His name is Jose N. Vazquez and he is serving time in Florida.

TAMPA - A man serving time on a felony conviction is a qualified write-in candidate for a state House of Representatives seat.

The state Division of Elections approved Jose N. Vazquez this week for the seat that includes parts of Tampa and Hillsborough County.

Vazquez lists his address as a prison facility near Lake Okeechobee. State laws require candidates to live in the districts they represent and prohibit felons from running for office until their rights are restored.

Officials say Vazquez turned in the proper forms and filled them out correctly.

He's serving time for driving with a revoked or suspended license.

In most parts of the USA, politicians aren't convicted felons till they leave office. Isn't Florida a great state or what?

Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Florida, States

The new Quinnipiac poll has Obama leading McCain in Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio. If those numbers are accurate and hold up, it would obviously indicate that Senator Obama is in great shape, picking up 47 electoral votes to add to his position. However, I noticed that Quinnipiac hid a bit of its methodology. In opinion polls, the demographc weighting is an important element in their accuracy. The gist of the Quinnipiac polls was not really anything new; young voters prefer Obama and older ones prefer McCain, women lean towards Obama while men lean towards McCain, and so on.

It's also important to notice that Quinnipiac never defined what they mean by "likely voter"". A respondent who voted in the primaries, for example, is far more significant as an indicator of true voter mood than someone who just says he thinks he will vote in the fall, still months away from the mid-June poll.

I also noticed clear discrepancies in the Quinnipiac poll. Quinnipiac, for example, says President Bush has a 22% Job Approval rating in Ohio, against 29 percent from a University of Cincinnati poll.

I was also preplexed by Quinnipac's announcement that President Bush enjoys only 60% from Republicans, when the polls I have seen show around 80% from Republicans. The stated numbers demonstrate a lean to the Left, from what I see. How much of lean depends on how you account for the discrepancies. The problem is while the skewing is evident, it appears to be a result of the methodology rather than simply the weighting. Therefore, the numbers may be taken to reflect the situation only in a general manner and with the normal caveats that Quinnpiac is a good poll, but hardly the most reliable.

A poll which misses by an average of 7 points is not where I would look for an election barometer.

Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race

One of the truly weird things about this Presidential election, is the way that both Democrats and Republicans have ignored their most effective lessons in political campaigning. For Democrats, the last time they truly routed the Republicans in a Presidential election, was when Lyndon Johnson crushed Senator Barry Goldwater in 1964. Johnson's repertoire included a long resume of legislation and long name recognition, as well as tremendous political infighting skills. If Kennedy was the charismatic image of the Democratic Party in 1960, Lyndon Johnson in 1964 was the unstoppable force. Yet no Democrat has copied the LBJ model since then.

It's not as though the Republicans have been smarter, however. Ronald Reagan was undeniably the most successful Republican President in more than a century, and he absolutely destroyed Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Walter Mondale. His composition of personal authenticity and clear conservative values appealed to Americans across the board. Yet no Republican since Reagan has made a serious effort to run a 'Reagan-style' campaign.

Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race

A few years ago, I had the privilege of speaking to a gentleman who worked for the Gallup Organization. We had a substantive discussion about the business and standards of opinion polling, especially with regard to elections. The gentlemen and I differed on the question of party demographics. Polls weight the responses from people according to a number of demographics in an attempt to show poll results in a context proportional to the real population. This is controversial in terms of party identification, because different polls use different weights. The key question comes down to whether people are quick or reluctant to change their party identification. Also, party identification may or may not be salient to an election's conduct. Ronald Reagan, for example, was undeniably a Conservative in his politics, yet he won support from many Democrats, Democrats who voted for Democrats in Congressional elections but voted for Reagan as President.

This phenomenon, that party identification may or may not be a factor in support for a candidate in a given election, depends on an often overlooked quality in voters; party identification is not necessarily the same thing as their values. To understand this, let's look at what's happened since 2005 to party identification. It's reasonable, I think, to say that in the last three years a greater proportion of voters consider themselves Democrat, while a smaller proportion of voters consider themselves Republican. Imagine three pools of voters - Democrats, Independents, and Republicans. At first they are all roughly the same size, but events cause this to change. First off, the Republican Party chased off its Conservative wing by breaking key promises and abandoning the values which gained it the majority in Congress. Ironically, when in subsequent elections the Republicans lost House and Senate seats, they blamed it on the Conservatives, rather than admit and correct their error. During that same time, the Republican Party began to steadily desert the President , even where his position matched the stated positions of Republican office-holders and candidates; Republicans fell prey to the lie that President Bush was wrong in his policies and appointments, and millions of Americans who supported the President were ostracized by his own party. Alienated by the Republican Party, Conservatives and Bush supporters in large part chose to sit out the 2006 midterm elections, and rather than heed the cost of their folly, the GOP in the main chose to tack hard to the Left, not quite to the point of supporting the madness of Pelosi and Reid, yet not opposing them in force either. Having banished millions of supporters of the President and Conservatives from its ranks, the GOP further emasculated itself in imitation of the Democrats. This clearly reduced public support for the Republicans.

As for the Democrats, their continued success in the media and in the elections held after 2004 have emboldened the party, and there is strong optimism in the DNC that in addition to increasing control of both houses of Congress, they will claim the White House in 2008 to complete the trifecta. Liberals are greatly enthused by the campaign of Barack Obama and other radicals, and the optimism of the party has energized public support. As a result, the situation is one where fewer and fewer voters are willing to publicly voice support for a Republican, and alignment with the Democrats is becoming once again the norm, indicating a return to pre-1994 levels of power and influence.

All is not as it may appear, however. Democrats enjoyed a resurgence in the spring of 2004, which fell as Kerry's campaign proved to be something less than advertised. Also, the feuding between Obama and Clinton threatens party unity for the fall campaign. But the greatest threat of all lies in assuming that strong party identification for the Democrats will result in comparable gains in the election of the President. I noted the shift in party identification and public support of a political party, but people vote according to their value system, which changes slowly if at all. I mentioned Reagan earlier; Reagan won support from some Democrats because of his strong defense stance, and his common-sense support for American business. In the Presidential race, therefore, the door is open for a candidate to win support outside his party, or at least to consolidate support within his party, by clearly stating where he stands and what he will do.

That said, however, it is clear that at this point the Democrats have build a reasonable degree of unity, even with the fractious debate between Obama and Clinton supporters. The Republicans, on the other hand, have a crisis of credibility, not only with the American public but within their own ranks. There is tremendous opportunity for an amazing comeback, but at the present point in time there is little evidence that the GOP is willing to do what is needed to make that happen.

Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: General politics

http://www.mysinchew.com/node/11210?tid=37The Philippine President was recently asked to change her dietary habits. From AP-

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo has declined an animal rights group's invitation to become a vegetarian to help fight hunger in her country, her spokesman said Friday.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals challenged Arroyo in an open letter to shun meat, saying that "adopting a vegetarian diet and publicly advocating the same would do far more than any photo op."

The PETA director for Asia-Pacific, Jason Baker, said that raising animals for food is "condemning people in the Philippines and around the world to starvation." He said food fed to animals is enough to feed half the world.

Arroyo was not persuaded to change her diet.

"The president is one who believes in freedom of choice," spokesman Ignacio Bunye told reporters. "You cannot impose on others."

Bunye said some Cabinet members are vegetarian.

Now if Arroyo and her cronies would only vow to stop stealing from the Philippine treasury. That would really help the poor.

Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Asia, World Politics

From the Sun is Hot/Water is wet department.

TAMPA - At a recent council meeting, two of Mayor Pam Iorio's highest-paid administrators sat side by side for hours. One was there in case the council had questions about a new code enforcement director. The other was there to lead a discussion on a reclaimed water project.

That same morning, Fire Chief Dennis Jones spent hours waiting around council chambers before being called upon to give a two-minute presentation about a permitting issue.

The frustration in the room was palpable. By meeting's end, veteran council member Charlie Miranda declared the board so dysfunctional he wanted to run for county commission.

What has become of the Tampa City Council?

Council members often spend hours debating issues over which they have little say - such as complaints about Verizon's customer service or whether to make state road Florida Avenue a two-way thoroughfare - while issues they can influence often take weeks if not months to resolve.

"I'm a lot more frustrated," said council Chairman Tom Scott, who served on the county commission when that board was considered highly dysfunctional.

Part of the problem is that the council's ambitions to shape city policies runs into the reality of Tampa's political system, where the mayor has far more power to shape issues than the council.

The council also might be a victim of its own meeting schedule. Often, as many as 20 items are scheduled for the same time, causing people with business before the board to arrive in the morning, only to wait hours as the council slogs through the agenda.

Whatever the reasons, this much is certain: Residents are upset they need to spend so much time at city hall. Council members are frustrated with themselves and one another.

Taxpayers are paying the salaries of city administrators who end up sitting at council meetings rather than getting work done in their offices.

Hurry Up And Wait

Permalink | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Florida

Which means Bloggers won't have Ken Livingstone to kick around any more. From the BBC-

Boris Johnson has won the race to become the next mayor of London - ending Ken Livingstone's eight-year reign at City Hall.

The Conservative candidate won with 1,168,738 first and second preference votes, compared with Mr Livingstone's 1,028,966 on a record turnout of 45%.

He paid tribute to Mr Livingstone and appeared to offer him a possible role in his new administration.

Lib Dem Brian Paddick came third and the Greens' Sian Berry came fourth.

Mr Johnson is expected to stand down as MP for Henley, triggering a by-election.

Hat tip- Dr. Taylor at Poliblog

Permalink | Comments (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: Europe, World Politics

The result is so much at variance with all the other polls recently reported that it is most likely an "outlier," but it will still help Clinton in the short term, Liz Sidoti reports for the Associated Press:

Hillary Rodham Clinton now leads John McCain by 9 points in a head-to-head presidential matchup, according to an Associated Press-Ipsos poll that bolsters her argument that she is more electable than Democratic rival Barack Obama. Obama and Republican McCain are running about even.

The survey released Monday gives the New York senator and former first lady a fresh talking point as she works to raise much-needed campaign cash and persuade pivotal undecided superdelegates to side with her in the drawn-out Democratic primary fight.

Read the whole story at the link above.

Permalink | Comments (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Hillary, McCain, Obama, Polls
Tags: poll, presidential campaign

Barack Obama has dealt with the exposure of his association with radical terrorist bomber William Ayers by asserting Ayers was just some eccentric English professor from the 'hood and, since Ayers' terrorist acts had taken place some forty years ago, when Obama was a mere child, it is unfair to insinuate Obama had any knowledge of what Ayers was about.

Naturally, it's baloney, but the adoring press corps eat it up. Ayers, of course, has consistently and repeatedly defended his actions through the years, right up to the present, and the only remorse he has ever expressed was that his bombings weren't more successful. This was no dark secret from the past known only to those who were adults at the time; Ayers' notoriety flowed from it. And Ayers hosted the campaign kickoff fundraiser for Obama's first State Senate run.

But now it seems his denial is an even more blatant falsehood than was already apparent. He and Ayers worked closely for years, according to Larry Johnson of No Quarter:

But William Ayers was not just some guy who "lives in Barack's neighborhood." He is a well-known and controversial Professor of Education at the University of Illinois at Chicago. And Obama wants you to believe that he knew nothing of Ayers views or politics even though Barack participated in public forums with him there? I don't think so.

But that is not all. Barack also was essentially an employee of Bill Ayers for eight years.

In 1995, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created to raise funds to help reform the Chicago public schools. One of the architects of the Challenge was none other than Professor Bill Ayers. Ayers co-wrote the initial grant proposal and proudly lists himself on his own website as the co-founder of the Challenge.

And who did William Ayers, co-creator of the Challenge, help select as the new director of the board for this program? Barack Obama. Barack Obama was the first Chairman of the Board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. This appointment came at a crucial time in Barack's life. He was on the verge of challenging longtime state Senator Alice Palmer for her job. When Barack decided to run, it is no surprise that he turned to William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn for help in organizing the campaign and in hosting his first fundraiser in the district.

Read the entire post at the above link. Just how many bald-faced lies is Obama to be allowed without consequence?

It should be noted the author is a Hillary Clinton supporter, but his claim should be easily confirmed or refuted. If true, a clear pattern is emerging: whenever one of Obama's close associates is found to be corrupt, or anti-American, or a radical terrorist, he has minimized his relationship with that person and falsely so.

Unfortunately, so long as the media refuses to report his lies and evasions - much less take note of the pattern of deception - it really doesn't matter how many he tells, does it?

Permalink | Comments (5) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama, Primaries, Scandal
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, Obama, primaries, radical, scandal

Hillary Clinton's campaign is already reaping the fruit of her 10-point victory in the Pennsylvania primary. She raised $2.5 million in the day after her big win, and now the trend in Gallup's daily tracking poll has reversed:

The Democratic nomination race is now tied, with Barack Obama favored by 48% of national Democratic voters and Hillary Clinton by 47%.

* * * * *

The latest results, based on Gallup Poll Daily tracking from April 22-24, include two days of interviews conducted entirely after Tuesday's Pennsylvania Democratic primary. Support for Clinton is significantly higher in these post-primary interviews than it was just prior to her Pennsylvania victory, clearly suggesting that Clinton's win there is the catalyst for her increased national support.

Obama's lead dwindled steadily all week, falling from a high of 10 percentage points in interviewing conducted in the three days just prior to the Pennsylvania primary. However, the percentage of Democrats supporting Obama has changed little (declining from 50% in April 19-21 polling to 48% today). Most of Clinton's increased support (from 40% to 47%) has come from previously undecided voters. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

Read the whole report at the link above. Only a few days ago, Obama held a 10-point lead nationally, and seemed to have overcome his Pastor Problem. Since then, he's been coming back to earth, and his Pastor is giving a series of public interviews which prove the issue has not, in fact, been put to rest. He outspent Hillary by at least 3 - to - 1 in Pennsylvania but, as in Ohio and Texas, his money couldn't buy enough love.

Notice that only two of the three days polled were after her Pennsylvania triumph. Expect her to keep moving up in the next few days, as the news and analysis of the results are widely discussed. Obama figures to continue slipping with Reverend Wright staying in the news and losing PA after his huge investment.

"Over," someone said? Not by a long shot . . .

Permalink | Comments (3) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary, Polls, Primaries
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, Gallup daily tracking poll, Hillary Clinton, primaries

Today's Pennsylvania Democratic Presidential Primary could answer some open questions about the race, and possibly clarify its future course. Or not, writes Dan Balz for the Washington Post.

Read his entire article at the link provided. It's long, but asks a lot of the right questions. I'll briefly describe the eight questions he ponders:

1. The Expectations Game: Does Hillary really need a double-digit win to go on? Or, given Obama's 5-to-1 spending edge, is any clear win an achievement? I think she needs a big win, because that's the only chance of ending up winning the total popular vote - the sort of thing super delegates could point to when voting for her.
2. Who has been hurt worse for the general election by the tough campaign, or have both candidates been strengthened by the competition? Both are probably better for the fight, but Obama's weaknesses are only just being exposed. Are these the tip of the iceberg? With Hillary, it's mostly more of the same old stuff we always disliked about her.
3. What might Obama's performance with working class white Democrats portend of his chances in November? Inquiring super delegates want to know . . . If he gets skunked again in this demographic group, as he did in Ohio and Mississippi, super delegates will be getting nervous tics.
4. Is Bill Clinton a net help or harm to Hillary? Or, as I prefer to phrase it, "Bill Clinton: Threat or Menace?" If not for him, would she even be here? Or running some lefty advocacy group?
5. What's the most important remaining contest AFTER Pennsylvania votes? Indiana.
6. Will super delegates coalesce around a candidate, or does it go to the convention? Obviously most of them would prefer a clear nominee sooner rather than later, but don't want to make a fatal mistake which not only loses the White House, but also hurts the down-ticket. They are looking for an excuse to settle it, but the frontrunner keeps stumbling over his own feet.
7. What about a "dream ticket" of Obama-Clinton or vice versa? No way, Shanté.
8. Is McCain making best use of the time he has gained by the ongoing Democratic contest? Arguments exist for both sides on this one. He probably gets a "B" for unifying the party and beefing up his foreign policy credentials while Barry and Hilly throw mud.

Do read it all for Balz' take.

Permalink | Comments (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary, Obama, Pennsylvania, Primaries
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, Obama, Pennsylvania, primaries

Chelsea Clinton was a huge attraction Friday night as she toured some of Philadelphia's most famous gay nightclubs, reports Mathew Berger for MSNBC's First Read:

Chelsea Clinton stopped traffic Friday night as she wandered the streets of Philadelphia on a gay bar crawl, winning rave reviews for both her politics and her appearance.

Led around the neighborhood by Gov. Ed Rendell, Chelsea was mobbed by local gays and lesbians, as she walked from one club to the next. They ran up to hug her, posed for pictures and certainly invaded her personal space.

"I grabbed her ass," one young woman exclaimed to her friends after snapping a picture with her arm around the former first daughter.

"Chelsea, the gays love you!" one fan exclaimed, as she took the microphone at Bump, a restaurant and bar that was her first stop. "Oh, gosh, I don't know if everybody loves me," she responded.

Read the rest at the link above. It's not terribly surprising she should be the center of attention while accompanied by Ed Rendell and Rob Reiner, but also along for the crawl was gay superstar actor Robert Gant, who seemed to be in her shadow, too.

What effect surrogate campaigning may have in Tuesday's Pennsylvania Primary remains to be seen. Conventional wisdom holds that Obama needs to roll up heavy majorities in the Philly area to offset Hillary's anticipated sweep of the more rural counties.

Obama has gone all in for PA, outspending Clinton by a reported 5 to 1 and closing the margin in most polls to mid-single digits. However, Hillary has shown the tendency to carry the late deciders by a strong margin (helping her confound polling in New Hampshire, California, and Ohio). Obama pointedly refused to hand out "walking around money" in Philly, which may hurt his turnout there. Traditionally, this is cash put out on the "street" to black community leaders to ensure the turnout, and there may be some resentment that the wealthiest political campaign of all time is so stingy.

Permalink | Comments (2) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary, Pennsylvania, Primaries, Special Interest Groups
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, Pennsylvania, primaries

Gallup's daily tracking poll shows Hillary Clinton moving into the lead nationally 46-45%, a statistically insignificant margin, but the first time she has led in this poll in a month. The trend for Obama is down while the trend for Clinton is up over the last few days.

Full results from Gallup.

If you're a Democratic super delegate, it might be a good time for an extended vacation to one of those South Pacific islands without cell phone or internet service.

Permalink | Comments (5) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary, Obama, Polls, Primaries
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, Obama, poll, primaries

The (presumably) final debate of the Democratic Primary season was held in Philadelphia, and the City of Brotherly Love saw some Sisterly Toughness. ABC News' Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopolous did a great job with the questions, easily within the top three or four (including both parties) of the election cycle. Barack Obama was on his heels for most of it, unused to playing defense against an aggressive media, and turned in one of his weakest debate outings yet. Hillary Clinton took some shots also, but recovered well and kept turning the heat up on Obama, who looked like he just can't handle pressure.

And, of course, he can't, really. Not this sort of pressure, and certainly not the pressure a President is under every single day. He's a sharp young man with great political instincts, but his lack of experience is telling. Obama should run for Governor of Illinois. If he can do a good job of cleaning up that mess with a corruption-free administration in a state government which has seemed rife with it for years - a goal which would undoubtedly offend and alienate some old supporters - he would become a more viable candidate. The sort of guy who might play in Peoria.

A smattering of other opinions:

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air:

Thanks to a surprisingly tenacious set of questions for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton from ABC moderaters Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous, Barack Obama got exposed over and over again as an empty suit, while Hillary cleaned his clock. However, the big winner didn't even take the stage tonight.

* * * * *

The winner of this debate? John McCain. Both Democrats came out of this diminished, but Obama got destroyed in this exchange. If superdelegates had begun to reconsider their support of Obama after Crackerquiddick, they're speed-dialing Hillary after watching Gibson dismember Obama on national TV tonight.

Jim Geraghty of NRO's Campaign Spot:

But she tore into Obama on all of his weak spots. Relentlessly. For the most part, she avoided looking nasty while she did it. She focused on the 'cling' comment in the context of not understanding the role of religion in people's lives. She repeated what Wright actually said the Sunday after 9/11, and probably introduced Wright's blaming of America to a lot of people who had only heard Wright's sermons through a media filter. She twisted the knife when she noted that people don't choose their families, but they choose their pastor. When Obama tried to downplay his relationship to William Ayers, she brought up the Woods Foundation.

After about forty-five minutes, David Axelrod probably should have thrown in the towel and stopped the fight.

Read their whole posts at the respective links. From the center, Ann Althouse, and from the left, Talk Left here and extended here.

Obama apologists Josh Marshall and Andrew Sullivan were not amused. Olberman blew a gasket. Our resident cultists haven't been observed for a while and are presumed to have been picked up by the Mother Ship and returned to Planet Farrakhan.

Permalink | Comments (8) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Hillary, Obama, Primaries, debates
Tags: debate, Democratic presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, Obama

Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh's chief political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, was interviewed on WABC Radio on Sunday, and revealed Hamas hopes Obama will win. Why hasn't this key international endorsement made the "mainstream" US media, wonders John Hinderaker at Power Line:

The interview produced a scoop which, for some reason, has not been widely publicized: Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."

Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."

Read the rest, along with a link to the audio of the interview, at the above link.

Well, we've already noted the prominence of critics of Israel in Obama's circle of advisers. Apparently others are noticing, too . . .

Permalink | Comments (3) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama, Primaries, Special Interest Groups
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign, endorsement, Hamas, Obama

O great and mighty Karnak, in your great wisdom, divine the question which is answered, "Malcolm X, Deval Patrick, and John Edwards."

"Name two Black Men and one Breck Girl."

Seriously, Malcolm was blunt, radical, and original. Patrick and Edwards were clients of political puppet master David Axlerod, who also happens to manage Barack Obama's campaign. Throw in radical immigrant worker unionizer Cesar Chavez for good luck . . . What do they all have in common?

Take a few of what rhetoricians call "God terms," because concepts like "progress," "hope," change," and "a better tomorrow" are universally liked but mean nothing specific, add a proficient and attractive actor, tone down the radical side or hide it altogether, mix well, package with positive images, and send to market.

Naturally, an educated and informed citizenry would never be fooled by such obvious subterfuge. Gotta get us of them one day . . .

Permalink | Comments (10) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama
Tags: Democrat, Obama, presidential campaign, video

Does the NY senator believe half of what she says? From Reuters-

PHILADELPHIA- Democratic White House hopeful Hillary Clinton will unveil a plan on Friday to boost federal spending to help cities and states fight crime by $4 billion a year, aiming to halve murder rates in the most dangerous U.S. cities.

The New York senator will announce the plan in Philadelphia, a city with the highest homicide rate among the 10 biggest U.S. cities and a key battleground in her flagging race against Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Clinton is ahead in Pennsylvania polls before the state's April 22 primary but needs to maintain a strong lead to stay in the race to be the Democratic nominee in the November vote.

The centerpiece of the plan, seen by Reuters, is to set a goal of halving homicide rates in cities. It includes adding 100,000 new police recruits, targeting gang violence and disrupting drug markets, and a federal initiative to crack down on illegal gun trafficking.

We've been spending billions fighting illegal drugs and what's it got us so far? Alot of wasted money and a drug trade that is still thriving. Hillary is big on promises and far removed from the reality most Americans live day in and day out. Then few Washington politicians are.

Permalink | Comments (10) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Hillary

By now, it has become apparent that Barack Obama can hardly open his mouth without lying about something. Of course, why not? He could never win telling the truth about himself, his proposals, his associates, and the Old Media is covering for him no matter what he says or does. So he probably felt the same rules applied if he began lying about John McCain.

No, you can't!

Ironically, when confronted with the charge that even The New York Times' ultra-liberal theatre critic columnist Frank Rich believes he "libeled" McCain by knowingly "distorting" what he said, Obama was so brazen as to deny it, claiming "we can pull the quotes up on You Tube" to back him up.

Rut-roh, Astro! Red State's Neil Stevens did just that:

The clip of what McCain actually said is sort of herky-jerky, but whoever was shooting the video might have had an incoming call or something . . .

Obama's pretty clear, at least, as he lies to your face.

Permalink | Comments (24) | TrackBacks (1) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Dirty Tricks, McCain, Obama
Tags: dirty campaigning, lie, McCain, Obama, presidential campaign, video

Hillary Clinton repeatedly uses the sales pitch that she is a competent, experienced and capable manager who knows how to get things done not just talk about them. Yet, if we take a look at her campaign it's pretty easy to conclude the exact opposite as explained Politico:

Clinton has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months. She has left a trail of unpaid bills and unhappy vendors and had to loan her own campaign $5 million to keep it afloat in January. Her campaign badly underestimated her main adversary, Barack Obama, miscalculated the importance of organizing caucus states and was caught flat-footed after failing to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday.

To this list of errors, I would add the squandering of her husband as a campaign asset that began with his bumbling mistakes in South Carolina, and Hillary's baffling and inexplicable "misstatements" about her trip to Bosnia.

In contrast the Obama campaign, with some minor missteps, is running like a well-oiled machine. They relentlessly exploit every opportunity to rack up delegates, have created a phenomenal fund-raising machine, and have constructed a powerful grass-roots organization. More on Obama's campaign from the Politico story:

"In every campaign, the strategy is important and the day-to-day management is important. And in Obama's case, it's hard not to argue that they have run a great campaign," said Steve Elmendorf, deputy campaign manager for Kerry's 2004 bid and a Clinton supporter. "It's been one of the best-run presidential campaigns in the last 20 years. I think they are focused and disciplined and on message. ... The test of a good campaign is having a plan and keeping an operation on track to execute a plan."

Put simply, Obama has shown he can offer a compelling vision, execute a complicated strategy to convey it and, all the while, keep the ledger in the black. That's not a bad first step to becoming a strong leader.

Running a large and extraordinarily complicated enterprise like a presidential campaign is certainly a good indicator of a candidate's management skills. John McCain also deserves credit for the campaign he has run that faced obstacles almost as daunting as Obama's.

Permalink | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race
Tags: Democratic presidential campaign

Barack Obama misleads about his mother on the campaign trail, pretending he was instructed in Christianity from childhood. But he even deceives in his book, Dreams For My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, by omitting a central fact about dear ol' Dad: he was a communist. Greg Ransom writes at PrestoPundit:

There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams For My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?

And there is more mystery in the book. Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?" Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others? Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer? It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir.

If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams For My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220) And what was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)

Read the rest, including some of Dad's own words, at the link above.

Why write a book about your father and how your political journey tried to understand him without mentioning his core beliefs? It's like they were . . . inconvenient or something . . .

Permalink | Comments (13) | Linking Blogs
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Race, Democrats, Obama
Tags: book, Democratic presidential campaign, heritage, Obama