Mere Words

With just about 3 weeks left until the Pennsylvania Primary, Barack Obama is closing the gap between himself and Hillary Clinton. A recent poll by Rasmussen shows:

Who do you plan on voting for in the Democratic Primary?

Clinton: 47%

Obama: 42%

Not sure: 11%

The survey was conducted among 730 randomly selected likely Democratic primary voters. Its margin of error was +-3%.

A week ago, Barack Obama was down by ten points, and on 3/13 he was down by 13 points. Clearly Obama is gaining ground and has lived through the Pastor Wright controversy. While he probably won’t win in Pennsylvania, if he can keep the vote close he’ll deal a crushing blow to the Clinton campaign. They need a big delegate boost and huge popular vote gains to continue taking their argument to the superdelegates that she should be the nominee.

As a side note, Obama is leading 54% to Clinton’s 36% in North Carolina. With a close Pennsylvania vote, this will likely erase any gains by Hillary in Pennsylvania.

Hillary has “misspoke” 4 times claiming that when she went to Bosnia as the first lady she had to run from the tarmac under fear of sniper fire. This has been disproved by a CBS News who accompanied her on the trip. Clinton claims that on the most recent occasion that she misspoke due to “sleep deprivation” though she has yet to offer an explanation for the other three.

Kos has this to say:

If Hillary Clinton lied about snipers in Bosnia because of sleep deprivation (doubtful, given it’s a lie she’s said at least four times), then what will she do when she gets that call at 3 a.m.? Remember, she’s clothed and wearing makeup at that hour, so chances are, she’s not getting much sleep — kos

I think all in all that this issue is rather minor, unless more evidence of Senator Clinton overstating her credentials comes to light.

I am disgusted that in an attempt to turn the attention from her to Senator Obama that she feels the need to dredge up the Pastor Wright controversy once again. John McCain is smart enough not to comment on the incident, and Mike Huckabee has even come to Barack’s defense.

This is all just more evidence that the Clinton campaign realizes the only way they get the nomination is by destroying Obama.

The Mersman Political Blog has an excellent post today about the Clinton campaign’s continued hypocrisy:

Hillary Clinton railed Barack Obama for not agreeing to a debate in Wisconsin. Guess who has not yet agreed to a April 19th debate in North Carolina? Senator Clinton.

Barack Obama has accepted both invitations to the April 16th debate in Pennsylvania and the April 19th debate in North Carolina.

Senator Clinton ran two television spots in Wisconsin accusing Obama of not wanting to debate the issues with her in that state. Clinton at that time was desperate to get on the stage and debate Obama because she believed she had an advantage in that setting.

Obama has stepped up his game when it comes to debates. In Texas and Ohio, Obama was relaxed, cool, and articulate. Obama showed in the last two debates that Hillary’s debating advantage had disappeared.

Obama’s confidence as a debater may very well be the reason that he has agreed to debate and she has not. Obama and his campaign feel that a debate will not do any damage to him and may help him.

Howard Wolfson of the Clinton campaign said, “I am quite confident that there will be additional debates and that we will work with networks and the Obama campaign to figure out the appropriate location and venue and media outlet.”

The Clinton campaign seems to be waiting to make sure that additional debates will not hurt their candidate as she gets closer to Pennsylvania and North Carolina.

Wolfson’s statement is meant to buy time. The location has been set, the media outlet is set for CBS, and a date has been set for April 19th.

Clinton’s history during this campaign has shown that hypocrisy is no obstacle. Senator Clinton and her campaign will do anything in order to win. In Wisconsin that may mean attacking Obama for not debating her and in North Carolina that may mean ducking him.

Hillary continues to live in her own little world. She “misremembers” the fact that she did not land under sniper fire in Bosnia and claims she “misspoke” on 4 separate occasions when she stated that she did land under sniper fire. She calls Obama out for dodging debates while when she does its a different situation. When campaigning in New Hampshire, she agreed that Florida and Michigan shouldn’t count but now changes her mind when she needs them to win. The list of hypocrisies and doubletalk goes on and on…..

Hillary is determined to get the nomination, no matter who gets in her way, and no matter the damage it does to the Democrats in November.

Vice President Dick Cheney keeps putting his foot in his mouth at every opportunity. Yesterday, he was a interviewed by Martha Raddatz of ABC News on the grim milestone of 4,000 U.S. deaths in Iraq.

Q Mr. Vice President, I want to start with the milestone today of 4,000 dead in Iraq, Americans, and just what effect you think that has on the country. Your thoughts on that?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: Well, it obviously brings home, I think for a lot of people, the cost that’s involved in the global war on terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. It places a special burden, obviously, on the families. We recognize, I think — it’s a reminder of the extent to which we’re blessed with families who have sacrificed as they have. The President carries the biggest burden, obviously; he’s the one who has to make the decision to commit young Americans. But we are fortunate to have the group of men and women, the all-volunteer force, who voluntarily put on the uniform and go in harm’s way for the rest of us. You wish nobody ever lost their life, but unfortunately it’s one of those things that go with living in the world we live in. Sometimes you have to commit military force, and when you do, there are casualties.

So, what Cheney says is that it that the troop deaths are hard on families, but even harder on the President. I think that sentiment is appalling… To speak of the pain families feel when losing a loved one on the other side of the world in war, the daily pain and hardship of dealing with that loss, then say that the President has it harder? This is the same President Bush who has never served in active duty, has never had to say goodbye to a loved one who may not come back, or felt the pain of telling a child that their daddy isn’t coming home.

I think if our leaders truly understood the burden that military families bear, they wouldn’t speak so lightly of their burdens. They would be less likely to send our troops into a war that should never have been waged.

Earlier, I brought to you the news that U.S. casualties in Iraq have reached the grim milestone of 4,000 deaths. Brandon Friedman notes that the last two weeks have been the deadliest two week period since September 2007.

American forces have just experienced the most violent two-week period in Iraq since September 2007. Unfortunately, I’m afraid this fact will be lost in the media coverage over the number 4,000 during the next several days. Of the two significant numbers this week–4,000 killed during war and 25 in the last two weeks–the latter figure is far more significant with regard to the current situation on the ground.

We hear talk of attacks against Americans “ebbing,” ceasefires holding, and of the situation in Iraq being “not that fragile,” but this is all a bunch of happy-talk nonsense. Between March 10 and March 23, 25 American soldiers were killed in Iraq. The last two-week period in which U.S. forces sustained similar losses was between September 14 and September 27, when 26 were killed–a period that capped off the bloodiest summer of the war.

Hopefully, the next time George Bush gives a speech a speech on Iraq instead of touting the “success” of the troop surge, he will acknowledge that things on the ground are still very bad and his current policies have failed. Somehow, I doubt he will. He is determined to stay the course, no matter how reckless that may be or how many Americans may disagree.

This news underscores the importance of getting a fresh pair of eyes in the White House next January, instead of a candidate who will continue to stay in lockstep with Bush in regards to the Iraq war. John McCain says that we need to put even more troops into Iraq on his campaign website:

A greater military commitment now is necessary if we are to achieve long-term success in Iraq. John McCain agrees with retired Army General Jack Keane that there are simply not enough American forces in Iraq.

John McCain and his new buddy Joe Lieberman want a greater military commitment in Iraq, and that simply will not work. We can’t keep throwing away American lives and dollars in a failed attempt in Iraq. After 5 years, it is time to start looking for a way out, or a new plan.

This idea of constantly adding more troops for a long period of time might work. But we do we really want to keep 100,000 soldiers in Iraq for the next 5 years, spend another 600 billion dollars, and lose another 4,000 American lives?

Jack Kevorkian, AKA Dr. Death, is running for the House as an independent in Michigan. Less than a year ago, he was released from prison after serving 8 years for second degree murder in the assisted suicide of one of his “patients”. He is still on parole.

He opposes the Iraq war, and supports legalizing marijuana.

Can you imagine the campaign slogans?

“Kevorkian ‘08- Vote for me, or else”

“Kevorkian ‘08- No new taxes- the only thing that’s certain now is death.”

Yesterday, we reached a terrible milestone in the Iraq war. There have now been over 4,000 U.S. servicemen and women killed in the line of duty. There have been over 29,000 injured, many returning maimed for life. According to the House Budget Committee, the was has cost over 600 billion dollars of taxpayer money and that number will continue to rise by 9.5 billion dollars every month. To quote President Bush “”No one would argue that this war has not come at a high cost in lives and treasure.”

The question on many Americans minds is… Why?

Why are embroiled in a war against a country that never threatened us, nor asked us to liberate them?

Why were we misled into fearing WMD’s that didn’t even exist?

Why have we paid 600 billion dollars for a war that was originally supposed to cost 50 or 60 billion?

Why are we wasting American lives in a war the majority of Americans doesn’t want to be in?

Why isn’t President Bush looking for a way out?

I don’t have all the answers.

What I do know, is that our next president should have those answers. We can’t keep following George W. Bush’s failed policies in Iraq. Instead, its time to start looking for a way out, not settling in for the next hundred years.

We owe our soldiers the same steadfast service and dedication they have given us. After 4,000 have sacrificed their lives for Iraqi freedom, it is time we start looking for a way to bring them home.

This video speaks for itself.

In 2001, John McCain was one of only two Republicans who voted against Bush’s tax cuts saying:

“We had an opportunity to provide much more tax relief to millions of hard-working Americans. . . . I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us, at the expense of middle-class Americans who most need tax relief.”

-Senate floor statement before vote on May 26, 2001

In 2003, Senator McCain voted against renewing the tax cuts saying:

“…low and middle-income Americans are paying a significantly larger amount of their income in taxes. I’d like to see them get the bulk of the relief.”

- NBC’s “Today” January 7, 2003

Both times, McCain got it right. He chose his principles and what was best for the American people over party loyalty. George Bush’s tax cuts gave the majority of their benefits to the top 1%, who did not need or ask for the benefits. By voting against the tax cuts, John McCain made a statement that earned him the support of many independents and Democrats. This and other independent actions even got his named tossed around as a potential vice presidential nominee for John Kerry in 2004.

Why then did Senator McCain vote in 2006 to extend these tax cuts? Why does he continue his support to make them permanent today? He claims he did so because ending the cuts now would amount to a tax increase, which he opposes. This is not as reasonable as he would make it seem. If McCain is worried about the effect on our economy by raising taxes by repealing the cuts, he would support a plan instead of revamping them. He could close tax loopholes and switch the benefits from the top 1% to the lower and middle classes who truly need it.

Instead, I think John McCain had political motivations with this change in his stance on tax cuts. Since 2006, (when his opinion changed) he has been planning his bid for the Republican nomination. He has spent this time attempting to consolidate his support within the Republican base and change the view of him being a maverick. Thus, it would be critical to have a more party-accepted stance on the tax cuts which have such strong support within the party.

John McCain has flip flopped on taxes in a way that was politically expedient for him. If flip flopping was enough to hurt John Kerry’s presidential bid, will it do the same for McCain?

According to a recent CNN poll, wine drinkers are more likely to vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton than John McCain in a general election match up. However, beer drinkers are more likely to vote for McCain than a Democrat. Oddly enough, Obama does much better than Hillary when getting the the beer drinker vote.

I’ll leave you to read into the poll what you wish.