Obama's Easter Words?

The very last words of Christ on the cross that first Easter Sunday sums up the whole of Christ's message to mankind:

"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

These are the words, had Barak Obama chosen to use them as the centerpiece of his "race speech" just before Easter, that would likely have delivered his campaign from the divisive race issue.

"Father, forgive them for they know not what to do." Simple words with profound meaning.

Instead Obama lamented, "I expected to give a speech on race, but not under these circumstances."

With his campaign besieged by the dribble of embarrassing comments, the Senator found himself defending himself against the Reverend Wright, Michelle Obama, Louis Farrakhan etc...instead of promoting the positive "change you can believe in" message. Like a tire going flat, the Obama campaign witnessed an 18 point swing of likely independent voters away from Obama to McCain according to the most recent Gallup poll. Will Americans rethink Obama-mania as more skeletons in the closet are revealed?

His family, friends, and associates running around damning America, blaming white people for the present problems of black people, never having been proud of America, calling American a mean place, etc...may have a place on the fringe elements of American politics and religion. But such talk plays poorly amongst average Americans. "Bad company corrupts good character" is the old Proverb. Thus, the Reverend, the wife, and the black panther zealot Farrakhan have done this post-racial candidate no favors.

To make matters worse, Obama's foot-in-mouth moment stating that his grandmother's reaction about being scared of blacks was just a typical white person's reaction, does little to carry favor with Americans in a general election. But what might the primary Democratic voters think about this gaffe? Is it possible that even the latte drinking liberals might double-take on Obama's statement since they thought they were supporting Tiger Woods of golf repackaged as a post-racial Democrat?

Could liberals be waking up in the weeks to come in a cold sweat? They thought they were getting Colin Powell. Instead, they ended up with Obama's secret thoughts that look more like Sharpton and Jackson of the Civil Rights era? I'm not sure Americans in general are in the mood for Selma and Montgomery again. Civil rights have been won and are here to stay. So why does Obama's wife, the reverend, and others intend to wage the Civil Rights battle all over again?

For 16 months, Obama tapped successfully into the post-racial veins of American politics. He talked neither of black or white; but what he believed what was good for America. He understood that Americans weren't looking for a Black, White, Latino, Chinese, Indian, or a Japanese President. Americans were looking for a man or woman who could unify a fractured nation. He excelled. Women swooned. And young people were smitten all the way to the voting booth.

Then the pre-Easter race speech was given.

Masterful in its oration, its delivery, and clear in its content, the speech condemned the words of his 20 year pastor and spiritual advisor that stunned America. Yet, Obama stated that he could "no more divorce himself from him (Reverend Wright) than he could from his white grandmother."

"Race is still a problem," continued the Senator from Illinois.

Prior to this speech, Senator Obama transcended race and gender. He was the "New American" that millions of American liberals were falling in love with. Distancing himself from the fringe elements of the NAACP world, Obama became the celebrated "New American" for the 21st century.

After the speech, Obama looked much more like a defender of the NAACP. Shades of South side Chicago activism bubbled to the surface. The speech affirmed that black grievances require dialogue. To what end, we do not know.

Senator Obama, for just a moment, appeared out of nowhere as a man running for President who happens to be black. After the Easter race speech, Obama has painted himself as a a black man running for President. Is this distinction important?

Americans fell in love with the former, not the latter. Did ordinary Americans did not fill jam-packed arenas in Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, Vermont, etc...to see and listen to a candidate being defined more by his race than his American ideals?

So with a wife who wrote a Princeton thesis on "black power", and a spiritual mentor and pastor who damns America for injecting the aids virus upon blacks in America, Obama's "New American Idealism" may be short-lived. The Obama message for 16 months that transcended ethnicity may be in flames come November against war hero McCain.

What should the Senator have done differently during his race speech?

He should have quoted Jesus:

"Father forgive them, for they know not what they do."

He then should have stated that America is a good land; not a place of shame. And that because God has offered forgiveness for all who would receive it, we as Americans must accept the challenge, as a people, to forgive the sins committed in the past and present.

For the nine Presidents that held slaves of their own, we must forgive. For the 3/5 of a man amendment in the Constitution...we must forgive. For the back of the bus...we must forgive. For the separate water fountains...we must forgive. For the separate schools...we must forgive. For the evil perpetrated because of skin color...we must forgive. For the separate Sunday morning services every Sunday...we must forgive. For the racism that exists on all sides...we must forgive. For the bitterness within...we must forgive. For the pain that has been caused...we must forgive.

Senator Obama's papal-like homily could then have reminded us all that George Washington instituted a day of Thanksgiving in 1777. Washington thanked the Creator for the bountiful blessing of the American nation. We celebrate this day each November.

Senator Obama could then have declared a specific day in March, just before Easter, a day of forgiveness and reconciliation. As Washington met the spiritual needs of Americans, so too Obama's mantle of reconciliation on this one day would meet Americans from all walks leading them to drink from the same well of George Washington's decree. Such a day would have schools shut down, families gather, sermons be given, and people carrying out Christ's mandate:

"Forgive as Christ has forgiven you."

Barak Obama's race speech could have landed in the pantheon of great American speeches. Instead, it will now only be studied by political science professors and political junkies. MLK would have been proud of a national "Forgiveness Day" to address the sins of the past and present committed against one another. Americans would have listened. Americans would have learned. Perhaps Senator Obama's first race speech would have won the hearts and minds of not just liberals; but all Americans.

I wonder what Jesus would say concerning such a "Day of Forgiveness" in America instead of a racial grievance and justice message?

Barack Obama's Political Cryptonite?

Hillary opined that what America needs is a President ready to lead on the first day of entering the oval office. Barack Obama retorted that being ready and having wise judgment are two different animals. Hillary voted for the war. She can't get away from the skunk. She has been sprayed. And of course, Obama gloats in the triumph of not having voted for the war in Iraq.

But with Obama having all but locked up the Democratic nomination, guns-ablazing have started shelling the Obama campaign. The teflon candidate who could do no wrong who "brings shivers up Chris Matthews leg" slammed into a brick wall.

Obama has spent fifteen months running a post racial campaign. Transcending gender, race, ethicity, and social strata, Obama stunned America with splendid rhethoric. Hope, aspiration, and energy have been the cornerstone of the campaign.

Then there was the record. The past drudged up. Reverend Wright, Lous Farrakhan, Michelle Obama, etc...that popped up out of nowhere.

He won't wear a flag pin on his lapel. He sat for twenty years under Reverend Right's black liberation theology damning America. Of course, his children were baptized through him. The reverend married he and Michelle. And Obama's "Audacity of Hope" book hit bestseller status with Reverend Right's sermon having been the inspiration.

Wasn't it Reverend Wright who endowed Louis Farrakhan with a lifetime achievement award? Wasn't it Farrakhan who highlights his anti-white sentiments with such phrases as "blond-haired blue-eyed devil" or "the white man is the skunk of the earth'?

Wasn't it Michelle Obama who stated that she was finally proud for the first time in her adult life to be an American during her husband's campaign? Wasn't it Michelle who publicly proclaimed American to be a "mean country" today?

Wasn't it Obama who stated that his white grandmother was a "typical white person" for admitting she was scared of black people?

The pattern of connect-the-dots is unmistakably clear. Those with whom Senator Obama has surrounded himself, provide unbelievable insight to the candidate himself. The Senator appreared to transcend racial issues much like Tiger Woods or Michael Jordan in their respective fields. Thats why the "latte liberals" were so taken by this nearly perfect candidate. Fresh face, impeccable rhetoric, unspoiled record, and youthful vigor delivered white Iowa, Wisconsin, Kansas, and the bulk of the popular vote.

Why? Race was not the issue. Likability and inspiriation were the issues...until....now!!!

Obama's handlers had Superman. Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound.

The problem is: even Superman has his cryptonite. Girls may have fainted at his feet and crowds may have filled arenas to witness a remarkably charismatic man, but cryptonite was placed inside the campaign's war room. It was an inside job.

Conssider that Mitt Romney gracefully addressed religion and Mormonism, much like JFK chose to address the sensitive issue of his Catholic roots. Both did fantastically well in difficult circumstances.

Obama's address on race before America may carry the appealing incantations and intelligence that we have become use to, but did it really sell?. Forty states have voted. A majority have voted Barak as their new man for Democrat America. But his well-written and orated speech on race struck Americans in a remarkable way.

Independent voters, by 18 points, have turned toward McCain from Obama. Instead of repudiating Dr. Wright most forcefully, Obama called him friend and said he could "no more divorce himself from Dr. Wright than he could his own white grandmother."

The recent poor showing of Obama's campaign is synonomous with his choosing to touch the 3rd rail of American politics if you are a black man. Its the race issues. Obama soared and carried favor with all Americans before attempting to educate Americans that we have further to go in race relations. His comments about "typical white people" being scared of black folks isn't a winner either.

Obama's cryptonite is any black man's 3rd rail of politics that marginalizes him to fringes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson politics. Its the race card. Mainstream up and coming African-Americans such has Harold Ford Jr., J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Lynn Swann, and Colin Powell have understood the cryptonite factor. Inject the race card and the American people immediately tune out the candidate. Lose gracefully and win gracefully, but leave race out of the equation.

To the liberation theology types that build their shock-jock message to rile up the fringe edges of minority politics, this is impossible to do. Their notoriety comes from not being a splendid American; but being a vocal minority with an ax to grind.

Obama will either choose to be a candidate that transcends gender and ethnicity as he has for past 16 months of campaigning. Or Obama will relegate himself to the marginal edges of lefty-loony politics joined by the Sharpton's and Jesse Jackson's of the world.

For the betterment of America, her future, and her children, let us hope Obama's judgment in his choice of words is better in the days to come than on the week he embraced political cryptonite.

McCain: The Conservatvie?

With Fred Thompson's campaign imploding, Romney booted out of the race, and Huckabee beyond a miracle for the nomination, Senator McCain remains the last one standing. The propaganda campaign has now bugun.

Propaganda means truth becomes the first casualty. As a man lies to his wife to avoid telling the truth about the affair he is having with another woman, McCain's affair with liberal Democrats like Lieberman, Kennedy, and Feingold is no longer incognito. The "foot soldier in the Reagan revolution" has come out of the closet. Attempting to divorce himself from conservatives, McCain is clearly unable to do so. Like the man who desperately wants to divorce his wife but can't because she has all the money and he has squat! So too are the conservatives, who hold all the gold, when it comes to McCain's presidential aspirations.

So what do you do if you are McCain? You forcefully claim the conservative mantle and hope the constituency you speak to is more fearful of Democrats in November 2008 than they are angry at you.

But will conservatives be so easily convinced? Abraham Lincoln declared, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Conservative Republicans, who comprise about 30% of the party's voting base have been taken to the cleaners once already. They remember the "compassionate conservative", Bush #43, who promised conservativism in Washington.

He opened the spicket of spending that only the LB J types would have applauded. A Congress with no fiscal restraint and a President with no vetoes meant Republicans would lose the House and Senate in 2006. How angry were Republicans that they chose to stay home in 2006? A three trillion dollar run-up in the national debt under the President's watch, and monstrous federal government programs kept conservatives away from the polls.

And Senator McCain clamors that just because he voted for all of this excessive lard and big government doesn't mean he believes in big government and excess lard. That makes sense-right?

So what does McCain have to do to assuage conservatives this time round? Trot out the propaganda of Jack Kemp, Ted Olson, and all other grey haired conservatives. Let the "oldies but goodies", who are trusted friends, do the dirty work telling conservative Republicans to forget McCain's voting record in the last ten years. Even moderate Bob Dole was found writing a letter pleading to the Rush Limbaugh, leader of 22 million listening ears each week to stop the tantrum of conservatives.

The deceptively stale line that is trotted out: McCain has an 83% conservative voting record-

Twenty-eight years of voting doesn't make McCain a conservative nor a Republican when the last ten years voting record look like Lieberman, Feingold, and Kennedy's.

So why are so many conservative Americans including Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, etc...in such an uproar? Consider the following about Senator McCain's record since 1999:

• Voted against 2001 & 2003 tax cuts
• Voted against 2004 repeal of inheritance tax
• Voted for Federal funding of stem cell research
• Voted against DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act)
• Leader of Gang of 14 that blocked President Bush conservative judicial appointments
• Stated to San Francisco Chronicle in 1999 "Roe v. Wade should not be overturned"
• Calls the right wing of the Republican party "agents of intolerance"
• Authored free speech restrictions (McCain-Feingold) in 2004
• Authored bill to eliminate gun shows from American soil (2003)
• Supported pathway to legal citizenship for illegal aliens (2007)
• Voted to grant illegal workers who earn citizenship backpay toward Social Security
• Voted for all big government spending programs authored by Bush including: $750 billion Prescription Health Care bill, No Child Left Behind, and $242 Billion transportation bill
• Promises to fight pork barrell spending; then votes for all the pork barrell attached to legislation
• Received the New York Times endorsement: the most liberal major newspaper in the east
• Received the ringing endorsement from Schwarzeneggar, Lieberman, and Juliani

Even more disturbing? McCain tells the conservative wing of the party to "calm down" in spite of the record he has amassed.

McCain is tied at the hip to conservatives; he knows it. Convincing voters that he is a conservative is pure deception, though it might work. At stake may be the very core principles of the Republican party. If McCain wins the general election, every centrist, moderate, middle of the road liberal will restructure the DNA of the Republican party toward big government, big spending, and big entitlement programs. In essence, doing what GW Bush has done for seven years.

What GW Bush has started, has now snowballed. McCain will prosecute the war like Bush, spend like Bush, but will not appoint conservative judicial nominees, and may not cut taxes like President Bush.

To be forewarned is to be forearmed: "Fool me once, shame on you Fool me twice, shame on me!"

Global Democracy?

It was Condoleeza and Brent Scrowcroft, two Secretary of States in the last fifteen years. Condoleeza addressed her mentor telling him that the Bush Administration is going to democratize Iraq. "How on earth" could be the only response from the realist foreign policy expert.


But is a fact. Post 9/11, Bush and his entire bunch running America believes America is the "last great hope" for democracy. By hook or crook, democracy must be forged in dark lands. Arabs, Russians, Chinese, Africans, etc...must realize democracy as their hope. Thus, the President tried and true heralds this message across the globe.


Trusted advisor, Jean Kirkpatrick, believed that "democracy makes America safer." Add heavy intellectual hitters such as Bill Krystol, Charles Krauthammer, William Buckley, Bill Bennet, etc...who have for years advocated using American force to create global democratic change. Its a type of new domino theory. One democratic nation begets another and so on. And people around the globe will line the streets, cheer democracy, kiss their leaders, and hope for a better future.


To the credit of neoconservatives, successful interventions for democracy have occurred. Just the fall of the Soviet Union and the breakaways Baltic states created colossal momentum toward democracy globally. East Germany reunited, Checklosovakia, Poland, and Hungary stampeded toward democratic rule of law nearly immediately upon the Soviet Fall.


With nostalgic memories of Japan, West Germany, Singapore, and Taiwan, neoconservatives have their crown jewels of democratic institutions they can parade before Europe and the United Nations. Fledgling states turned into economic powerhouses in short time is what the Bush administration sees. And they are correct, for sure.


But President didn't enter the White House intent on unleashing pre-emptive strikes across the globe. Nation-building was foreign to his thoughts. It was 9/11 that tore President Bush from his moorings. And why shouldn't the "Pearl Harbor" event of our generation not refocus our President? It should. And President Bush broke from traditional conservatives because of 9/11.


Truman and Dulles' containment policy was of no use with turbin wearing wackos intent on blowing themselves up along with their enemies. Nixon and Carter's detente didn't fit the moment. Reagan's legacy of "peace through strength" wasn't enough. Taking down the Taliban in Afghanistan was the easy call, which even Lemond supported stating, "Today We are All Americans."


Saddam Hussein's Iraq, WMD's, torture, oppression, dictatorship, and previous war became the focal point of neoconservatives. If we can't take down the baddest guy in the Middle East, then our tanks, soldiers, technology, etc...are useless. Carter might give away the Panama Canal. But Bush #43 had hopes for the world. Hussein was first in line.

The President Bush demanded freedom across the globe. So the Palestianians held elections...we got Hamas. Lebanon held national elections...we got Hezbollah. Mubarak's Egypt held elections and then shut them down as the Muslim Brotherhood was rolling up impressive victories. Russians voted. We got Vladamir Putin, former KGB guy. Iranians vote. They give us Ahmadinejad. Venezuelans vote. We get Chavez. Evo Morales is no friend in Bolivia either amongst others across the globe.

Are these the kind of leaders we are to expect when the indiginous people excercise their right to vote?

Thomas Jefferson retracted his failed belief that France was prepared for rule by the people. Bloodshed revolution destroyed even Jefferson's faith that all people are ready for the responsibility and privlege of voting.

FDR was reputed to have stated, "He's a bad guy...but he's our bad guy!"

Secretary Kissinger would drink a toast to such policy making. He backed Nixon's plan to oust Alliende of Chile, the democratically socialist leader and replace him with Pinochet, the feared dictator.

So are bad guys are always bad for America? President Reagan armed Hussein to the hilt to stalemate the Ayatollahs of Iran fighting the Baathist's of Iraq. And do democracies in the hands of certain nations always produce safety for Americans?

Yet, the dye is cast in American politics since President Wilson assumed office. Wilson in 1916 called WWI "A war to end all wars". So he sent 250,000 courageous American GIs to die in a voluntary war. President Kennedy chimed, "America will pay any cost and bear any burden...". This ignited Vietnam. President Johnson stated, "We must end poverty, ignorance, and hunger around the globe..." This gave us 54,000 dead in Vietnam.

If we have no enemy, we have to invent one. What good is Superman if there is no Gotham City to protect from bad guys.

Thus, President Bush #43 stated, "Western civilization hangs in the balance...if terrorism is not defeated...Americans will never be safe until the terrorist enemies are defeated".

Is this really true? Or just a bit of hype to win over the masses?

More lines...more balony...more lines to come.

Senator McCain & Truth Syrum?

George Carlin once said, "Honesty may be the best policy, but it's important to remember that apparently, by elimination, dishonesty is the second-best policy."

Enter the Straight Talk Express of Senator McCain:


The Straight Talk Express full of honor, integrity, and truth syrum promises the cold hard truth above all else. So what happens when we evaluate Senator McCain's words and voting record?

• In 2001 and 2003 Senator McCain voted against tax cuts for the American people.


• In 2004, McCain voted against repealing the inheritance tax


• Said was for the upholding Roe v. Wade in 1999; said he wanted Roe v. Wade overturned in 2006


• McCain voted to fund stem cell research with federal dollars


• McCain crafted legislation eliminated gun shows from American soil in 2002


• McCain crafted legislation restricting free speech concerning political elections in 2005


• Voted against (DOMA) Defense of Marriage Act

The war hero from Arizona, since 1999, has gone maverick on Republicans and disguised himself as a conservative. The record is clear. So what does Senator McCain believe? He is a Rockefeller Republican. Schwarznegger, Olympia Snow, Lincoln Chaffe, etc...have a new bedfelow, John McCain. He is now a RINO- a Republican in name only.

The truth is that Senator McCain in eight years has evolved. A true first rate conservative for the first 19 years of political service, the Senator has made a calculated decision. Conservativism cannot get him elected to the White House. So instead of honorably representing The Senator claims the mantle of integrity, honor, and sacrifice.

Senator McCain has chosen to clamp down on people's freedoms. In 2002, he crafted legislation that would eliminate gun shows on American soil. In 2005, the Senator created more legislation limiting the free speech of all Americans during political campaigns.


So what is going on with McCain? No to gun shows, no to defense of marriage, yes to stem cell research, no to lowering taxes, no to conservative judicial appointees are all McCain specials. His votes defy conservatives. His votes defy Republicanism.


Senator McCain says he is all about "Straight Talk" with the American people. If so, then why Senator McCain call yourself a conservative since the term "moderate" fits the facts much better in your two runs for the Presidency?

The McCain Hoodwink

Ronald Reagan introduced war hero John McCain to American politics in 1980. On Reagan's coattails, this young war hero rode into Washington as a conservative. McCain parades around as if honor and integrity mark his campaign and his life. Honor on the battlefield is a horse you can ride on only so long in politics. Then the truth emerges at some point. Consider the following:

With a recession in the making in 2001, Senator McCain who just lost a bitter political battle against President Bush stated, “I cannot in good conscience support a tax cut in which so many of the benefits go to the most fortunate among us at the expense of middle-class Americans who need tax relief.”

In 2003, Senator McCain again voted against additional tax cuts by President Bush to spur economic growth further. In 2004, the Senator sought to block with Democrats any attempts at repealing the inheritance tax, instead seeking a larger government role in legally confiscating private wealth.

Today McCain defends his anti-tax cut message. Revising history, McCain says that he was one of only two Republicans to vote against the tax cuts because there was not a cut in spending attached to the legislation. Senator McCain's memory fails him. He clearly voted against giving Americans back their money stating that the rich shouldn't receive money back while the middle class receive nothing. Is this the integrity that he lives by?

What about the breathtaking 2002 McCain Feingold bill that McCain is so proud of? Stifling free speech by pointing out another candidate's record is apparently unacceptable to the Senator. Maybe the Senator is fearful of being swift-boated like John Kerry in 2004 as he prepares for another run at the White House. According to a Real Clear Politics article, "McCain has stoutly insisted that the regulation of politics -- and especially his restrictions on the quantity, content and timing of campaign speech -- does not restrict speech."

In contrast, conservative commentator George Will in a 2006 article describes what Senator McCain's said about the First Ammendment:

"I work in Washington and I know that money corrupts. And I and a lot of other people were trying to stop that corruption. Obviously, from what we've been seeing lately, we didn't complete the job. But I would rather have a clean government than one where quote First Amendment rights are being respected that has become corrupt. If I had my choice, I'd rather have the clean government."

Lets see---free speech guaranteeed by the 1st Amendment? Or clean government? Clean government over free speech is apparently Senator McCain's position.

Clean government does have its advantages. Its working well for Putin and the KGB types running Russia. Just ask famed chess player Gary Kasparov jailed for opposition to Putin's policies as Kasparov was preparing a campaign for the Russian presidency. Pol Pot loved clean government-swift, immediate, and clean. The killing fields of Cambodia are testament to clean government instead of free speech.

Mubarak of Egypt, Castro of Cuba, Mussolini of Italy, and most Musim countries can attest to the effective role of clean government. Why have free speech instead of clean government? Chavez, Jintao, and Kim Jong Ill would surely come to the aid of McCain's efforts to have clean government- don't you think? Many an autocrat began rule with democratic institutions only to then erode free speech liberty for safer and cleaner government. Just ask the new Chancellor of Germany in 1933 how democracy helped him create clean government.


Concerning climate change, Senator McCain visited America's most northern city in Alaska to investigate global warming with Mrs. Clinton. Upon returning he stated, "We are convinced that the overwhelming scientific evidence indicated that climate change is taking place and human activities play a very large role.'' Of course, a backlash against this frenzied man-made global warming theory is taking shape. Facts may have little to do with the Senator's position, except the fact that he is positioning himself for a White House campaign.


In other matters, didn't the Senator declare in 1999 to the San Francisco Chronicle that abortion is the law of the land and should not be overturned? By 2006 on an ABC interview, McCain stated that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Another case of the honorable war hero shooting straight with the American people, right?


What about McCain's famous 2005 "Gang of 14" coaltion? This Senator, who stated that Roe v. Wade should never be overturned, also decided to fillibuster with liberals the appointment of conservative judges. On whose side does the Senator land on?


Concerning open border Americans, this stalwart defender of America chose to produce no legislation to shut down the borders. In fact, why did Senator McCain ally himself with patriot Ted Kennedy to craft a bill graning illegal aliens a path to legal citizenship in America? Americans were not for it. They were against it. Yet, McCain still tried to jam this piece of legislation down the throats of all Americans.

Although Senator McCain claims to be defender of the American family, what is his record on family legislation? In 2006, maverick McCain joined Democrats and liberal Republicans in voting against the Federal Marriage Amendment to protect traditional marriage (Wikipedia, McCain, John; 2007).


Of course, the record wouldn't be complete without Senator McCain producing and co-sponsoring legislation in 2002 shutting down gun shows for good across America. Most liberals despise the 2nd Amendment. Apparently, Senator McCain fits very nicely into the Nancy Pelosi-Harry Reid camp? On the other hand, most Republicans look to defend the 2nd Amendment right to bear arms.


We all knew what side McCain fought for against the Communist enemies in the 60's and 70's. Today his war is against the American people. Honor and integrity are how the Senator wants to be described as. But honor requires that he talk and vote the same way.


However McCain's votes and positions betray his conservative past. Mayor Bloomberg at least had the courage to jump ship from the Republican party. Lets hope this former war hero chooses to do the same before he alters the Republican message completely.

The Cry Heard Round the World !!!

It was the cry heard round the world. An exhausted and exasperated Hillary Clinton broke down before America. The Barack Express, leading by 12 points in the polls, was steamrolling Mrs. Clinton's invincible machine. As the cameras rolled 24 hours before New Hampshire residents voted, Mrs. Clinton broke down and said, "It's about our country. It's about our kids' future. It's about all of us together. Some of us put ourselves out there and do this against some difficult odds."

Was she crying? Was it tears? Whatever it was, it was pure genius.

She captitulated for a brief moment. We all do at some point. But she capitulated on television for the world to witness. Such raw emotion from a steely woman like Mrs. Clinton was unprecedented. With Obama up by 12%, the Clinton campaign in disarray, and Obama prepared to bring down the Clinton dynasty, the "Cry Heard Round the World" was born.

It was Tarzan's call to the wild animals to come and help. Mrs. Clinton's breakdown was nothing short of the most primal solidarity call to all women. It wasn't a call you could hear if you were a male. The poll results showed men overwhelmingly voting for Obama. The men failed to understand the signal.

Experts and pundits scratched their heads watching the election returns roll in. How could they have been so wrong? How did Hillary pull off the Hail Mary pass to bring victory?

It was the Tarzan principle. As Tarzan cusps his mouth and extends his clarion call for help when he really needs the help, the creatures of the jungle risk life and limb to show up at Tarzan's side.

Hillary's silent tears brought qualified females 40 years and older to her side. Did these women really listen? With 58% of these undecided women voters breaking for Hillary at the last minute, these sorority sister's listened and bailed her out. The Tarzan Principle worked.

It was powerful. Solidarity and pity rolled into one vote. Is she the best candidate for the job? It doesn't matter. She's a woman. She needed help from the girls club of the Granite state and they gave all too willingly. Thats all that mattered on this day. Will Mrs. Clinton employ the Tarzan Principle again during the primaries? We may never know.

We know, however, that the Senator from New York believes that she has "found her voice" and will live another day to fight. As Obama stood on the stage conceding the Granite state, he looked as if he had been sucker punched.

Sucker punched he was. It was the females. It was the Tarzan Principle. It was hysterical emotion trumping intelligent debate. Called into a mission that saves a fellow woman from disgrace,they now go back into the wild awaiting their Tarzan's next set of orders tomorrow.