President Obama has a Midwest Problem

After the 2010 Midterm elections the pundits had just about predicted all Democrats would be out of office by 2012. Some acknowledged that these trends followed typical midterm election results and not any specific referendum, but I think the most telling referendum in today's electorate is that they will vote out the incumbent no matter who it is.

After careful analysis of the election results it became very apparent to me that in spite of the 2010 election results, President Obama's 2012 electability is still quite strong and that is without even taking into consideration the weak field of GOP Presidential candidates.

The biggest shake-up was in the House with the Democrats losing a whopping 63 seats, but electoral votes are allocated statewide not in House Districts so one would be hard-pressed to extrapolate those results to statewide election results in 2012. The better barometer would be the statewide races for the Senate and for Governor. Which on the surface considering the Democrats lost 6 seats in each race you would think would reflect a similar result as the outcome of the House races, but there are a few things to consider.

When you examine the states that flipped from Democrats to GOP you will see a trend. In the Senate race it was ND, AR, WI, IL, IN, PA, and AR. In the Gubernatorial race it was WY, NM, KS, OK, TN, OH, PA, ME, IA, WI, and MI.

So the first thing you notice is...that is a lot of losses!!! Then you look state by state and you will quickly realize many of these are states that President Obama didn't win in the landslide victory in 2008. So if you consider what is really at risk in 2012 are the states that he won that flipped from the Democrats to GOP which leaves NM, IA, WI, MI, OH, PA, and ME.

If you look at this collection of states and you stayed awake in Geography class you will now understand the title of my blog post. Democrats had big losses in the traditionally Democratic Midwest. This will be the key battleground for President Obama in the 2012 election campaign. Democrats need to get laser focused on the issues that are concerning the Midwest and make sure it is clear that the GOP candidates are not campaigning to fix these issues, but rather to usher in a political ideology of failed policies. We have seen the results of this in states like WI, so voters are already seeing the error of their ways... I notice the Presidential Bus Tour is focused on the Midwest so this concern has not been lost by the Campaign. Read more!

Curse Bush or Thank Obama?

As my 401K portfolio is finally equal to the value it was before the 2008 economic crisis. Should I continue to curse Bush or should I just be thankful for Obama?

It amazes me that "Economics" in America is still an open dialogue. Listening to Republican and Conservative opinion in regards to any fiscal matters would be equivalent to me accepting financial advice from my drunk uncle who works every day, lives with his mother, drives a 25 year old Buick, and borrows $20 from me every time he stops by. Not to mention that once his mother dies he will lose her house because he is too irresponsible to pay the taxes every year. This is basically the state that Conservatives Economic Policy has left this country.

Did we forget the economy was losing jobs at a rate of close to 700,000 jobs a month, credit markets were functioning poorly, the GDP was in a free fall, and a second Great Depression was imminent? Now instead of being in the middle of Depression we are talking about a recovery!


The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (aka Stimulus Bill), which the President signed less than a month after taking office was unpopular to many, but has undoubtedly helped to stabilize our Economy. We must recognize the "economy" is 50% about real numbers, and 50% just about how people feel or think things are going.

The GDP, in a free fall for three quarters, barely fell in the second quarter of 2009, rose in the third and will see larger growth in the fourth quarter.

Job loss, which averaged 691,000 jobs a month is the first quarter of 2009, averaged 69,000 in the fourth quarter.

The Dow Jones, sitting at a disastrous 6500 points 30 days into the Obama Presidency and everybody blamed his failed policies. Now that Obama's policies are actually fueling the economy the Dow is over 10,700 points and it's in "real" money not the "Madoff" money we had during the Bush years.

With the economy still losing jobs and unemployment at 10 %, the economy is obviously far from healthy, but stabilizing the economy is just not enough. The problems that led to the crisis were years in the making.

We need to complete efforts like financial regulatory that protect the economy from actions that could threaten financial and economic stability, and protect our financial system from the abuse of powerful financial institutions like AIG. Conservatives mock these attempts to reform???

You can say the Obama administration isn't doing everything right, but what they are doing is working!!! As I am continually frustrated by the rhetoric, as always one of the "David's" from Obama's Campaign laid out the facts more eloquently than I ever could. That is why Obama won so overwhelmingly because of his brain trust1 Enjoy this article by David Axelrod. Read more!

Obama has done "Nothing", PT. 5

When I started this series I worried the fact that I don't blog regularly would make this ineffective. That is part of the problem, what I didn't appreciate is that he would actually accomplish so much on a daily basis. I end up in this paralysis of trying to decide what to post I end up not having enough time to decide which story to run with and post the details on the blog.

Today on the anniversary of the historic election of the 44th President of the United States Mr. Barack H. Obama, I get to reflect on the entire experience and the emotion I felt through the campaign culminating with the victory on Election Day. Don't worry by reflecting I don't mean I am going to type out all of my thoughts from the first day I learned of Barack Obama until now. Fortunately there are 2 resources that chronicle this in a way far superior than anything I can ever dream of doing:

1. The HBO Documentary BY THE PEOPLE: THE ELECTION OF BARACK OBAMA which premiered last night. I think what the Obama Campaign did in Iowa is a movie all by itself coming from obscurity against a Goliath candidate and coming out victorious, but the entire story just might have you in tears... Watching this movie is watching history, but for the first time I can reflect what I was doing, what I was thinking, how I felt, and how I was involved!
2. Obama's Campaign manager David Plouffe wrote a blog post on Huffington Post in response to Ariana Huffington (as the Humanity Critic so elegantly stated her elaborate plot to have people take her hamfistedly clumsy articles seriously). DAVID PLOUFFE: No Difference Between President Obama and Candidate Obama. This article is a masterpiece chronicling the administration that already has made a significant down payment on the change so many fought for last year.

Read more!

Obama has done "Nothing", PT. 4

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed his first bill into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, which overruled the Supreme Court's decision in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. which I wrote about in a previous blog post.

The bill amends the Civil Rights Act of 1964 stating that the 180-day statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit regarding pay discrimination resets with each new discriminatory paycheck.

A first bill to amend the statutory limitations period and supersede the Ledbetter decision was introduced in Congress but was never enacted, as after having been passed by the House it failed to survive in the Senate due to the opposition of most of the Republican Senators.

President Obama has long championed this bill and Lilly Ledbetter's cause, and by signing it into law, ensures that women like Ms. Ledbetter and other victims of pay discrimination can effectively challenge unequal pay. Read more!

Obama has done "Nothing", PT.3

This one is called:

"Cleaning up after the Bush Bank Bailout"

I was never convinced of the necessity of Bush's Bank Bailout, but as Vice President Joe Biden stated, "Instead of being in the middle of a depression, we are talking about coming out of a recession."

I see the bailout as part of the strategic vision of Republican strategists to maintain their relevance. The largest transfer of wealth to the wealthiest of Americans ever. They saddled the next administration with debt beyond what most of us could even comprehend which has severely limited the Obama administration from achieving their own initiatives as they try to clean up the mess that was left.

Lastly, the best part of their strategy is in play now, as they have spent the last several months painting the Democrats as the ones responsible for the bailouts and uncontrollable federal spending. Brilliant strategy and it has worked masterfully.

In steps the Pay Czar, one of Obama's much maligned "czars" (a conservative media phenomenomem that is dismantled here on http://factcheck.org/). When Obama took office he mandated some structure be put around the reckless management of the billions of funds released by the Bush Administration that was largely (if not completely) unaccounted for.

The Pay Czar is delivering a payback in his latest move to deny salary or bonus from Bank of America CEO Ken Lewis. Lewis was set to receive millions in salary and bonuses while his company posted $2.24B in losses for the 3Q after accepting $45 billion dollars from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) (a.k.a Bush Bank Bailout).


Kenneth Feinberg, is the U.S. Treasury Department's special master for compensation and is scrutinizing pay packages at bailed-out banks. In fact Lewis will pay back about $1 million he has received so far out of a $1.5 million annual salary. Lewis will be the first of many CEO’s to have their pay packages scrutinized which under the Bush administration had little to no accountability for the funds they had received.

Read more!

Obama has done "Nothing", PT.1

Starting a new series chronicling this notion that Obama has done nothing. Since I don't blog with regularity this is probably a bad series for me to take on, but I am going to give it a shot. Debating whether I want to do some investigative reporting and chronicle the hundreds of things that he has already done or just highlight the many things to come. We'll see.

Today's entry: Obama's first trip to New Orleans

While it's Obama's first trip to New Orleans, it's the administration's 18th trip to the city and administration officials have made 35 trips to the Gulf Coast since March.

When Obama became president, FEMA said there were more than 120 Louisiana reconstruction projects stalled in federal-state disputes. Since January, 76 of those have been resolved.

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, has credited Obama's team with bringing a more practical and flexible approach to the reconstruction process. "There's a sense of momentum and a desire to get things done," he said in August. Read more!

Choose the Better Right

Using the sermon points of the the believer, the Bible, and the ballot box I have scored these principles with my own commentary to reach what I see as an obvious conclusion.

I. Participate in the Process

This election had the highest voter turnout of any election. I believe more Christians voted in this election than any election before. Christian pastors made an outcry to White Evangelicals to go out and vote Republicans and President Obama prevailed overwhelmingly. I believe many were like me and after truly evaluating Biblical principles and not divisive talking points and wedge issues came to an obvious conclusion.

Score: It is unfair to assume that because more people participated in the process that the winner of the election was the benefactor of this participation so we will call this one even.

II. Vote Biblical Values

a. The Sanctity of Human Life
If you read the context of this question it put a much larger context around this principle than the typical non-negotiable pro-life rhetoric. Candidates should be chosen based on who has the best chance to pursue the practical and proven policies which could dramatically reduce the number of abortions in America and therefore save precious unborn lives, rather than those who simply repeat the polarizing legal debates and "pro-choice" and "pro-life" mantras from either side. Republican candidates have received a free pass from upholding all other Biblical and Conservative principles by stamping Pro-life on their campaign poster.

Score: That being said I do believe that God’s Word is non-negotiable so I will ignore the other principles on the sanctity of human life and score this for McCain.

b. Justice For All
With more than 2,000 verses in the Bible about how we treat the poor and oppressed, candidates must convey what they will do to overcome the scandal of extreme global poverty and the shame of such unnecessary domestic poverty in the richest nation in the world. Such a central theme of the Bible simply cannot be ignored at election time, as too many Christians have done for years. Any solution to the economic crisis that simply bails out the rich, and even the middle class, but ignores those at the bottom should simply be unacceptable to people of faith.

Score: This one is not even competitive the candidates are on complete sides of this principle score this one for Obama.

c. Peace on Earth
From the biblical prophets to Jesus, there is at least, a biblical presumption against war. We must choose the candidates who will be least likely to lead us into more disastrous wars and find better ways to resolve the inevitable conflicts in the world. The candidate that best understands that our security depends upon other people's security (everyone having "their own”, so no one can make them afraid). I do not want a pacifist president, but we can insist on one who views military force only as a very last resort, when all other diplomatic and economic measures have failed, and never as a preferred or habitual response to conflict.

I would also regard God's fragile creation and choose the candidate who will likely be most faithful in our care of the environment. A candidate that will take on the growing threat of climate change, and show a strong commitment to the conversion of our economy and way of life to a cleaner, safer, and more renewable energy future. This could accomplish at the same time a key priority like reducing our Middle East oil dependence. In addition job creation and economic renewal from a new "green" economy built on more spiritual values of conservation, stewardship, sustainability, respect, responsibility, co-dependence, modesty, and even humility.

Score: Again this is not a competitive comparison Even if you don’t believe in global warming; McCain has pronounced himself as war-monger who is only rivaled by former Vice President Cheney in his desire to see the destruction of all conflicting nations. Score this one for Obama.

d. Moral Conviction
If you read the explanation of this principle this really needs know explanation. Healthy families are the foundation of our community life, and nothing is more important than how we are raising up the next generation. Only one candidate exemplifies and articulates strong family values. The White House should be used to speak of sexual restraint and integrity, marital fidelity, strong parenting, and putting family values over economic values.

Score: You have one candidate that divorced his wife after she was in a car wreck and began an affair with hispresent wife. In addition selected a running mate that had an illegitimate child (do the math child’s age minus years married), and raised a child that did the same thing. In the middle of all of the backlash made false claims that they would marry (which still has not happened) and the baby daddy (never thought you would hear this term applied to someone proposing to be in the White House) is contemplating posing in Playboy magazine and the proposed mother-in-law has been arrested for six felony drug counts. The moral valley actually goes much wider and deeper than the few items I have mentioned.

This would basically disqualify McCain from the position if there were NO other opponent, but there is… Obama is married and actually loves his first and only wife, he has 2 beautiful children and almost let’s no occasion pass when he is not speaking passionately about the important role of a strong father and mother and the strength of the American family as the backbone of all that is good in our great Nation. Throw in his running mate that lost his wife and raised his children as a single father commuting from DC to Delaware daily so that he could be with his family at home. Even if you absolutely hate Obama with every fabric of your being, you have no choice you have to score this one for Obama.

III. Choose the Better Right

Just reviewing the 4 basic Biblical principles above I amazed that anyone could come to any other conclusion than to vote for Barack Obama. Even if you disagree with my opinions if you listed it out every single component of each of these Biblical principles and actually evaluated the candidates positions based on facts (not rhetoric that you hear on MSNBC or Fox News) it is undeniable that the agenda being promoted by Obama lines up significantly more so than what is being promoted by McCain. I believe if a lot of liberals or progressives actually took time to evaluate the specifics of his views they would be a little more tentative about their support. The “Change” Obama speaks of is not just rhetoric to be more tolerant it is actually pursuing the teachings of the Bible not just cherry-picking them for political gain.

IV. Ask for Wisdom (Proverbs 29:2)

If you note in the scripture referenced it says that when the “evil rule the people groan.” The people have never groaned as loud as they did this November and throughout the campaign season. Obama won more so from the people’s displeasure with the Bush administration than he did on his own merit or anything that John McCain did or said. Only the wealthy thrived under Bush the rest of us are left to support the burdens of their prosperity.

V. Pray for our Leaders (1 Timothy 2:1-2)

Regardless if the candidate you supported prevailed as Christians we are called to pray for our leaders. I fault all of the so called Christians that failed to pray for President Bush as we watched him digress from the Christian and Conservative principles that he campaigned for to succumb to his ambition for economic gain and power. Let us not allow President Obama to lose his tenacity to pursue God’s agenda because Christians fail to support him with our prayers.

VI. God continues to Sit on the Throne (Daniel 12:20-21)

In verse 21 Daniel says God sets up Kings and disposes them. I truly feel that God allowed President Bush to lead this nation for two terms to prepare us for President Obama. Obama could have never succeeded under the mindset that Americans held at the turn of the century. God allowed us to see a disintegration of everything Americans believe before they could see beyond their fear and hatred and accept one that is truly capable of promoting God-centered qualities and equality. President Obama presents the best picture to both sides. To liberals he represents a purer representation of Biblical and moral principles that go beyond your personal faith, but just make plain sense to all men. To conservatives he stands as one that can actually articulate actionable items to achieve those moral and biblical standards not just use them as rhetoric to score political points.


In closing, to me this is such an obvious conclusion I cannot help but be disturbed by many Christians that have chose to disregard the teachings of the Bible and aggressively demonize President Obama. I have actually heard him ridiculed for statements that are specific principles and teachings from the Bible that all Christians supposedly use as instructions for our life. What is it that blinds you to the abhorrent symbol that McCain and Palin represent of morality, conservatism, and human decency. Is it really Obama’s stand on abortion (which is a topic for another day) that bothers you?

"God's Politics" will often turn our partisan politics upside down, transcend our ideological categories of Left and Right, and challenge the core values and priorities of our political culture. There is no easy jump from God's politics to either the Republicans or Democrats. God is neither. In any election, we face imperfect choices, but our choices should reflect the things we believe God cares about as people of faith. Therefore, people of faith, should be "values voters" but vote all our values not just a few that can be easily manipulated for the benefit of one party or another.

Read more!

RECOVERY.GOV

Obama preached transparency when he campaigned and he is using every available technology to achieve this promise. After my recent visit to the Midwest I saw the following sign over and over again. I couldn't help but think I have not seen ANY of these signs in Texas? Maybe Rick Perry is holding true to his claim not to take any Stimulus Money? We all know this isn't even remotely true.

Transparency causes one's rhetoric to match their record. This poses a problem for Governor Perry. Transparency illustrates via Recovery.gov the Stimulus spending by State.
Not only has Texas spent some of the Stimulus Money, but we have actually spent $3.5B of it. More than any other state except for California.

Instead of talking about being in a DEPRESSION we are discussing coming out of a recession. Read more!

I Thought Darth Vader Died?

I had to do a post on the amazing resurrection of Dick Cheney. I recall asking the question over the last 8 years at least a dozen times, is Cheney still alive? I have not heard anything about him for months if not years. Then he shows up at Obama'a Inauguration in a wheel chair, and now he won't sit down and he won't shut up.

I really find this debate un-intersitng, as I imagine most people do considering some of the crisis we face. So I watched the speeches made by both men (Cheney and Obama) to try to get some perspective. I came out of it only slightly more interested, but poised to write this post because of one statement Cheney made, "When they see the American government caught up in arguments about interrogations, or whether foreign terrorists have constitutional rights, they don't stand back in awe of our legal system and wonder whether they had misjudged us all along. Instead the terrorists see just what they were hoping for - our unity gone, our resolve shaken, our leaders distracted. In short, they see weakness and opportunity."

Wow! I am trying to find out how this concern plays into his relentless desire to perpetuate this argument on a public stage. If the Obama administration was the only voice this story would largely be buried by the momentous activity that has been accomplished in such a short time, but the fact that Cheney won't shut up continues to propel this debate into the top of the media headlines.....

Now that I do have some perspective, I decided to actually weigh in :

Cheney slams Obama's decision to close the Guantanamo Bay prison camp. However, the effort to shut down the facility, began during Bush's second term, promoted by Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates.

Cheney has yet to cite any specific plots that were disrupted by aggressive interrogations. Cheney is seeking the release of CIA reports that will show information gained from the interrogations, but the fact that suspects gave up information after harsh questioning does not definitively preclude the possibility that they might have given up information through less physical forms of interrogation – which is one of Obama’s central points. In addition, the hypocrisy of his line of attack, since his initial rallying cry is that the release of the memos by the Obama administration endanger our National Security? I guess it is OK to endanger National Security in an effort to vindicate your personal legacy??

Obama's line on this has not been without flaw, as he stated in his speech that, "We are not going to release anyone if it would endanger our national security, nor will we release detainees within the United States who endanger the American people.” In reality, he really can’t make this promise. If detainees are brought to U.S. soil it is at least possible that courts could order the release of prisoners brought to the U.S. to face military commissions or civilian trials and release a prisoner who is acquitted.

So to close lets just state what we do know as fact.... As Joe Biden says Cheney went too far and became an independent power center at the White House, keeping many of his activities secret from other policymakers and creating a Machiavellian decision-making process.

Mr. Cheney with all of the fear-mongering and proclamations about keeping this country safer 9/11 happened on your watch. You ignored warnings from experts in the CIA , the Defense Intelligence Agency , the State Department , the Department of Energy and other agencies, and used false and exaggerated intelligence supplied by Iraqi exile groups and others to help make the case for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Osama bin Laden and his chief lieutenant, Ayman al Zawahri , remain at large nearly eight years after 9/11. Your administration began diverting U.S. forces, intelligence assets, time and money to planning an invasion of Iraq before finishing the war in Afghanistan against al Qaida and the Taliban .

There are now 49,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan fighting to contain the bloodiest surge in Taliban violence since the 2001 U.S. invasion, and Islamic extremists have launched their most concerted attack yet on neighboring and nuclear-armed Pakistan.

So spare us from the rhetoric that accomplished little when you actually had the power to do SOMETHING!!!!

Read more!

Conventional Wisdom

Pondering on the Obama Administration's decision to release the Bush torture memos. It took me a while to figure out what I believe is the ultimate logic behind this decision.

Releasing under the vise of transparent government, attempting to turn the page on a dark side of American History. At the same time refusing to support pursuing legal action against members of the Bush Administration. This enraged Progressives, who are blood thirsty to see all of the members of the Bush team for an assortment of illegal actions that began before "W" even took office.

President Obama took a lot of heat for not pressing the issue, but as I reflect I see that he once again is manipulating this issue. It would be a perpetual wedge with conservatives to pursue legal action on this issue. So he introduced this in the mainstream, confident that the Democrats that are out for blood will be the ones to take on this issue and begin to put in place the appropriate actions to result in at a minimum consideration of the evidence for violations of the law.

This way just as he ran his campaign, he is not the one pursuing the unpopular issue that must be addressed. Relatively ingenuous... Not sure it will sell with Conservatives as at the end of the day his administration released the information, and the Conservatives have already drove the wedge in the ground deep enough that it will not be coming out anytime soon! Read more!

Beyond Expectations

I can boast that I never once doubted Obama's Victory, but I must admit to doubting the potential for a landslide. Even with empirical data to support it, I just didn't think it would it happen until it did. So much so I even neglected reliable sources that predicted a much wider margin.

So let's look at what I predicted and what actually happened.

I predicted an Obama victory of 276-262. The actual results are 365-173. This actually outperformed even the most pro-Obama polls. So what happened?

The poll buster like a 15 seed in the NCAA Men's Basketball Tournament was Indiana. This was not shown as a win for Obama in any poll. Few polls even showed the race within the margin of error. This was a solid red state having voted that way since before I was born. 2 things happened in Indiana to help Obama win the state:

1) Voter Turnout: The Obama campaign having such a strong ground game in Indiana got word to the HQ that there was a chance in Indiana. Indiana being a neighboring state with a large part of the population basically considered Suburban Chicago. The Obama Campaign dispatched campaign workers and volunteers from states like Illinois and Wisconsin where victory was considered certain and flooded Indiana. Exit polls in Indiana showed that 37% of voters in Indiana were contacted by the Obama campaign, while only 22% were contacted by McCain. This happened in NV and CO also where Obama performed much better than shown in the polls. So it was more likely that voter turnout supported the victory than Republicans that decided to vote for Obama. The Democrats just got more people out to the polls than the uninspired Republican voters. The Democratic base was mobilized in this state becuase of the Primary Election where Clinton narrowly won, and the Democrats capitalized on this energy.

2) Reverse-Bradley Effect: There was a lot of talk about the Bradley Effect but it appears the reverse actually happened. I can appreciate this being in Texas (a Red State), where unfortunately Whites feel in the minority when claiming their intent to vote for a Democrat. I don't think these folks necessarily said they would vote for McCain, they more likely said they were undecided or not going to vote at all but in the end cast their vote for Obama.

So what else happened?

VA, OH, and FL. Ohio and Florida aren't total surprises as Democrats have won in these states fairly recently. More than anything Obama did "The Economy" and Sarah Palin basically handed these states to Obama. In these states people that had intended to vote for McCain changed their minds due to one or both of these issues and voted for Obama. Now in VA, I believe we have seen a shift in the electorate. Due to the margin of victory, and the fact that Democrats have prevailed overwhelmingly in political races here for the past 2 years this state may become a stronghold for Democrats. The Party must take note that the supporters in VA are Centrists (or Moderates) and maintain that position or the momentum may be lost.

North Carolina is somewhat of a cross between VA and IN. All of the factors I have mentioned came into play in this state.

The LANDSLIDE win is amazing. Obama won the Popular Vote by 8M votes and he won 28 states, DC, and even 1 Congressional District in Nebraska who distributes their electoral votes using the Congressional District Method. Equally as exiting as the states he turned BLUE NM, CO, OH, FL, IA, NV, VA, NC and IN are the states in which he collapsed the large margins the Republicans won in 2004. Looking at the map below it blends blue and red to make "purple" in many of the states that have been traditionally "red." Unlike the general electoral maps that show much of the South and Cenral US as "deep red" you will see Obama was competitive in essentially every state West of the Mississipi River and you see blue in purple in states like Montana............

A lot of gains were made across the board, maintaining the momentum that began in 2006. Obama and the majority Democratic Congress have been dealt a bad hand, but hopefully they will come together to make some real progress.

Read more!

It's A New Day (The ClintonSlayer Strikes Again)

So I could have wrote this blog entry in June. As I said then was proven on the 4th. John McCain was not a formidable opponent in this battle. He breezed through little competition only to get in the ring with a World Class heavyweight fighter that fights regularly on HBO PPV. Clinton knew this, and that is why she so desperately fought during the Primaries; because she knew to the winner goes all of the spoils. So to keep this one short I want to discuss my thoughts in 3 simple points:

1. Obama wasted no time, energy, and resources trying to convert the minds of idiots. He realizes early on that his best asset was voter turnout; because there are more registered Democrats than their are Republicans so the goal is to get them out to vote. He sought after new voters, an energized electorate that stayed motivated because he kept them focused on tuning out friendlies! They remained motivated because they were not getting beat over the head daily trying to persuade idiots like "Joe the Plumber."


2. Obama played the game like no one has ever played the game before. This was like watching Jordan totally revolutionize the game of basketball, while at the same time bringing up the level of all players in all sports. They all benefited in endorsements, contracts, TV deals all because Jordan made sports exciting again. Obama has done this for politics. He out hustled everyone, he out worked them, he raised more money, he was more organized, he inspired a whole new generation to participate in the electoral process. When he looks over his shoulder it is like the Verizon commercial, "who are all of those people behind you?" "That's my NETWORK!"


3. Obama kept his head above the fray. He did not go negative, not to say his campaign did not at times, but you never heard it out of the mouth of Obama. In the 3rd debate when given the opportunity to "roast" Caribou Barbie he said he was proud of the fact that for the first time a woman was on the presidential ticket for the Republicans and he would let the American public decide if she was qualified. This after she had been on a Nationwide Comedy Tour in which the punch line was Barack Obama. To the point she was inciting passion filled chants of hate at her rallies like "kill him!" Caribou Barbie and Arizona Jones talked a lot of Barack Obama, while Barack Obama talked alot about rebuilding the Economy, putting Americans back to work, ending the War in Iraq, and overall making life better for the Average America.

The American people decided that they liked what they heard from Obama, and that at a time when a new generation of Politics and Leadership was required there was only one man to bring it!

Read more!

A little misleading……

I just wanted to bring something to your attention as you may have read articles or heard news reports about the ratings audience for McCain’s acceptance speech and the overall ratings for the RNC being equal to or greater than Obama’s acceptance speech and the DNC.

There are a few facts here that can’t be addressed from a ratings report:

1) The Obama Campaign pushed supporters to host watching parties. So in many cases the average viewer per household would have been much greater for the DNC as I had 12 people at my house to watch his speech. The Precinct Chair in my area attended a watch party at a local restaurant which he reports had 50 people in attendance. This took place all over the country!

2) Take a straw poll of the people around you of conservatives, liberals, moderates or whatever they may call themselves. As I spoke with my friends that are Obama supporters about 80% say they watched the speeches of McCain and Palin. When I talked to people that generally support McCain barely 10% state that they have watched Obama or any parts of the DNC.

3) Lastly, pretty much everybody remotely interested in politics tuned into see Palin’s speech. Everybody is trying to figure out who in the world she is? Unfortunately she spent her speech offering very little personal insight and chose to launch into personal attacks against Obama, and establishing herself as a Pit Bull with lipstick. So most people woke up Thursday with the same questions…..

Call me a biased Obama supporter, but don’t take my word for it ask around for yourself!!!

Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. XIII

The Truth is in the Numbers

There is a reason that I feel relatively confident about our chances for Obama to win this election. Although the landslide potential that once existed is all but gone, there are some pretty good reasons to feel optimistic. It’s called the Electoral College. Obama will undoubtedly win the popular vote; because without question he is MORE popular. The question is will this be enough votes in enough key states to get the 270 Electoral votes to be sworn in as President of the United States.

So let’s take a look at the numbers…….

The following table shows the number of electoral votes to which each state is entitled:




Let’s start with the states that are traditionally Democratic and tally up those Electoral votes: California, Connecticut, D.C., Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington. These states equal 190 votes.

States that vote traditionally Republican are: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wyoming. These states equal 178 votes.

For the most part when I use the phrase “traditionally” it represents how the voters of these states voted in the 2000 and 2004 Presidential elections. For many of these states this represents their voting pattern for the last 30 years, for other states it may represent a shift. Nevertheless you won’t get much argument from anyone that these states for 2008 will pretty much remain in line with the parties that won in the 2 previous elections. So we are left with 14 states: Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Wisconsin which make up the remaining 170 Electoral votes.

So here is where the discussion begins. These states are what we call “close” states, which means in most elections the outcome is by less than 10% points and in most cases less than 5%. Some of these are truly swing states (meaning the party that wins elections often shift); the others typically go for the same party with a margin of victory that just happens to be close in every election. So let’s start with the latter.

Close states that are “traditionally” Democratic (the year in parentheses is how long state has voted Democratic): Michigan (1992), Minnesota (1976), New Hampshire (1992), Wisconsin (1998), and Pennsylvania (1992). To keep the explanation of my analysis simple; the conventional wisdom is that Obama is not going to lose any states that John Kerry won in 2004. This would take all of these states out of play for the Republicans. There is a lot of talk about Pennsylvania, and although the margins have become increasingly close with the Democrats winning by as little as 2.5% in 2004. This state has voted Democratic pretty consistently. The Governor, both U.S. Senators, and the Mayors of the 2 largest cities are all Democrats. If Obama does not win in Pennsylvania he will lose this election, there is no further debate needed! Obama would pick up 62 Electoral votes by winning these states.

Close states that are traditionally Republican (the year in parentheses is how long state has voted Republican): Indiana (1968) and Virginia (1968). You hear the Obama campaign taking a lot about these states, but to be honest these are Republican strongholds. Indiana is almost ridiculous to discuss as the Republicans have experienced double digit margins of victory in this state for decades even when the other MW states voted Democratic. Virginia is an interesting discussion as it was a little closer in the last election with a margin of victory of 8.2% for the Republicans. There is a lot of talk of the large population of Black voters and high potential to enroll many unregistered voters likely to vote Democratic. As well as having recently elected a Democratic Governor and US Senator, and with a new Senate seat coming open that is likely going to be won by a Democrat. It all sounds good, but personally I just think 8% points is an unrealistic gain to make up. If Obama can make gains this huge in some of these states being discussed we are talking about a landslide victory, but I would say this is unlikely. Just to give you a sense of how great of a margin 8.2% is; consider that a Democratic stronghold like CA was only won by 10%. McCain would pick up 24 Electoral votes by winning in these states.

I think in the states where a party loses by a margin of greater than 5% points I would take that state out of play for the losing party. Meaning it is unlikely they would be able to gain enough support to win that state for the 2008 election This logic is consistent in my overall analysis. I even considered some states less than 5% of out of play simply because although the results are close they consistently support the same party.

So this leaves the following as the “true” swing states: Colorado, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, and New Mexico.

Obama will win: Colorado, Iowa, and New Mexico. Obama would pick up 21 more Electoral votes by winning these states. Most would not argue Iowa and New Mexico as they typically vote Democratic and Obama seems to carry the same themes that have rallied these states in the past. The stretch here is Colorado which although very close in the last few elections at 4.6% wins for the Republicans. This state has only voted for a Democrat for President once since 1964. So I have to admit Colorado is based on more of a gut feeling than anything else. I just so happened to have a gentleman from the Denver area stay at my house as he worked for the Obama campaign during the Primary Elections in Texas. We discussed the energy for the campaign in Colorado. Large numbers of volunteers, a lot of fundraising and an extreme hatred for the Bush administration that seems to have successfully carried over to McCain makes winning in Colorado a strong possibility. In addition, Colorado has a fairly well balanced roster of elected officials considering it has leaned Republican for President. In Colorado, the Governor, 1 US Senator, and 4 of the 7 US Congressional Representatives are Democrats. Over 70% of the State Legislators are Democrats, as well as the Mayor of Denver and many other cities across the state. Many of which have been voted into office since the 2004 election. So I do have a little empirical data to support my gut feeling!!

McCain will win: Florida, Ohio, Missouri, and Nevada. McCain would pick up 63 Electoral Votes by winning these states. All of these states typically vote Republican, but have shown the tendency to vote for the other party if they like the candidate. For the voters in these states for whatever reason Obama does not appear to be that guy! These states will be close again, as in the urban areas in these states Obama will do well, but these states all have a lot of rural voters that I just don’t think are going to be persuaded to change their typical voting pattern. In addition unlike Colorado theses states do not have a Democratic stronghold of Elected Officials. In fact most of these states have about as a significant Republican stronghold as the case I made about the Democrats in Colorado.


So pull out your calculator and do the math, based on my analysis this would score Obama 273 - McCain 265. Wow that is close!! If I am wrong about a state here or there the outcome could definitely be different, but I think I did a fairly conservative analysis…
Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. XI

When I first saw the McCain funded "The One" attack ad against Barack Obama it had to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen. Not the actual ad being humorous, but the thought that this is what the McCain campaign considered a relevant attack ad. An attack ad to say don't vote for the popular guy, that every one loves, and speaks well, vote for the stumbling bumbling idiot like you did in the last 2 elections. Isn't that the guy that is more like you? Why vote for greatness when you can vote for mediocrity?

I am not sure either of them (Paris or Brittney) would have crowds of over 70,000 in Oregon and Denver, and over 200,000 in Berlin, but he is ignoring a very simple fact. People come to see Britney Spears to see a concert and be entertained, they would come to see Paris Hilton because?? I guess because she is hot?



When they come to see Barack Obama they come to stand in line for several hours, sit in a stadium for another hour, and listen to him give a speech for an hour describing economic policies, strategies for energy independence, improving our educational system, rescuing our health care system, among a dozen other topics. If this is the same audience that goes to see Britney and Hilton than the world is in for a CHANGE because you have just mobilized a NEW GENERATION of voters.

See more Paris Hilton videos at Funny or Die

I would have never expected the best response to this attack ad would come from Paris Hilton herself. Paris nailed it in her video, not just for McCain but for Obama and all other politicians as well. The answer to the issues that affect the American people are not based on what political party you belong to. The best answer is the best answer no matter where it comes from, and there is usually multiple solutions that are necessary to make any significant progress. Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. X

I decided to do a continuation of my previous discussion on Iraq. We will call this one:

"Thought from a distance, may be less tainted than getting up close and peronal"

Colleague after another set off on fact-finding missions to Vietnam, and each returned convinced that America could win the war. It is dangerous when travel is substituted for thought. Senator Jim Webb, a former Marine and Secretary of the Navy, called congressional Iraq visits a "dog and pony" show.

When you take a guided tour, your tour guide decides what you see. In Iraq today, as in Vietnam, they have an incentive to show good news; which isn't always the same as the truth. They (General Davis Patreaus and Ryan Crocker) report to the President, and unfortunately this war has been politicized along partisan lines so it's much easier for them to reinforce the Administration's view than to contradict it. By making Patreaus and Crocker the spokesmen for Iraq policy, the Bush Administration has encouraged Americans to believe they are independent analysts who just happen to agree.

The first priority of McCain and Obama's hosts are to ensure that the candidates leave Iraq alive, they would by necessity take them to places the U.S. and Iraq have made safe and avoid places they have not. Meetings would tilt heavily toward those Iraqis who want the U.S. to stay, and away from those who are trying to force America to leave.

This is not to say the security improvements in Iraq are an illusion. It's just that the realities of war are too elusive to grasp on a brief trip led by people with a vested interest in what you see. The wisest U.S. officials seek out journalists who have spent years traveling the country, and former diplomats and military officers who had the freedom to say what they really believed.

McCain thinks winning in Iraq is the single most important foreign policy challenge facing the next President. As a result, he's willing to spend billions more dollars, impose a far greater strain on the military and divert attention from other problems. Obama thinks Afghanistan and Pakistan are more central to the war on terrorism and that our resources in those countries would bring a higher rate of return.

If anyone knows that clarity often comes with distance, it's Obama, who spent 2002 and 2003 in Chicago, far from the secret briefings that persuaded many Democrats to back the war. Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. VIII

The Party does not stop. My 8th installment, and I have not even begin to highlight the policy differences between the parties that significantly favor the Democrats and are often misrepresented by republican party officials, and misunderstood by republican voters. I promise my next blog in the series will begin to crack that up. Today I want to drop a little VP talk, we will call this one:

"Obama/Webb 2008"

I mentioned in an earlier blog that Obama would have a tough sell not selecting Clinton as his VP. Because of that comment I was asked if I felt he should pick Clinton? My response, "No way, no how, no chance, it may help in winning the Office, but it would completely undermine his ability to run the Office." Aside from the disdain shelled out towards Obama from "Billary" that has been the centerpiece of the RNC campaign Democrats vs. Obama. Billary has even discussed the possibility of an assassination on at least 3 different occasions. Really??? Can you pick someone that regularly references your death, in hopes that it happens within the not so distant future.

So then the question is who would I prefer Obama select as his VP? Without going through reasons why I think one candidate is good, and another is bad, and another is better, and another would be OK. I am going to just flat out tell you why I support Senator Jim Webb form Virginia.

-He is a former republican who worked under the Reagan administration as Secretary of the Navy, which makes him a moderate Democrat who will balance the ticket with Obama
-He serves on the the committees for Foreign Relations, Veterans' Affairs, and Armed Services.
-He is a Southerner with strong Appalachian, Scots-Irish roots (the very same group Obama has trouble reaching)
-He is a decorated war veteran, having served in Vietnam and being awarded the Navy Cross, Silver Star, Bronze Star, and Purple Heart
-He is not just the "working class" hero he is also an intellect who has penned several books...the latest "A Time to Fight: Reclaiming a Fair and Just America" is a best seller. He also wrote the story and was the executive producer for the 2000 movie Rules of Engagement, which starred Tommy Lee Jones and Samuel L. Jackson.
-He is a fighter (he co-sponsored a bipartisan GI bill & pushed it through the senate & put McCain in the hot seat for voting against it)
-He won VA from a Republican incumbent and although it was a narrow victory, by teaming up with fellow Democrat Virginia Governor Tim Kaine may bring the 13 electoral votes with him.
-He is and was against the war, his sons served in Iraq,the following exchange with President Bush is reason enough by itself to support this guy:

On November 28, 2006, at a White House reception for those newly elected to Congress, Webb declined to stand in the line to have his picture taken with the President, whom Webb often criticized during the campaign. The president approached Webb later and asked him, "How's your boy?", referring to Webb's son, a Marine serving in Iraq. According to Congressman Jim Moran of Virginia, aides warned the President to be "extra sensitive about talking to Webb about his son, since Webb's son had had a recent brush with death in Iraq." Webb replied "I'd like to get them out of Iraq, Mr. President." Bush responded, "That's not what I asked you. How's your boy?" Webb responded, "That's between me and my boy, Mr. President." The Hill cited an anonymous source who claimed that Webb was so angered by the exchange that he confessed he was tempted to "slug" the president, but of course did not. Webb later remarked in an interview, "I'm not particularly interested in having a picture of me and George W. Bush on my wall."

Webb and Obama naturally complement one another Obama himself referred to Jim Webb saying, "Let me tell you something, if you're in a fight -- and we're gonna be in a fight -- you want Jim Webb to have your back."

As with any politician he has his "cons," being labeled somewhat as a misogynist for his position against Women in the Military and being on his 3rd wife doesn't help much. As well as some of Webb's novels reported to have sexual content, including graphic references to female anatomy and purported pedophilia, homosexuality and incest, but most of this was addressed during his race against George Allen so he would know the attacks would be coming and how to address it. He would clobber any candidate the republicans send out as a VP. The main thing I like is that Webb speaks his mind and would not be afraid to tell you what he thinks even if its something you don't want to hear.

You need people like that when you are President. All this being said Jim Webb announced today that he intends to serve his term in the Senate, stating, "under no circumstances will I be a candidate for Vice President." I can only hope he will re-consider, as his response comes in regards to the Obama campaign informing him about the specifics of their apparently fairly rigorous vetting process. Read more!

The Case for Obama Pt. VII

Contrary to the "Kill the Witch" campaign launched by the Republicans. One of the strongest cases for Obama is Michelle Obama. We will call this one:

"What Makes a Strong Woman"

I have officially become an Obama groupee when I find myself setting the DVR to record "The View" because Michelle Obama is going to be a guest on the show. My wife even hates The View so there is no reason it should ever be on in my house.

So the next day I sat down late in the night and watched the episode. Beyond how much the hosts of the show annoyed me, there was something that really began to resonate with me. Michelle Obama is going to be a dynamite First Lady and is more than apparent that having her by his side is what makes Barack such a great candidate.

Hillary has given this impression that to be a strong woman you have to be like a man, act like a real B, and walk around in pant suits. Michelle's strong personality put substance behind the facade. In Michelle you could see the characteristics of what make a strong woman. She was intelligent, confident, well-spoken, thoughtful, pragmatic,compassionate, the list goes on and on.

If people want to vote for a woman that acts like a man they may as well vote for a man. Michelle showed us to get beyond how you look and act, by exemplifying the true characteristics of a strong woman.

Watching Michelle, an educated woman, professional, mother I am at a loss at how someone could say the Obama's don't represent the values of the average American family. You have a choice between the perfect nuclear family a life long public servant, a mother that is a professional that gave up her career to raise her beautiful children and allow her husband to pursue his ambition. The other choice is a 72 year old man on his 2nd trophy wife.

So is the issue really values? Be honest with yourself....

Michelle has solidified herself as the feminist champion as she denounced the wearing of panty hose. Women across America have been liberated! So I can understand if the folks that work for Leggs, Hanes, and Bali don't vote for the Obamas.

Read more!

They Need to Quit

As I read the Dallas Morning News I see this image with the following story. I laugh in my mind about all of the Black people that want to call themselves Republicans, and I then look up the website for this company Republican Market.com and saw these:





At this point I become a bit enraged. Hopefully by now you know me well enough to know that my rage is not directed at a bunch of ignorant rednecks. My rage is with the Dallas Morning News. I am disappointed that a newspaper that calls themselves an endorser of Senator Obama desires to fan the flame of Black-White hatred. I have absolutely no problem with them covering the "black house" button, but is there a reason they did not cover the button that is misogynistic, or the one that would offend Hispanics, or the one that makes fun of fat people, or the one that basically says anyone that does not vote Republican is not a true American?????

Instead of trying to continue this unrelenting banter about racism towards Blacks, lets take a look at all of the issues that illustrate the type of attitudes in the Republican party that show lack of respect for Women, Blacks, Hispanics, and basically anyone that has a differing opinion.

As we have heard over an over again about the 18 million people that voted for Senator Clinton I would think they would take issue with the dozens of buttons slamming her, or maybe this large group of women voters would have issue seeing a woman with a strong personality being labeled as a "B". Or maybe the 51% of Americans that did not vote Republican may take issue with being told they are not REAL Americans.

I am just disappointed with the Dallas Morning News, Obama's message has been to actually dig into the root of the issue, not just to try to find the best sound bite to incite some emotion. Read more!

We have been Enlightened!

As a Delegate representing my Senate District and Precinct in Tarrant County I traveled to Austin to vote my support for Barack Obama for President for the 4th of what will ultimately be 5 times (Primary election, Precinct Convention, District Convention, State Convention, and of course the General Election in November).

When asked what made this one of my most memorable experiences I can name more than a few. To see thousands of people excited about our candidates not only for President, but for Congress and other state and local elections as well. To meet and hear speeches from well known Democrats mayors, state representatives and senators, and even nationally recognized figures like Chelsea Clinton and Tim Kaine Governor of Virginia who may very well be our next Vice President. To see friends and family most of which I had no idea would be attending. To see almost 30-40% of the attendees were Black people excited about Obama and getting involved in the political process.

Let it be said Black people in Texas and across this country have been ENLIGHTENED. Even deeper than what Obama has accomplished. You could feel the impact of Blacks in every aspect of the convention. When I watched Texas become a laughing stock because of the kaos and dysfunction of the Precinct Conventions I thought this process needed to be abolished immediately, but after going all the way to the State Convention I now understand this is the way we get people involved in the process.

The convention is where candidates are selected, it is where the party rules are written. If you ever wondered how it is that the Democratic Platform has seemed to go astray from the fundamental beliefs of Black people. It is easy to understand, we have not been participants in the development of the platform. Black people united at the Convention and we now have a number of Black people on every Committee that sets policies and makes decisions on behalf of the Democratic Party in Texas. We voted out people that have been doing the jobs forever that have ignored our issues, and have watched the party reach an almost dismal state to the point we barely had a gubernatorial candidate in 2006.

It really makes you sick to the stomach to think that we have not had a voice in this process for many years now. Many say this is all about Obama and we'll be lucky to see 1/2 as many people as we did this year at future conventions. That is undeniably true, but that is still twice as many than we have ever had in past years! This year we set forth a new generation of leaders for the Democratic Party in Texas!!! Read more!