Fox "News" vs. Obama

This clip shows how disgusting Fox really is. Fox did a coordinated effort to smear Obama, and in response, he refused to talk to any Fox reporters and pulled out of all Fox debates (along with most of the other Democratic candidates).

There are two ways to deal with a smear. One is to pretend it doesn't exist, and the other is to fight back. Fox should not be recognized as a legitimate news organization, and Obama made the right move.

What's been the end result? Obama's poll numbers went up, with the latest poll showing him and Hillary in a dead heat. Voters respect candidates with the strength to fight back against lies.

2nd Democratic Debate with Poll

I just finished watching the debate. Overall, it was much more exciting than the last one, though in my opinion it wasn't as informative as I would have liked. Here's how I think it played out:

• Obama: Great. He clearly did much better with this format. His shining moment is when Edwards reluctantly called him out as a "follower, not a leader" on the Iraq war. Obama responded "I was against the war from the start, so as far as leadership, you're about four and a half years late." He also made a great point about the idea of English as the official language is just an idea that divides us. He seemed much more relaxed in a debate that was more highly charged than the last one. People will remember than he seemed at ease.
• Hillary: Great. Her confidence was stellar and she used humor, which is a good way to remove her "cold" image. Her great moment is when she said sending Dick Cheney around the world was "hardly diplomatic" and earned big applause. Despite this, the MSM is already saying she did worse than last time and she needs the perception of doing well more than she needs to actually do well.
• Biden: Great. As with last time, Biden made good use of the little time he had. He was able to sound passionate about questions without seeming angry (though some commentators said afterwords that he did seem that way,) and seemed to answer questions directly most of the time, which was largely missing from this debate. His great moment is when he called for US intervention in Darfur, saying our "moral authority" rests on our decision to take action. I completely agree. Morality is earned, not innate in anything stamped with our flag.
• Richardson: Ok. This time, he sounded a bit better but he still took a swipe at the Democratic party by saying "I'm a pro-growth Democrat." A Daily Kos post asked the question, "What, are the other Democrats pro-shrinkage?"
• Edwards: Ok. Edwards didn't do much better or worse than he did last time. The big difference, though, was that this time both Hillary and Obama were a good head and shoulders above him. Picking a fight with Obama over Iraq didn't sound so good, but he made up a little ground by defending his healthcar proposal pretty well.
• Dodd: Poor. Once again, I feel Dodd did poorly even though he did no major screw up because he was boring in a campaign plagued by boring. Little more can be said about him.
• Kucinich: Poor. Gravel didn't overshadow him as much as last time, and he got some applause for some of his ideas, but he's become very marginalized. The entire party has moved to the left since 2004, and they seemed to do so even more tonight. He really wasn't needed.
• Gravel: Poor. Gravel added some excitement into the largely sterile 1st debate and got people talking. It turns out he's a one trick pony, and his angry attacks on other candidates became uninteresting when the big players were fighting each other. He's as marginalized as Kucinich now.

Who won the second Democratic Debate?
	Obama
	Hillary
	Biden
	Richardson
	Edwards
	Dodd
	Kucinich
	Gravel
Free polls from Pollhost.com

A profile in GOP alternatives: Epilogue

This is the final installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Mike Huckabee, Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

I have left out both Ron Paul and Duncan Hunter: there simply exists too little information on these obscure candidates to make a decent post. It's worth noting, however, that Paul is the only GOP candidate with sane foreign policy views.

There are two other candidates I have left out, and that is because they have not announced they are running for President, nor participated in any debates: they are former House Speaker Newt Gingritch and former Tennesse Senator Fred Thompson. Since starting this blog, the likelyhood that Thompson will in fact run has increased considerably, and I predict that should he enter the race, he will indeed be a force to be reconed with. Thompson not only has the charisma that only a professional actor can have, he also is entering the race at a time when Republicans don't like their current candidates much. Despite not announcing or raising any money, he's already in a statistical dead heat with Hillary Clinton. As for his weaknesses, read this great post on my favorate blog. At present, the most reliable polling firm has Giuliani at 1st place with 25%, and Romney, McCain, and Fred Thompson all almost tied for second at about 15% each.

What can we deduce here about Obama's chances to become President? I feel more confident in his chances in the general election (because most of his opponents don't seem like they could truly be competitive) but a the same time, more concerned (because of how truly crazy some of these guys really are.)

Tonight is the 2nd Democratic debate, and I'll have a blog post on it as soon as it's over.

Obama Draws Big Crowds, Makes New Web Site

Obama is regularly pulling in four and five figure sized crowds. Here he is in New Hampshire.

Obama is onto something else that other Democrats aren't matching: a new faith-based section of his web site. If you've been following this blog, you know that I regularly look at the Republican candidate's websites, and even they don't have anything like this. John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are going to have similar websites but call them "moral leadership."Of course, that isn't going to resonate nearly as well as the word "faith" will with the pious. I'm deeply torn by this: on the one hand, I see this as both a great political move and an important counterbalance to the religious right's dominance of faith. On the other hand, when I read the testimonial section of this new website and notice that (of course) there aren't any athiests or agnostics, I realize that Obama has left out a good 10-15% of America, including me. The difference is, of course, that the faithless aren't organized. They have no political power.

While I am saddened by the fact that I'm never going to see eye to eye with Obama on an issue like this, I understand why he's doing it and would probably make the same decision if I was a person of faith. Politics is about comprimise. There are a lot of decent people who are religious, and if this is what it takes to encourage them to take a second look at the Democratic party, it's probably worth it.

A profile in GOP alternatives: Mike Huckabee

This is the eighth installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Tom Tancredo, Sam Brownback, John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Mike Huckabee is the former Governor of Arkansas, like Bill Clinton, and the two both grew up in the same town. They both tried to run an insurgent campaign for President at a time when their party's fortunes weren't looking so hot. The similarities end there, though. Bill Clinton was able to rely on his charisma and raise money and rise in the polls rapidly. Huckabee remains a blip on the radar, and has raised little cash. His speaking skills, while a step above the likes of McCain and Giuliani, aren't enough, and his chances for winning the nomination are slim.

One interesting fact about Huckabee is that, like Obama, a large part of his campaign is about positive thinking and bipartisanship, which you can hear in his video above. Unlike Obama, however, this message isn't really gaining any traction for Huckabee. Why? It could be the bloodthirsty base hates the idea of working with the other side. More likely, Huckabee himself doesn't care about it: beginning with the second sentence of his web site's issue page, Huckabee lashes out at Democrats with all the partisan rancor his supposedly dislikes. His hypocricy doesn't stop there: he calls the fight over abotion a "battle," and talks about "fighting" to pass a national ban on gay marriage. Of course, those issues without fancing language are combative already: if you haven't noticed, most hardline conservative views have to do with hating one's fellow human beings and trying to control their lives in any way possible. It takes a tried and true charlatan to take such views in one breath and in the next, be telling us that "we should never seek to impose our faith."

What about foreign policy? Does he have any room for inclusive, hopeful rhetoric there? No. According to him, we're already in World War 3. It's our job to provide "state of the art weapons" to Israel. He said that peaceful coexistance between America and "Islamofacists" is impossible.

There's nothing particularly original about Mike Huckabee. The only thing worth saying is that he takes the level of lies entailed in phrase "Compassionate Conservative" to a whole new level.

George Clooney and Matt Damon endorse Obama

That's right. Obama's won the support of not just two Hollywood superstars, but two Hollywood activists for global issues. If you haven't seen Syrianna, you're only cheating yourself.

Of course, these two aren't the only big names supporting Obama. He's won the endorsement of fellow actors Edward Norton, Ben Affleck, Sharon Stone , the entire Dreamworks Studio, Musician Neal Young, Philanthropist Warren Buffet, TV host Oprah Winfrey, Chigaco Mayor Richard Daley, Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, Washington Congressman Adam Smith, Ethel Kennedy (widow to Bobby Kennedy), and even Stephen Colbert, in a rare out of character apperance. This, of course, is only a partial list. There are many more high profile names and names will continue to be added as the campaign progresses.

A profile in GOP alternatives: Tom Tancredo

This is the seventh installment of my analysis of Obama's potential Republican foes in the general election. I have previously profiled Sam Brownback, John McCain, Tommy Thompson, Jim Gilmore, Rudy Giuliani and Mitt Romney.

Tom Tancredo is up today, and he's a single-issue protest candidate. That issue: immigration. Putting aside the fact that there is multiple sources of evidence that shows immigrants help the economy as well as reduce crime, the very notion of "it's our country" and "we were here first" is one of the most hypocritical statements ever uttered. I included the above cartoon because it displays the silliness of Tancredo's singlue issue: we of course, were NOT here first. America first took the land (and and the lives) of the Native Americans. We bought Louisiana from France, we took California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas from Mexico in an imperialistic war of agression, we took the Phillipenes from Spain, and we bought Alaska from the Russians. Oh, and did I mention that most of us aren't even decdendants of the origninal people who came here?And that most of these groups (Irish, Italians, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, ect) had to face huge descrimination in their hayday as well?

Perhaps the biggest irony is that as a liberal, I'm against illegal immigration as well, but for a very different reason: I think it should be legal immigration. These people should be allowed to be US citizens. In addition, to reduce "illegal" immigration, we should remove the market from it by increasing penalties for companies that hire immigrants and offering rewards for workers who turn their employers in. This would be far cheaper than building a wall, and would encourage the proper behavior from the enforcement of the free market. A perfectly conservative idea.

Of course, the Republican Party never puts principle above hatred. Tancredo's view of immigration has nothing to do with economic woes, crime fears, terrorism concerns (the 9/11 hijackers all came here LEGALLY,) or worker's rights. It has everything to do with racism. This is why Tancredo recently addressed a hate group and, in reference to it's high ethnic population, called Miami a "third world country," and said it was "the murder capitol of the world." There are at least five major cities in the US with a higher murder rate than Miami, and the "murder capitol of the world" is actually the nation of Colombia, likely because of the huge influence of drug cartel wars.

Are Tancredo and most of his supporters racists? Of course. Why is it so hard to admit to this simple fact? Most anti-immigrant semtiment in America has been historically racist. This is no different. There's no other reason to be so against immigration. But does Tancredo bother me? Not really. Because of people like him, in 2006, Hispanic voters abandonded Republicans in droves. So Tom! Keep doing what you're doing!