time of a looming economic recession, we should be encouraging sound investment and savings strategies. Raising the capital gains rate is not going to do that.Mortgage Relief for Homeowners”Ten of the country’s largest mortgage lenders spent $185 million lobbying Washington so they could keep engaging in destructive practices,” claimed Obama. “And they got what they paid for. To help fix this problem Obama wants to create more accountability in the mortgage industry. In addition, he intends to pursue more tax breaks for current homeowners. Specifically, Obama announced intentions to “create a 10 percent universal mortgage credit to provide homeowners who do not itemize tax relief.”Because it is a credit, individuals claiming the standard deduction would have access to it. Currently, mortgage interest is a deduction that can only be claimed by itemizing your deductions on your tax return. The credit would provide about $500 to 10 million homeowners in this country, mainly for individuals making less than $50,000 per year.Revamp the AMTAlthough Obama voted “nay” on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), he does support a revamp of the tax. The specific details of his plan are a bit hazy, but Obama has claimed he would like to index the tax according to inflation so that it does not affect middle-income Americans. However, with dozens of social plans that cost billions of dollars to operate, the idea of reducing a tax that generates so much revenue for the government seems unlikely.American Opportunity Tax CreditOne of Obama’s more popular tax views is to help make higher education more affordable for Americans by creating a credit to reimburse taxpayers for the costs of obtaining a college education. According to his plan, the credit would reimburse taxpayers on the first $4,000.00 they spend on a college education, and will cover two-thirds of the cost of attending a public college or university.Immigration Reform and Undocumented Immigrant TaxesObama wants to reform the way the federal government deals with undocumented immigrants. Obama’s plan does have tax consequences, as it would not only require illegal aliens to file tax returns and pay income taxes, but would also require them to pay back taxes and the associated penalties and interest. If this idea became reality, it could account for millions of dollars in additional federal revenue. And, by not including tax amnesty in his immigration reform, Obama preemptively “plucks” a feather from the anti-immigration reform movement. It also preemptively stops American citizens from lobbying for similar treatment for their own unfiled tax returns and IRS back taxes.

James William Smith asked:


The media reaction to the recent ABC Presidential debate in Pennsylvania was almost unanimous. Television moderators Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos were widely ridiculed for not asking a single question on an issue of political substance for more than the first fifty minutes of the Presidential debate. Indeed, there was not a single question on health care, the war in Iraq, the economy, illegal immigration, social security, or any other of the important challenges and issues facing America today.

Instead, for nearly the first hour of the debate, the voters heard questions concerning Barrack Obama’s recent dubious comments on small town America. In addition, the ABC moderators focused several questions on Obama’s relationship with his pastor, the controversial Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Another debate question concerned whether Obama loves the American flag and why he does not wear flag pins on his suit lapel. Still another question concerned Barack Obama’s relationship with the former radical leader of the “Weathermen“, William Ayers.

While some of the criticism of the coverage of the Democrats Pennsylvania debate is certainly valid (especially troubling were the continued camera shots of Former First daughter, Chelsea Clinton), the questions posed by the moderators in those first fifty minutes were exactly the types of questions that the American voter now needs answered in order to vote for or against Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama.

It is evident that the country is aware that Barack Obama is to the left of the American political center on most of the major issues. It also appears from the public opinion polls that much of the American public would currently support an inexperienced, liberal, Democratic politician in the 2008 Presidential election. In fact, the polls indicate that if an election between John McCain and Barack Obama was held today, it would certainly be very close.

So a pertinent question in the mind of the American voter is really just how far to the left of center are the politics of Barack Obama? The ultimate answer to that question will probably decide the 2008 Presidential election. Therefore, the questions in the first fifty two minutes of the ABC Presidential debate, while not about national issues, were certainly not frivolous and actually quite important.

Consider that Barack Obama is running for the highest office in the land on a very short political record. He has been a United States Senator for just three years. Prior to that he was a State Senator in Illinois. His political record is short and his voting record appears carefully designed with a future campaign for a high office in mind.

In announcing the reason for his candidacy for the Presidency, Barack Obama said: “What’s stopped us is the failure of leadership, the smallness of our politics, the ease with which we’re distracted by the petty and trivial, our chronic avoidance of tough decisions”. His oratory sounds wonderful until one examines his actual record as an Illinois State Senator. That record indicates that he voted “present,” (effectively sidestepping many important issues) nearly 130 times. It is a political voting record that gives little insight into today‘s presidential candidate. It is also a voting record that is in conflict with the words of the man.

As a result, in the minds of the voters, there are really two distinct Presidential candidates named Barack Obama. Which of the two is the actual candidate is the biggest question the voters must answer between now and election day. The fact is that the Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate who secretly agrees with the diatribes of his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. He also supports Louis Farrakhan, William Ayers, and other extreme activists of the American left. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that makes elitist comments about small town America and its guns and religion. The Barack Obama who cannot win is the candidate that continues to backpedal and apologize for gaffes and communication errors.

However, the Barack Obama who can win the 2008 Presidential election is the candidate who uses his considerable communication skills to unite the nation. Also, he must be a candidate who transcends partisan politics and wants real reform in Washington, D.C. He would learn quickly from his limited experience and cannot vote “present” on the major issues of the day. He may not be an elitist, but should be the candidate who has shown great skill in the management of his heretofore successful Presidential campaign.

Is Barack Obama a unique, thoughtful politician who can transcend party politics and use his considerable oratory skill to lead the country and reform Washington DC.? Or is Barack Obama a far left of center, elitist candidate who secretly admires the dubious diatribes of his radical pastor, and who condones the actions of a violent underground leader of America’s past?

Historically, American political reality concludes that the former Barack Obama can win the 2008 Presidential election, while the latter Barack Obama simply cannot. It certainly would be a lot easier for the voters during the next several months if the real Barack Obama finally stood up.

tobocseo asked:


If Barack Obama becomes the next President of the United States of America, the country can assure that they will not fall short on one account, e-marketing. Demagogic run by Obama among the youth in the ongoing Democratic presidential primaries have stunned analysts and psephologists alike.

The curiosity led the experts to pry into how Obama was able to muster the positive vibes of the youth in favor of him. It was evident in the final lab report Barack camp extensively used social networking and video sharing sites to great effect in garnering votes of the youth. His success in using social medium as an electioneering tool clearly shows that a new guru has arrived in the world of e-marketing.

A survey showed that if one does not include social media in one’s election campaigns it would be hard to draw the attention of the youth. Majority of the youth interact through social networking sites since internet connectivity has increased to larger areas. Blog sites have virtually become e-diaries of today’s youth as outlets to vent their social and emotional feelings as well.

As a result, social media have supplanted televisions, radios and other advertising spaces for election campaigns. Hence, it has been proved, it would be preposterous to avoid employing social media especially, in a high voltage election campaigns such as, the US presidential primaries.

A statistics from a section of the press stated, immediately after the Second Super Saturday, Hillary Rodham Clinton had a comfortable margin of 15 percent lead over Barack Hussein Obama in Pennsylvania. But the same team of public opinion poll managers gave Clinton just 5 percent lead over Obama just two days before the same primary election.

Creating a huge 10 percent swing in favor of any candidate, that too in a month’s time, was unheard of in Pennsylvania. The credit goes to Barack camp, their stupendous game plan to engage with the youth through sublime tentacles of social suggestion has succeeded in gaining an all important 10 percentage points. If the alleged ‘terror tactics’ of releasing an Al Qaida video by Hillary camp would not have happened, Barack’s positive campaigning might have closed in the gap, and even he would have won the Pennsylvania primary. Still he has lost by only 10% as compared to the projection of 15% a month ago.

Comparative study on the usage of social networking and video sharing sites, one can see, again Obama winning hands down over his rival. Hillary uses the services of leading six e-communities where as Obama has made him available on 16 e-communities. On one hand, Hillary’s e-community spaces are sprawled with unpopular class room content, but Obama occupies his spaces with youthful jargons and related video contents on the other. Such measures have endeared Barack among the youth, which ultimately turned into votes all through the election, where Obama was trailing far behind Hillary before the start of the primaries.

Whether Barack Obama makes it to the White House or not, something is sure, his election strategy is here to stay for a long time. Hitherto, such marketing strategies were confined to e-commerce portals including Business to Consumer and Business to Business portals. For a successful business, one should know to market oneself well, and Obama has succeeded in doing so. Thereby, his business sense leaves a trail of new strategy in the field of election campaigning which could be replicated elsewhere. He also gives businesses a new lesson to use this social media to market one’s products or services which is until now used sparingly with stereo-typed content.

James William Smith asked:


Hillary Clinton had run a disciplined, mistake-free campaign for the first nine months of 2007. She had been able to portray herself as an experienced candidate for change. By contrast, the Obama campaign had an anemic nine months on the campaign trail without a clear message or momentum. Mrs. Clinton had Obama in a tough political spot.

To remain competitive in the race, Barack Obama needed to attack Mrs. Clinton as a candidate. The attack ads and negative campaigning would have left Obama open to criticism of abandoning his campaign’s primary theme of hope. It would challenge his assertion that he was a different kind of politician and it would appear to the voting public as a cynical attempt by him to get back in the race. Obama would look desperate and Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the Democratic nomination would be inevitable.

However, Obama never had to go “negative” because Mrs. Clinton started making a series of unforced mistakes. Her political mistakes from late September through early December have allowed the Obama campaign to surge into the lead in the first voting state of Iowa. In addition Obama has moved back into contention in the state primary in New Hampshire.

Clinton started her parade of mistakes in the debate of September 26, 2007. Her handling of a hypothetical question on terrorist torture from moderator Tim Russert was inconsistent with answers she has given on that same question posed to her in the past.

The mistakes continued for Hillary in the Democratic debate of October 30, 2007. Her answer to a debate question concerning granting illegal aliens drivers licenses was incoherent. She appeared to take a position on both sides of the issue within about sixty seconds. Her performance validated her Democratic opponent’s claim that she was trying to parse her position on issues and have it both ways.

Next, Bill Clinton showed up stumping for votes for Hillary in Iowa to remind us how slick and parsing he can be. In Iowa, it was all about Bill and little about Hillary on the campaign trail. Bill even tried to convince us that he was against the Iraq war from the beginning, which is clearly not true. It sounded like Bill Clinton was running again and reminded the voting public about the fact that in electing Hillary, we would get Team Clinton back for President in the White House. This back to the future Clinton reminder to the voting public did not go over well.

Then, the voters got to see a Hillary Clinton interview with Katie Couric. This interview should have been a positive thing for Hillary. However, her poll numbers continued to drop after her appearance. In this interview, Hillary told Katie Couric that she has never contemplated losing this election. That she had not even considered the possibility that she would lose. The manner which she handle that question appeared presumptious to many voters. In fact, it fed into the negative image many people have of Hillary’s need and hunger for power. It was a continuation of the impression that she would say anything to win.

These mistakes from the Hillary Clinton campaign have helped to tighten the Democratic race for the 2008 Presidential nomination just weeks before the first vote is to be cast in Iowa. Barrack Obama clearly has the momentum in the race. Now it will be Hillary Clinton who will have to go negative to try and slow his campaign down.

For Obama to win the Democratic Presidential nomination in 2008, he must win Iowa in a decisive fashion. He also must win in New Hampshire or Hillary Clinton will absorb the Iowa defeat and move on. If Obama wins in Iowa and New Hampshire, Hillary Clinton would be reeling and John Edwards would be out of the race. The Edwards vote would probably move to Obama and he would have a chance to defeat Clinton, one-on-one in the subsequent primaries. Democratic voters would certainly be questioning Hillary’s prospects as a candidate against the Republican Presidential nominee in the general election in 2008. A primary election battle between Clinton and Obama could go unresolved for weeks since Obama has the campaign war chest to contest Clinton in every primary state.

An Obama victory against Hillary Clinton is still a long shot. However, a series of unforced Hillary Clinton mistakes since September 26, 2007 have allowed Obama to remain competitive. Indeed, the result of her political mistakes have, at the very least, given Barack Obama’s campaign of hope a prayer.

APRPEH asked:


Is guilt by association fair?  Many blogs and websites, including APRPEH have made an argument that Barry Obama’s true feelings towards Jews and Israel can be measured by his associations.  Undeniable facts about Obama, many of them posed as questions left unanswered or not answered in a credible or believeable fashion have formed the core of the No-Bama effort.  These questions remain legitimate campaign issues and concerns.  Obama DID indeed maintain a 20+ year relationship as a member of TUCC in the Jeremiah Wright flock, listening to what is undeniably anti-US and antiJew rhetoric only distancing himself when his crusade for the Presidency was jeopardized. 
Who are Obama’s friends and associates for which he should be measured? Let’s take a closer look using easy to find world wide web references.
(See the LATimes story from April 10, 2008 - Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama) Obama’s special friend, Rashid Khalidi, former spokesman for the scumbag Yasir Arafat who held fundraisers for Obama, was honored with a speech by State Sen. Barack Obama in a 2003 going away party. Khalidi, according to the LA Times story is described as “internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights. 
Then there is Ali Abunimah, described in the same LA Times article as ” a Palestinian rights activist in Chicago who helps run Electronic Intifada, and quoted as saying:Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say.Now, lets add to the mix the Obama foreign policy advisors who have come and gone.  I am not even sure I remember them all.  Please feel free to add to the list in the comments:
Simple web searches on the following Obama advisors is telling.
Samantha Powers - (see National Review Online Monday, February 11, 2008 - Obama Adviser Samantha Power on Israel, “Jenin Massacre” )
Joseph Cirincione - (see World Net Daily May 01, 2008 -Obama adviser: Israel must give up its nukes)
Robert Malley -  (see Yid With Lid blog post February 5, 2008 Obamas Israel Hating Advisor Robert Malley)
Merrill Tony McPeak -   (see YNETnews March 26, 2008 - US Jews Hinder Peace)
Zbigniew Bzrezinski - (see American Thinker - January 16, 2008 - Barack Obama and Israel)Ed Lasko at American Thinker adds:The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world.Financial support from not very friendly to Israel, George Soros can be added to the equation as well even though Obama has attempted to distance himself from the billionaire contributer. If Obama really wants to distance himself from the tens of thousands of dollars contributed through   Soros connections has he offered to return any recent donations and asked Soros and his Moveon.org friends to stop supporting his campaign? (see American Thinker article from April 30, 2007 - Soros, Obama, and the Millionaires Exception and june 11, 2008 article George Soros and Obama’s veep also from American Thinker)
And while it is not necessarily Jewish related, how can we forget Syrian born friend Tony Rezko, former donor and fundraiser for Obama, convicted recently on corruption related charges. (Tony Rezko - Wikipedia article.)
Obama’s relationship with terrorist and political indoctrination specialist William Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn (William Ayers wikipedia article along with former “Weatherman” and wife Bernadine Dorhn) is well documented and factual. 
 
So what is the point of going through this exercise, re-hashing the well published reports you might ask?  The Obama fans and possibly Obama campaign are behind an effort to obfuscate.   (see PostBulletin June 25, 2008 Can Obama fight Web-driven lies?)   and
 (see Jpost - June 19, 2008 -Snap Judgment: Have you read the latest Obama e-mail? Unbelievable!)
ob·fus·cate (bf-skt, b-fskt)   (The Free Dictionary)tr.v. ob·fus·cat·ed, ob·fus·cat·ing, ob·fus·cates 1. To make so confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand: “A great effort was made . . . to obscure or obfuscate the truth” Robert Conquest.2. To render indistinct or dim; darken: The fog obfuscated the shore.
It is true that a considerable amount of email and internet garbage is floating around alleging all sorts of BS about Obama.  It is also true that email based urban myth is one of the downsides of the electronic world.  Our email boxes are flooded with Nigerian scam email, phishing, and urban myths begging the reader to perpetuate the falsity. 
In fact, call it reverse guilt by association.  It is with this understanding that the agenda of the Obama camp to label every blog post, every email, every warning about Obama as driven by crazies with a hate filled, anti-Muslim or racist agenda is underway.  Some, they may say are just plain crazy.  But all of them, all criticism is illegitimate (according to this strategy) because it is someone’s opinion, not the truth - just another one of those “myths”. 
This policy must be confronted strongly and clearly.  The list above is composed of undeniable fact. The effort to re-cast the past of Obama as something else, something different, something sweet and innocent is a fraud and should be called a fraud. 
Obama cannot reasonably claim that he had no knowledge of the offensive, disgusting, and criminal aspects of his friends in the past as he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of or doesn’t agree with the antiJew and anti-Israel opinions of his foreign policy team.  If he really had no knowledge, he is the most ignorant man who has ever run for the Presidency. 
Of course, some Obama staffer can just say all of this is campaign rhetoric and to take it as a grain of salt. Afterall, it IS the internet. Or readers and concerned, thoughtful Americans can expose the truth, continue writing to the newspapers, calling talk radio, writing blogs, responding to blogs and talking to their friends who may be on the fence. Freedom is not free and free speech is under assault by the Obama people, a telling foretaste of an Obama administration.

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Much of the Democratic party is now finding out what all of the Republican party already knows. The Clinton’s are ruthless when it comes to winning. Get in their way and the IRS will come visit you (when Bubba was president). Attack Bill or Hill and a private detective will be employed to find out how much dirt that can find on you. But the latest delegate battle is a whole new thing indeed. All delegates are Clinton delegates or didn’t you know that?

Everyone is now getting acquainted with the super delegate fiasco of the Democratic party; however, the Clinton’s are taking even the pledged delegates to a new level (low).

Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign intends to go after PLEDGED delegates whom Barack Obama has already won in the caucuses and primaries if she needs them to win the nomination. This strategy was confirmed by a high-ranking Clinton official on Monday. We’re not talking about super delegates- the 800 hot dogs who are not pledged to anybody. We’re talking about getting pledged delegates to switch sides.

Is that fair, legal? Yep!

A pledged delegate is pledged to a particular candidate and cannot switch, right? Wrong!

Pledged delegates are not really pledged at all, not even on the first ballot. This has been an open secret in the party for years, but it has never really mattered because there has almost always been a clear victor by the time the convention convened. But not now that Hillary is behind. This time, one candidate may enter the convention leading by just a few pledged delegates, and those delegates may find themselves being promised the sun, moon and stars to switch sides. Would Hillary or Bubba do that?

Duh!

“I swear it is not happening now, but as we get closer to the convention, if it is a stalemate, everybody will be going after everybody’s delegates,” a senior Clinton official said Monday afternoon. “All the rules will be going out the window.” Rules of good behavior, maybe. But, in fact, the actual rules of the party allow for such switching. The notion that pledged delegates must vote for a certain candidate is, according to the Democratic National Committee, a “myth.”

Winning with superdelegates is potentially party-splitting because it could mean throwing out the choice of the elected delegates and substituting the choice of the super delegates. So, to give some semblence of fairness, go after the PLEDGED delegates and have them switch their votes..

Hey, the Obama tsunami must be stopped at any odds. If the Wisconsin primary doesn’t do it, if Texas or Ohio doesn’t do it, then Bubba will do it!

So why are we going through all this primary hullabaloo? We do it to provide some sort of integrity and legitmacy; however, in the event truth does not work out as the powers that be want, then we’ll do it the old-fashioned way. Can you say power-brokering fraud and intimidation? And then they’ll point fingers at people like Jason Rae and say it’s his fault. Blame shift seems to always work these days.

I can’t wait to see how this all works out. Could it be that the history-breaking female and African-American dream candidates implode and shoot themselves in the foot and give us four more years of Bush-i-ness? God help us all!

Ernie Fitzpatrick asked:


Barack Obama swept the Louisiana primary and caucuses in Nebraska and Washington state Saturday night, slicing into Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s slender delegate lead in their historic race for the Democratic presidential nomination. He also won caucuses in the Virgin Islands, completing his best night of the campaign. Obama is still riding the Super Tuesday wave and yesterdays Saturday wave was: Obama 4- Hillary 0 for the day.

In sideline political news Bush # 43 tried to cast McCain as a true conservative. Why not! Bush even thinks that he’s a true conservative. But back to the big news.

Obama’s winning margins were substantia and impressivel, ranging from 67% of the vote in Washington state and Nebraska, 57% in the Louisiana Primary, to nearly 90 percent in the Virgin Islands. Pretty darned impressive. FOX News exit polling showed Obama won both high- and low-income voters and the majority of women, 54 percent to Clinton’s 45 percent. One in five Louisiana Democratic voters also live in a union household, and they picked Obama 56 percent to 41 percent for Clinton. Black voters picked Obama by more than 80 percent.

As in his earlier Southern triumphs in Alabama, Georgia and South Carolina, Obama, a black man, rode a wave of African-American support to victory in Louisiana. Hillary made no mention of the night’s contests as she appeared at a Democratic Party dinner in Virginia, site of one of three primaries this Tuesday. Instead, she criticized Arizona Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee in all but name. “We have tried it President Bush’s way,” she said, “and now the Republicans have chosen more of the same.”

She left quickly after her speech, departing before Obama’s scheduled arrival. But his supporters made their presence known, as chants of “Obama” floated up from the audience as she made her way offstage.

Has anyone heard anything from New Mexico yet?

In all, the Democrats scrapped for 161 delegates in the night’s contests. In initial allocations, Obama had won 31, Clinton 9. In overall totals in The Associated Press count, Clinton had 1,064 delegates to 1,029 for Obama. A total of 2,025 is required to win the nomination at the national convention in Denver. But when you subtract out the super delegates, Obama rules!

Well, at least he gets the nod of the people. The super delegates are another thing and the way things look, we’re headed to a Democratic convention that the “insiders” will choose- not the people. On to the Maine caucus today, for whatever that may count later this summer.

Maine Democrats are holding caucuses this afternoon and early this evening in 420 towns and cities across the state. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are making a play for the 24 delegates at stake.

J.J. Jackson asked:


Have you heard the good news? Barack Obama is for change! Well, that seals it! He’s got my vote!

Why you ask? Isn’t he a liberal Democrat? Well yeah, but he’s for change! So let’s look at the status quo which he will be looking at changing shall we?

First up is McCain/Feingold which is a horrible restriction on free speech despite the constitutional provision prohibiting Congress from making any law that restricts our freedom of speech. Elect Obama and he will “change” this and end this horrible law.

Next are the constant infringements on our second amendment rights by the myriad of gun laws on the books which do not punish criminal activity but rather simply infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to own arms. Elect Obama and he will “change” this.

Then there is the horrid income tax which basically allows the government to take money you worked hard for before you get a chance to spend or save it unless you put it in one of their approved forms of investment. Since I firmly believe that the money earned by people in compensation for their labor belongs to them first and not the government I have to vote for Obama because he will “change” this.

Moving on, there is that pesky problem of unborn children who are both alive (see basic definition of life if you disagree) and human being denied their constitutional protections and being murdered. That is definitely something that needs changing. So Barack Obama appears to be our man!

Oh, and then there is the constant treasonous messages coming from our elected officials during a time of war which continually go unpunished. Personally I’m tired of the claims that our troops are cold-blooded murderers and that the war is lost being echoed by terrorists around the world to give aid and comfort to their followers. With his campaign promise of “change”, President Obama will undoubtedly correct this and start prosecuting the offenders.

And what about Social Security? After all it is clearly above and beyond the limited powers of the federal government to tax and spend. Just read Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (including his Federalist 41) and any other of a myriad of founding fathers that actually wrote the Constitution. So apparently with Barack Obama in the White House we can expect this massive mortgaging of our future to be ended in the name of “change”.

Along those same lines we can obviously expect an end to Welfare.

War on Poverty? Gone - ended in the name of “change”. We’ve spent trillions and still have “poverty” so it apparently hasn’t worked. Elect Barack Obama and we can get away from this failed policy and save us billions.

Then of course Barack Obama will obviously terminate the Department of Education which is also specified nowhere as a power of our government. Can you feel the winds of “change” blowing yet?

Ah! I’m swelling with pride at knowing that there is a candidate that is going to help “change” America for the better! But wait, more “change” would be on the way if Obama is elected!

How about policies and laws that classify people by the color of their skin, ethnic background, sex, and so on and grant them special rights and privileges based on that classification? Gone! All in the name of “change”!

Huh? What’s that? That’s not the sort of “change” Barack Obama is talking about? Well, of course it’s not. And I’m not really going to vote for him either because I know that.

What I was demonstrating to you was how many people will vote for him based on his broad based message of simply “change”. Every speech Barack Obama gives he makes sure that the center point of it is this one word and repeats it as often as he thinks he can get away with it because to claim to be for “change” gives people a blank slate upon which to project their own hopes and desires.

Don’t like a certain policy? Well, Barack Obama is for “change”. So he hopes that you will consider voting for him in the hope that when he talks about simply being for change. He’ll only talk about specifics of his policy for “change” when he has to. No need to give people willing to believe what they want to believe anything to not like after all.

But when he does talk about specifics we really see that what he calls “change” is not much more than the status quo; bigger government and less liberty on a greater scale than we already have.

The only question is how long he can ride this wave of nebulousness before he actually has to start delving a little deeper into what changes he actually proposes. And how much longer until people figure out that when he is talking about “change” he really means more of the same failed policies that have put America in the precarious situation it is in today? And will people even care?

I shudder to think that they will not.

James Smith asked:


When it comes to reaching out to the public Obama can achieve the unity he wants, as a candidate Obama was not even known less than a year ago. However, he was able to use the Internet to connect with millions of young people who are also voters who do not have a TV set or who do not watch the candidates in their debates. Obama has been known as saying we have not even scratched the surface of with this new political landscape, meaning the Internet and the computer users who might not hear from the candidates directly. Obama has not only stayed on track with what he said here over a year ago, but has also gone on to develop plans of how he can enact many of his ideas to make changes if he is elected. Obama has also maintained a strong stance in all areas of his campaign while focusing on the problems of the country and what changes need to be made. Along with bringing these ideas of change to the Internet user so that they hear it in his words and not in the medias method of telling only parts of what a candidate has to say. There are many voters that have learned what Barack Obama stands for, what his policy changes would mean to the country and what they can expect if he is elected as the next President of the United States. They have learned all this with their Internet connection on the web without all of the added extras or opinions of the media. While some people are content watching the televised debates and the local news to form their opinion of who they want to run the country as the Commander and Chief for the next four years. There are many people who know with the Internet this is no longer the best way to make the decision of who they should vote for and to many people information is power. The power to be informed, the power understand just what a candidate plans to change, add and omit during their presidency. It is only by a voter thoroughly educating themselves about the candidates that they will make the correct decision for which candidate they feel can do the best job of running the country. The Barack Obama campaign has made this much easier by bringing Obama’s stand on what needs to change in the country to the internet and with this many more young voters know what he stands for. Many voters in general for the first time in many years are getting the unbiased information they need minus the media. Who in many cases decides who they feel should be the proper candidate to win the election and push that agenda and the voters either begin to believe it or they feel they must make a choice with out all the information they need if they are going to be a part of the voting process. To assist in this campaign the supporters who have heard Obama’s message loud and clear are now wearing t-shirts to help support his continued campaign efforts.Buy yourself a Barack Obama shirts and help support him in every way possible that will help him get elected as president. You can help support Barack Obama by wearing trendy Barack Obama t-shirts or by making a donation to the campaign. All the Barack Obama designs mentioned here are not official but rather are inspired by who might possibly be one of the most influencial politicians in a long time.

Jocelyn Hoppa asked:


Yesterday was Super Tuesday, the largest to date with 24 states holding primaries or caucuses on the same day. In a year that’s probably seen more musicians come out to raise their voice on behalf of a presidential candidate, the question we want to explore here is: Do musicians backing a political candidate have an impact on a voter’s choice?

For as long as anyone can remember, those with even an ounce of status as an artist tend to weigh in and in some instances even raise money for their chosen delegate’s campaign. We, the general public, have in some ways come to trust their opinions. And why not? We spend courtesy of http://kerry.senate.govenough of our money and time being their devoted fans, hanging on to every note and word that pours out from them. And it’s nothing new for a band to express political views in their music. Contrary to what conservatives think, rock music isn’t merely a vacuum of escapism from the real world, it has the ability to create a culture surrounding politics, albeit an oftentimes insular one. We have Bob Dylan, John Lennon, Bono, the Dixie Chicks, and Bruce Springsteen, but really there are countless other musicians working in a more underground way to effect change, not to mention the entire genre of punk rock which typically takes on political issues before musicality. And for some, like Washington DC’s own outspoken band, Fugazi, voicing their opinions both on and off the record, as it were, is equally important to who and what they are. But where did it all begin?

It can most likely be traced back earlier, but Beethoven’s third symphony was originally called “Bonaparte” due to his admiration of ideals set forth during the French Revolution. Then, upon Napoleon crowning himself emperor in 1804, Beethoven was so put off by that act of egotism that he rescinded the dedication and renamed the symphony “Heroic Symphony, Composed to Celebrate the Memory of a Great Man.”

In the more recent past, as rock ‘n’ roll is really only in its infancy, we’ve really seen musicians get politically active. What about Nixon getting elected twice during the height of the hippie movement in the late ’60s/early ’70s? This era particularly showed the power rock music could have on the younger demographic, and yet it did not change who was elected during that time. At the Hollywood Palladium in 1984, the Clash rallied for five nights against Reagan and Thatcher. But, alas, Reagan was re-elected. Alt-rock sage Michael Stipe of R.E.M. was a huge advocate of Dukakis, who in the courtesy of http://remhq.comend got bupkis. Springsteen’s music has evolved from personal stories of the common man to darkened tales of the demise of America. The Rising Tour anyone? And yet, the horror of the Bush family/administration lived on despite his efforts to change it. And, in 2004, when it was nearly impossible to exaggerate the importance of the presidential election, for us and the rest of the world, we saw musicians come out in droves in support of John Kerry with the Vote for Change Tour, not to mention countless other events featuring musicians getting political for the cause. It was probably the most outspoken musicians had been up until that point during an election. While those were inspiring times, we remember all too well what resulted because we’re currently still living with it. Could it be that a musician’s involvement in politics makes a lot of noise but signifies really nothing at all? Or could it be that it has the unintended, inverse impact, which invites conservatives to rail against them and preach “family values?” When considering what musicians like Springsteen sing about in their music, there exists great irony to how things have played out time and again.

For the most part, musicians identify with the Democratic Party. Interestingly, this works both ways. Rock music is an everyman activity and is used as a tool to aid in making these candidates appear less like a robot stiff. Some politicians throw the opening pitch at a big league baseball game, others choose to rock (or rap, ugh). Jimmy Carter quoted Dylan when he accepted the Democratic nomination in 1976, and Bill Clinton made Fleetwood Mac’s “Don’t Stop” his 1992’s campaign theme song, which sparked the band’s reunion at his inauguration party. But, generally, it appears that musicians are mostly asking folks to do their homework and use their own brain to make an informed choice. Otherwise, it’s likely they’re either preaching to the choir or alienating those who can think for themselves. But there’s an important thing to consider about all of this. Although they have every right to stand up for what they believe in, political involvement by musicians for a presidential election can be worthless if it’s not well thought out.

Take for instance, Monday night’s show at the Bowery Ballroom in NYC called “Barack Rock,” which was put on by the politically-biased website Getupandvote.com. The show featured OK Go, Nina Persson of the Cardigans, and Craig Wedren and Nathan Larson from Shudder to Think, and was hosted by the likes of Michael Ian Black. If there’s one thing that’ll band together young rocker types, it is disillusionment and comedy. This is all well and good; except for the fact that it wasn’t a fundraiser for Obama—tickets were $20 a pop, not cheap, and where the money is going is unclear. But that’s not the bad part, really. It’s the mixed message they’re sending. Although they’re pushing for a candidate, as suggested by the name of the event, their website claims “it will be neither preachy nor didactic, but a clear, inspiring reminder for viewers and listeners to get off their asses and vote.” For $20 you can have a ball and be reminded by the following morning’s hangover that you’re supposed to get out of bed and vote, preferably for Obama, although so long as you’re voting, it’s cool…like whatever, man. This isn’t exactly an exercise in righteous indignation for making a difference. I mean, take a fucking stand on the matter. Or else, so much for the days when rock ‘n’ roll looked people in the eye and forced some kind of response.

Speaking of, remember when Eddie Vedder impaled a mask of the president on a microphone stand during concerts? Now that was obviously disrespectful, but it was at least very clear how he felt about things. Not whatever, man. Who else is going to drive a point home like that if not a musician in a rock band? Maybe, photo by Chris Sweda for Chicago-Sun Timesjust maybe, that Susan Sarandon broad might have it in her. But do you think Vedder was saddened by the fact that his pro-Bush fans were offended by him impaling that mask? Hell no!

But, back to this year’s democratic delegates. Once a presidential hopeful goes where the voters are and figures out what makes them tick, it’s also been said that victory goes to the more likable candidate. Hillary Clinton isn’t getting on with the rocker types too well, I can tell you that much, even though it’s been reported that she’s seen support from Elvis Costello and Timbaland. Perhaps she should pick a campaign song by someone other than Celine Dion? Now, the epitome of indie rock mainstream (and yes, I just wrote “indie rock mainstream”) Conor Oberst was the opening act at Obama’s rally in Iowa. There we go, now we’re talking. Obama, or Ba-Rock—as tagged by series of concerts to mobilize young voters with members of Wilco in tow—is gaining support from the indie rock community by the day and gaining ground on Hillary in the primaries by the day as well. Are the two things mutually exclusive? Hard to tell, but indie rock (if you don’t know what it is exactly, please refer to your newly purchased Juno soundtrack) has headlined in various places as being Obama’s secret weapon. Indie rock is like the new swing vote in the Democratic primaries.

In an article published in Newsweek, the writer reported that “On Friday, Dec. 7 in Chicago, Wilco captured the crucial ‘indie rock’ constituency for Obama. John Edwards may have Bonnie Raitt. Hillary Clinton may have Celine Dion. But Barack has the MacBook-tanned mp3 bloggers in skinny jeans and vintage t-shirts. And as they go, so goes the nation.” The writer also immediately shot this sentiment in the foot by noting that Jill “I Kissed a Girl” Sobule and that dude from Third Eye Blind also performed at the event. However, there’s still a fair amount of validity to the matter when Newsweek reports that the indie rock community is a “crucial,” what, constituency was it? So maybe we shouldn’t shrug apathetically at our computer screens when our RSS feed explodes with news that Arcade Fire frontman Win Butler spoke out on his blog, both criticizing Hillary Clinton and backing Obama. It appeared to be actual news that Butler said, “Do we live in a democracy so we can just keep electing the same families?” A good point, though not necessarily a new one, which was followed by an f-bomb with several exclamation points. I think Butler could do better. Impaling stuff with a microphone stands comes to mind. But perhaps the point here is not so much the power of indie rock itself, but the power the internet and indie rock have to reach the 18-25 year old demographic, and reach them consistently at that. In 1968 you’d have to wait a month for Rolling Stone to come out. Now young adults can access immediately when and where and why Pete Wentz of Fall Out Boy courtesy Rough Trade Recordschose to side with Obama.

During this past Sunday’s Superbowl, Obama ran an ad that aired in about 20 states, as it was funded on a state-by-state basis (and cost $250,000 instead of a national ad which costs $2.5 million), aimed at a younger demographic as it featured shots of young folks in the crowd cheering Obama on while also playing the music of Dan Zweben. Never heard of him and I followed up on this… Zweben only has approximately 2,000 friends on MySpace. Not exactly Fleetwood Mac status or anything like it, but pretty interesting that I was actually introduced to a new musician through a commercial for a presidential hopeful. Nicely played, Ba-Rock.

What it comes down to is the drawing of a line in the sand. And that is probably what the rock community at large respects about Barack Obama. He’ll tell you that he did a little of the ol’ Dr. Zhivago back in the day and is currently still at the mercy of nicotine gum. He easily admits that he’s human with faults and foibles and probably a real fuck up from time to time, but that doesn’t keep him from doing his job and doing it well. This earns him respect and makes him infinitely more likeable, especially amongst a crowd of young voters who tend to embrace the awkward and emotionally damaged. I’m not knocking that either… I think it’s perfectly healthy. Besides, when did anyone ever like someone who goes around pretending like they’re perfect? And what is rock music if not a place where we can openly contend with all the things in life that make us human?

We like our music defined in this way. It’s good to know where everyone stands. So, yes, I’m completely fine and even encouraging of musicians getting up and voicing their opinions on political matters so long as their message isn’t lukewarm or wishy-washy. If the message being preached can heighten political awareness and energize young voters, a positive impact will have taken place. Still, the end of their means is in question. The results of the intended impact has yet to be seen (as I sit here writing this), and history thus far doesn’t bode well in terms of how much muscle musicians can provide in getting folks out to the voting polls to make a difference for change. And yet, it’s not a very long history to consider. This new idea that the rock community is a significant group to win over might actually have some legs to stand on this time around. In the end, as the anxiety of who will become president in 2008 reigns supreme, one thing is certain: we’re being entertained and perhaps even comforted by the music as we wait.