The Left - Defenders of the common man except for Joe the Plumber

Ok, the election is over but the fall out continues. I was catching up on the news over the last week and saw a story over at Yahoo that mentioned our old buddy Joe the Plumber that became a debate topic and a follow on focus of a media anal exam. I was always surprised how much the media was able to find out about Joe the Plumber and never make any real connection between Obama and Rev Wright or Obama and Bill Ayers.

So the Yahoo story by way of AP is titled "Report: Records search on Joe the Plumber improper". The crux of the story states that a state computer was used to access Joe's personal information by the Department of Job and Family Services Director (who had used a state computer or e-mail account to support fund raising efforts for Obama's campaign for which she was placed on paid leave). The story states:

An agency director improperly used state computers to find personal information on "Joe the Plumber," a government watchdog said in a report released Thursday.

There was no legitimate business purpose for the head of Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services to order staff to look up the records, Inspector General Tom Charles said.

Investigators weren't able to determine whether the searches were politically motivated, the report said.

"All these searches were done in the midst of a national political campaign," the report said. "But we did not find any evidence that shows the data was accessed or information released in response to media requests in an effort to support any political activity or agenda."

Not politically motivated? There was no evidence found that the agency in question has policy dictating that background checks are done once an individual "emerges into the limelight". This was a private citizen who had 18 background checks done on him by an agency that is headed up by a Obama supporter. Yeah - no conflict there.

The agency director (Helen Jones-Kelley) was suspended by the Governor after this report was released (a month with no pay) but this woman needs to be fired. This was clearly an abuse of the position that Helen Jones-Kelley held and has betrayed the public trust. We cannot have officials supporting the public with such questionable ethics. I call upon Gov Ted Strickland to fire Helen Jones-Kelley and restore faith in his public servants. This cannot be allowed to stand.

The findings of this report have been forwarded to the appropriate  prosecutor's office in Columbus, Ohio. Let's hope justice is done.

OS

Where is John McCain?

So the media is rife with stories about the unruly Sarah Palin and her ignorance, lack of experience and demand for fine clothes and I have not heard John McCain actually defend her at all against these slanders from "anonymous" campain sources.

I watched a little of Greta Van Susteren's interview with Palin last night and it struck me that there is another narrative missing to this story - John McCain. This is the same man who attacked Repubblican supporters who developed an ad linking Obama and Rev. Wright (you know..."not God Bless America but God Damn America..." that guy). This is the same man who spoke up at a rally and talked how "We have nothing to fear with Barack Obama in the White House". Where is he now when his VP choice is being slammed?

If Palin is ignorant or inexperienced, isn't the issue here McCain's vetting process for a choice of running mate? Doesn't the responsibility for bringing Palin to the national ticke lie with this same campaign who is now disparaging her? Where is Mr. Straight Talk now?

By the way recall it was the selection of Sarah Palin that put McCain in the lead (according to Zogby Poll) over Obama. So is the real problem Sarah Palin or the crappy campaign that McCain ran?

OS

Looking ahead to an Obama Presidency.

Well, this should be a real interesting 4 years. I wonder if we could all take some sort of morning after pill and wake up from this radical change in America's direction.

Anyway - the Boston Globe has a story titled "Checking racism's postelection pulse". The gist of the story is since we now have elected an African American president, is racism dead. My response - of course not. Sorry to say this but there are too many people who make money off of racial racketeering and fear mongering and maligning this country for racism ever to be declared dead. What would Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do with themselves?

The story quotes Demetrius Calhoun, a resident of Roxbury as saying "You think because he's president, automatically black people are going to have plenty of jobs and plenty of money? He can't just go and do that."

Did I miss the speech where Obama noted he was going to give out money and jobs to black people? I heard the spreading the wealth around comment but this was new. Secondly, is racism the only cause for anyone not to have money and a job?

So as we are all navel gazing and trying to understand why racism is not dead recall that according to the Washington-based Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies (the nation's leading think tank on African-American issues) "84 percent of African Americans prefer Barack Obama over John McCain." Why aren't there stories about the surge in racism against the white candidate (John McCain) in the black community? Hello - CNN? If 84% of White America had voted against Obama, not only would we be electing a different president, we would not be having these conversations about the possible death of racism, but about the continuation of this sordid practice.

I am waiting for the stories as to why Obama enjoyed such popularity? Was it about race? Does Fox News, ABC or CBS have the guts to look at that question? Probably not.

Change is here.

OS

Trying to figure out taxes

Ok, so it doesn't look so good for McCain. Obama has assured everyone that he won't raise taxes (even checked out his website). What his website states as one fact is that "The Obama Plan Provides Generous Tax Cuts for Almost All American Families – and will not raise any tax rate on families making less than $250,000 per year, period!" This is part of the complete Obama tax plan found here - http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/taxes/Tax_Plan_Facts_FINAL.pdf)

Ok – so what do you pay in taxes? I did some looking and found the 2008 Tax brackets here. There are six tax rates - 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, and 35%. So a person making a respectable 100k/yr would pay $21978.25 in taxes, around 22% when all is said and done. But recall that Obama is going to probably let the Bush tax cuts expire (as they are supposed to do in 2010) which would increase the rates. Obama states this again on his website – "Under the Obama Plan, No One Will Pay Higher Tax Rates Than They Paid in The 1990s." So what was the rate in 1999 (before the Bush Tax rates). My source is http://www.unclefed.com/IRS-Forms/taxtables/1999_i1040trs.pdf

A person making 100k in 1999 would pay $25779 in taxes. That is a savings of around $3800 – not!!! So if I read the plan right, Obama is actually going to raise taxes on folks making 100k by letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire. Isn't it fair to say that is part of his plan? So how the hell can he say that families making less than $250k will not see their taxes raised?

Don't believe me – check out this story on the USA Today Website. Entitled "Rolling back Bush's tax cuts will pay for proposals, Obama says" Obama is quoted as saying:

"During an hour-long talk, Obama promoted eliminating some of the income tax cuts enacted under President Bush, but resisted characterizing them as a tax increase."

"The Illinois senator said that as president, he would roll back income tax cuts for higher incomes to pay for his policy proposals."

But ok folks – drink the Kool Aid and cast your ballot for Obama. As Jesus said on the Cross – "… forgive them, for they know not what they do. (Luke 23:34)". What scares me is that folks know what they are doing and are actually pulling the lever wanting this yahoo in office and his socialist and extreme leftward policies. But what is really important is focusing on Sarah Palin's wardrobe right?

OS

Quick weekend note on politics and economics

Thanks to Drudge for this great story out of the SouthCoastToday.com that quotes one of our many local embarrassments, Rep Barney Frank. Frank states that the Dems want to have another stimulus package post a presumably Obama win. Stimulus package = bribe for folks to go out and spend money they don't have on things they don't need so the economy looks like it is improving. This new stimulus package would include "... money for the states' stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday."

So extended unemployment benefits? And why would we need those...well if you continue to read the story it seems that Frank also wants a 25% cut in the military budget. He (Frank) is qouted as saying "... the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay."

Heads up you military contractors as well as "upper-income taxpayers". First off, the focus on a democtatic administration will be on cutting the military budget that pays for a lot of the high tech work that is going on in the industry. Good thing there will be extended unemployment benefits. And of course there is the swipe at those upper-income taxpayers. I read the story and didn't see anywhere what the upper income was according to Rep. Frank but the story did end with this quote: "And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually," he said."

Note - not upper bracket but upper brackets [plural]. There is no flipping way Obama can pay for all the social engineering and government programs he wants to implement by taking only those that make $250000 or more. And in doing so, what he telegraphs is his lack of appreciation for the workers out there that bust their hump to make more and to give their family more (I count myself among them at least with my attitude). What Obama is doing is removing incentive to hard work and applying incentive to vote democrat for more hand outs. Why would I want a raise and take on more work or responsibility if the net outcome is me actually paying more to the Government? What is this...Bizarro world?

All you people that think that it is ok to take from someone else so you get a little more are actually promoting and supporting a socialistic Government and view (unfairly in my opinion) the "rich" as folks who have gotten their wealth by somehow cheating you and others like you. In 2007 37.3 million people which is 12.5 percent of the total U.S. population were reported living in poverty. Is it due to Bill Gates or the other "rich folks" in America? Unfortunately that seems to be the message coming from Obama - economics is a zero sum game where for one person to get rich, someone else must lose. But don't worry!! Obama wants to help out...as he is quoted from Fox News below after his now infamous encounter with Joe the Plumber:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There you have it folks - let's spread that wealth around but we need the Government to help out. What - so wealth is like jelly on an English Muffin? Actually what I think is true that if the economy is good for folks from the top down, it is good for everybody because the top folks have the money and are taking the risks and are hiring employees, truly spreading the wealth around. The only thing Government can do in this model is get in the way.  I can't believe this guy is so close to the Presidency. 

OS

The persistence of racism?

So let me get this straight - Obama is a heart beat away from the Presidency and instead of celebrating this, some in the media want to focus on the persistence of racism in the US. Case in point - Reuters reported yesterday that "Ugly election incidents show lingering racism". The evidence -

"A cardboard likeness of Barack Obama was found strung from fishing wire at a university, the Democratic presidential nominee's face was depicted on mock food stamps, the body of a black bear was left at another university with Obama posters attached to it."

I didn't see any mention in the article about the halloween display that showed Obama running from John McCain dressed as a KKK Klansman. 



Thanks to http://www.whudat.com/for the image. Wouldn't this be considered Racism? What about the fact that "84% of black voters identify themselves as Obama supporters". Isn't this a little racist? Shouldn't the media do some investigating and ascertain why Obama has such a high level of support from the Black Community and why McCain does not? I am sure it is not due to race. 

To make matters a little more confusing, there is an article today that states "Surging Obama campaign suggests US racism on the wane" on the Christian Science Monitor website. The article quotes former Mississippi Gov. William Winter as saying “The election of Barack Obama as president of the United States would be the greatest thing for racial reconciliation and racial understanding that we could have happen in this country,”. This country should not elect a president to send a message about racial reconciliation in my humble opinion. We should elect the person who can best lead this country for the next four years given the uncertain nature of our economy, culture and the world. To cast a vote for anything other than that seems foolhardy and quite frankly racist.

Newsweek Magazine had a story that was entitled "What if Obama loses"? The story focused on the African American community and their reactions if (a big "if") John McCain is elected President. The story notes that "(t)here's not a lot of anger—yet—but you can start to sense the potential for it." Nothing like a little threat to get the blood pumping right? The story continues with a quote from Daetwon Fisher, 21, a construction worker from Long Beach, Calif. "I'm going to be mad, real mad, if he doesn't win" Fisher states "Because for him to come this far and lose will be just shady and a slap in black people's faces. I know there is already talk about protests and stuff if he loses, and I'm down for that." 

So what can we take from this? That if Obama loses it will be shady and not fair? What message is being communicated to these people? That the establishment is against them and that they can't expect a fair shake. This is truly sad for me to read as it is indicative of just how far the racial divide is and how it is continuing to be reinforced. What if Obama loses because a majority of voters reject his socialist policies? What if Obama loses because of his inexperience? What if America doesn't want an extreme liberal agenda pushed on it and most Americans were proud of their country even before Obama came onto political scene (remember Michelle Obama's remark "“For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change").

In any event, if Obama loses it will not be because he is black, it is because he is the lesser of the two candidates. Hey - someone had to say it.

OS

Why relationships matter.

So like a lot of people, folks in my circle of friends are wondering why Obama's relationship with a terrorist is a big deal? They cite that Obama was 8 when Bill Ayers did all those bad things and it isn't indicative of his (Obama's) feelings.

Well why did Obama (and his wife) continue to be friends with Ayers and his wife? Shouldn't folks like that be ostracized by civilized society? Isn't it illustrative that Ayers has not repented. Fox News (The Oreilly Factor) reports that Ayers stated in 2002 that:

"I considered myself partly an anarchist then. I consider myself partly an anarchist now. I mean, I'm as much an anarchist as I am a Marxist, which is to say, you know, I find a lot of the ideas in anarchism appealing. "

Does anyone have a problem with this sort of person being someone Obama, potentially our next President is friendly with? Do we want Ayers sleeping in the Lincoln bedroom? A person is not allowed to join the military if he or she has been  involved with a group who advocates the violent overthrow of the government. Given that Obama will be Commander in Chief (God Forbid) - shouldn't that at least give us pause and demand a full accounting by the lapdog media as to who this terrorist is?

Does anyone remember Trent Lott? Trent Lott was the Senate Republican Leader when at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond (who ran for President in 1948 as a Dixiecrat)  stated "When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years, either." So some remark at a party referring to a Presidential race in 1948 was enough for the media, the left and some republicans to call for Lott's resignation. He eventually resigned his Senate Leadership post. 

Relationships matter and who we associate with matters as it reveals much about ourselves and what we cherish. Look to the people who are associated with Obama and McCain and the other politicians that we are choosing to lead this country in November. Better yet, imagine you are looking to enter into a relationship with someone, possibly long term. Doesn't his or her friends, associates as well as his or her character matter? Shouldn't we at least have a similar metric for our President?

OS

Thoughts on the debate

McCain and Obama are going at it in Mississippi and CNN HD is doing a great job with the coverage. Jim Lehrer seems to want to candidates to fight or at least bicker back and forth but my impression is that McCain is taking Obama to school. McCain seems reasoned and experienced and Obama seems like a petulant child. There is a distinct difference between the two.

I like how Obama when asked about his spending he noted that "he" was going to pay for it. Yeah right - we will be paying for his spending plan.

One thing that irks me is the way Obama keeps referring to McCain as "John" and I haven't heard McCain once call Obama "Barack". Obama is trying to marginalize McCain and it is not working.

This is good TV.

McCain choice for VP is a "conservative"

Fun times are being had at the NY Times, Boston Globe and other entrenched leftist outfits with the choice of Sarah Palin for Vice President on the Republican Ticket. My thoughts on the Palin choice I will hold for another post but if anything it is a politically brilliant move by McCain. But here is the thing...Palin is a conservative. She is pro-NRA, pro-life and religious...uh oh. The media are having a field day with this...

Brent Bozell's newest column on this subject states (in part):

When Palin was picked, the (Washington) Post couldn’t stop pounding away on her conservatism. The lead story underlined: "The self-described 'hockey mom' brings a blue-collar conservatism and strong antiabortion views to the ticket." Another story on the front-page called her "the pro-gun, antiabortion governor of Alaska." The caption under her picture noted Palin was "a conservative with strong antiabortion views."

Palin is also taking flack for seeking such a demanding position (VP) with a baby with Down's syndrome (yeah - why didn't she just have an abortion...what sort of role model is she?) and other disturbing accusations (yes I know her 17 year old daughter is pregnant). But did you know Gov. Palin was a conservative?

Rush Limbaugh recounts a story in one of his books about when he got famous. He noted that he gained additional names - no longer was he "Rush Limbaugh" but "conservative Rush Limbaugh" or "right-wing commentator Rush Limbaugh" as if the media that was writing about him had to qualify their description of him with that amplifying information. As he notes...no one ever introduced Larry King as the "liberal talk show host Larry King".

So with the Palin stories, her conservatism is put in the forefront of stories about her. Fair you say? Ok - but how was Joe Biden introduced?

Boston Globe Online, in their story "Foreign policy got Biden the VP nod" reported some glowing praise for Biden (some quotes were from Obama introducing Biden):

"Biden could also attract former supporters of Hillary Clinton, who yesterday praised Obama's choice of Biden, calling him "an exceptionally strong, experienced leader and devoted public servant.""

"After weeks of speculation, Obama settled on Biden because of a combination of personal chemistry with the Delaware senator (and) Biden's foreign policy résumé"

""For decades, he has brought change to Washington, but Washington hasn't changed him."

"He's an expert on foreign policy whose heart and values are firmly rooted in the middle class."

"He has stared down dictators and spoken out for America's cops and firefighters."

"He is uniquely suited to be my partner as we work to put our country back on track."

But the National Journal Online reports that "His composite liberal score of 94.2 placed him as the 3rd most-liberal senator in 2007, two ticks behind Barack Obama, who was the most liberal senator last year with a score of 95.5." The Boston Globe didn't think to mention that?

A similar story in the online Boston Globe from 2 Sept 2008 entitled "Palin provides a striking alternative" mentions Palin hunts, fishes, opposes abortion and a lifetime member of the NRA. Ok, just so we are clear, Palin is not "one of us" the Globe seems to be saying. Or as Maureen Dowd so snottingly put it recently, she hasn't even been on Meet the Press - what is this country coming to?

Stories on Palin and her 'conservative ideals' will be plastered all over the place as an attempt to discredit her and those that may "swing" to support John McCain rather than Obama. The media don't want people voting for the "woman", they want people voting for the Democrats. How silly...What you are getting with Obama and Biden is the most liberal ticket so far and the media are so worried about this Governor from Alaska that they are throwing their objectivity out the window...I know - "what objectivity".

Say it with me folks - "there is no media bias"....yeah right.

OS

Is the country on the wrong track?

More politics coming at you. Yahoo has a story courtesy of the AP that reports that at a recent campaign stop Obama criticized McCain for thinking the country is on the right track.

"These anxieties seem to be growing with each passing day," Obama said on a campaign trip in this economically ailing battleground state. "We can either choose a new direction for our economy or we can keep doing what we've been doing. My opponent, John McCain, thinks we're on the right track."

The audience booed and hissed at such nonsense but thank goodness we have Obama offering up "something new". Like middle class tax cuts (that almost every politician including Bill Clinton was for). Obama is also for the ever popular "change" which is always a crowd pleaser. It worked for Bill Clinton against Bush playing on the country's need for change from the status quo (Republican Presidents for 12 years) and Obama is using the same ploy, hoping for similar results.

The Yahoo Story also noted that when asked (based on an AP-Ipsos poll) "77 percent said they thought the country was on the wrong track. The same poll set President Bush's approval rating at 28 percent." So of course Obama is also linking McCain to President Bush and the President's low approval numbers. But heads up Obama. You may want to check your own party's approval numbers for its leadership. A similar AP-Ipsos poll has Congress' approval rating at 18%, actually better than the current President. Seems like the "public" wants change also in Congress. I didn't find that mentioned in the AP Story. So the question is, will Obama make a break with the current Democrat leadership like Speaker Pelosi?

Seems like McCain may have at least a nice rebuttal as opposed to a good political platform.

OS

McCain is right about something

Not too jazzed about the race for the White House as the differences between the candidates are not as distinct as I would like them to be - but no one is listening to me anyway.

McCain is reported (at ABC News' Political Radar Blog) as suggesting:

"...Sen. Barack Obama may alter his promise to withdraw US troops from Iraq within 16 months after meeting with US. General David Petraeus, the commander of US forces in Iraq.

"I'm glad that he [Obama] is, for the first time, asking for a sit down briefing with Gen. Petraeus and I'll be very interested in what his position on Iraq is when he returns," McCain said during a satellite interview with ABC News' Charlie Gibson Wednesday from Pittsburgh."

As I noted in my previous post Obama cannot (IMHO) hold to his current timetable to withdraw from Iraq in 16 months or less. Welcome to the party Senator McCain. Here is another softball for you - USA Today (and others) are reporting that Obama said "that the nation's chief priority should not be for immigrants to learn English, but for American children to learn Spanish". Any chance you want to chime in on this asinine statement? This is an easy one. Sure he said "immigrants should learn English" but my question is what policies is he putting in place to support that? Stick up for America Senator McCain - recapture some of your conservative credentials that so far in this campaign have been lacking.

YouTube video is here.


Outspoken Roman

John McCain is not entitled to free speech

I am reading Jonah Goldberg's great book "Liberal Fascism" and it is instructive to get the history lesson of the Left actually advocating what can only be called fascist solutions to many of the issues that the United States has dealt with since Woodrow Wilson and WW I and carried through to present day.

Anyway, I saw this article when I was reading Yahoo News and was specifically reading the local news section for Lexington, Bedford and Concord. The local news website for towns in this area has been renamed "Wicked Local" and admittedly I don't "get" the nature of the name. Wicked Local? This isn't some stupid attempt by the web site authors to sound "hip" and appeal to the young? Not sure but I digress.

So the local news for Lexington has a story about John McCain's solution to breaking the US' dependence of foreign oil called "The Lexington Project" which apparently is irritating many of the locals of Lexington, Ma where Democrats outnumber Republicans by 4 to 1. John McCain has named the project "for the town where Americans asserted their independence once before. And let it begin today with this commitment: In a world of hostile and unstable suppliers of oil, this nation will achieve strategic independence by 2025."Sounds good right? Does anyone not think we should cut the cord with respect to foreign oil - especially as it relates to our national security?

Well not the residents of Lexington. At the local Lexington news site a "consultant" who works in Lexington is quoted as saying:

“I don’t think he should be able to do that, I don’t see the correlation. It has nothing to do with Lexington.”

So let me get this straight - this person (a Chris Peaden) missed the correlation to the fight for independence and the fight we need to take to secure our national security and future by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. Secondly this person also notes that John McCain shouldn't "be able to do that" (assume that he means use the name "Lexington" in his energy policy).

I wonder how the same proposal by Obama would have been met by the residents of Lexington, MA? I can only surmise that it would be been an honor for the name of Lexington to be used in such a proposal by the leftist (liberal) candidate. But more importantly the quote that I used above also reveals an interesting fascist tendency (limit rights based on what they agree with as outlined in Goldberg's book). Now I have no idea what sort of political ideology the person quoted subscribes to. But I do find it interesting that John McCain isn't entitled to the 1st Amendment based on Chris Peaden's opinion. I assume it is because Mr. Peaden (I am assuming it is a male) does not support Mr. McCain but since when are the freedoms/rights as outlined by the Bill of Rights in the US Constitution so fluid? Mr. McCain can call his energy policy whatever he wants bascially. It is instructive and revealing how some people so willingly would remove rights that are "god given" based on a personal disagreement.

Scary indeed. Let's hope Chris Peaden and his ilk never rise to political postions as who knows what right would be next on the chopping block based on their personal opinions.

I wonder what the residents of Lexington, Kentucky feel about the McCain choice of name for his energy policy?

OS

Jail is too tough - I want the current presidential candidates to chime in on this.

Yahoo News has a story that everyone should be concerned about. The story speaks to the deplorable conditions in our jails as apparently the jails are starving the inmates.

The story (from the AP) is entitled "300-pound inmate complains Ark. jail doesn't feed him well"

An inmate awaiting trial on a murder charge is suing the county, complaining he has lost more than 100 pounds because of the jailhouse menu.

Broderick Lloyd Laswell says he isn't happy that he's down to 308 pounds after eight months in the Benton County jail. He has filed a federal lawsuit complaining the jail doesn't provide inmates with enough food.

So note that the inmate (in jail on a murder charge) is complaining that he has lost weight in jail while stating that he is not participating in "little vigorous activity". How cruel can this country be that we do not supply our inmates with enough food to keep their 400+ body weight? I for one can't bear the thought of this criminal (note I did not use the term inmate - how judgmental of me). The criminal's complaint continues:

"On several occasions I have started to do some exercising and my vision went blurry and I felt like I was going to pass out," ... "About an hour after each meal my stomach starts to hurt and growl. I feel hungry again."

Note that the prison in question is in Arkansas. Obama should jump on this and show feigned outrage that the Clinton's (first family of Arkansas in 1978 and again in 1982) discriminate against heavy inmates! We need to change this - Obama - man of the people (including heavy criminals). If only Chris Wallace had asked Obama about this on yesterday's Fox News Sunday. A missed opportunity to be sure.

One more thing - prison is supposed to be tough. That is why it is assigned as punishment.

OS

Iowa Caucus news - Huck not worth a "Breaking News Alert"

Welcome to 2008. What a year it will be with Presidential Politics, release of movies such as the new Batman movie and my personal favorite the return of Indiana Jones as well as continued polarization of the country on national security issues and the war in Iraq. It is going to be a wild ride.

So after taking a week or so off to visit the family, I am looking at the Iowa results and it is Obama for the Dems and Huckabee for the Repubs. What I thought was shocking was Clinton's 3rd place finish as she had everything apparently going for her and all the clout and all the money and still could only muster a third place finish. I am sure as others have said that the spin will be that Iowa didn't really mean a lot (I will note that her husband Bill did not win in Iowa as well, losing to Tom Harkin). I still believe her loss is significant due to the established credentials she had already due to her husband and of course her time on the national stage as First Lady and as one of New York's senators. I have predicted in another space that Obama will be the nominee and I stand by that. Peggy Noonan writing online in the Wall Street Journal notes:

As for Sen. Obama, his victory is similarly huge. He won the five biggest counties in Iowa, from the center of the state to the South Dakota border. He carried the young in a tidal wave. He outpolled Mrs. Clinton among women.

He did it with a classy campaign, an unruffled manner, and an appeal on the stump that said every day, through the lines: Look at who I am and see me, the change that you desire is right here, move on with me and we will bring it forward together.

What as interesting was that everyone who subscribes to the Boston Globe's Breaking News Alerts got an alert around 9:42 PM last night stating "Barack Obama has won the Democratic caucuses in Iowa, according to the Associated Press and CNN." Huckabee's win didn't warrant a similar Breaking News Alert. I guess we know what the Globe feels is news and worthy of email alerts. But there is no bias there.

What to say about Huckabee? I don't know that much about him but he seems to come off as the every day guy who has a sensibility about him and a "down to earth" charm that Romney seems to lack. Where Romney comes off (rightfully so) as the CEO of a company, smooth and polished, Huckabee exudes charm that is not unlike Bill Clinton, folksy and humble. Again, to go back to Peggy Noonan's piece:

What we have learned about Mr. Huckabee the past few months is that he's an ace entertainer with a warm, witty and compelling persona. He won with no money and little formal organization, with an evangelical network, with a folksy manner, and with the best guileless pose in modern politics.

I have also noted that I believe Giuliani will take the nomination for the Repubs. Huckabee I believe will fade as will Thompson. I think McCain while taking a lot of maverick positions that the media as loved, has alienated the true base of the Republican party and will also withdraw from the race, although not as soon as I would like.

I look forward to my continued Boston Globe "Breaking News Alerts", especially the one that says "Hillary Clinton defeated". That will be a keeper.

Outspoken.Roman