More Election Fireworks

Several things to update you on in election news.

First, New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has officially endorsed Barack Obama. This is a slap in the face of Clinton, of whom Richardson has been a big supporter in the past. Apparently there was a tense phone call, ending the several month effort to have Richardson endorse Clinton. James Carville, another Clinton aide, called Richardson's decision an 'act of betrayal'. Richardson is the 62nd superdelegate to endorse Obama since Feb. 5th, as opposed to only 5 superdelegate endorsements for Clinton in that same time period. Part of Richardson's decision comes as the result of his claim that several Clinton aides feel entitled to the Presidency, and use 'gutter politics' to get their way.

Right Truth reports on a story that indicates both Democrat candidates are way too cozy with Muslims than most Americans would prefer. Obama's Muslim ties are fairly well documented (his family, his background, his anti-Israel positions, etc.), but you probably haven't heard as much about Clinton's. One of Hillary's closest aides is Huma Abedin, a life-long Muslim and assistant editor of the "Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs". Her mother has ties to terrorism. Although many of Clinton's friends and aides gush about how wonderful Huma is, no one seems to know much about her. Hmmm...

CNS News reports that 1 in 5 Democrats say that if their candidate does not win the primary, they'll vote for McCain in the general election. This divisiveness illustrates how destructive the primary process has been to the party. Personally, I find it hard to believe there would be this much defection, but I suppose stranger things have happened.

Many Republicans are leaving Congress voluntarily for various reasons. This does not bode well for the GOP in November. Regardless of the outcome of the Presidential race, the GOP needs to hold as many seats as possible in Congress to counteract a liberal President and a Democrat-controlled Congress working together to drive the country further to the Left.

James Pennington examines one of Obama's biggest challenges: white voters. While the Democrats appear to be ignoring it, Obama has lost the white working class vote in critical states in big numbers. Pennington compares two primary states, Wisconsin and Ohio, and how they reveal the alarming trend. The basic idea is that Obama does well in states where the white and black populations are largely separated, but in states where the 'races' mix a lot he does very poorly. What this means is that Obama relies almost entirely on racial prejudice - where blacks and whites are in regular contact with each other, his race card does not play well. Keep in mind this is before all the racial stuff with Wright blew up; if anything, this trend will probably just accelerate.

Don Feder writes a brutally informative column on how Barack Obama has maintained associations with inflammatory racist figures like Rev. Wright, Louis Farrakhan (the leader of the Nation of Islam), and Malik Shabbazz, the founder of the New Black Panther Party (another anti-Semitic hate group). These continued associations with extremist hate groups raise serious questions on Obama's motivations and intentions. Is he really going to be the uniter he claims? Not with credentials like this.

Speaking of hiding his true intentions, a well-known Palestinian activist says Obama has deliberately toned down his anti-Israel feelings until the election is over. Ali Abunimah speaks candidly about his history with Obama:

"In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."

"Obama's about-face is not surprising," Abunimah wrote. "He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power."

Hey, there's leadership!

On the subject of leadership, the International Herald Tribune writes a great column about Obama, pointing out some very serious questions:

At the core of Senator Barack Obama's presidential campaign is a promise that he can transcend the starkly red-and-blue politics of the last 15 years, end the partisan and ideological wars, and build a new governing majority.

To achieve the change the country wants, he says, "we need a leader who can finally move beyond the divisive politics of Washington and bring Democrats, independents and Republicans together to get things done."

The problem, of course, is that Obama has shown zero interest so far in reaching across the aisle and working to eliminate partisanship:

Obama does not come to the campaign with a reputation as one of the accommodating bridge-builders in the Senate. His voting record, albeit short, is to the left; the National Journal declared it the most liberal of 2007. Congressional Quarterly said he voted with his party 97 percent of the time on party-line votes that year.

Obama has been endorsed by advocacy groups like MoveOn.org that are anathema to Republicans on Capitol Hill. And some of his strongest supporters are activists at the "net-roots" who have clamored for less accommodation across party lines.

Oh, yeah, Obama also doesn't want to be called a liberal.

Isn't it interesting that Republicans fight each other to be the most conservative candidate, while Democrats fight each other to avoid the label of liberal? Why do you suppose that is?

Thomas Lifson writes a poignant little article at American Thinker about the logical conclusions of the kerfuffle with Rev. Wright. Specifically, what if we hypothetically agree with Wright's position that American is irredeemably racist? What, then, do blacks want?

[As for] the same laws that Obama continues to demand we pass, Wright and other African-Americans have concluded that we've failed dismally in all these efforts. No matter what we do, we're so deeply tainted and racist that nothing changes.

I do not understand why the black community, having weighed us (white America) and found us wanting, continues to demand that we save it. Even conceding that everything wrong with the black community is indeed our fault, it's become pretty apparent that we (that is, white Americans) are not fixing the problems. The profound irony, of course, is that the lack of fixes doesn't affect us very much at all - but it affects black Americans terribly.

If things are as bad as Wright and his fellow travelers say, African Americans should be rejecting the Obama message of more government, rather than embracing it. After all, by their own testimony, the government is a failure. It has not done what it set out to do. African Americans should be demanding an entirely new approach, rather than more of the same. That they're not making such demands can lead us to a couple of entirely different conclusions. The first is that, when it comes to the subject of government programs and race, African Americans fall within the jocular definition of insanity, which has one doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result. The second, alternative conclusion, is that things have, in fact, improved under the government's aegis, and that African Americans are worried that, if they concede that this is true, white America will say "Great, the job is done," and then turn off the spigot.

A very interesting hypothetical exercise, don't you think?

There's my two cents.