DCRepublican.com

With all the Convention hoopla I thought I might drop a small blurb on the issue of whether or not Hillary’s supporters should be upset about not only the passing over of their candidate, but also in the manner in which it was done. This question is very relevant considering that Obama is only attracting 52%(!) of Hillary voters (WSJ/NBC poll) at this point and that such a poor performance could lose him the election. So should Hillary and her legions be angry? Considering the lengths the DNC is going through to stress “Unity” the answer is certainly yes. Not only did Obama pass over the most logical choice, but his campaign slighted Clinton in a manner usually reserved for members of the opposing party. There is some pettiness going on and the bad blood could kill the Democrats.

The surrogates get personal

Did Obama snub Clinton? Let’s let look at some facts.

(1) The Obama Campaign went about selecting a running-mate by weighing their strengths and weaknesses in much the same fashion that all campaigns do. No matter how one weighs it, Clinton would have addressed all of Obama’s shortcomings and all but assure victory. For Obama to ignore the electoral elephant in the room is not logical and demonstrates an decision made in a cloud of emotion. No other candidate comes close to completing a perfect ticket.

(2) How have major primary contenders been treated in the past with regard to deference in the VP selection process? To narrow down the field, it is necessary to limit the analysis to those candidates who won a reasonable amount of states as Clinton did. In recent electoral history Jesse Jackson (1988) and George Bush the Elder (1980) won a goodly amount of delegates though not nearly as many as Hillary. Nonetheless, the nominees, Dukakis and Reagan, treated their vanquished foe with respect. Though Dukakis never wanted Jackson as his running-mate, his campaign went through the vetting process out of respect for him and his supporters. Of course, Reagan chose Bush as his choice for Vice-President. Obama’s campaign never even bothered to go through the motions of vetting Clinton and seemingly could care less about placating her 18 million supporters.

(3) Finally, is there any evidence to suggest that the Obama Campaign knowingly slighted Clinton in some fashion? Though the Obama Campaign did not outwardly insult Clinton, they did employ a rather sneaky jab at her in the manner in which they announced Joe Biden’s selection. As you may recall, during the primaries Mrs. Clinton nearly cost Obama the nomination with her highly effective “3 AM Phone Call” ad. Is it coincidence that the Obama Campaign transmitted its official text message announcement of Biden’s selection at 3 AM? I seriously doubt it, after all, 3 AM is hardly a good time to generate a media frenzy. A low blow indeed.

In the end it appears that yes, the Clinton people have a case. The Obama Campaign not only snubbed Clinton but they also deliberately did not accord her the respect due to someone who nearly won the nomination. I have noticed that Obamaniacs have a very arrogant attitude toward those who deign to support their candidate to the point of the need to humiliate and mock all those who oppose them (can we forget the abuse heaped upon Hillary in the primaries?). It seems this attitude may have also influenced the Obama Campaign leadership and their hubris may cost Obama the election.

Don’t let him see you try and ask that question

While there is still a lot of research to be done on this, here are five areas that Senator Joe Biden could help Barack Obama in as they begin their fight to defeat John McCain.

Helps bring in Catholic vote: Joe Biden is very open about the fact that he is Catholic, there will be no emails circulating around the internet questioning the authenticity of his Christianity. Sorry guys, you won’t be seeing emails questioning whether or Joe Biden ever attended a madrasah. Yes, Joe Biden is pro-choice, however there are many Catholics who will always support “their own,” regardless of where they stand.

Helps bring in the female vote: Joe Biden has an extremely interesting life story when it comes to his family and taking charge as a father. Here is a brief summary from his Wikipedia page talking about just one of the tragedies that have made him the family man he is:

“His wife and infant daughter died in a car accident shortly after he was first elected to the U.S. Senate in 1972. His two young sons, Beau and Hunter, were seriously injured in the accident, but both eventually made full recoveries. Biden was sworn into office from their bedside. Persuaded not to resign in order to care for them, Biden began the practice of commuting an hour and a half each day on the train from his home in the Wilmington suburbs to Washington, DC, which he continues to do.

Doesn’t create a wealth distraction: One issue that many candidates run into when seeking office is their own personal fortunes and what has been handed down to them, which makes it hard to paint themselves as the candidate for the “middle class.” While Barack Obama and Joe Biden are not poor by any standards, they both come from very humble beginnings (Obama raised by a single mom, Biden by a used car salesman). This is in contrast to John McCain, who is the son of an oil heiress and married an heiress himself (though I personally see nothing wrong with it, but I’m sure some Soros ad will go after it).

Foreign policy experience: As we all know, in terms of foreign policy experience, Barack Obama really doesn’t have much. However, Joe Biden is currently the Chairman on the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, a committee he has been on consistently since 1973. Those 35 years on the committee have given Joe Biden insider access to all of the international hostilities that have occurred during his tenure.

A son currently serving in the military: While it seems that the economy is going to be the biggest debate for this election, you cant sidestep the fact that we are still a nation at war. Barack Obama has said repeatedly that his goal is to get our troops out of Iraq as soon as possible, which has left many moderates questioning whether he understands how the military works and the consequences. When you mix the fact that Joe Biden’s son will more than likely be in Iraq when (if) he is innaugerated, with his years of service on the Senate Committee of Foreign Relations, many voters may feel reassured knowing that he has a personal and a professional stake in the military, meaning he wont take action that doesn’t make sense for the troops and for the country.

Please don’t hesitate to leave your comments, and additional things that you think Joe Biden brings to the table for Barack Obama.

Of course, expect a post in the coming days of “5 ways Joe Biden hurts Barack Obama.”

Is this change you can believe in?

Update: 1:05 EST: Biden is the man. Wow, they really want to lose this election.

Update: 9:34 EST: CNN reports a flurry of activity at the Biden house as family and friends arrive and confirms Kaine was not chosen. Obama will announce Saturday morning (isn’t the media frenzy fun?)

Update 9:05 EST: MSNBC reports that Bayh and Kaine have been notified by Obama that they are NOT being chosen.

That Senator Obama is a real tease making us wait this long to find out who his No. 2 is going to be. As I see it, he only has a few choices based on his needs. Obama either needs (or wants) a swing state, help with a demographic or someone experienced. More minor concerns may include the need to change the public’s waning opinion of him as an elitist, ivory tower liberal. A ticket with two Senators may not be a wise choice considering Obama’s lack of executive (or much of any) experience so he may want a governor. With that said let’s have a roll call of possible veeps.

1) We have to remember that Obama is choosing his running-mate, not the DNC or the Democratic laymen. For that reason I think Hillary is unlikely. Obama must win the race and govern on his merits alone. The last thing he wants is Hillary (and Bill) looking over his shoulder on every decision and he does not need the impression that he chose her out of desperation.

2) Obama needs to choose either an experienced leader or someone that can deliver some electoral votes in a swing state. It is unfortunate for him that a combination does not exist. So…

Joe Biden:
Experienced but from a solid blue state. His arrogance may come to haunt the ticket. Moreover, I think the American people won’t be too impressed with him. After all, the man has run for President forty-seven times and has always done poorly.

Biden is a “gaffe machine.” Or is he?

Tim Kaine:
Kaine can deliver Virginia’s electoral votes. However, he is almost as green as Obama when it comes to the experience factor. Two lightweights on one ticket could be a major problem particularly considering the rough month Obama has had with regard to that deficiency.

Evan Bayh:
Bayh is the closest thing that Obama can hope for in experience and winning a swing state. Bayh has been around for a while as Governor of Indiana and US Senator. In a tight race he could turn Indiana blue. His executive experience could be a boost. Conversely, Bayh is also Blah and does not generate any sort of excitement. His ability to win Indiana may also be overstated.

3) Others in the running may be chosen on either their ability to change the perception of the ticket or to placate some demographic.

Chet Edwards and Kathleen Sebelius:
This Aggie has become the topic of interest of late. He is an old school Texas Democrat that likes guns and the Bible. He could help Obama with white Midwestern voters who see the Chosen One as an elitist snob. On the other hand, Edwards would sour the liberal base and he has no chance of winning Texas for Obama. Obviously Obama may think Sebelius can help with the his sub-par polling with white women. She is also a governor and could add to the ticket in that respect. On the other hand, she will not turn Kansas and, boy oh boy, the Hillary folks would be beyond enraged. In the Democratic sorority there is only room for one leader and that is Hillary!

All in all, I think Obama may choose Bayh as he offers the most and detracts the least. He is experienced in both the legislative and executive branches. He does not offend anyone and he won’t make too many gaffes. Chet Edwards is too much of reach, however inspired, and Biden is not very likable. We shall see shortly though.

Rumors have been surfacing about the possibility of Hillary and her minions staging a coup at the Democratic Convention. Could this happen? Yes it can! One can only hope.

Despite Senator Obama’s best efforts, many Hillary supporters are still quite angry at the DNC and Obama for “stealing” the Caucuses and buying off the super delegates. Do they have a point? Yes, I would say so considering that Hillary won more votes. Moreover, the controversy over Florida and Michigan made it quite clear that the Obama Campaign was only interested in ensuring the sanctity of every vote insofar as it benefited Obama. Moroever, let us not forget the misogynistic undertones of many of the attacks on Hillary that emanated from Obama’s supporters. Indeed, who can forget Obama’s dismissal of a female reporter as “sweetie?”

How angry are some of Hillary’s foot soldiers? Take a look at this YouTube video:

And for good measure, the pissed off Hillary voter:

So what do these Hillary fanatics expect to achieve in Denver if they cause a ruckus? Do they really think that they can prevent Obama from receiving the nomination? I would wager that they are not so deluded as to think that by some miracle they can convince the supers to vote for Hillary. What they do mean to achieve is illustrating that Obama may be doomed to defeat and that Hillary in no way should be linked to that potential defeat. If Obama loses in November it would leave Hillary as the undisputed master of the Democratic Party.

Some would ask how Obamapolitik could have already failed as Senator Obama has not yet been elected (and never will be!). It is rather simple, Obamapolitik and its three rules have already been employed during the Georgian crisis. The only difference is that it has not, as a policy, emanated from a single source. Let us recount the grand litany of failure that has been Obamapolitik thus far as Russia ignores the West at will.

From the first day of the invasion many of Obama’s idealogical allies in Europe, particularly those in Germany and France, as well as many liberals in the US, downplayed the Russian attack. Rather than condemn the invasion as the naked act of aggression that it is, the liberals and Europeans employed the hallowed Obamapolitik principle of moral relativism to render the Russians blameless. For example, many leading European news outlets painted Georgia as an aggressor as Der Spiegel did when it described the Georgian leader as “Mikhail Saakashvili, the young hothead sitting in the president’s chair in the Georgian capital Tbilisi.” Moreover, NBC, MSNBC and others have openly attacked President Bush for “taking sides”in this conflict (apparently this invasion, like rape in Islam, is the fault of the victim’s wicked ways).

Obama’s Team Attacks McCain For Calling the Russians the Aggressors

Following liberal and European prevecation and denial, came the second Obamapolitik rule in the form of the personal diplomacy of French President Nicolas Sarkozy. Rather than serve the Russians with an ultimatum or some other threat of real punitive action, The EU and UN relied on Sarkozy’s charm to talk the Russians down. The result was a nice photo-op, applause from the liberal media and a cease-fire the Russians have yet to honor.

Finally, Obama himself, as well as his parvenu surrogate, Bill Richardson, weighed in as to the next in dealing with the Russians. As the Russians had the temerity to violate the cease-fire and betray Sarkozy’s trust, it was obvious that stronger measures were necessary to finally intimidate the Russians into withdrawal. With great sterness and a heavy heart, Obama advocated the nuclear option of having the UN (gasp!) condemn Russia for its actions. While Obama and Richardson congratulated themselves for their Churchillian stand they both seemed to forget that Russia has a veto over any UN resolution. Whoops. Score one for the bad guys.

The result of the blitz of Obamapolitik has been very clear. Russia refuses to withdraw from Georgian territory and the West has been made impotent in the face of thuggish aggression. Clearly Russia is not afraid of idle threats or the searing tongue of the EU and UN. Realists, like those in the Kremlin, only heed the threat of force, something Barack Obama is opposed to using, even in the context of securing victory for his own nation. Obama willingly attempted to deny his nation the fruits of victory in Iraq for his own selfish ends. Can we trust this weak and foolish man to not only lead the United States but also the free world? Can Obamapolitik save the world from tyranny?

Men like Putin undoubtedly relish the thought of Barack Obama’s election. Never before (or at least since Jimmy Carter) has the most powerful nation on the planet, and incidentally the primary check against the aggressive tendencies of many a despot, been willing to surrender its power and leave the world to the wolves. To men like Putin, who apparently did not receive the memo on how the world has changed to a hopeful place, Obama is a green light for aggression. An Obama victory on November 4th would be the clarion call for all the world’s tyrants to strike. While Obama plans summits and sit-downs with Hugh Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Putin and others will be unleashing their well-planned campaigns of oppression. As Vladimir Putin so ably demonstrated this weekend, the great questions of the day, as well as the fates of entire peoples, are not decided by hope, change or Obamapolitik but by blood and iron.

I wont lie, I thought he would have had more rhythm:

Hope vs. Blood and Iron: Putin, Georgia and the Failure of Obamapolitik

Part One:
Obamapolitik and its Prophet

Russia’s invasion of its tiny neighbor, and former vassal, Georgia, has come as a great shock to the free world. Though the warning signs had been building for sometime, many in Europe and America had deluded themselves into believing that much of the globe was not ruled by thugs who could care less about world opinion. Indeed, the fantasists mocked John McCain for his warnings of a resurgent and aggressive Russia as being old fashioned and a product of a by-gone era. Now, McCain has unfortunately been proven correct in his assessment of the former KGB operative and his intentions toward what the Russians call the “near-abroad.”

So what does this all mean for Senator Obama? How can the Chosen One continue to justify foreign policy positions premised on the belief that there is no longer evil in the world? Can Obama’s hope defeat old-fashioned Realist aggression? The results on the ground in the shattered villages of Georgia say no.

To the tyrants of the world Barack Obama must seem like a positively odd phenomenon. Whereas many leaders have attempted to emulate Bismarck’s formula of Realpolitik, or the pragmatic use of diplomacy and force to achieve policy ends, Senator Obama has had great success with what can only be termed as Obamapolitik. Rather than employ the traditional principles of foreign policy, Senator Obama has grounded his positions in what can be charitably described as “wishful thinking.”

The first rule of Obamapolitik is that any international threat to the US should be downplayed. Thanks to Obama’s belief in moral relativism there is no such thing as right and wrong or good and evil. As a result, Obamapolitik holds that the US is not faced with ruthless enemies, but misunderstood people (many of whom are former victims of Western imperialism) who need understanding. As one can see, Obama’s positions on Al-Qaeda (not a real threat), Iran (merely a loud-mouthed nuisance) and Russia (they aren’t bad at all) reflect his constant devaluation of threat.

Obamapolitik Rule One in Action

Obamapolitik’s second precept is extolling the virtues of Obama’s own personal diplomacy over traditional methods. Simply put, Senator Obama believes that US policy can be devolved completely upon his frail shoulders with regard to dealing with global bad boys like Hugo Chavez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mr. Obama would have the world believe that his charm and charisma can single-handedly dissuade the despots of the world from engaging in their morally relative schemes.

Finally, Obamapolitik holds that if the first two rules fail, that there is such a thing as aggression and that tyrants are not fooled by Mr. Obama’s charm, the US will resort to multilateral action and diplomacy to end conflicts. Specifically, the US will call on allies in the EU, as well as the UN, to shame the aggressors into ceasing their pernicious activities by means of resolutions, emergency summits similar to that of Munich 1938, and, if all else fails, strongly worded letters. However, it should be made quite clear that no matter the crisis military force will not be used to enforce diplomatic action.

Prior to August 7th, Obamapolitik played well with the American electorate and was wildly popular, as throngs of delirious Germans demonstrated, with Europe. However, once Russian tanks began rolling across the Georgian border it seems the bubble burst.

Next:
Obamapolitik in Action: Discredited Before it Began

Just when I was getting tired of this ridiculous campaign, the fine folks at barelypolitical.com come up with another video to make things a little less monotonous and a bit more humorous:

It’s a little crude, but it’s still funny.