Senator Obama on the attack

Below is some math that might catch your attention and a commentary by Dick Bennett over at the American Research Group. The point is that their is an illusion flouting around within the left wing of U.S politics and it may be related to illusions of grandeur. Democrats are walking around with a since of intitalment to the White House (Clinton and Obama voters). This illusion or sense of intitlment may have come from the false belief that the next few months of politics is going to be as civil as the democratic primary race has been. Many nieve citizens feel that this last contest between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama has been "negative." That claim, that the nomination process was negative, was just a red herring stratagy used by the Obama campaign to win over votes. As much as one may want to win the Oval Office, Democrats should not be so sure of themselves.

For example, anyone that heard or saw President Bush speak before the Israeli parliament heard him say "...some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorist and radicals ..." Barack Obama took this speech as a direct attack against his campaign. Since the Democrats are sensitive to being “swift boated” Sen. Obama felt he had to strike out as fast as possible. The issue is over the CNN YouTube debate when Sen. Obama was asked about whether or not he would meet with terrorist. Sen. Obama answered "yes and without preconditions " but now the senator is distancing himself from his comments or changing course by replacing the word preconditions with preparation. To Sen. Obama it's a different approach because it copies president Ronald Reagan’s theory of a "Mirror [of] military strength with tough diplomacy..": Senator Obama said this today. Although Senator Obama sounds like Hillary Clinton now he sounded different back during the YouTube debates.

The question to Senator Obama during the YouTube debate was "...would you meet without preconditions." The Senator answered today by saying "no, direct talks without preconditions becomes the subject of the negotiations." Somehow, no direct talks, without preparations, means a step forward and is a suppose to be a big change of foreign policy. Sen. Obama found himself in front of a media circus today unable to describe the difference between Preconditions and Preparations. Sen. Obama did not have one idea about what would be included in "preparations." Maybe it means that a President Obama would prepare a thousand high school bands or send the New York Philharmonic to melt the cold hearts of our countries enemies or as Sen. Obama put it "rogue nations"

Senator Clinton called it naive to meet with our countries enemies during the YouTube CNN debate. Senator Obama answers by saying that he would present "my expectations to our enemies." But Bush tried this with North Korea recently and it did not work because our enemies did not meet with the preparations before the talks could take place. A tough but engaged policy is what Sen. Obama wants but tough against what or who and engaged to what level . Hamas did well in the elections and Sen. Obama said that we should not have supported the same democratic elections that ex-president Carter personally helped with. The U.S promotes democracy and this is one of our prerogative but Obama thinks it was a mistake to help the Palestinians. This suggests that we should not be supporting democratic freedom and also that when elections do not benefit the Senator, the Senator does not like elections.

By Rafael Buelna

Below is some math and comments by Dick Bennett


May 16, 2008 - Oregon Democratic Primary Preference
Oregon Democrats May 14-16
Clinton 45% Obama 50% Undecided 5%

Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 57% to 39% among men (48% of likely Democratic primary voters). Among women, Clinton leads 51% to 44%.
Obama leads 51% to 44% among white voters (88% of likely Democratic primary voters). Clinton leads 50% to 46% among Hispanic voters (6% of likely Democratic primary voters).
Obama leads 55% to 38% among voters age 18 to 49 (49% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Clinton leads 52% to 45% among voters age 50 and older.
Clinton and Obama are tied at 49% each among voters saying they have returned their ballots (58% of likely Democratic primary voters) and Obama leads 52% to 40% among voters saying they will definitely return their ballots by May 20th.
20% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Hillary Clinton in the primary and 22% of likely Democratic primary voters say they would never vote for Barack Obama in the primary.

A Surprise About Obama, Clinton, and Turnout

Conventional wisdom has it that Barack Obama's primary victories are based on his ability to increase turnout.
A look at what happens when voter turnout increases in the primaries proves that this notion is wrong. In fact, Obama has had his greatest primary (and caucus) victories when turnouts have been low.
Obama received 66% of the primary vote in Georgia when 22.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Virginia, Obama received 64% of the primary vote when 21.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Mississippi, Obama received 61% of the primary vote when 24.4% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary.
Hillary Clinton received 67% of the primary vote in West Virginia when 30.1% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Pennsylvania, Clinton received 55% of the vote when 27.7% of all registered voters in the state voted in the Democratic primary. In Ohio, Clinton received 54% of the primary vote when 30.5% of all registered voters in the state voted in the primary.
There are exceptions (such as Arkansas, Tennessee, and Rhode Island), but Clinton, and not Obama, tends to win in the states where turnouts are higher. The relationship is strong enough that Democratic primary turnout can be predicted using Clinton's share of the vote.

--Dick Bennett