1) I’ll be heading to D.C. in the morning with another incoming American University freshman to check out Hillary Clinton’s concession speech. I’ll be getting there quite early (entry is first-come, first-serve) to make sure I’m able to get in. I’ll report back in with anything of note.

2) No Question of the Week this week. I graduated from high school today, and, upon returning home, took a long nap. I was at a concert last night (M.I.A., if anyone is interested) and, well, between that and graduation, I was tired. But not too tired to go see this speech tomorrow!

That is all.

Fresh from my inbox:

To: Fellow McCain SupportersFrom: Senator Joe LiebermanDate: June 5th, 2008 Today, I asked Senator McCain if I could create and chair a new grassroots organization, “Citizens for McCain.” Citizens for McCain is an organization within the McCain campaign for people who put country before political party and support the candidate for President who has a proven record of bipartisanship. As you know, I caucus with the Democrats as a United States Senator and was the Democrat Party’s nominee for Vice-President of the United States against President Bush and Vice President Cheney. But first and foremost, I am an American. I have an obligation to do what I think is best for our nation regardless of political party. My love for this country and strong belief in John McCain’s character, judgment, and willingness to work with leaders of both parties has convinced me to support him for President. I have worked with John McCain for many years in the U.S. Senate and know from experience that he can unite Democrats, Republicans and Independents like no one else in this country. He did it in the United States Senate and he can do it as President of the United States. But we need help from McCain supporters such as you to reach out to Americans who are not currently involved in the campaign. Will you help us by recruiting your friends, family, and co-workers who may not consider themselves members of the Republican Party and ask them to join the Citizens for McCain organization? I am confident we will find many Democrats and Independents who, like John McCain and me, put country before political party and will support a leader with a real record of bipartisanship. Time and time again John McCain has put his country first. He refused early release when he was held captive in Vietnam. He continued to put his country first as a national leader in the U.S. Senate. He put country before party when he fought to pass campaign finance reform, sought a bi-partisan solution to the immigration problem, and consistently supported pro-environment policies. His courage to stand up to the failed Iraq war plan of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and lead the fight for a new strategy in Iraq will go down in history, and it saved American lives. These were not always the easy things to do. In fact, they were usually very difficult, and often threatened his political career. But John McCain did what was right. He said it best in his speech in New Orleans on Tuesday night: “(The American people) know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They’ve seen me put our country before any President — before any party — before any special interest — before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always.” The phones at the campaign headquarters have been ringing with disaffected Democrats calling to say they believe Senator McCain has the experience, judgment, and bipartisanship necessary to lead our country in these difficult times. Many of these supporters are former supporters of Senator Clinton. Senator McCain has had a very good working relationship with Senator Clinton and will continue to do so in the future. In the same New Orleans speech he said: “Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend.” I am proud to call John McCain my friend and ask you to help our friend become the next President of the United States. Please forward this email to your lists today and ask your friends, family, and coworkers who do not consider themselves Republicans to join me in filling out the Citizens for McCain form today. Thank you for your willingness to help me expand this new organization. Together, we will make history. John McCain 2008 P.O. Box 16118, Arlington, VA 22215 Phone: (703) 418-2008 Paid for by John McCain 2008 · www.JohnMcCain.com

Hillary’s dropping out.

It’s still unbelievable, really. As you know, I am a young guy. It had been a foregone conclusion — ever since I’ve been involved in politics, really — that we’d be facing Hillary Clinton in 2008. It has been at once astounding and fascinating to watch the Democrats deny Hillary Clinton the nomination. It still hasn’t really sunk in. It’s one thing to see it coming and another to see it happen. She really did lose.

Amazing.

Today’s latest reminder of Obama’s past, and PRESENT!

By Mike DeVine, Legal Editor for The Minority Report and The HinzSight Report

Ever wonder why Obama ALWAYS refers to America’s #1 racist as “Minister”?

Nation of Islam activists on Obama camp payroll

JERUSALEM – Sen. Barack Obama employed and continues to employ senior staffers who belong to the Nation of Islam, and the presidential candidate has some “worrying” ties to the controversial group headed by Louis Farrakhan, a former key Obama insider told WND.

The former insider, who spoke on condition of anonymity, expressed particular concern that Obama employed at least two Nation members in his early days as a state senator, when his office was staffed by only a handful of workers.

“When you’re a state senator, you have little money given to you to hire staff. It is ironic that two of Obama’s employees in those days were known Nation of Islam activists when Obama employed perhaps a total of maybe three or four staffers,” said the former insider.

The former insider confirmed Obama is directly aware of the Nation of Islam members on his staff.

Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, serving the 13th district, which then spanned Chicago’s South Side neighborhoods, including areas in which Farrakhan was considered to be highly influential.

Months ago, Gamecock noticed that:

Obama can’t bring himself to call “Minister” Farrakhan, Louis

I have noted previously that I have found it quite curious that Barack Obama always refers to the number one racist in America by the honorific “minister”, as do his supporters and those that respect him, whereas most everyone else refers to him as ‘Louis” Farrakhan.

I always have deemed this significant, as I think it provides a window into Obama’s thought processes and, I think, that this, along with his friendly associations with an unrepentant terrorist and his “bitter” remarks about white people that prefer Hillary to him, is evidence of his extreme ignorance and naiveté, born of his life within a leftist cocoon.

Even during his latest “race”, i.e. Jeremiah Wright, damage control speech, when he is ostensibly denouncing the Black Muslim leader thought to have been involved in the assassination of Malcolm X after X discovered that white people were not devils, he still can’t bring himself to refer to this sick racist creep without the title of respect:

Not once,

But when he states and then amplifies such ridiculous propositions as the U.S. government somehow being involved in AIDS, when he suggests that Minister Farrakhan somehow represents one of the greatest voices of the 20th and 21st centuries, when he equates the United States wartime efforts with terrorism, then there are no excuses.

but twice.

And so when I start hearing comments about conspiracy theories and AIDS and suggestions that somehow Minister Farrakhan has been a great voice in the 20th century, then that goes directly at who I am and what I believe this country needs.

Barack Obama says he wants to “bridge gaps”, but there are some bridges Obama will not cross, and one, is to disrespect Louis Farrakhan. Barack found out this week that not only was the din of his 20-year pew parked butt political calculation possibly non-transferable beyond the level of senator for a deep blue state, but also that his audaciously hopeful, hate America minister is quite ready to hate him.

I wonder if the veteran of the “Chicago Way” of politics, living in a Big House Rezko made possible, finally got the message that he dare not dis Calypso Louis is public?

“Minister” Farrakhan, Barack?

To what does he minister, other than hate?

Taranto’s Best of the Web thinks that

…it seems only a matter of time before an Obama-Nation of Islam connection, if true, draws the attention of the mainstream media.

I predicted in December 2006 that the GOP would win the presidency due to the Dem’s rejection of Bill Clinton’s middle way and move to the far left that resented his stifling of all but the pro-abortionists for eight years and then saw their entitlement taken away in Florida in 2000 (with insult added to injury by President Bush’s re-election in 2004 despite 12 months 24/7 of msm-dem bushlied), a Gamecock theory echoed today by

NRO:

The Democrats have gone all the way. They have nominated arguably the most left-wing major party presidential nominee ever, certainly the most left-wing since George McGovern.

Obama’s victory is a repudiation not just of the Clintons personally, but of Clintonism. Bill Clinton won the presidency based on the Democratic Leadership Council model of a new kind of Democratic politics that pivoted toward the center. Obama not only has had no Sister Souljah moment, he initially embraced his Sister Souljah (in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, introduced to the American public in videotaped rants). He has made no creative policy departure on par with Bill Clinton’s advocacy of welfare reform in 1992 — in fact, has made no creative policy departure at all. He is the old wine of McGovernite liberalism poured into the alluring wineskin of “hope” and “unity.”

Then when I learned of Obama and the Obaminations in his past, I re-affirmed my confidence in 2007.

I have been predicting that he wouldn’t get over 42% of the popular vote and will lose in a Dukakis like elctoral landslide.

I think that’s too pessimistic a prediction.

McGovern II anyone?

_____________________________________________________________________________

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
The HinzSight Report
The Minority Report
Race 4 2008
“One man with courage makes a majority.” - Andrew Jackson

Marc Ambinder:

Matt Burns, the spokesman for the GOP convention in St. Paul e-mails to say that the RNC’s convention office in St. Paul has received numerous telephone calls in the last few hours from people who identify themselves as Clinton supporters asking how they can help Sen. McCain.

Hillaryis44 urges her to fight on:

Obama is unelectable and not qualified to be president.

On the night Obama lost South Dakota (Obama’s own projections had him winning South Dakota by 15 percent) he spoke in the same hall in which Mondale conceded to the Reagan landslide.

Obama will either concede now or in November.

Obama won’t win Democrats he needs to win (like the Democrats on this very website). In state after state many Democrats clearly state they will either NOT vote, vote for the unacceptable John McCain, or write in Hillary’s name. That Democrats, many who have never voted for a Republican or nightmared about voting for a Republican, to say they will vote for a Republican is shocking and foreshadows doom for the Democratic? Party in November - if Superdelegates actually vote for Rezko/Ayres/Pfleger/Wright/Farrakhan’s friend - Obama.

Hillary supporters will not vote for Obama on any ticket. Last night, at the Hillary rally, the shouts were Denver, Denver - not tears nor surrender.

No tears nor surrender came from the voters of South Dakota either. No matter how much Big Media insisted Obama was the nominee the people voted for Hillary. Big Media cannot force feed Obama to “bitter” small town America.

Last night, Hillary asked America to write to her. Hillary told us this was our campaign.

Now the question is, where do we go from here, and given how far we’ve come and where we need to go as a party, it’s a question I don’t take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight. But this has always been your campaign, so to the 18 million people who voted for me and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you’ll go to my website at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

Hillary spoke about our resilience, our ability to overcome challenges. Hillary was speaking about America, but her words are especially true of her supporters.

So let’s wait and see how successful her plea to her supporters was (or at least if it was successful enough for her to spin it as such). The claim that, “My supporters have urged my to continue this fight for the American People”, is her liekly rationale for continuing in the race.

As Bill Bennett writes:

This is an astounding moment in American politics. You cannot credibly say the Clintons are a political dynasty the way, say, the Kennedys or Bushs are. But I think one has to say the Clinton rule of the Democratic party has been dynastic. Bill Clinton is the only Democrat to have served two terms as president in two generations, the only Democrat to twice beat Republican nominees for president and his wife is a two term U.S. senator who will likely be in the Senate for years to come. Bill Clinton has been rated one of — if not THE — most popular person in the world, and yet Clinton rule in American politics ends tonight. Whatever it was the Republicans and so many independents did not like about the Clintons, we’ve learned the Democrats have had enough as well.

And thus the Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of George McGovern, albeit without McGovern’s military and political record. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far-left candidate in the tradition of Michael Dukakis, albeit without Dukakis’s executive experience as governor. The Democratic party is about to nominate a far left candidate in the tradition of John Kerry, albeit without Kerry’s record of years of service in the Senate. The Democratic party is about to nominate an unvetted candidate in the tradition of Jimmy Carter, albeit without Jimmy Carter’s religious integrity as he spoke about it in 1976. Questions about all these attributes (from foreign policy expertise to executive experience to senatorial experience to judgment about foreign leaders to the instructors he has had in his cultural values) surround Barack Obama. And the Democratic party has chosen him.

According to sources inside the Obama campaign, the primary fight will be effectively over today, with or without Hillary’s withdrawal/endorsement/suspension of her campaign. If you read R4′08 yesterday, you know that Obama needs only 28-33 more superdelegates to effectively clinch the nomination. And here’s what an Obama insider told the press last night on the condition of anonymity:

“…at least five to 10 House members would endorse Obama on Tuesday morning, at least 10 senators will endorse him by the end of the day and an additional 10 superdelegates will also endorse him during the day.”

Obama himself apparently has said they will have the number of superdelegates they need by Wednesday.

Hillary, you’ve done us GOP’ers a great service by staying in the race and fighting as long as you did. I hope you keep fighting to the convention, but if not - thanks for everything you’ve done for us in the past six months!

Tomorrow night may very well signal the de-facto end of the Democratic primary. Even if she somehow wracks up large victories in South Dakota and Montana, she’s unlikely to persuade many superdelegates. These are a thoroughly cowardly bunch, who’d rather risk losing the general election, then earn the permanent ire of a man who’s likely to take the helm of the party for at least the next 4 years. Unless they’re given an out via an unexpected scandal, we may finally be seeing the last of Hillary Rodham Clinton. And here’s my confession: that saddens me. Not because I have any great desire to face her in a general election; I don’t. She’s a fierce opponent, while Barack has been sputtering on fumes for months.

But, there’s something about what she’s done for politics in America over the last 2 years that deserves respect. She’s fought. She’s struggled. And at times, she’s pushed back against the hijacking of the Democratic Party, which has been, for all it’s flaws, a party of great and patriotic men and women; a party which has, until now, only once succumbed to out and out radicalism in the last 60 years of nominations. She’s tried to speak to hardworking Americans, not about them. She’s tried to communicate a responsible foreign policy, not historically laughable pie-in-the-sky utopianism. She’s tried to recall a party she loves from the abyss. She’s tried. And she’s failed. Not everyone can be avatars of hope and light.

And here’s the real salient point; the point that conservatives, and moderates, and patriotic Americans of all regions and all religions ought to be thanking her for; Hillary Clinton has revealed Barack Obama. Four months ago, Barack Obama was an insurpassable public figure. He was The One We’ve Been Waiting For. An agent of hope and change poised to bridge all gaps, overturn all conventions, and melt all hearts. He was the great redeemer, surpassing that other great redeemer, and we were his subjects, waiting in humble supplication for the touch of his gentle hand. Now he’s tarred with Wright. And Ayers. And Pfleger. And he’s schemed, and calculated, and given ludicrous explanations, and played old politics with the best of them. His halo has descended before our very eyes. Make no mistake about it, no inducement on earth could have brought the press to question Barack Obama in a general election campaign in 2008. And no amount of evidence could have made the public care. Not even in a campaign against John McCain, the media’s favorite Republican. Even as a Democrat who ostensibly shares many of their goals, Hillary has had little success in shaping the media’s narrative. But, she has shaped the public’s.

She’s woken up millions of Democrats, who in a general election would have dismissed Wright and Ayers in a “rally around the nominee” spirit, to the woeful inadequacy of this man who would be president. Instead of dismissing Wright as a “distraction”, the media’s been forced to request that Barack “address” the controversies. And when their grand pronouncements on his race speech failed to quell the furor, they were forced to politely ask him if he wouldn’t mind clarifying some things. You know, so we could put these silly things behind us and move on to the history-making coronation. They’ve, at every step, thoroughly misread the public mood, utterly failed to control the narrative, and stumbled in their embarrassing apologia for the most unqualified nominee in decades. But, they’ve failed only because, for once, their demagoguery, their shameless promotion of a candidate, hurt a well-liked Democrat.

Hillary Clinton’s brutal treatment has taken the blinders off a large portion of the Democratic Party. They could not have been moved by us alone. We’re Republicans, and this is 2008, and the incumbent has a 28% approval rating, and this is their year. Never mind the fact that we’ve nominated a frequent and well-known critic of that unpopular incumbent. Never mind the fact that we’ve nominated a man who only votes with his party 60% of the time. Never mind the fact that our nominee opposes torture, and supports amnesty, and opposes a marriage amendment, and attacks corporations, and promotes campaign finance reform, and almost became the Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in 2004. He’s still a Republican, and this is 2008, and all Democrats and moderates are required to fall behind the Democratic nominee. To restore hope and all that jazz. But, they’ve attacked Hillary Clinton, and she’s a good Democrat, and she cares about working class Americans, and she’s a strong and proud woman, and that’s not ok. Millions of Democrats and moderates and independents now see Barack Obama for the radical he is. She’s accomplished what John McCain couldn’t have dreamed of accomplishing. Not this year. Not with this media. Not in this country. Not with this president shackled to his ankle. And for that I say, God bless her, and for all my many differences with her politically, I’m sad to see her go. You, madam, would have made a much better president then Senator Obama. I’ll leave you with a little Chris Matthews, from 2-3 months ago.

What a difference a few months makes.

I am not going to address rumors circulating about the former President’s personal life, marriage, etc… in a front page post, but the man is apparently losing his touch.

Say what you want about Bill Clinton, but for eight years, the man was undeniably the smoothest politician.

It’s strange to see him in full meltdown. From ABC News:

Vanity Fair national editor Todd Purdum, the former New York Times White House correspondent, was subjected to some tough words from the man he used to cover today, prompted by Purdum’s latest story in VF, “The Comeback Id,” which takes a critical look at Clinton’s post-presidency.

Former President Bill Clinton told the Huffington Post’s Mayhill Fowler that Purdum was “sleazy” and “a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him . . . And I haven’t read [the article]. There’s just five or six blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy.”

Purdum writes of Clinton’s “cavernous narcissism,” looks at “the motley crew that constitutes some of the post-presidential rat pack” (gazillionaires Ron Burkle and Steve Bing), and says that “among the not-so-small cadre of Clinton friends and former aides, concern about the company the boss keeps is persistent, palpable, and pained. No former president of the United States has ever traveled with such a fast crowd, and most 61-year-old American men of Clinton’s generation don’t, either. ‘I just think those guys are radioactive,’ one former aide to Clinton who is still in occasional affectionate touch with him told me recently, referring to Burkle and (to a lesser extent) Bing. ‘I stay far away from them.’”

The former president’s monologue made it clear that he saw Purdum’s story as part of a Vast Left Wing Conspiracy co-run by the media and the Barack Obama campaign to take down his wife.

“You know he didn’t use a single name, cite a single source in all those things he said.. It’s just slimy. It’s part of the national media’s attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It’s the most biased press coverage in history. It’s another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn’t do anything about it. The first day he said ‘Ah, ah, ah well.’ Because that’s what they do– he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain — maybe I better quit the church. It’s all politics. It’s all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don’t think anything about it.”

UPDATE: More Classics from Willy’s interview with the HuffPo:

The former president made the comment at a local campaign event after I asked him if Purdum’s much-commented upon Vanity Fair story was weighing on his mind.

Tightly gripping this reporter’s hand and refusing to let go, Clinton heatedly denounced the writer, who is currently married to former Clinton White House Press Secretary, Dee Dee Myers.

“[He's] sleazy,” he said referring to Purdum. “He’s a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him . . . And I haven’t read [the article]. There’s just five or six blatant lies in there. But he’s a real slimy guy,” the former president said.

When I reminded him that Purdum was married to his former press spokesperson Myers, Clinton was undeterred.

“That’s all right– he’s still a scumbag,” Clinton said. ” Let me tell ya– he’s one of the guys — he’s one of the guys that brought out all those lies about Whitewater to Kenneth Starr. He’s just a dishonest guy– can’t help it.”

Just in case anyone was still wondering…

According to CNN, Barack Obama currently leads Hillary Clinton in total delegates 2,072-1,916.

Because of the Democrats’ screwed up system of splitting delegates, after tomorrow’s final two primaries Obama and Hillary will both pick up 13-18 more delegates pretty much regardless of the outcomes. (The most likely split is 9-7 in MT and 9-6 in SD.)

That will put Obama somewhere between 2,085 and 2,090 at the end of the primary season — still short of the 2,118 now needed to clinch the nomination (thanks again to the RBC’s insane and logic-less ruling over the weekend).

So after tomorrow, Obama will be searching for just 28-33 more superdelegates to support him. (There are, according to CNN, 202 uncommitted superdelegates remaining.) If and when he finds them, he officially becomes the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Conventional wisdom says Obama will easily win Montana and South Dakota, the final two Democratic primaries, tomorrow. Not if American Research Group has anything to say about it, though!

Usual caveat: it is ARG, and they more or less suck at getting the whole polling thing right. But when the numbers look like this, even from them, something might be up:

American Research Group South Dakota Democratic Primary

• Clinton - 60%
• Obama - 34%

Montana Democratic Primary

• Obama - 48%
• Clinton - 44%

Both surveys were done May 31-June 1 of 600 likely voters.

Clinton up by 26 points in South Dakota? If she can pull off a victory there, especially of that magnitude, it would be shocking - and allow her to more easily continue making her argument that she finished incredibly strong while Obama sputtered to the finish line.

Larry Johnson of No Quarter has posted his promised “Whiteygate” update this morning and although his server is up and down, a RedState diarist managed to get the text of the entry. Here’s a snippet:

I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about “whitey” describe it as “STUNNING.” I have not seen it but I have heard from five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape. It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater.

One source described how this tape was acquired. Let’s just say that one of the republican candidates who is no longer in the race, but had a dandy oppo research capability, uncovered this gem. If Republican poohbahs have their way the tape will remain on ice until October. But when it comes out, Barack will be permanently branded with the Nation of Islam. That’s not a winning platform in November. And Barack’s bundlers understand this threat. I also have learned some major financial backers are asking the Barack team about the tape and are being stonewalled. It is a wild card in the political campaign that has not yet played out.

The RedState diary then links to what is purported to be the actual quote from the tape:

“Once again, the white man keeps us down, what’s up with Whitey, Why’d he attack Iraq, Why’d he let Katrina happen, Why’d he leave millions of children behind. This is the legacy the white man gives us”

Michelle Obama just happened to be sitting next to Louis Farrakhan when she made these statements and the source of the tape is the oppo department of a former Republican presidential candidate???

The latter is what really made me a disbeliever that this tape actually exists. There is only one Republican presidential contender (I will refrain from mentioning his name here out of my respect for him) who would have had the resources to devote to oppo research on someone who was, at the time, not even viewed as realistically being able to defeat Hillary Clinton.

I believe that the existence of this tape is a fantasy. The only factor that keeps me from being 99% certain instead of 90% is the fact that Larry Johnson has now staked his reputation of the existence of this tape and it would seem strange for someone who has achieved the level of accomplishment that he has in life to throw his good name away over something he knows to be false. People have done more foolish things than this, however.

…on Sarah Palin for Veep that is. I have overcome (cough…flip-flopped…cough) my initial skepticism and am now of the belief that the selection of Sarah Palin could have the biggest impact of any potential choice that Sen. McCain could make.

It’s not only Dave’s compelling posts on disaffected Hillary voters (here and here) that changed my mind. This really does seem to be a real phenomenon with staying power that will stretch to November rather than just a temporary tantrum.

The turning point for me is anecdotal, so take it for what it’s worth- but the majority of Hillary voters that I am acquainted with have told me that I they are not simply sitting the election put, put will actually pull the lever for John McCain in November. And to the very last one, they have echoed the sentiments of this irate Hillary voter independently of one another.

I was shocked to discover that my wife’s gay, male, lifelong Democrat volunteer/activist friend (with whom she has shared many a friendly but spirited political debate with) pulled her aside to confess that he will be voting for John McCain in November. His reason is the same as the female Hillary supporter featured in the video, and is the same as that of the other Democratic acquaintances that have shared their decision with me. Their explanations have been that although they are lifelong Democrats, they cannot in good conscience vote for someone as inexperienced as Obama to be President of the United States.

And that is really the crux of the anger here, isn’t it? It not that Hillary lost, it’s that Hillary lost to someone that her supporters feel is vastly underqualified for the job in comparison. When Hillary supporters look back on their remembrances of the peace and prosperity of the Clinton years, as well as Hillary’s accomplishment of her own since she the White House and see that a three-year Senator (who was representing a few neighborhoods in the Chicago area before that) is poised to receive the Democratic nomination-the only conclusion that they can come to is that sexism is the root cause (this is what happens, of course, when your party is dominated by identity politics, but that is a discussion for another day).

Which brings me back to Palin. What would happen if Sen. McCain would select an accomplished and articulate Governor who identifies herself as a feminist, yet holds the values of a Center-Right Nation? My answer is that on election day, we would actually be able to hold many of these disaffected voters that may drift back to Obama or simply decide just to sit out instead.

The Veep selection is now a double edged sword for Obama. Pick a female, and he cannot shore up his main weakness in the general which is that he is too inexperienced to be CiC. Choose somone like Gen. Clark, Gen. Zinni, or Sen. Webb, and McCain can potentially pick off massive amounts of female voters by selecting Gov. Palin.

Bottom line: the veep selection on both sides is of more importance in this contest than perhaps any other in many, many years.

Best. Primary. Ever.

Banner image courtesy of Conservathink.

The Telegraph reports that Obama and his campaign are thinking of offering Hillary a lead position in Obama’s administration on enacting universal health care instead of offering her the Vice Presidency. Will she take it? Doubtful. While health care is clearly her passion, it seems like a pretty limited portfolio for someone as ambitious as Hillary. If I were her and it became clear that the VP offer was not going to come, I’d push to become Senate Majority Leader because in that way I’d be responsible for pushing through a wide range of influential legislation, including universal health care.

Hillary Clinton will be offered a dignified exit from the presidential race and the prospect of a place in Barack Obama’s cabinet under plans for a “negotiated surrender” of her White House ambitions being drawn up by Senator Obama’s aides.

The former First Lady would get the chance to pilot Mr Obama’s reforms of the American healthcare system if she agrees to clear the path to his nomination as Democratic presidential candidate.

Senior figures in the Obama camp have told Democrat colleagues that the offer to Mrs Clinton of a cabinet post as health secretary or to steer new legislation through the Senate will be a central element of their peace overtures to the New York senator.

Mr Obama said on Thursday that he believed he would have secured the support of enough delegates to make him the standard bearer of his party in November’s presidential election by the end of this week.

Regarding an earlier post suggesting the possibility of Hillary Clinton, as a consolation prize, becoming the Majority Leader of a
filibuster-proof Democrat Senate. If you were to bet on that today, you might get good odds, but I think it is a sucker bet.

For the scenario to occur, two things would have to happen that I just do not see. Democrats would have to control 60 of 100 Senate seats, and Hillary Clinton would have to be elected Majority Leader. I also do not think she will change her name back to Rodham either, as the title implies.

There are currently only 49 United States Senators elected as Democrats as well as 49 elected as Republicans. If you include socialist Bernie Sanders and McCain-supporter (and often-touted VP choice by the person who wrote the post which I am refuting) Joe Lieberman, that puts the Democrats at 51. If you look at the political report put out by Charlie Cook , a non-partisan political handicapper, on May 22, he rates 10 seats as solidly Democrat. Then Tim Johnson’s seat is “likely Dem”. Mary Landrieu’s is “lean Dem”. For the sake of this argument, I will assume Democrats hold all of those.

Senator John Warner’s seat in Virginia is rated as likely Dem also because he is retiring and Mark Warner (no relation) is heavily favored over Jim Gilmore. Gilmore was also a four-year governor of the state and was elected by a bigger margin than Warner, but all polls show Warner ahead. He is expected to win. There are then 6 seats rated as toss ups. I repeat. Toss ups. Not likely Dem, not lean Dem, toss up.

That means in theory Republicans should win 3 and Democrats 3. They include Stevens in Alaska, the open seat in Colorado, Coleman in Minnesota, Wicker in Missippi, Sununu in New Hampshire, and the open seat in New Mexico. Coleman still narrowly leads in Minnesota. Colorado’s polls have always been close, as have Alaska’s. If you give all 6 seats to the Democrats, the equivalent of flipping a coin 6 times and having it show up heads for all 6, that puts the Democrats at 58 seats. Then Sue Collins and Gordon Smith are rated as lean Rep. The open Nebraska seat and Liddy Dole are likely Rep. There are 12 solid Republican seats, but some of them are questionable. A recent Rasmussen poll has Mitch McConnell behind, for example.

Charlie Cook is a non-partisan political analyst. My understanding is that he is personally slightly left of center, and Stuart Rothenberg is personally right of center. For the Democrats to get a filibuster-proof majority, they would have to keep Landrieu, elect Mark Warner, have the coin land on heads 6 times in a row andtake all 6 toss up seats, and win 2 out of 5 seats where they are decidedly underdogs (ME, OR, NE, NC, KY). In addition to that, Joe Lieberman would have to continue to caucus with the Democrats. Even with this perfect storm, they would still only have 58 Senators elected as Democrats, but they would have a caucus of 60 with Lieberman and Sanders.

As I have just shown, the odds of everything breaking perfectly for Democrats and having them get to 60 seats is very slim. The chances of Hillary Clinton then becoming the leader of this caucus, in my opinion, is even slimmer. She clearly does not have very many friends in the Democratic caucus. Pat Leahy called on her to drop out.

John Kerry clearly does not think much of the Clintons. Dick Durbin is second in command under Reid and is a strong Obama partisan. Despite her being in the Senate since 2001 and having four years longer to make friends and build trust than Barack Obama has had, he has 16 Senate endorsements to her 13. Plus even that 13 overstates her support because a few signed up early on when she looked inevitable. What is more, from what I can tell, Harry Reid is fairly well-liked in that caucus.

If you’re thinking of betting on Hillary Clinton becoming the Majority Leader of a filibuster-proof Democrat Senate, spend your money on a Powerball ticket. You’ll have a better chance.

By now, we’ve all heard Hillary Clinton’s remark that she won’t drop out of the race because “we all remember that Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June”. The pro-Obama media have been endlessly hyperventilating for hours now, insinuating that Senator Clinton meant to imply that Obama may be assassinated (because he’s black) and that Clinton was out-and-out stating that she’s still in the presidential race because there’s still a possibility that her (black) opponent might be assassinated (because he’s black).

This says legions more about the media than it does about Hillary Clinton. If we’d care to look at her remarks in context, she was merely explaining that presidential primary seasons have historically dragged on for months, citing the (erroneous) example of her husband’s campaign and then Mr. Kennedy’s. It was, perhaps, in poor taste to mention the assassination, given Senator Ted Kennedy’s recently-discovered malignant tumor, but it was hardly an “x-ray into a very dark soul“, as Michael Goodwin so hyperbolically put it.

Is there anyone among us that thinks that Hillary Clinton is so stupid as to methodically and ungracefully state that she is in the race because her opponent might be assassinated (because he’s black)? And, by that measure, imagine that Hillary were running against, say, John Edwards instead at this point and she’d said the same thing. Would anyone be as outraged?

No, of course not. The outrage over the remark simply illustrates the fact that the media believe that there are really people out there waiting, at any moment, to assassinate Barack Obama because he’s black. They write shady undertones into Hillary Clinton’s remarks because they genuinely believe that people that oppose Barack Obama are inherently racially divisive and that any allusions to assassination must be meant to whip up fear that he’ll be killed (because he’s black!).

I mean, really: this outrage is utterly nonsensical. If you honestly evaluate her remarks in context and then witness the outrage with that in mind, you can’t help but sympathize with her. What must be running through her head? It was a simple explanation; I can’t believe that the media have so turned on me that they’re reading my remarks in this manner! This election has been a series of firsts, and my ongoing sympathy for Hillary Clinton (on a personal, not political level) is one of ‘em.

As everyone (at least in this realm of the media) goes absolutely bananas over Hillary Clinton’s latest remarks, one thing is clear.

After years and years of playing the game, she finally gets caught up in one of her own mistakes that might very well seal the coffin (probably not the best choice of words on my part) on her candidacy, and probably any possible VP consideration for her.

Did she intend for her comments to come off the way they did? Was she implying that Obama might be assasinated, so she must continue her candidacy? I doubt it.

However…

What does it say about her, and her history, that even many in her own party wouldn’t put it past her to say something like that? Quite frankly, she has been playing this game for years and she finally says something that is completely tasteless.

Clinton spokesman Mo Elleithe just said to a group of reporters in South Dakota — including Memoli — that this is “one of the more ridiculous” issues that has come up in a long race.

No sympathy from me. The media has put words into the mouths of every major candidate throughout the entire election process, so why should Hillary be immune to this treatment? Fred Thompson was hounded for misspeaking on Meet the Press. Barack Obama has had to defend his own comments, as well as comments made by practically anyone who he has ever met. Mitt Romney had to clarify his intentions of remarks on a weekly basis. So why should Hillary get a pass?

I don’t recall Mrs. Clinton or her supporters being particularly outspoken when other candidates were given this treatment from the press, so why in the hell should they expect others to give her the benefit of the doubt?

She’s a Clinton, for God’s sake…

It’s reported today that Hillary Clinton has alluded to the assassination of Sen. Robert Kennedy in 1968 on the night of the California primary as a reason for her not to pull out of the race. 

Hers is probably one of the most tasteless comments I’ve ever heard uttered by a candidate other than a screwball no-chance third-party type, and is almost too tasteless to post, but it’s another indication of how desperate she’s become, and how her connection with sanity has become more tenuous.  One has to wonder what kind of Freudian process is going on in her head to even suggest that the assassination of the frontrunner would change the entire nomination picture, and hence that possibility justifies her staying in the race.

 Oh, by the way, she apologizes “if” anyone (like the Kennedy family) was offended by her comment.  No mention by her of an apology to the Obama family.

Byron York has a piece today on National Review Online suggesting that when the smoke clears and the whining subsides, Hillary Clinton may have the unwanted distinction of being the “Al Gore of 2008″ — specifically, having (possibily) won the majority of votes in the primary season, and yet losing the nomination to Barak Obama.

It’s a possibility, and a delicious one at that considering that many of Hillary’s supporters are already going ballastic over sexist claims of “sexist” discrimination against Hillary.  But I take issue with one assumption:  That Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. 

Sure, the final vote tallies of all 50 states and DC show he had about 500k more votes than George W. Bush, but what with reports of Democrat Party operatives buying voters’ mail-in ballots in Oregon, Wisconsin college students bragging that they’d voted more than once, Democrat operatives (again) bribing the homeless to vote in exchange for packs of cigarettes, the polls in and around St. Louis being left open after they were suppose to be closed (and a federal judge having to shut them down), an estimated “110%” turnout in some Philadelphia precincts, the Democrats (yet again) blocking the inclusion of military absentee ballots from overseas, and some states which didn’t bother to count absentee ballots if the total number was insufficient to swing the state’s final outcome, it’s a dubious conclusion that Al Gore won the popular vote in 2000. 

Fortunately, it didn’t matter…and if we elected presidents by popular vote, can you imagine the mess 2000 would have truly been had there been a call to recount every single vote in each of the 50 states and DC?

The Democratic Party of 2008 continues to entertain…And by “entertain,” I mean along the lines of a Keystone Cops movie.

It’s the eve of perhaps your last large primary victory, plus you’re running increasingly close in Oregon. And Barack Obama says, “[Iran] does not pose a serious threat” and he points to their small military budget and geographic size as an indicator of this. To say this is a blunder understates it. It displays a level of ignorance,that is hard to fathom. But, you rather doubt you can still win the nomination. Should you go after Barack, and further wound him? Should you say something like “In a year, Al-Quaeda spends orders of magnitude less then the US. Geographically, you could comfortably fit every member of the community into 2 square mile region. And yet on September 11th 2001, they flew 2 planes into the World Trade Center, and ended the lives of over 3000 Americans”. Or should you stay silent, knowing that your attack would further damage his chances in the general election? We’ll see which road Hillary Clinton takes today. And maybe we’ll get a sense of whether or not she truly believes she can win this thing.

Since he won the Republican nomination, I have laid off really criticizing John McCain. He’s the nominee, and I accept that. Now I am reading some that are openly pushing for a McCain/Lieberman ticket? After having read lately about how great Hillary is? Am I on a different planet?

To address the latter first, or the topic of Hillary Clinton… I’ve been impressed with the fight that Hillary Clinton has shown for the latter part of this campaign, and the type of candidate that she has decided to run as lately. In fact, if I were to go by her actions of the last few months, then I would probably feel that she wouldn’t be so bad as president. However, unlike some people who give their opinions, I remember the 1990’s. I haven’t forgotten who it was who defined the term “right wing conspiracy.” I remember, very clearly, the eight years of Clintons in the White House. Obama becoming president would be a nightmare, but returning power to the one family that believes it is rightfully theirs make anyone feel that much better?

________________________________________________________________________________

Now on to my second topic…

Lieberman for Vice President???? Is this some kind of twisted neocon idealistic dream? Joe Lieberman??? The same guy who helped bring us the great charade of 2000, when hanging chads became apart of the national debate? The same guy who ran as AL GORE’s running mate? The man who helped bring us the Florida debacle of 2000? Personally, I think Lieberman is a fine man, but not on the ticket for the Republican nomination, especially when teamed up with John McCain.

Does anyone honestly believe that Joe Lieberman would be out there standing by a President McCain’s side to help him fight for justice’s in the mold of Antonin Scalia? Vice President Lieberman supporting conservative ideals?

Look, anyone can debate just how conservative John McCain really is for years and get nowhere. Do I think he’s conservative? The answer is yes, but compared to what? The fact is that some of those who champion McCain like to bring up his lifetime ACU rating of 82%, and compare it to other notable conservatives lifetime ratings. That is fair, and over his entire career in elected office, McCain has been pretty conservative. However, those who bring this up tend to gloss over the fact that since the 1994 Republican takeover, McCain’s rated at around eight to ten points below his lifetime average. In fact, when one compares his record to others who first took office in 1994 over the same timeframe, he falls well short of many of those who they use as examples. He falls short of Chuck Hagel over this time frame.

To bring this discussion back to Joe Lieberman, his LIFETIME ACU RATING IS 16.8%!!!! By comparison, Joe Biden’s lifetime grade is 13.4%, Evan Bayh’s lifetime grade is 20.8%, Mary Landreu’s is 20.6%, and Ben Nelson’s is 55%. Harry Reid’s lifetime grade is 19.8%, 3 points higher than Lieberman. ROBERT BIRD’s is 29%!

Yes, it is very true that while most of these others are against the war, Lieberman is aligned with conservatives, but on just about everything else, he’s a liberal.

The Republican party has to appear united at the convention, giving the impression of unity and strength. If Lieberman was on the ticket, it could lead to disasterous consequences. Yes, it would be spitting in the face of those whose votes McCain must hold onto in order to win in 2008.

UPDATE: According to the 2007 ratings, Joe Lieberman graded at a magnificent 8%! Way to go, Joe. 8%! Make this man the Republican VP!