Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« On the GOP race (and Ron Paul's ignorance of Canada) | Main | Character and Leadership »

Saturday, January 05, 2008

Obama 2008 = McGovern 1972

Man, I hope that Barak Obama is the Democratic nominee for President.  Not because I like him – in fact, I hate him on a personal level.  Rarely has history delivered up at such a critical moment such an inconsequential figure with such hopes invested in him.  Every time I see his face – pale and strangely off-putting like that of a transsexual – my blood boils.  But, still, I pray that God is kind enough to deliver us such an opponent: as annoying as the man is, tearing apart the Coke-snorting, criminal-coddling, terrorist-appeasing, possibly-Mohammadean Democratic nominee is going to be a lot of fun.

The pundits are right when they say that this election should be an easy win for the Democrats.  After all – there’s been a decade of unremitting political-cultural attacks against the President and the Republican Party, the global situation remains unsettled, and the economy is slowing.  If the Democrats had any sense about them at all they would duplicate the formula followed the two times they’ve elected a President in the last forty years: they would nominate a Southern Governor with a moderate reputation.  If Brad Henry, Mike Easley, or Phil Bredesen were set to be their nominee the Democrats would be looking at something like a five to ten point win right about now. 

The human race is fortunate, then, that the Democratic base is – in brief – composed largely of stupid and delusional people.  In my experience, devoted Democrats fall into one of two camps:

1) They are unkempt and confused, like the woman who voted for Lyndon Johnson because she thought that Barry Goldwater wanted to take away her TV.


2) They’re long-term sufferers from what I call “The American President” syndrome.  I’m talking about the Aaron Sorkin movie here.  In it, the good-hearted liberal President is assailed by Evil Republicans™ who, for some bizarre reason, are violently opposed to the widowed President dating a demure lobbyist played by Annette Benning.  At the end, the President decides to reject compromise and moderation and instead gives a speech where he proclaims that the symbol of America should be equally the flag and someone burning the flag and then subsequently promises to “go door to door and get all of the guns.”  Thereafter, the President delivers the State of the Union to rapturous applause and, presumably, goes on to be overwhelmingly re-elected by an American electorate full of deeply closeted ACLU members.

Of course, in reality, any President who went off his rocker like that would be lucky to live out the rest of their term, let alone re-elected.  The delusion is excusable in the writer, who reportedly wrote the script, “holed up in the Four Seasons Hotel with the curtains drawn … while smoking endless amounts of crack.”  However, it is less understandable in (mostly) sober individuals.

For all of the rhetoric about change – for all of the excitement and auto-erotic heavy breathing coming from the media – the truth is that Barak Hussein Obama is on the far left and, when that fact is explained to the American people, he will lose the forthcoming election: badly.  The only caveat that I’ll make in that statement is that it’s null and void if the Republicans as a whole are so stupid as to respond to the present crisis by nominating for President the former Governor of a nowhere state whose primary qualification for office is that he seems like he’d make a good substitute host of the “700 Club.”

This is 1972 all over again.  The Democratic base has, as it did all of those years ago, become progressively unhinged from reality and is determined to have its way come what may.  In 1972 they wanted McGovern – acid, amnesty, abortion, and all.  They’d been radicalized by the anti-Vietnam movement, by the 1968 convention, and all of that and they were determined to take charge and, in so doing, they led their party off an electoral cliff that it has really never fully recovered from. 

Frankly, Obama is a Republican’s dream.  All of us were already tried of Hillary Clinton.  The GOP has already torn that woman down and apart – an election with her as the nominee would have been spent refighting old battles – fighting for yard after yard of shattered ground like the poor bloody infantry in the Great War.  With Obama, on the other hand, we get a whole new – and hitherto unexplored – life to exploit.

In particular, I’m quite eager to see how the Moslem issue works out.  Yes, I know that the Senator’s official position is that he’s a “Christian” and he even belongs to some far-left black “Church” which, among other things, holds denouncing “middleclassness” as one of its core beliefs – but, really, how much is the word of a Democrat worth?

Both Obama’s father and his step-father were Moslems.  That’s a fact.  He also went to Islamic schools as a child.  Really, at the moment, we know very little about what he believed and professed in the years between then and when he was first getting into public life in the mid-1990’s.  Is it really all that implausible that a young black man - especially one with as intense an interest in his family background as Obama professes – wouldn’t have flirted with the faith of his fathers at some point during his young adult years?

Indeed, we know – thanks to Hillary Clinton’s discovery of a youthful ‘essay’ – that Obama had political ambitions from a very early age.  Islam has a specific doctrine, known as “al-Taqiyya”, which permits the followers of Allah to conceal their true faith when among unbelievers.  Now, let’s be very clear – I’m not saying that Obama is a concealed Moslem, a Manchurian candidate, waiting to seize the office of the Presidency in the service of sinister interests.  But, on the other hand, it’s impossible to rule it out.  These things are, after all, unfalsifiable by their very nature. 

Is Barak Hussein Obama secretly a Moslem, pretending otherwise under the cover of a goofy Black Nationalist church?  I can’t prove it and I, personally, don’t believe it – but neither I nor anyone who isn’t a telepath can disprove it either.  Unfalsifiable.

Yes, I’m enjoying this.

In any case, we don’t need anything so dark in order to work towards destroying Obama.  While, admittedly, I’d take a “What Should I Do, Imam?” letter signed by Obama over a weekend in bed with Jenna Fischer, we can make do with substantially less.  Indeed, the facts that Obama fully admits to – his parentage and religious education – are, within the broader context of his views, a serious issue.

Obviously, no one can choose their parents.  We can’t fault Obama for that.  Someone could be born a red diaper baby and later become a staunch and reliable anti-communist.  But Obama shows no sign of such a transformation.  If we take him at face value – that he was born and raised by a vacuous mother with a thing for Moslem men, that he was seemingly raised as a Moslem to some degree, and later became irreligious before eventually joining some frivolous fringe “church” there still remains the very serious issue that his background and upbringing – which he has never denounced or discarded – will make him excessively sympathetic towards the West’s enemies.  Such notions might not sit well with pious multicultural sensibilities but are nonetheless real.  It takes a strong man to overcome early bonds of affection and accept that it might be necessary, in the interests of our civilization, to kill people one was raised with – maybe even to kill one’s own relatives, if that is what is required.  Does the candidate of Oprah seem likely to be the one to dispense with that sort of sentimentality?

Forget the notion – bandied about by Shelby Steele – that part of Obama’s draw comes from the fact that he’s a “nonthreatening black man.”  The deeper truth is that a large part of Obama’s appeal comes from the fact that he’s a nonthreatening man, period.  For all of the jokes about John Edwards as the “metrosexual candidate” (a label his 2008 campaign persona seems designed to shake) no one deserves the label more than the effete and gaunt Obama.  There’s a reason why Obama draws the woman’s vote more than Hillary Clinton: he’s a limp-wristed weakling whose appearance and attitudes are perfectly in keeping with the cultural mores of the day.  His appeal – particularly to the young and to single women – can be traced to his girlishly sensitive countenance and character. 

No, Obama doesn’t cry in public or claim that he can “feel our pain” like Bill Clinton.  Obama’s appeal in this regard is more subtle (and quite possibly genuine).  For his occasional calculated statement about foreign policy, his mush-brained homilies about the “audacity of hope” are perfectly positioned to win over the lavender and lace set. 

This, of course, is only the beginning.  My confidence that we’ll beat Obama isn’t nearly enough for me to quit – especially not when I transparently hate the man with such passion.  My hope is that no one else will quit either and that we can spend a whole year administering a truly epic beat-down to the Democrat.

Posted by Adam T. Yoshida on January 5, 2008 in International Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama 2008 = McGovern 1972:


Obama! Common, Clinton would be eaten up by Giuliani in a heartbeat! Clinton needs to win if we the Republicans can have a chance!

Posted by: John BOsco | 2008-01-05 10:56:57 PM

Man, I wish I could be as hopeful as you are but I doubt that some clueless people wouldn't make the same mistake their fathers did back in 1976 by electing Jimmy Carter. Obama or Osama, whatever you call him, is a new form of Jimmy Carter and he ain't good. I fear for the future of the United States, if this man, Barack Hussein, is elected!

Posted by: winston | 2008-01-06 12:55:45 AM

Man, I wish I could be as hopeful as you are but I doubt that some clueless people wouldn't make the same mistake their fathers did back in 1976 by electing Jimmy Carter. Obama or Osama, whatever you call him, is a new form of Jimmy Carter and he ain't good. I fear for the future of the United States, if this man, Barack Hussein, is elected!

Posted by: winston | 2008-01-06 12:57:03 AM

Adam, did you forget your medication today?

Posted by: Voice of Reason | 2008-01-06 2:54:58 AM

"...tearing apart the Coke-snorting, criminal-coddling, terrorist-appeasing, possibly-Mohammadean Democratic nominee is going to be a lot of fun."

You forgot to say Black. Isn't that the most important point?

Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-01-06 4:16:45 AM

It was really quite sad reading this article. The poster is apparently literate, which is funny. Because it has all the smatterings of just another bigoted, uninformed conspiracy nut running off his racist mouth on a matter in which he obviously has no clue.

In the day and age of so called cultural awareness, the author seems to insinuate that to be Muslim is to be plotting some horrible agenda. Sorry little man, but the fact is, a minority of religious zealots does not speak for a majority of otherwise sane individuals.

But I guess since your God allows you to insult and persecute anyone you want, you really should not care about stepping on the rights of others. Of course, haha, that sort of thing is what causes most of the problems in the first place.

This was not at all a political post. It started that way, but then devolved into "God hates your religion, and that makes you bad", which is unfair since free religion does not mean freedom for just your religion.

Why is Christianity on the decline? (And yes, it is still the biggest individual religion in the world, but it also loses more members then all others) Could it be people are sick of people like this, making their own religion seem like nothing more then hatred and persecution?

But, I think I am done now.

Posted by: Chris Roy | 2008-01-06 4:25:47 AM

"Every time I see his face – pale and strangely off-putting like that of a transsexual – my blood boils."

LOL! I think experts call that evidence of repressed homosexuality!!

So long as Adam has posting privileges here, there is no worry that anyone other than a few lunatics will take the Shotgun seriously. Rock on, crazy man!!!

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-01-06 4:53:43 AM

"You forgot to say Black. Isn't that the most important point?"

It's always the Left that decries racism that notices and points out the colour of a person's skin.

The first serious black candidate - obama.

The first serious woman candidate - Hillary.

Yada, yada, yada.

Always concentrating on the differences that cannot be controlled while ignoring the Leftoid plans of both these creatures.

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-06 5:43:23 AM

Obama Alabama has about the same chance of becoming
President of the United States of America as Little Black Sambo -Left wing Media in Canada US and UK are besides themselves with glee and have already decided the outcome of the contest without considering States like NY,California,Texas,the
Confederate South and points in between.Senator Clinton has been betrayed by her faith in Black
political leadership in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. The Grand Old party remains the most potent political force in the real United States -Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-06 6:23:22 AM

Jack is correct with this comment:
"Left wing Media in Canada US and UK are besides themselves with glee and have already decided the outcome of the contest without considering States like NY,California,Texas,the Confederate South and points in between"

Clinton's lead is very large right now and I think the Feb 5 results will reflect the national mood more than either Iowa did or New Hampshire will.


Posted by: Brent Weston | 2008-01-06 8:10:39 AM

Sure Hillary will win the Demo nomination. The People may not be quite ready for another Hilly and Willy show in the White House however.

Huckabee could very well win for the GOP and take the Presidency. Then the Leftists will go hucking off on accusations of Harper-Huckabee collaborations as soon as they learn the new name.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-06 8:50:52 AM

Next President of the Republic will be a Republican
not a Democrat -The GOP will cash in on the reputations of the Great Republican Presidents one of whom freed the slaves,and another who resolved the Cold War -The strength and charm of President Ronald Regan still remains a potent force in US Politics. Obama is shallow and ill educated enough to make an outstanding Canadian Liberal MP.Henry Champ CBC's resident alcoholic in Washington was
gushing about Obama earlier this am here in the snow covered wasteland. Macleod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2008-01-06 9:05:00 AM

I've generally been supportive of this blog and its posters, and contemptuous of the trolls (as they deserve), but I have to say, Adam, that this particular post is a verrrry low-rent effort. I can't seen anything redeeming in it at all.

I have no idea who will be the nominee for either party in the US - both are still a toss-up.

Lady Macbeth has a serious problem in that she actually has to campaign, unlike her Senate elections in NY. And she is such an abrasive creature that the more people see of her, the more they dislike what they see. And that's on top of the horrifying negatives she had going in.

But the same might be true of the Obamessiah. He's won Iowa and looks to win NH. And with the limelight comes the spotlight. Should he become the clear front runner as the other primaries occur, then the real examination will start, and people should (I say should not will) begin to see that there's no there there. An empty suit whose chief claim to a spot in the race seems to be his skin colour.

And the less said of the Breck girl the better.

As I say, I don't know what the end result will be. But I'd really hate to be a Dem primary voter having to choose from that lot.

Posted by: Doug | 2008-01-06 9:41:19 AM

This Adam T. Yoshida is rather inflammatory.

Suitable as a participant among us in the vulgar class perhaps in the post responses, but as a poster, he needs to refine his sharp edges a little.


Posted by: epsilon | 2008-01-06 10:19:32 AM

What we're seeing now is typical Media driven Demo/Left hysteria.

How quickly they like to have us forget Willy's fun and games and the fact he was impeachable. Of course that's business as usual in the Media relations with the Leftoids. The Kennedy peccadilloes were largely overlooked, boys will be boys attitude, yadda, yadda.

It's so interesting how a lie is only serious if it comes from anyone on the Right of the political spectrum. That would be nice if it meant the media hold those from the Right to a higher standard, but that's not their game.

Ignatieff chose the right bird for Liberals everywhere with the Puffin, they cover/bury their crap. He'd know a bit about US politics too having lived there for some thirty years.

By the way, don't watch Question Period with Bobby Fife at the helm without taking a Gravol. Bob Rae, former Dipper and Curly Dewar, present Dipper castigating the Foreign Affairs Ministry and being rude to Conservative MP, Deepak Obrai (sp?), a real Liberal love in.
Conservative are a failure on Foreign Affairs, Afghanistan is a mess, yadda, yadda.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-06 10:54:19 AM

Realize it's not Willy who's running but he's part of the package,Hilly hasn't divorced him and this reach for the top may prove she continues to be the long suffering wife.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-06 10:59:51 AM

I noticed that you used the "Manchurian Candidate" line. I was hoping to be the first to use that one, so I'm a little dissappointed. It isn't all that inconceivable.

The al-taqiyya theory isn't implausible either. Castro hid his Marxist beliefs from his followers until it was too late to turn back. The US has enough checks and balances to prevent someone from turning things upside down, but why open the door even a crack?

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 11:12:42 AM

You forgot to say Black. Isn't that the most important point?

Obama's black? You'd have never known it from his press coverage.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-06 11:27:35 AM

Obama's "blackness" is the only thing he has going for him. Imagine an untested white rookie Senator with far-left beliefs named, say, Barry O'Bannon running for President. He'd be lucky to be at 1% in the polls. I agree with Adam's basic thesis: Obama's nomination would guarantee a Republican victory in November.

Posted by: JP | 2008-01-06 12:25:53 PM

Don't forget Obama has the backing of the big Black TV Goddess Oprah Winfrey, that's gotta count for something among the brain free voters.

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-06 12:38:27 PM

The irony of it all ..... Adam Yoshida, whose people bombed Pearl Harbour, trying to finger Barrack as one of today's enemies, a "posible Mohammedean". I think Adam's komono is on a little too tight.

It's funny ... the Democrats have possibly three potential Presidential candidates with very little baggage (other than Hillary's adulterer husband, a former TWO-TERM President). On the Republican side, you have Giuliani (a fine politician but a bit too much of a philanderer for the no-sex Christian Right), Romney (a handsome rich politician but Mormon, not a good fit for the bigoted Christian Right) and Huckabee (a darling of the Christian Right with his yahoo Biblical Bullshit, but who probably has never left the soil of the USA - great for foreign policy). So, McCain it is.

Posted by: Jerry K | 2008-01-06 1:06:43 PM

Easy jerry.

Adam's ancestors bombed Pearl Harbour, not his people.

Everybody has ancestors that had different loyalties than themselves. I don't see any trace of old allegiances in Adam.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 1:13:28 PM

If Obama was white he would enjoy about the same status in the line-up as does Dennis Kucinich.

A rather dorky looking skinny white man full of completely unrealizable dreams and goals.

Obama is as spaced out and Kucinich except for the exotic darkness of skin, mysterious ambiguity of background and childhood, the ability to grow a giant afro head if he wishes to do so. Inside of the head is still whacked out idealistic fantasy that we can all live under the great rainbow in peace just by being nice!

It is so obvious that the Democrats approach politics as though it were a movie project scripts as nebulous vague, and meaningless as a teen movie.

Regarding Yoshi's post ...

I liked that level of passion. I like Ann Coulter for the same reason. What do you dorks here want a bunch of milk-toast posters? You can get that in the MSM all day long.

If you want real bile, go to some of the Leftist sites, even middle of the road one's ... you will see some real spewing of bile.

Keep speaking your mind Yoshi, don't let Doug who is a good example of why we don't have free speech in Canada, intimidate you into being a woos.


You don't have to agree with Yoshi, I know I don't always agree with him. But please just make your argument and don't bother to suggest that Yoshi SHOULDN'T be saying what he is saying. If you find it so offensive and find this blog so beneath your sensibilities. Go to another site where people are more JUST LIKE YOU!

Posted by: John West | 2008-01-06 1:15:12 PM


You may still hate the Japanese for bombing Pearl Harbour sixty years ago, but I realize that those who did that are long gone.

I would like to thank the Japanese for finally giving us high quality and affordable cars to drive. Wonderful TVs and stereos not mention their fabulous motorcycles, and musical instruments.

The Japanese have raised the quality of many consumer goods and set standards that many others are barely able to match.

They are also now going to be an important ally in that part of the world with China on the uptake in many areas such military strength, satellite technology, etc. They are also investing and moving their factories into China which will raise the standards of production.

And Jerry, your comment about 'Yoshi's people' defines you as a complete asshole. But I will defend your right to be just that.

Posted by: John West | 2008-01-06 1:27:30 PM

I'd bet Jerry that my ancestors were here long before his. The first of my ancestors to arrive in North America got here in 1635. My Japanese ancestors were all here by the 1880's.

And, in any case, I've long stated that:

1) The Japanese internment was wrong because it was broad-based, as opposed to selective like the internment of Germans, Italians, and other enemy aliens. If it had been done selectively, based on rational criteria, it would have been perfectly acceptable.

2) The model for responding to such actions is the U.S. 442nd Regimental Combat Team, who volunteered to fight to prove their loyalty. The best way to dispense with suspicions is to become even more loyal and fanatical than the natives. Alas, Canada's Japanese weren't afforded that kind of chance.

3) If this was 1944 and I, a half-Japanese, was running for President while behaving cryptically about my background and beliefs - embracing them for the sake of votes but being deliberately somewhat vague and deceptive about them - there would be good reason to be suspicious of me as well.

Posted by: Adam Yoshida | 2008-01-06 1:44:48 PM

"The Kennedy peccadilloes were largely overlooked, boys will be boys attitude"

You mean like when he exposed his ChappaquiDICK, and took Mary Jo Kopechne's life?

That's not a peccadillo in MY book. That's manslaughter, at the least.

And Senator Byrd's peccadillo when he was the Grand Master of the KKK? That too is overlooked.

But when a REPUBLICAN Senator sits in a public washroom with a "wide stance", he is forced to the benches of the Senate.

And when a Republican Congressman sends suggestive emails to pages, he is castigated.

But when a DemoRat Congressman actually beds a page, he is welcomed back to the House with a standing ovation by his fellow Demorats!

Hmmm. Now which is the homophobic major political party in the US??? Huh, Leftoids???

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-06 1:50:55 PM

So true, obc.
Has anyone ever written a book about The Kennedy's, Unzipped? Oh no, too much information!

Posted by: Liz J | 2008-01-06 1:57:15 PM

My God obc, you've just coined a wonderful phrase. From now on having a "wide stance" will take on a whole new meaning.

That's the funniest thing I've heard since Svend made NDP a synonym for an out of the closet homo.

Posted by: dp | 2008-01-06 2:05:46 PM

Republican 2008 = Goldwater 1964!!!

Posted by: Wanda Hamm | 2008-01-06 2:56:03 PM

It really does not matter who wins the Democratic leadership. The United States will never elect a Democratic President at this time in history. All this hype, is truly the left leaning media trying convince the public, that there is actually a credible choice for the Dems, and there is simply not. Terrorism is still at the top of peoples minds, and the citizens of the US want strong leadership. They will not get it in Clintin or Obama.

Posted by: D.R. - Calgary | 2008-01-06 2:56:08 PM

"Republican 2008 = Goldwater 1964!!!"

And in 2000 and 2004, similar sentiments were expressed by people of your ilk. :)

Posted by: obc | 2008-01-06 3:03:00 PM

"I'd bet Jerry that my ancestors were here long before his."

So if your ancestors were in South Africa by 1635, would that make them Zulus? It was not the Japanese whose institutions, culture and legal tradition founded Canada.

"If it had been done selectively, based on rational criteria, it would have been perfectly acceptable."

Under the circumstances, the imminent threat from Japan, the lack of availabile resources and no abilitiy to infilitrate that group, what, exactly, is the rational criteria? It's nothing but a strawman, driven by your ethnic interests.

"The model for responding to such actions is the U.S. 442nd Regimental Combat Team..." which fought exclusively in Europe. Easy to be loyal to your regiment when fighting round-eyes.

Also interestingly, the Japanese are resolutely exclusive. They would not and will not entertain a European community in Japan. Japan is for the Japanese. There is a lesson there that Yoshida-san cares not to reveal.

Posted by: DJ | 2008-01-06 7:53:14 PM

Hey Canadian,

Worry about the politics in your own country and leave us sensible Americans alone. I'm sorry your country is barren and cold, but don't take it out on our politicians. Also, stick to a strict vegetarian diet--it would do you some good.

Posted by: Anonymous | 2008-01-06 9:56:01 PM

Hey Anonymous,

A fine American you are! The redder the better, man. That's meat, not politics. Nothing tastes better than a steak from an animal you killed yourself.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-01-06 11:02:48 PM

No wonder the Western Standard went belly-up if this is the sort of hateful excrecence that its blog engenders.

Posted by: Red Tory | 2008-01-07 4:22:46 AM

Senator Barack Obama won the Iowa Caucuses. New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson placed fourth. But did they really earn their finishing positions? The answer may be surprising. In the now past ABC New Hampshire debate before the January 8th first-in-the-nation primary, the rules were that only the candidates who finish in the top four slots in Iowa could participate, meaning that second-tier candidates who placed fourth could live on to continue their campaign another day. In the last hours before the Iowa caucuses Obama, who wanted to pad his victory and hedge his bets, approached Joe Biden with this, proposal: In precincts where Biden had a local official loyal to him, and if Biden wasn't viable, then Senator Biden would tell his organizers to move his supporters over to Obama en mass. Conversely, in precincts where Obama had more than enough supporters, he would lend people to Biden to ensure Biden a fourth place finish so that he could,continue Joe Biden actually considered the proposal. An anonymous source close to Biden told the Washington Post that the strategy could be "viability for victory."When the media found out, Obama's camp admitted that the conversation took place. Biden, who when asked about the proposal at a campaign event said that the deal could "probably" help both campaigns; however he later rejected the deal on "moral grounds," a source in Biden's Iowa organization told the Rev. Rob Times on condition of anonymity. History recorded that Joe Biden placed fifth in Iowa, and subsequently dropped out of the race. On January 4, the day after the caucus, the New York Times reported strong rumors that Obama made the same deal to Bill Richardson that he previously offered to Biden, only this time the deal was accepted.The Times article describes not only the rumors, but gives an eye-witness account and confession of an Obama official telling Richardson supporters that a pact had indeed been made between the two candidates. "That's what the leadership has said," admitted Deb Copeland, an Obama volunteer as reported by the New York Times. "What we're concerned about is we heard of a few people going to Hillary. And we want to keep you together," she told the Richardson supporters at the 64th precinct. Volunteers for the Biden campaign told the Rev. Rob Times that Obama organizers used the same speech about a "pact" to lure supporters in at least two precincts where Biden was only a few supporters shy of viability.Representatives from both the Obama and Richardson campaigns deny that such a deal was ever struck, yet first hand testimonies clearly paint a far different picture. The Effect in the end, the effect of backdoor wheeling and dealing between campaigns is that Richardson's fourth place finish could be artificial, and Obama's victory margin is larger than it would have been in a democratic system. Our democracy is based, in part, on the concept of "one man, one vote," and a vote by a secret ballot, free from the judging eyes of neighbors and the media, free from bribery, and free from the influence of political activists. Had the Iowa contest been based on a ballot, and had caucus voters cast a single vote for the candidate of their choice as is the most fair method of picking a president, then Obama may have come in second and Richardson in fifth. If Obama's victory margin had been smaller, or if he placed second, then the dynamic of the race would have changed drastically. Edwards, Clinton, and even Biden may have all come out of Iowa in stronger positions than any of them have.In part, the system is to blame, but those who took advantage of it and exploited it for their own purposes, namely Barack Obama and Bill Richardson, are not without culpability and their misdeeds should be remembered in the minds of voters.

Posted by: Obama cheated Iowans | 2008-01-07 7:17:38 AM

MANCHESTER, N.H. -- Obama campaign violating state law by placing automated phone calls to numbers on the Do Not Call list. Former State Rep. Sandy Keans, a from Rochester, said she received a call.“This afternoon, I received a pre-recorded phone message from the Obama campaign attacking Senator Clinton even though I am on the Do-Not-Call List," Keans said.

Posted by: Obama dirty tricks | 2008-01-07 7:19:21 AM

John West, I LOVE everything Japanese - from the electronics to the food to the cars. I was simply stating the irony in Adam's vitriol toward America's boogeyman of today, when he is the half-caste spawn of their enemy from World War II. And, as with all of America's enemies, Japan paid disproportionately in the form of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Adam, it's great that your ancestors have been here so long. Then why the obsession with a US Presidential candidate, who ironically like yourself, is also mixed-race?

Posted by: Jerry K | 2008-01-07 7:28:11 AM

Ever heard of something called a paragraph, "Obama Cheated"?

Posted by: Red Tory | 2008-01-07 8:38:12 AM

If only Obama was effete and, uh, not gaunt like this threatening paragon of masculinity: http://www.adamyoshida.com/newadam.jpg

Posted by: Alicu | 2008-01-07 10:21:07 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.