niceday21

"Sen. Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic presidential nominee if John Edwards had been caught in his lie about an extramarital affair and forced out of the race last year, insists a top Clinton campaign aide.

"I believe we would have won Iowa, and Clinton today would therefore have been the nominee," former Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told ABCNews.com.

"Our voters and Edwards' voters were the same people," Wolfson said the Clinton polls showed. "They were older, pro-union. Not all, but maybe two-thirds of them would have been for us and we would have barely beaten Obama."

Two months earlier, Edwards had vociferously, but falsely, denied a story in the National Enquirer about the alleged affair last October, and few in the mainstream media even reported the denial."

Seems that Elizabeth Edwards isnt the only woman to have been nurned by The Blue-Collar Playboy.

So, Barack Obama has set his sights on seven traditional Red States this fall: Alaska, Georgia, Indiana, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and Virginia. As David Plouffe said, "We have the organizational ability and the financial ability to compete there. There is not a head fake among them."

McCain is scared, right? He has got Barry Obama crawling all over the electoral map, fighting him in places that should be in the GOP pocket. Not quite, take a look.

Virginia
Pollster.com Average: Obama +2.6 
Last voted Democrat: 1964 
Amount Obama has spent on ads*: $2,660,000 
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $1,509,000

Indiana 
Pollster.com Average: McCain +0.6
Last voted Democrat: 1964
Amount Obama has spent on ads : $1,268,000
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $0

North Dakota
Pollster.com Average: McCain +2.4 
Last voted Democrat: 1964 
Amount Obama has spent on ads: $157,000 
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $71,000

North Carolina 
Pollster.com Average: McCain +2.7 
Last voted Democrat: 1964 
Amount Obama has spent on ads: $1,620,000 
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $0

Montana 
Pollster.com Average: Obama +3.1 
Last voted Democrat: 1992 
Amount Obama has spent on ads: $136,000 
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $0

Georgia 
Pollster.com Average: McCain +5.5 
Last voted Democrat: 1992 
Amount Obama has spent on ads: $1,824,000 
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $0

Alaska 
Pollster.com Average: McCain +6.1
Last voted Democrat: 1964
Amount Obama has spent on ads: $88,000
Amount McCain has spent on ads: $0

Now, as RCP says, "Obama has spent $7,753,000 on television ads in these seven states, while McCain has spent just $1,580,000 in two states - with 95.5% of that total in Virginia alone - and nothing in the other five."

Obama has outspent McCain roughly 5 to 1 in these states. And remember, these figures only relate to television spending. Obama is is also spending millions of dollars on camapign offices and paid staffers. In Motana, he has six offices already open, McCain has none. In Virginia, Obama has a 20-6 field office edge. In Indiana, Obama has 14 offices. Again, McCain has yet to open an office.

So after his vigourous campaigning in these states, after setting up massive volunteer networks, flooding the states with advertising, setting up campaign offices and hiring paid staffers (in addition to a near absent McCain campaign and hostile GOP environment)....where are the benefits? Even Democratic strategists have admitted that the ROI so far has been disappointing...Obama is ahead in only 2 of 7.

Now, Democrats will say that Obama can compete everywhere, thanks to his massive fundraising machine. They will also say that simply by forcing McCain to spend money in states like Virginia and North Dakota, Obama will have scored a small victory.

1.) Obama will never force McCain to spend significant money in all these seven states. As fivethirtyeight.com point out, "if McCain is losing any of Alaska, North Dakota or Montana, they are losing the overall election Thus, it is rational to not waste resources defending states that will only matter in the event of a McCain loss."

2.) Obamas spending in states like Georgia is only justified if he either wins that state or forces McCain to spend a million or two in defending it. But what if McCain doesn't have to spend a dime to win Georgia?

3.) As Liz Sidoti points out, BOs campaign has "an echo of 2000, when Karl Rove and George Bush spent valuable time and money suggesting and/or believing places like New Jersey and California were in play. They weren't: Bush lost New Jersey to Gore by 15.8% and California by 11.8% - and those dalliances nearly cost them the election in the end."

4.) Lets not forget that states like Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada, Ohio, and, to a lesser extent, Michigan, are still winnable for either candidate. Is it not a huge risk for Obama to be chasing Red States when there are still so many tos-ups on the table.

I posted this blog topic in response to two events:

The first event happened a while back at a fundraiser in Florida, when Obama played the race card against the GOP (even though his campaign and supporters had accused the CLINTONS of stoking racial tensions - totally hypocritical, i know).

The second event happened today, when paid blooger Mark Nichols (whatever...) basically implied that Obama has run a masterful campaign, done everything he can to be elected President of the United States and if he dosent win, it is because America is full of racists. Like we have no reason to vote against Obama other than because he is a black guy. Im sure you will agree, this is gutter journalism.

I would invite everybody to read the following article. It is a frank, honest piece from Politico.com, written by a Republican with strong links to the black community, who , like many of us, resents having the race card thrown at him.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/11995.html

Ooopppsss...guess America isnt going to be conned by the Liberal media this year.

``The idea that reporters are trying to help Obama win in November has grown by five percentage points over the past month. The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, taken just before the new controversy involving the New York Times erupted, found that 49% of voters believe most reporters will try to help the Democrat with their coverage, up from 44% a month ago.

Just 14% believe most reporters will try to help McCain win, little changed from 13% a month ago. Just one voter in four (24%) believes that most reporters will try to offer unbiased coverage.

The New York Times’ refusal to run an op-ed piece by John McCain challenging an article in the paper less than a week ago by Barack Obama is sure to further fuel the belief that much of the major media is biased in favor of the Democratic candidate. At issue is McCain’s response to an article by Obama entitled, “My Plan for Iraq.” Obama was in Afghanistan over the weekend and in Iraq today attempting to build his foreign policy portfolio for the fall campaign.

A Rasmussen Reports survey earlier this year found that just 24% of American voters have a favorable opinion of the New York Times. The paper’s ratings divided sharply along partisan and ideological lines, with liberals far more supportive of the paper than conservatives.

At the time of that survey, the paper was being criticized for an article it had run about McCain’s ties to lobbyists. Sixty-six percent (66%) of those who were aware of the story in question believed it was an attempt by the New York Times to hurt the McCain campaign.

A separate survey released this morning also found that 50% of voters believe most reporters want to make the economy seem worse than it is. A plurality believes that the media has also tried to make the war in Iraq appear worse that it really is.``

SOURCE: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/belief_growing_that_reporters_are_trying_to_help_obama_win

While Barack Obama has touted his travel to the Middle East and Europe this week as a “fact-finding” trip, 63% of Americans do not believe it makes the Democratic candidate any more qualified to be president.

A new Rasmussen Reports national survey, taken Monday night, also finds that less than a third (32%) think Obama will learn from his trip to Iraq. Forty percent (40%) say his mind is already made up about policies to deal with the war there. The Democrat has been accused by liberals in his party of softening his long-standing opposition to the war in Iraq in an effort to appeal to more moderate voters.

The partisan divide is clear throughout the new survey. The responses of self-designated Democrats and likely Obama voters generally mirror their candidate’s actions and positions, although at times very narrowly. Republicans and likely voters for John McCain support the GOP candidate much more emphatically.

Slightly more than half (53%) of Americans in the new poll do not approve of candidates making statements contrary to U.S. government policy while visiting U.S. troops in a war zone. Only 29% believe that it’s okay to do so.

Another Rasmussen Reports survey this week finds that while voters trust Obama more on most issues, McCain has a double-digit lead on his rival when it comes to national security and the war in Iraq. Overall, Obama and McCain remain very close in the popular vote contest as measured by the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll.

Only 39% of Democrats say Obama’s travels this week make him more qualified to be president, while 42% disagree. Eighty-six percent (86%) of Republicans and 67% of unaffiliateds feel the same way. The gap widens when how an individual plans to vote is factored in: 44% of likely Obama voters see the travel as a positive, while 89% of those who plan to vote for McCain disagree.

Sorry people...i know you wanted this little high-school fact finding mission to mould BO as an international statesman but the American people just arent buying it......

SOURCE: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/63_say_trip_does_not_make_obama_more_fit_to_be_president

How much news have we read in recent months about how Democrats will finally dig into the Republicans’ traditional advantage among evangelical Christians this year?

I keep getting hit over the head with stories that tell me how social conservatives are skeptical of John McCain, how Barack Obama seems so comfortable talking about his faith and how he has made major efforts to incorporate faith themes and outreach into his campaign etc.

Well, hold the press. A new analysis from the nonpartisan Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, finds that Obama is getting slightly fewer �' that’s right �' fewer white evangelical supporters than John Kerry was at the same time four years ago.

Twenty-six percent of white evangelicals supported Kerry at this time in 2004. This year, 25 percent of white evangelicals support Obama!!

Yes, the Republicans do have a problem mobilising the Evangelical base. In the ongoing AP-Yahoo News Poll, only 10 percent of white evangelical Christians say they are excited by this election, compared with 20 percent of Americans overall. Nevertheless, they support McCain over Obama by 62 percent to 18 percent.

So, lets face facts. Evangelicals might not come out for McCain but they sure as hell wont come out for Barack Obama.

5 reasons why BO should fear Mitt Romney as a McCain VP:

1. Romney is strong in the North-West and would kill off any chance BO has of flipping Lean-McCain states like Montana, North Dakota or Alaska - which Romney won by massive margins in the primaries.

2. He has stronger credentials on the economy than both McCain and Obama. He has a master's of business administration from Harvard University, ran the 2002 Salt Lake City Olympics, and had a successful career as a private-equity executive. A McCain-Romney ticket would thus be strong on the two most pressing election issues.

3. Romney could help level the fundraising playing field. A report from Politico.com stated that Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days due to his ties to the Mormon community and the business world.

4. He would help McCain in three key swing states - Nevada, Colorado and Michigan. He won all three in the primaries by signifcant margins. Also, he has personal ties to Michigan in particular - his father was Governor of Michigan during the 1960's.

5. Romney has already proved he can be a formidable surrogate (He has made TV appearances on the McCains behalf).

Quick message for the kooks: Yes, McCain probable hates Romney but he wants to be President and Romney gives him the best shot. Yes, Romney presided over job-layoffs whilst at Bain Capital - did that stop him winning Michigan?

The McCain Campaign will release a video, God's Children, destined specifically for Latino voters, in the key battleground states of Colorado, New Mexico and Nevada.

The Latino vote could swing the election this year, good to see that the McCain campaign not only realises this but is making early moves to win the battle.

http://time-blog.com/real_clear_politics/2008/07/mccain_ad_gods_children.html

Contrary to the huff and puff on this site about how McCain will be crushed by Obamas fundraising machine, the Associated Press have released an article stating McCain and the RCN had a record month in June, entering July with 95 million in the bank.

Some of the more noteworthy points made by the article:

"`...the joint RNC-McCain fundraising through direct mail is now exceeding President Bush's direct mail fundraising in 2004."

"the campaign's fundraising has given McCain the ability to spend MORE on television advertising than Democrat Barack Obama in key battleground states."

Following the efforts of MoveOn.org to attack Senator McCain:

"A group of veterans supporting McCain's stance on the war in Iraq began running ads this week in some battleground states."

Well, so much for getting crushed. Let the games begin.

Original artlce: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ga2kAdKirsvZaveEETrmKn8VAo7wD91RBQ380