Does Kentucky Derby Reflect Democratic Race?
The 134th Kentucky Derby ran this afternoon at Churchhill Downs and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton placed wagers on the race (or at least they picked horses in it). As one might expect, Hillary picked the only female in the race but Obama did not select Big Brown opting instead for Colonel John (perhaps he was trying to get some military creds).
From the Courier Journal:
• Barack Obama has picked Colonel John to win the Kentucky Derby. He picked Pyro to place and Big Brown to show.
• Yesterday Hillary Clinton said she was betting on the filly, Eight Belles, to win, place and show.
• Neil Walkoff, the assistant general manager for Casears Indiana casino, is putting his money on Pyro to win.
Obama was wrong and his pick seems to show that he thought the Big Brown horse could not win while Hillary banked on the only “woman” in the field (her bet was across the board so she gets paid if it finished in one of the top three spots).
Do the results of the race show the future of the Democratic nomination? The Big Brown horse won and the filly (Eight Belles) came in second. That would seem to be a good omen for Obama and a bad one for Hillary though Hillary’s horse paid more to place and show than Big Brown did on Obama’s show bet.
An even worse omen for Clinton is that the filly broke both of her front legs in the race and had to be euthanized right on the track.
Sounds like that could be the Democratic convention. The Big Brown one wins and the filly comes in second and the party has to put her down…
BTW, I won on the race. I had Big Brown across the board and I had him with Eight Belles in the exacta.
Tags: big brown eight belles, Clinton, euthanized, filly, kentucky derby, Obama
Wright Flock Loses Black Sheep Obama
Apr 29, 2008 Political
For quite some time now Barack Hussein Obama has been taking heat because he attended a church with a racist pastor who hates white people and has a huge chip on his shoulder. Obama had hoped that the furor over Pastor Wright’s remarks had passed and that his [Obama’s] speech about race had sealed the deal. Unfortunately, the man Obama described as an uncle more closely resembles the black sheep (pun intended) of the family. I believe that the Obama’s hold many of Wright’s views but don’t want to be associated with them so that he can be elected and Michelle can go on being proud for the first time in her life.
Wright was making the rounds this past week and he ended up at the National Press Club on what turns out to be the invite of a Hillary Clinton supporter. Barbara Reynolds helped get Wright as a speaker. Whether she did it to throw more fuel on the fire and help Clinton or did it to hear what he has to say is a matter of speculation. Regardless of the motive, he did not disappoint people and his anti-American hate filled speech is probably giving Obama more gray hair by the minute.
Obama, who has tried to distance himself from Wright, completely denounced his spiritual mentor and said he was outraged by statements Wright made. Wright told audiences that the attacks were not on him but on the black church as a whole and that the US government created AIDS to get rid of black people. Wright likens this to the Tuskegee experiments early in the last century:
Wright criticized the U.S. government as imperialist and stood by his suggestion that the United States invented the HIV virus as a means of genocide against minorities. “Based on this Tuskegee experiment and based on what has happened to Africans in this country, I believe our government is capable of doing anything,” he said. Breitbart
Just for historical purposes, the experiments dealt with syphilis, a venereal disease. In the 1930s syphilis killed a lot of people and the medication they gave to treat it was often worse than the disease. The medications killed people or made them very sick and often did not cure the infection. A group of people decided to follow black men with the disease (they had it already, the government did not infect them) and see how it progressed. This was a time when there was no real informed consent and the “participants” (uneducated black men) in the study were not informed why they were being observed. Many patients were often not told the truth about conditions at that time in our history.
Syphilis was not brought under control until the invention of penicillin in the 1940s. However, many people in the Tuskegee study were not given penicillin and remained under observation to see how the disease affected them. There is no getting around the fact that these people were used and were the victims of what we would now consider unscrupulous medical practices though at the time they were not seen as such. The fact that they were not given penicillin when it was discovered is a terrible case of malpractice. However, there is no way to equate this to the AIDS virus (which came from a simian virus). Wright is spouting off conspiracy theories that have no basis in fact.
Before I get off this tangent it is important to note one thing. Wright blames the government for HIV and says that this is a way [for whites] to get rid of blacks. Then he brings up the Tuskegee study as if a bunch of white guys went around infecting blacks with syphilis. Two of the people involved in the Tuskegee study were black. There was a black nurse and a black doctor who studied the men who had become (on their own) infected with syphilis. It does not make it right, it only dispels this idea that white guys are trying to kill off blacks.
Is Wright now a thorn in Obama’s side? Wright told people in his speech that he is a pastor and Obama a politician so he speaks as a pastor and Obama says what politicians have to say [to get elected]. Does this mean that Obama agrees with Wright but says the opposite in order to gain higher office? Regardless of what he means, it is obvious that Wright has blackened Obama’s eye. It looks as if Wright has been offended by Obama’s constant denunciation of him and his preachings.
Is Pastor Wright now deliberately sabotaging Obama because Obama has distanced himself from his one time spiritual adviser? Has Obama become the black sheep of Wright’s flock? It seems like Wright is an intelligent man so he has to know that his multiple appearances will adversely affect Obama. Is he so vain that he is blind to the effect he is having or has he decided that Obama needs to pay for denouncing him? Does Wright think that trying to redirect the blame by saying white people are attacking the black church will play well with the very white people Wright thinks are racists?
It seems as if Pastor Wright has turned against Barack Obama. Is it because he is upset?
Or did the Clintons get to him?
Obama has Wright to mess things up and Hillary has Bill. You have to love watching the Democrats implode.
Tags: AIDS, church, Clinton, Obama, racist, tuskegee, wright
The DNC and the Will of the People
Apr 23, 2008 Political
For the past several months we have heard the leadership of the Democratic Party say that the will of the people should not be undone. We have heard that super delegates should vote for the person that the people selected and that those super delegates who are in elected positions should follow the will of their constituents. I believe that the super delegates should select whomever they personally want regardless of the will of the people but only because that is how the rules are written for the super delegates.
However, If the Democrats decide that the will of the people must be obeyed then they need to come up with a way of looking at the people as a group of subsets. Just because a state voted for Obama does not mean that every elected super delegate from that state has to go for him as well. Suppose a state has 10 Congressional districts and 2 of them are in heavily populated areas and the population of the 2 is greater than the population of the other 8 combined. Now, suppose Obama wins the 2 heavily populated ones and Hillary wins the other 8. Obama would have enough votes to “win” the state but in reality he only won two Congressional districts out of 10.
If the DNC wants the elected super delegates to follow the will of their people then, in the above case, Obama would get 2 of them and Hillary 8. I wonder how many states are actually like this? Barack Obama won a few of the southern states because heavily populated areas of black voters voted for him. I have a suspicion that if they go back and look at all the states to see how the Congressional districts played out they will find that Clinton won more of them than Obama. This would mean that she would have more super delegates from among the elected ones.
If they truely want to have elected officials represent their constituents then they need to ensure that they look at each Congressional district to ensure the will of the people of those districts is followed. By playing this will of the people per state outcome, many people will get shortchanged.
I also want to see how John Kerry and Ted Kennedy handle this idea that the will of the people should be heard. Hillary Clinton won their state handily so, given the whole will of the people mantra, those two should be casting super delegate votes for her. They both endorsed Obama. I bet they both will say that the will of the people must be followed and they will cast votes for Obama anyway and they will justify it by saying he won the national number. Kerry and Kennedy do not represent the nation, they represent the people of their hjome state and that is the only will that these two should be ensuring gets followed.
The Democrats are crafty and no one has ever challenged them on these things. I would like to see the MSM actually look into this and show the numbers if the elected leaders are forced to follow the will of their constituents (and only their constituents). I am surprised the Clinton camp has not pursued this route.
For political masters they sure do make a lot of mindless mistakes.
Tags: Clinton, congressional district, Obama, super delegate
Nora Ephron has White Penis Envy
Apr 21, 2008 Political
Nora Ephron has a piece in today’s Huffington Post where she discusses the Democratic primary and the soon to come general election in terms of how white males will influence the outcome in each of those contests. Ephron contends that the idea that white men have been powerless is a lot of bunk and always has been. She contends that the white male vote will decide the outcome of the primary and of the general elections. She also points out that white men cannot be trusted as any woman who has dated one can attest to.
I guess Nora suffers penis envy and that is why she attacks white males as a group that cannot be trusted with elections while she conveniently forgets that it was the white women who gave us Bill Clinton. Soccer moms who dreamed of giving him Lewinskys voted for this guy despite the fact that he was a scum bag. She forgets that blacks of both sexes have supported Barack Obama at a 90% rate thus denying Hillary her rightful place in the White House. No, to Ephron only white males have the clout to decide elections.
It is not unusual for liberal females to chastise white males. We have been listening to this crap for decades so this is nothing new. White males will determine the outcome in Pennsylvania because white males vote so, as she points out, it will all depend on who they decide to support. These white males will be Democrats and mostly liberal. They will either vote for Obama out of guilt or Clinton to push the feminist agenda. however, if she wants to really talk about white males who cannot be trusted she should look at the super delegates. They are ALL Democrats and they are overwhelmingly old white men.
As for the general election, many white males will vote. They will not stay home as will many of the young people who have drunk the Obama kool aid. Many of the minorities will stay home on election day because that is what they have historically done though an Obama candidacy will bring more of them out. There will be enough diversity and division by party that the demographic with the largest turn out will decide who is elected.
This does not register with Ephron who believes that white males have dominated politics for a long time (they have) and she believes that the candidate who wins will be the one who can attract more of the racist white males. She has this all figured out:
If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.
I don’t want to be the bearer of bad news but the idea of a candidate who could have been a father, son, or brother also applies to white women. Yes Nora, all the guys who have been elected could have been the father, brother or son of any white woman. So that means that any one of our past presidents could have been the father, brother or son of Hillary Clinton or any white woman who votes for her.
As a matter of fact, any of our past presidents could have been the father of Barack Obama because he is half white.
The fact is, white males will vote for the candidate they want to and their vote does not indicate they are racists or sexists or anything else. They are entitled to vote for whom they wish just as are all the non white male voters out there. The 90% of the blacks who vote for Obama are no more racist than the white guys who vote. It is obvious that they are only voting for Obama because he is black but Ephron ignores this and chooses to take white males to task for their voting patterns.
Of course she is upset at the idea that white males might decide the outcome of the election but the fact is there are many demographics out there and any one of them could decide the outcome depending upon who shows up on election day.
As it stands right now, white males are a reliable voting block as are the elderly. However, as we saw with the Bill Clinton elections, any group of people that shows up en masse (in his case soccer moms) can affect the outcome of an election.
Nora Ephron needs to get over her penis envy and work harder on getting people out to vote. A 30% nationwide turnout is nothing to be proud of.
Tags: Clinton, election, McCain, nora ephron, Obama, white males
Obama Laments Distraction but not His
Apr 21, 2008 Political
Barack Obama was discussing his contest with Hillary Clinton when he made reference to her claim about throwing the kitchen sink at him. Obama stated that Hillary had thrown the China and soon the buffet would be coming. Obama stated that the things Hillary is discussing are distractions and take them away from discussing the issues that people want to hear about.
I wonder how long it will be before someone takes him to task for making a reference to Hillary’s temper and who will make the connection of woman-China-kitchen (though Hillary opened it up with the sink reference). Maybe that was why Obama mentioned (during the debate) Hillary and her famous “baking cookies” remark years ago. Obama thinks this woman belongs in a kitchen.
Amazingly (or maybe not) Obama is lamenting over the distractions caused by the Clinton campaign but his campaign is just as guilty. His campaign held a conference call to discuss the Bosnia sniper lie and it has taken as many opportunities to go after Hillary and ignore policy as her campaign has. This is just another case of the kettle and pot scenario or as Jake Trapper ponders:
Is Clinton’s Bosnia-sniper-fire story not a “distraction,” while Rezko, Wright, Ayers, Bitter-gate, and the flag pin are “distractions”?
In the article about this Obama stated he was from Chicago so he knows politics is rough business and he assures us he can handle it. Ignoring the stuttering and stammering he did in the last debate, when he was handling it, Obama has given us more insight. He is from Chicago and that place has a history of having the dirtiest and unethical politics around. There is little that goes on there that is legal and the Democrats there continue in the tradition of past criminal politicians. Obama learned politics in Chicago so it is not hard to imagine he knows how to skirt the law with the best of them. Think Rezko.
Obama is just as guilty as Clinton with regard to distractions. They have both engaged in the politics of personal destruction and have shied away from the issues. People claim Obama discusses issues but he only talks of hope and change with little substance or information as to how he will change things. He hopes you will not notice and many have not.
The Democrats are tearing each other apart. She and her veiled shots at his race and he at her sex. Their supporters are mean and nasty and the slightest criticism of either brings out the rabid supporters and their attacks.
John McCain is the one who benefits from the dysfunctional Democratic Party and he must be loving it. As an aside, Jack Murtha (American traitor) recently stated that John McCain was too old to be president (did know there was an upper age limit in the Constitution) and there was little criticism of his remarks by the Democratic establishment.
I wonder how nutty the Democrats would become (nuttier?) if a prominent Republican claimed Obama was too young to be president?
Just a thought for this Monday morning…
Source:
ABC
Others with interesting posts:
Rosemary’s Thoughts, The Random Yak, 123beta, Maggie’s Notebook, Right Truth, Shadowscope, Oblogatory Anecdotes, Cao’s Blog, The Amboy Times, Phastidio.net, Conservative Cat, Chuck’s Place, D equals S, Nuke Gingrich, Wake Up America, Woman Honor Thyself, McCain Blogs, DragonLady’s World, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, , Right Voices, Gone Hollywood, and OTB Sports, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.