Over at Huffington Post, they have an article up talking about how the vp is going to speak on a night that is dedicated to national security and honoring veterans.

<a href="Huffington'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/11/a-vp-hint-vps-convention_n_118148.html">Huffington Post</a>

 

 The article goes on to mention  John Kerry and Chuck Hagel,<em><strong> but</strong></em>, the campaign spokesperson then says something <em><strong>very interesting</strong></em>:

 

'But her answer fell somewhat short, leading Dunn to interject before the next question could be asked. "Wednesday night is thematically about <em><strong>securing America's future</strong></em>, it is about honoring our veterans and the families of our veterans... and how to make us safer and move past the divisiveness and into the future. I think anyone Sen. Obama picks as Vice President will be more than prepared to address those issues."

Well that rung a bell and it didn't take long to make the connection... 

<a href="Securing'>http://securingamerica.com/">Securing America</a>

 

In 2004, a few days before the election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape in which he basically endorsed John Kerry.  Now, obviously, those of us paying attention realized that GWB was the best thing that ever happened to Al Queda, and that they knew by saying they wanted Kerry to win, a certain number of uninformed voters would be influenced to vote for the candidate NOT endorsed by the perpertrators of 9-11. 

Who knows how many thousands of votes that well-timed 'surprise' cost Kerry? Perhaps enough to have made the difference in a couple of swing states?  Throw in the BlackBox voting and it's entirely possible.

Now just imagine it's October 30/31, 2008.  The election is next Tuesday and we get ANOTHER video tape.  It's Osama or some other individual that the newscasters tell us is the number 2, 3 whatever in Al Queda.  THIS time, the endorsement is for 'our Muslim brother', Barack HUSSEIN Obama.  Maybe just before or just after this, Homeland Security conveniently raises the terror alert for the first time since, oh...I don't know, the LAST presidential election, claiming some kind of 'chatter' on the wires  and for us to be 'vigilant' and 'on the lookout' and all that good fear-mongering, alarmist stuff.  Even if he still has a 10-15 pt. lead in key state & national polls, if this sequence of events occurs, which is not at all out of the realm of possibility, that lead can drop to within the margin error OVER freaking NIGHT.  And that is without any ACTUAL terrorist attack taking place.  God forbid something actually does occur.  And there will be NO TIME for Obama recover. 

Now, the only area where McCain consistently beats Obama in polling is on war/terrorism/national security.  Obama  does not  want to leave ANY opening for the 'he's a secret manchurian Muslim who really wants to hand the country over to the terrrorists' meme.  When the soundbites start flying, Obama wants HIS to be 'I'm protecting America, national security trumps everything, yada yada yada'.  If he leaves an opening on national security, the Republican will wear him out with 'you can't trust him to do what's necessary to keep America safe.'  

After a few months sowing of these doubts, when the 'surprise' comes, Obama will be way more vulnerable, perhaps, than if he appears MORE hawkish than the bluest of blue dog dems.   I don't think he likes it or wants it to be this way, but, as the nominee, he doesn't have the luxury counting on the American people to not be duped THIS TIME, into voting from fear,  like they have so many time before.  And, if he can keep McCain from sowing these doubts too deeply, maybe he can ride out the hit when/if it comes.

Apparently John McCain has some empathy with Michelle Obama.  Either that or he just inexplicably decided to give the Obama campaign a lifeline on the one line of attack that they've been able to get traction with on Michelle, and thru her, her husband re: 'patriotism'.

And, it happened all because some a**hole was trying to take a shot at Mrs. Obama at a McCain townhall and 'grampa' didn't get it.  Serve's 'em both right.

I wonder if this will make all the network evening newscasts and be on an all day loop on the cable channels?  Yea...I won't hold my breath either.

.........................................................

From Huffington Post and Politco.com:

So a man finally got a question into McCain and he had a very different sort of question. The questioner noted that he had been educated at Princeton and Harvard and made more than $300,000 a year. "How can I be proud of my country?" he asked....

"I'll admit to you that it's tough, it's tough in some respects," McCain said, seeming to lend credence to Michelle Obama's observation. McCain said America needed to be "more humble, more inclusive."

 

See links below:

In and effort to pit White women against Blacks, Hillary has taken to arguing that she is the victim of rampant sexism and mysogyny and, according to her, its a much worse problem than racism.  So people should pity her, of course, because she's has a much harder struggle winning this contest because of her gender than Obama does because of his race.  She's not losing because she mispent her money early on and failed to plan for post-Super Tuesday contests.  Oh no, its because of those mean boys in the media who just won't give her a fair shake.  Never mind that the media has propped up her candidacy for the last 3 months on the lie that she could still win even though anyone who could count (and was honest) knew it was over in February.

see excerpt below:

Q. Do you think this has been a particularly racist campaign?

A. I do not. I think this has been a positive, civil campaign. I think that both gender and race have been obviously a part of it because of who we are and every poll I've seen show more people would be reluctant to vote for a woman [than] to vote for an African American, which rarely gets reported on either. The manifestation of some of the sexism that has gone on in this campaign is somehow more respectable or at least more accepted. And I think there should be equal rejection of the sexism and the racism when and if it ever raises its ugly head. But it does seem as though the press at least is not as bothered by the incredible vitriol that has been engendered by comments and reactions of people who are nothing but misogynists.

Q. Isn't that how it's always been though.

A. Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal. You can go to places in the world where there are no racial distinctions except everyone is joined together in their oppression of women. The treatment of women is the single biggest problem we have politically and socially in the world. If you look at the extremism and the fundamentalism, it is all about controlling women, at it's base. The idea that we would have a presidential campaign in which so much of what has occurred that has been very sexist would be just shrugged off I think is a very unfortunate commentary about the lack of seriousness that should be applied to any kind of discrimination or prejudice. I have spent my entire life trying to stand up for civil rights and women's rights and human rights and I abhor wherever it is discrimination is present.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Now, if these polls are accurate and the comments above are true, then doesn't that argue for the African American candidate being the more electable?  If she can't win a Democratic Party nomination because she's a woman, won't it be an even bigger problem in the GE when you add voters (independents, Republicans) who do not necessarily have a history of supporting gender equity?

It's either one or the other. If she's the most electable between her and Barack Obama, then what she said above is bull.  And if what she said is true, and the polling she mentioned supports that, then Obama can use her own complaints of unfairness as his argument for being the nominee. This is after all about who can win the general election, as she and her surrogates tell us so relentlessly.  So the party has to nominate the AA candidate over the female candidate if we want to win, because Hillary herself said it has been and will be so much harder for her to win.