The Election Has Not Happened Yet

Just a quick reminder to the media: the election is a week from now and has not occurred yet. With all of the reporting lately on Obama's poll numbers and that 60+ Democratic Congress, one would think that November 4 has come and gone and Obama was president-elect and Pelosi and Reid the two most powerful people in Washington. Not so fast.

While it may be true that Obama's lead in the polls is a very high 16 points, he also led by 10 points (which is considered a sizable margin) against Hillary Clinton in the New Hampshire primaries. For those of you who forgot, Obama lost that state. Why? Numerous factors were involved - a good ground game by Clinton, an outpouring of female voters, and other unknown variables.

So who is predicting all of this Obama and Democratic-led hoopla? The media, the pundits, and also the McCain campaign. Obama and his staffers like to remind themselves of what happened in New Hampshire and say that they are playing it like they are 10 points down, not 16 up. Obama reminded his supporters in New Hampshire that you have to run through the finish line and not let up during the last portion of the race:



But McCain seems to be jumping on the fact that many people have "written him off." He continues to point to the poll numbers, reminding people that he is down by a lot:



While McCain's strategy of playing the underdog may work, it also is a big gamble (like most of his campaign since picking Palin). While it may get some voters to go to the polls because they think they can help give McCain a surge in the election, it could also get people to either stay home (thinking that it is a lost cause to vote for him when he is down by so much) or vote for Obama (for the same reason). A gamble, but like McCain's other gambles (see: Palin), it may not work out.

Through all of this we have the media fanning the flames from the sidelines. With headlines like "Republicans scramble after Stevens conviction" and "Polls show McCain not making up ground in Ohio," it's hard to imagine that many in the media do not forsee an Obama victory next Tuesday. The words "scramble" and "not making up ground" seem to be based on the assumption that Republicans are panicked and McCain is desperately seeking to catch up to Obama. We do not know if these things are true (though, to be fair about the Stevens article, some Republicans are asking Alaskans to vote for Stevens even if they think he's guilty because if he steps down the Alaskan governor (a Republican) will be able to appoint a conservative replacement - that's just desperate). Polls are not 100% accurate, and we still do not know the full extent of the Bradley Effect. Many pundits will say, "Oh, well a lot has changed since then there are plenty of excuses that people can come up with to not vote for Obama than they could have with Tom Bradley." I just do not buy this. If someone is embarassed to say that they do not want to vote for Obama because he is black, are they going to say that they don't like him because he is a Muslim or is buddy-buddy with Bill Ayers (two things that have been definitively debunked)? The Bradley effect assumes that those who take part in it have shame; people who claim Obama is a Muslim or is going to take advice from some hippie like Bill Ayers have none of it.

We should all take Obama's advice and not count the chickens before they hatch. The media simply wants to paint a big picture of a landslide victory (the whole divided America, red state blue state crap is a little played out). It's not liberal bias (though one could argue it is a backlash against Bush who played the media big time leading up to Iraq - don't forget that the media didn't treat Carter too well when things were looking bad for the country). If the roles were reversed we would be talking about what went wrong in the Obama campaign (is it because he's black? Too liberal? Was it the Ayers/Wright stuff?). Election Day is seven days away and anything could happen, so don't play along with the media's assumptions. Peace.

Photos - McCain and Obama under a polling logo (ABC News), Obama and wife Michelle after the Senator conceded the New Hampshire primary (LA Times)

Bush Takes Subliminal Shot at Democrats, Further Hones his Hypocrisy

As this country's blind loyalty to Israel continues, George W. Bush aired out some of America's political dirty laundry in front of a foreign nation and the backlash has been severe (and warranted). In a Knesset speech on May 15, 2008 Bush compared the policies of "some" in American politics who have stated that we should open up diplomatic relations with nations like Iran or territories like Palestine to those involved with Nazi appeasement in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It was then later acknowledged by White House staffers that these comments were directed at prominent American figures like Barack Obama and former President Jimmy Carter. Obama has been vocal about his support to sit down and open up diplomatic relations with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran and Carter has pushed for negotiations with Hamas. President Bush has said that no "ingenious argument" will cause the violent tendencies of these groups to cease. Of course, this is coming from a president who doesn't even try diplomacy and has plunged this country into a five year war in Iraq that has undoubtedly destabilized a massive region of the Middle East. On the other side of Bush's argument is a president who put his ass on the line to reach the Camp David Accords with Middle Eastern countries without having to fire a shot, but Bush does not like, as we were told do to in kindergarten, to "use his words."

The facts are clear: Ahmadinejad is nuts. Hamas seems pretty determined to get rid of Israel. One link is missing here, however. Bush continues to alienate these factions by refusing to talk with them and instead using the neo-conservative rhetoric of preemptive military action (thanks Wolfowitz) instead of using good old-fashioned diplomacy. It could be that diplomacy will not work, but how will we ever know if we do not try? Sure, GE and Northrup-Grumman won't be getting multi-billion dollar government contracts for defense spending, but thousands of lives could be saved and maybe the rest of the world won't look at America as an arrogant, war-mongering country.

Beyond the politics of everything, however, lays a deeper layer of hypocrisy. To begin with, George W. Bush appears to be a born-again Christian. Christians, for the most part, believe that those who do not seek salvation in Jesus Christ and take him as their savior as mortals here on Earth will perish in the depths of hell for eternity. Thus, as Bush was speaking to a group of Israelis - the majority of whom were probably Jewish - his beliefs and faith dictated that they were all going to hell for not recognizing that Jesus was the son of God and salvation is found in undying devotion and faith in him. I do not see myself as a Christian scholar at all, but from going to church as a kid (where the teachers specifically told my brother that his Jewish friends were going to hell when he asked about them) and from reading parts of the Bible, this is what I have gleaned.

Then there is the Prescott Bush connection. Bush, of course, is father to George H. W. Bush and grandfather to George W. Bush. Prescott Bush was a major businessman and American senator in the first part of the 20th century in America. Prescott Bush also was linked to numerous German companies who both financed Hitler's rise to power and the rearming of the German state (in direct defiance of the Treaty of Versailles), as well as benefited from Nazi slave labor at the beginning of World War II. It was at this point that the U.S. government stepped in and seized the assets under the Trading with the Enemy Act, established during the Great War. In addition to all of this, Bush was involved in a plot to overthrow Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933 and establish a fascist state in America based on Hitler's and Mussolini's model in order to combat the Great Depression. So while Obama and Carter may want to sit down and talk with leaders like Ahmadinejad and groups like Hamas, they still oppose what they do and are not supporting them - financially or otherwise - like George W. Bush's own grandfather did with Hitler's Nazism. I understand that you cannot choose your family, but if Bush wants to compare Obama to Hitler appeasers, then he should at least condemn his grandfather's actions prior to (and during) World War II.

Thus, despite George W. Bush's pledge to keep himself out of the 2008 presidential race, he has thrust himself into it. While McCain did not compare Obama to the Western powers that appeased Hitler prior to World War II (the American government being one of them), he did say that Obama was "naive" and "inexperienced" because he wanted to try out diplomacy before, in McCain's own songful words, "bomb-bomb-bomb, bomb-bomb[ing] Iran" if necessary. Beyond the complete idiocy and divisiveness of Bush's words, it is completely inappropriate to put down another member of the American government in front of a foreign gathering for political purposes. This is one of the reasons that people think Americans have little class, as Bush appears to be just like school in the summertime (no class). I think in the end, this might hurt the Republicans because it is very extreme to invoke Hitler into modern day politics in any light. To compare one of the more liberal presidential candidates in a long time to one who would appease Hitler is out there and really does not make sense. But Bush is not exactly one to follow that fickle law of "logic." Peace.

Photos - Bush before Israel's Knesset on May 15 (www.bloomberg.com), Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the President of Iran (www.msnbc.msn.com), Prescott Bush and George W. Bush (www.tsl.state.tx.us)