Chinese "Swan Lake"

Like you have never seen before:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOqxSaW05p4

Is Obama's Pitch Credible?

Obama's sole reason for running for the Presidency is that he will end the partisanship that rules American politics.  He claims that, as President, he will persuade Democrats and Republicans to agree on important issues.

He asks us to accept this claim without showing any evidence that he has ever done that.

Well, we are witnessing an acid test.  If Obama cannot prevent fracturing the Democratic party with an opponent whose priorities he shares almost 100%, how can we believe that Obama will secure total agreement of politicians who truly oppose his views?

I, for one, do not believe this.  In my opinion, Obama principal rationale for running is bogus.  He is an empty suit, a total phony with  delusions of grandeur.

Obama Changes the Subject

Obama has no experience.

Obama has no resume.

Obama has never done anything noteworthy.

As Chairman of a Senate Sub-Committee on Europe, he never traveled to Europe.  He never called any Committee meetings.

So, what's his excuse for running for the Presidency?

He has good judgment.  He expressed opposition to the Iraq war when there was no political risk in doing that, before he was a U.S. Senator.

Now an ugly story about his pastor for 20 years has been revealed.  Rev. Wright has said "God damn America."  He has ranted and raved about how bad our country is, etc.  He is angry that whites are not kind enough to blacks.

Obama's judgment is called into question.  If he has such good judgment, why didn't he change churches?  Why didn't he take his family to a church that preaches problem-solving instead of hate?

The obvious answer is that Obama does not have good judgement.  He is a schmuck.

He can't admit admit to that because a schmuck is not entitled to be President.

So, what does he do?  He changes the subject.  He gives us a lecture on discrimination.  

Who asked Obama to lecture us on discrimination, or anything else, for that matter?

Finally, Someone Counted the Electoral College Votes

"Hilary Clinton has won states with about 260 electoral votes and Barack Obama has won states with about 190," Rendell said. "We decide the president not by the popular vote. We decide it by the Electoral College. The traditional role of superdelegates is to determine who's going to be our strongest candidate."

So, because of cockamamie rules of the DNC, Obama wins a lot of pissant states and has more delegates than Hillary. What really should count is the projection of Electoral College votes in the General Election and that's where Hillary has Obama beaten by a country mile: 260 to 190, or 58% vs. 42%.

If the DNC and the superdelegates want to win in November, they must choose Hillary.

The Rendell quote was cited at:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-talk/2008/03/mich_fla_dilemma_consumes_demo.html?hpid=topnews

What Is the Difference Between . . .

a punctured baloon and Barack Obama?

That's the substance of David Brooks' column in today's NYTimes. Also echoed by Charles Kauthammer in the WaPo. See:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/opinion/07brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

and

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/06/AR2008030603113.html?nav=hcmodule