FOX Commentator Kristol: GOP Concerned McCain not Ready for Obama

Kristol has good reason to believe McCain can't beat Obama. The main reason, even more than the fiasco in Iraq: the economy. McCain cannot win with an economy in such a weak state. Not to mention that he won't raise as much money as the Democratic Party nominee. This is the Transcript of the noted neocon's views on McCain's chances:

MEGYN KELLY, CO-HOST: Well, the general election is officially underway and some Republicans are downright worried about their candidate. They are concerned that the McCain campaign is not up to the task of facing Barack Obama. And when it comes to campaign presence, well, they see a bit of a charisma gap, underscored, and example, like this one.

[...]BILL KRISTOL WEEKLY STANDARD EDITOR: Well, you've got to laugh and you've got to cry a little bit. No, it is presentation and John McCain can hold his own against Barack Obama. I really believe that. The America people choose which of these two men should be president, despite Obama's skills, I think McCain has a very good chance to win.

But the Obama campaign has been so much more sophisticated and strategic than the McCain campaign. There are lots of Republicans I have talked to are concerned. They're not panicked. They're concerned.

I wrote this little column in the New York Times this morning and I've gotten an amazing number of e-mails and phone calls from people I don't know and people I haven't talked to in months, you know, saying, "Thank god someone said the truth," someone who is friendly to McCain said, look, he deserves a better campaign than he's had so far.

They're tactically not bad. You know, if this story coming out that Jim Johnson, who's heading the VP search for Obama has the sweetheart deals with countrywide, they go jumping on that. There are good staff guys at the McCain campaign. But where is the strategy? What is McCain's overall vision for the economy, even for foreign policy?

Obama Economic Tax Stimulus Plan Unveiled in North Carolina

Economic recovery will require more than just tax cuts. We need major overhaul with an economic system/strategy that has been dysfunctional for decades. This from Time Magazine:

McCain economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin tried over the weekend to make the case that it's Obama who more closely resembles Bush because they're both big spenders. But it's hard to see that one sticking. If this election becomes a referendum on the recent performance of the U.S. economy, Obama wins and McCain loses. It's as simple as that.

Can Obama make this election a referendum on the U.S. economy? He's certainly going to try. If his speech in Raleigh, N.C., Monday afternoon was any indication, though, it's not going to be a slam dunk. It's clear that Obama's economic policies aren't a continuation of the Bush era. But what they are remains a hard-to-summarize mix of moderate Democratic standbys, populist silliness and the occasional truly visionary proposal. They haven't coalesced into anything you could really call a rallying cry. Not yet, at least.

[...]For now, he and his advisers are reciting the details of his three big short-term priorities: a new $50 billion stimulus program, much of it routed into extending unemployment insurance beyond the current 26-week limit and helping struggling state governments; a more aggressive foreclosure-prevention effort, with $10 billion in funding; and a tax cut for Americans making less than $150,000 a year — to be financed with tax increases on those making more than $150,000 a year.

These add up to what you could call the stock Democratic response to tough times. They're not necessarily bad ideas, but they're not what you could call new or transformative either. Obama throws in a few populist panders — he favors a windfall profits tax on oil companies (which could discourage investment in new energy resources), and says he would oppose raising the Social Security retirement age (which if phased in over a long enough period would be the fairest, most sensible way to ease some of the system's long-run funding challenges). Near the end of the speech, there was a hint of Obama's "yes, we can" vision: a plan to give $4,000 a year in tuition aid to college students who pledge themselves to community or national service after graduation.

You can see the internal tensions within the Obama campaign in this laundry list. His economic advisers are moderate, mostly free-market-oriented wonks. His campaign strategists would presumably love it if he breathed a bit more populist fire. And the candidate himself balances a lifelong devotion to progressive causes with what seems to be a pretty keen sense of the tradeoffs inherent in economics. All of which helps explain why, for the moment at least, Obama's most compelling economic argument remains the fact that, on the economy, John McCain sounds an awful lot like George Bush.

FDA Pulls Tomatoes in 17 States After Salmonella Outbreak

Another case in the where the government, especially under George Bush, failed to adequately inspect our food supply. The incompetence and indifference of this White House is nothing short of criminal neglect:

As Texas and the nation grapple with a major outbreak of potentially deadly salmonella poisoning from tomatoes, critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration are blasting the agency for sluggishness in ensuring the safety of America's food supply.

This latest outbreak, which has sickened 23 people locally, is the third significant salmonella case in America this year.

The FDA's food watchdogs, internal critics contend, are in "a state of crisis" and have stood by as budget and staffing problems have eroded their power to inspect and regulate the expanding food industry.

The FDA, others note, is part of a dangerously fragmented food safety system of 15 agencies — a system challenged by garden variety germs and the spectre of food-targeted bioterrorism.

Despite the system's best efforts, foodborne illnesses continue to pose a significant health threat.

Last year, spinach contaminated with E. coli bacteria sickened 206 Americans, hospitalizing 100 and killing three. Salmonella infections, many of them food-related, afflicted 1.4 million people in 2007.

This year salmonella, which causes severe diarrhea and can be fatal for infants, the elderly and those with compromised immune systems, has been spread through tainted cantaloupes, dry cereal and tomatoes.

The current outbreak, believed to be linked to raw tomatoes of unknown origin, has affected 56 people in Texas — 14 in Harris County, five in Brazoria County and two each in Fort Bend and Galveston counties. Thirty-six New Mexico residents and 34 elsewhere in the country also became ill.

Inspections done once every decade!:

As the food industry has rapidly grown in the past 35 years, the study said, the FDA has cut inspections by 78 percent. Now, inspectors visit a given food manufacturing plant once a decade; no inspectors visit farms or retail sales outlets.

The Government Accountability Office, long critical of the FDA, says the agency is part of a fragmented food safety system involving multiple agencies and a welter of laws. The GAO has designated the system a matter of "high risk."

CBS Anchor Dan Rather Slams Corporate News

This is a major story that won't be covered by the corporate news establishment. One of their own is denouncing the journalistic establishment. Dan Rather, a major news figure for decades, is essentially blowing the whistle. This is some of what he had to say:

In our efforts to take back the American press for the American people, we are blessed this weekend with the gift of good timing. For anyone who may have been inclined to ask if there really is a problem with the news media, or wonder if the task of media reform is, indeed, an urgent one... recent days have brought an inescapable answer, from a most unlikely source.

A source who decided to tell everyone, quote, "what happened."

I know I can't be the first person this weekend to reference the recent book by former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, but, having interviewed him this past week, I think there are some very important points to be made from the things he says in his book, and the questions his statements raise.

I'm sure all of you took special notice of what he had to say about the role of the press corps, in the run-up to the war in Iraq. In the government's selling of the war, he said they were — or, I should say, we were "complicit enablers" and "overly deferential."

These are interesting statements, especially considering their source. As one tries to wrap one's mind around them, the phrase "cognitive dissonance" comes to mind.

The first reaction, a visceral one, is: Whatever his motives for saying these things, he's right — and we didn't need Scott McClellan to tell us so.

But the second reaction is: Wait a minute... I do remember at least some reporters, and some news organizations, asking tough questions — asking them of the president, of those in his administration, of White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer and — oh yes — of Scott McClellan himself, once he took over for Mr. Fleischer a few months after the invasion.

So how do we reconcile these competing reactions? Well, we need to pull back for what we in television call the wide shot.

If we look at the wide shot, we can see, in one corner of our screen, the White House briefing room filled with the White House press corps... and, filling the rest of the screen, the finite but disproportionately powerful universe that has become known as "mainstream media" — the newspapers and news programs, real and alleged, that employ these White House correspondents — the news organizations that are, in turn, owned by a shockingly few, much larger corporations, for which news is but a miniscule part of their overall business interests.

Senator Feinstein: Clinton Won Popular Vote

Obviously this knucklehead didn't get the message. This is the same kind of argument used to discredit George Bush. Never mind it's incorrect:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a backer of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) during the primary campaign, reiterated on ABC’s “This Week” that Clinton had won the popular vote — an assertion that is not accepted by Illinois Democrat Sen. Barack Obama’s camp and one that, if repeated often, could harm Democratic attempts to unify behind him.

“Hillary Clinton is well known, certainly she had the popular vote in this election,” she said, according to a transcript. “That is something and that is something tremendous. Now, I believe the [vice presidential] nomination is up to him. I can't tell him what to do. Nobody else can tell him what to do. All I can say is I agree with [Pennsylvania Gov.] Ed Rendell, that if you really want a winning ticket, this is it.”

The famously late-arriving Clinton showed up for a Thursday meeting with Obama thirty minutes early, said Feinstein, who hosted the chat at her home. Obama was delayed and was about thirty minutes late.
Feinstein said that while they waited, she and Clinton “sat in the living room and we talked a little bit, and she expressed to me the depth of her concern and caring, the fact that she had 18 million people who put their hopes and dreams in her ability to create new opportunities for people. She wants to continue that. She recognizes that it's over, and I think every instinct in Hillary Clinton is to help.”

The comment is obviously an attempt to get Hillar on the ticket:

Feinstein went on to make the case for Clinton as Obama’s running mate. “I think she has a movement. Trust me, from the e-mails I've been getting and people in California have been sending me, trust me, there is a movement. And it's formed from a number of different perspectives.

Speech Transcript: Hillary Clinton Endorses Barack Obama

Finally Hillary does the right thing and concedes defeat to Barack Obama. Read the complete transcript:

The way to continue our fight now, to accomplish the goals for which we stand is to take our energy, our passion, our strength, and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama, the next president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him and throw my full support behind him.

(APPLAUSE)

And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.

(APPLAUSE)

I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I've had a front-row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.

In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American dream, as a community organizer, in the State Senate, as a United States senator. He has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.

Now, when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity and progress. And that's exactly what we're going to do, by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

(APPLAUSE)

Now, I understand -- I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight, but the Democratic Party is a family. And now it's time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish, and the country we love.

We may have started on separate journeys, but today our paths have merged. And we're all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around, because so much is at stake.

We all want an economy that sustains the American dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries, and still have a little left over at the end of the month, an economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared.

It's curious that she didn't mention McCain:

It is this belief, this optimism that Senator Obama and I share and that has inspired so many millions of our supporters to make their voices heard. So today I am standing with Senator Obama to say: Yes, we can!

(APPLAUSE)

And that together we will work -- we'll have to work hard to achieve universal health care. But on the day we live in an America where no child, no man, and no woman is without health insurance, we will live in a stronger America. That's why we need to help elect Barack Obama our president.

Richard Clarke: White House Lied About WMDs in Iraq

Richard Clarke was the terrorism expert early in Bush administration before he was forced out. He appeared on Countdown and describes some of the sinister events leading up to the Iraq War. He also goes after John McCain. Here's the full transcript:

CLARKE: There certainly are and this is a big report. What it says is statements by the president were not substantiated by intelligence. And then it says statements by the president were contradicted by available intelligence. In other words, they made things up. And they made them up and gave them to Colin Powell and others who believed them.

I think Colin Powell did not know he was lying, but he was. He was given intelligence that people in the intelligence community at the time knew were not true. This is not a case of 20/20 hindsight. This is a case of what was available then. The National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction was read by seven senators before they voted to go to war. And one was the chairman of the intelligence committee, Bob Graham, who read it and went to the floor of the Senate and said, I read it. I‘m chairman of the Intelligence Committee. It‘s not persuasive. There‘s not a good case here for this war.

So people had the opportunity at the time, if they were reading the intelligence that was available to them. And to say that this is only something that we could have known years later, it‘s just not true.

OLBERMANN: We knew about Senator Graham‘s doubts. We already knew about the dissident intel agencies, the doubts about the aluminum tubes were instantaneous, the doubts about the clandestine meetings in Germany that never happened. What are we to make now, in the light of the political realities of today, of Senator McCain‘s undiminished enthusiasm for and defense of war, and specifically this remarkable claim that every intel assessment of the time was screaming WMD?

CLARKE: Senator McCain‘s statements are contradicted by the facts too, the facts in a Senate report, the facts that Republican senators voted for. He is a big proponent of the war but he is also now justifying the intelligence claims of the president, which now we have the evidence, we have the proof, four years too late, that those statements were flat-out wrong. And these weren‘t close calls. They made things up.

OLBERMANN: It‘s hard really to recreate in our minds just how trusting most Democrats were and most Americans were, how the media truly was in a patriotic rallying behind the president after 9/11. Does the context of that in any way change the way we should be thinking about this report today?

CLARKE: Keith, the fact that 80, 90 percent of the American people supported the president, that we were all wanting it do something about 9/11, doesn‘t change the legal responsibilities of the Congress to do oversight. It doesn‘t change the legal responsibilities of the intelligence community to analyze and report the truth and very few of them did. One of them, the State Department Intelligence Community, the State Department Intelligence Bureau, was absolutely spot on. You never heard that at the time. You were never told that they were dissenting opinions.

Are you Next to Lose Your Home?

If you think it can't happen to you--think again. It's happening to celebrities. In fact, 1 in 11 mortgages are in trouble. That's a lot of Americans. The state of housing is the worst in 3 decades. What makes it so frightening is that many of those families in trouble are having to choose between driving or keeping their homes. Homeowners are having to make extremely difficult choices. This fact is reflected in skyrocketing bankruptcies.

The Congress is proposing legislation that might help. But that might not come anytime soon:

The Bush administration has taken steps to help distressed homeowners. It has urged lenders to freeze rates for some homeowners and encouraged lenders to rework mortgage terms so troubled borrowers can stay in their homes.

A congressional plan that includes a foreclosure prevention program has stalled as lawmakers figure out how to pay for it.

The government would back as much as $300 billion in new loans to help certain borrowers refinance into cheaper, fixed-rate loans. Mortgage holders would have to agree to take a substantial loss on the existing loans; borrowers would have to show they could afford the new mortgage and share future proceeds with the government.

The House passed its version last month. Senate leaders say they want to vote by July.

That problem is that it might be too little too late. America is drowning in debt and might not have the resources to pay for the most basic necessities much less a mortgage.

McCain ABC/Gibson Interview Transcript (6-5-08)

Read the transcript of John McCain's interview with Charles Gibson of ABC news:

GIBSON: He said on Tuesday night, when he was in Minneapolis, or St. Paul, he said, "John McCain has served this country heroically. I honor that service and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine."

Do you think he's qualified to be president?

MCCAIN: Oh, I think that's a judgment that the American people will make. It's not up to me to say that. It's up to me to point out that I have the experience and the knowledge and the judgment, and the right kind of change and the right kind of record, but most importantly a plan of action for the future.

Look, the Democratic Party has just determined that Senator Obama is qualified. Now it'll be up to the American people, and I'm sure that they judge both of us as qualified. I think that it's going to be a question of who's more qualified or the most qualified.

GIBSON: What kind of a relationship do you go into this election with him, having with him? You had a very testy exchange of letters a couple of years ago.

MCCAIN: Yes, once we had an exchange -- I had a letter to him over an issue. In fact, it had to do with ethics and lobbying reform. But I've always had a cordial relationship with Senator Obama. I didn't know him as well as I know Senator Clinton, and I hadn't worked with him as much as I had Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton and I were both on the Armed Services Committee.

But we've always had a cordial and respectful relationship. And I'll do everything I can to maintain that during this campaign. Americans are tired of the partisanship or the fighting of the -- impugning of character.

They want a real debate here, and that's why I challenged him -- or invited him, is a better word -- for us to do a series of 10 town hall meetings across this country, one a week between now and the Democratic convention. And let's start next week at Federal Hall in New York.

And, you know, I think the town hall meeting is the essence of democracy. Why not let people come and ask us both questions? I think that's what it's about. I think, from my own experience, that town hall meetings are more beneficial both to the candidate, as well as the voter.

GIBSON: Senator Obama, when we talked to him yesterday, said he was going to accept. He said, "Senator McCain has generously offered to me to start next week." He said, "I just got the nomination, and I think that's a little premature," but indicated that he was certainly interested in doing some of those.

It sounds to me like you both, actually, in these town meetings think that you've got the other guy on your turf.

McCain Speech Transcript: (6-3-08): I'm no Bush

Read the entire transcript:

The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy — health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time.

[...]You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any President — before any party — before any special interest -- before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always.

Obama AIPAC Speech Transcript (6-4-08)

This speech before the powerful pro-Israel lobby (AIPAC) is a perfect example of why things won't change in Washington if Obama is elected. No candidate can run for office, much less be elected, without swearing allegiance to the State of Israel. This means more war in the Middle East regardless of who is elected President. Read the entire transcript:

One of the many things that I admire about AIPAC is that you fight for this common cause from the bottom up. The lifeblood of AIPAC is here in this room — grass-roots activists of all ages, from all parts of the country, who come to Washington year after year to make your voices heard. Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests — it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened.

[...]Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world.

Speech Transcript: Clinton Refuses to Concede (6-3-08)

It is an insult to Barack Obama that Hillary refused to concede last night (read the entire transcript). It would've been appropriate for her to acknowledge Obama as the nominee of the party. Instead she chose to slap him. Some pundits argue that she wants to be on the ticket in the Fall. How could she expect to be the VP running mate without acknowledging defeat. No one has pointed this out. It is unprecedented. No candidate has ever refused to concede after their opponent won the nomination. Everyone seems to be dancing around delicately around this point. She should be denounced not talked about as an idea VP pick. Barack would be a fool if he were to pick Clinton as his running mate. I guess Hillary wants to stick around just in case Obama gets assassinated:

I will carry your stories and your dreams with me every day for the rest of my life.

Now, the question is: Where do we go from here? And given how far we’ve come and where we need to go as a party, it’s a question I don’t take lightly. This has been a long campaign, and I will be making no decisions tonight.

But this has always been your campaign. So, to the 18 million people who voted for me, and to our many other supporters out there of all ages, I want to hear from you. I hope you’ll go to my Web site at HillaryClinton.com and share your thoughts with me and help in any way that you can.

And in the coming days, I’ll be consulting with supporters and party leaders to determine how to move forward with the best interests of our party and our country guiding my way.

- Read Obama's victory speech last night given right after Hillary's shameless utterances.

Transcript: Obama Minnesota Victory Speech (6-3-08)

Read the complete transcript of Obama's speech given in Minnesota on the historic night he became the Democratic Party nominee:

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said — because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another — a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for president of the United States.

I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign — through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for president.

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

- Read the Clinton non-concession speech transcript

Bill Clinton Attacks Vanity Fair and Author Purdum

Bill Clinton is obviously not getting any. That explains his out of control behavior. He is also upset that he was most responsible for losing the election that he and Hillary thought they had in the bag. Maybe now Ms.Clinton can end a marriage that was little more than a political arrangement. Then Bill could find someone who will meet his needs:

The same Huffington Post reporter who broke the Obama “bitter” story got a new scoop yesterday of Bill Clinton lashing out at Vanity Fair’s Todd Purdum and calling him “sleazy,” “dishonest” and “slimy” for his critical magazine article on Clinton. It’s worth noting that the HuffPo reporter didn’t identify herself as a reporter and said she disliked the article when asking for his reaction.

From the piece: “Tightly gripping this reporter's hand and refusing to let go, Clinton heatedly denounced the writer, who is currently married to his former White House Press Secretary, Dee Dee Myers. ‘[He's] sleazy,’ he said referring to Purdum. ‘He's a really dishonest reporter. And one of our guys talked to him… And I haven't read [the article]. There's just five or six blatant lies in there. But he's a real slimy guy,’ the former President said. When I reminded him that Purdum was married to his former press spokesperson Myers, Clinton was undeterred. ’That's all right-- he's still a scumbag,’ Clinton said. ‘Let me tell ya--he's one of the guys -- he's one of the guys that brought out all those lies about Whitewater to Kenneth Starr. He's just a dishonest guy-- can't help it.’”

Bill continued, “‘It's just slimy. It's part of the national media's attempt to nail Hillary for Obama. It's the most biased press coverage in history. It's another way of helping Obama. They had all these people standing up in this church cheering, calling Hillary a white racist, and he didn't do anything about it. The first day he said “Ah, ah, ah well.” Because that's what they do-- he gets other people to slime her. So then they saw the movie they thought this is a great ad for John McCain -- maybe I better quit the church. It's all politics. It's all about the bias of the media for Obama. Don't think anything about it.’”

“‘But I'm telling ya, all it's doing is driving her supporters further and further away-- because they know exactly what it is-- this has been the most rigged coverage in modern history-- and the guy ought to be ashamed of himself. But he has no shame. It isn't the first dishonest piece he's written about me or her.’”

It's Over After Tonight

Could it be the dragon will be slain tonight? If not tonight then in the next few days. Even Hillary's supporters are saying it's over. All the thug tactics has not worked. The Clinton mafia tried every dirty trick in the book to steal the nomination. Now the party will close ranks. Hillary has alienated most of the Democratic leadership. They are not buying her victimization line. She is where she is because of her campaign's miscalculations:

It's almost over, isn't it? That seems to be all anyone wants to know from Sen. Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign, but the only person who truly knows isn't telling.

"I'm sort of a day-at-a-time person, and we'll see when Tuesday and the day after Tuesday comes," Clinton said on board a late-night flight to South Dakota, where she spent her last full day of campaigning.

The last two Democratic primaries are on Tuesday in South Dakota and Montana.

"My political obituary has yet to be written, and we're going forward," Clinton said. "It is not over 'til it's over."

By most accounts, it is over.

Barack Obama, who holds what experts call an insurmountable lead in delegates for the Democratic presidential nomination, plans a rally on Tuesday to launch his campaign for the November election against Republican John McCain.

Clinton's political obituary has been written many times. "The End" declared the online Drudge Report under a photograph of Clinton campaigning in Puerto Rico over the weekend.

The same campaign trip inspired a headline on the online magazine Salon.com saying: "Clinton seemed to be campaigning in an alternate reality."

[...]"She has more votes," spokesman Mo Elleithee insisted in Puerto Rico. "Hillary Clinton has received more votes than any other Democrat in this race for president."

That point is in dispute, since it includes vote totals in Michigan, where Obama's name was not on the ballot, and in Florida, where neither candidate campaigned. It also leaves out states won by Obama that used a caucus system where individual votes are not tallied.

In any case, the popular vote does not count in the nominating process. What counts are delegates to the national convention, and Obama leads both in elected delegates and superdelegates who are free to support whomever they like.

"One thing about superdelegates is that they can change their minds," Clinton reminded reporters after the Puerto Rico primary, which she won by a wide margin.

The Clinton campaign, which wants to convince superdelegates that she is the stronger candidate against McCain, hoped to use the Puerto Rico result to support its argument but lower-than-expected turnout weakened the case.

Richard Clarke: The Government is Still Failing to Protect us

Richard Clarke, was the terrorism expert who warned the Clinton and Bush administrations about the al Qaeda threat prior to 9-11. He sat in those meetings and listened while Bush and Cheney ignored his recommendations. He believes that the government, and Bush in particular, are still failing to protect us from future attacks:

McCain Reverend, Hagee: The Antichrist Will be a Gay Jew

While the press focuses on Obama's reverend problems, they ignore the just as outrageous comments by John McCain's supporter, John Hagee:

On March 16, 2003, on the eve of the United States' invasion of Iraq, Pastor John Hagee took to the pulpit to warn of the coming Antichrist. In his sermon, "The Final Dictator," Hagee described the Antichrist as a seductive figure with "fierce features." He will be "a blasphemer and a homosexual," the pastor announced. Then, Hagee boomed, "There's a phrase in Scripture used solely to identify the Jewish people. It suggests that this man [the Antichrist] is at least going to be partially Jewish, as was Adolph Hitler, as was Karl Marx."

[...]Exposed here for the first time, Hagee's comments identifying the Antichrist as a partly Jewish homosexual arrive in the wake of a furor the pastor provoked by describing the Holocaust as an act of God. Hagee's chilling sermon about the Holocaust prompted Sen. John McCain to reject the preacher's support, an unexpected turnabout after McCain spent over a year soliciting his endorsement.

Days after McCain's rejection, I reported that a key McCain ally, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, planned to deliver the keynote speech at Hagee's upcoming Christians United For Israel (CUFI) summit. As the story exploded into the mainstream press, pressure mounted on Lieberman to withdraw.

But Lieberman stayed the course, declaring in a prepared statement, "Pastor Hagee has devoted much of his life to fighting anti-Semitism and building bridges between Christians and Jews... I will go to the CUFI Summit in July and speak to the people who have come to Washington from all over our country to express their support of America and Israel, based on our shared eternal values and our shared contemporary challenges in the war against terrorism."

Transcript FOX News Sunday: Hillary Clinton Fighting Over 2 Votes

The Clinton position is so ridiculous that it defies any norms of decency. The Clinton mafia literally wants to hold up the Obama nomination over 2 votes. You don't believe me? Listen to Clinton henchman, Howard Wolfson, make that very argument. We know what this is about. Bill and Hillary are fighting not on principle but opportunism. They want to destroy the Democrats chances of winning in the Fall so that Hillary can run in 2012. Why are so many of us unable or unwilling to see that:

WALLACE: She wanted 73 delegates. She got 69. That's a difference of four. And since they're only getting half votes, it's a difference of two votes.

You're telling me that she's going to keep this race open for three months over two votes in Michigan?

WOLFSON: Well, let's talk about what happened yesterday[...]

WALLACE: I understand. But we're talking about four delegates. She wanted 73. She believed she got 73. She got 69, in fact, from the rules committee. That's four delegates and two votes.

WOLFSON: Well, there's a principle at stake here, and it's a principle that is the bedrock principle...

WALLACE: And you're going to keep the whole Democratic fight going on for three months over two votes.

WOLFSON: It's not over two votes. It's over a principle. It's two votes that were taken away from us, and it's 55 votes that were given to Senator Obama that should have been uncommitted. But there's a principle at stake here.

Senator Clinton hasn't made a decision about whether to appeal this or not. She said she reserves the right to do that, and we do reserve the right, because if the Democratic Party doesn't stand for fairly apportioning votes that were cast in a primary, what's to prevent the next set of folks from taking more delegates away from a candidate?

WALLACE: I understand all the arguments that you've made about popular vote, about electability, about the kinds of states she's won in.

If you don't persuade the party, if you don't persuade the superdelegates, and Obama reaches that magic number of 2,118 Tuesday night, Wednesday morning, will she either suspend or end her campaign?

WOLFSON: We're going to be working hard to make sure that doesn't happen.

WALLACE: But if it does happen.

WOLFSON: We're going to be making sure — we're going to work hard to make sure that it doesn't.

WALLACE: Are you leaving open the possibility that even if he reaches the magic number she won't end her campaign?

WOLFSON: I'm not going to accept the premise of the question.

- Read the entire transcript

Transcript: Scott McClellan on Meet The Press

Scott McClellan has been interviewed on just about every news talk program. But no one does it better than Tim Russert. Some excerpts below. Read the entire transcript:

MR. RUSSERT: The president said at the time that "if someone committed a crime, they'd no longer work in my administration." Do you believe the president should have fired Karl Rove?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's a, that's a question that the president had to make, and he chose not to.

MR. RUSSERT: But what do you think?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I, I think he should have stood by his word. I think the president should have stood by the word that we said, which is if you were involved in this any way, then you would no longer be in this administration. And Karl was involved in it. That would be a tough decision. I don't know if, if there was any crime committed. I don't--I say I just don't know that in the book. But we had higher standards at the White House. The president said he was going to restore honor, integrity. He said we were going to set the highest of standards. We didn't live up to that. When it became known that his top adviser had been involved, then the bar was moved. And the bar was moved to "if anyone is indicted, they would no longer be here."

MR. RUSSERT: So you think they should've been dismissed.

MR. McCLELLAN: I think so. I mean, Scooter Libby was, and I, and I think that he should...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, he resigned. But you...

MR. McCLELLAN: Yes. But that was pushed out.

MR. RUSSERT: But you believe Rove--Rove should've, should've left?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think the president should've stood by his word, and that meant Karl should've left.

Also interviewed was Harold Ickes, a Clinton hatchet man:

MR. RUSSERT: Now, we had a briefing with the Clinton campaign in December, and you made we repeat after you, "Timothy, delegates nominate. Not states, not popular vote, delegates." So I want to look at the delegates. You need 2,118 to be nominated, and here they are. Obama, pledged delegates plus superdelegates 2,055.5; Clinton, 1880. If you assume that there are only 86 delegates left--Puerto Rico, Montana, South Dakota--for discussion's sake, because of portion allocation, they divide them. Each gets 43. Senator Clinton would then be 195 delegates short of the nomination. There are only 203 undeclared superdelegates. She'd have to get 195 out of the 203. Is that going to happen?

MR. ICKES: We continue to make our case that she is the more electable. Not that Senator Obama, who's run a strong and, and good campaign is not electable. We make the case, as you know, the superdelegates, not in the matchup in November, the person who can best assemble the swing or purple states, such as Florida or Ohio or a combination of smaller states, is Hillary Clinton. And I think she's, she's shown that in, time after time, in these primaries. And you look at her electoral base: women, Hispanics, Catholics, older Americans, and incomes under $50,000. She has a very strong general election electoral base and that's the case we make. Look, Tim, this is a--this is an extraordinary year. We both--Senator Daschle and I were talking about it earlier--it's an extraordinary year. We have two extraordinary candidates, and they're--these are difficult decisions that these remaining superdelegates will have to make. Hillary Clinton will be ahead in the popular vote on, on November--on the--on Tuesday.

MR. RUSSERT: If you're counting Michigan.

MR. ICKES: Neither, neither, neither--well, we're counting Michigan.

MR. RUSSERT: Right.

MR. ICKES: Michigan's in.

MR. RUSSERT: You...

MR. ICKES: It was seated by the, it was seated by the party rules.

MR. RUSSERT: You voted against seating it, according to the--and now you're counting the vote, even though you were against it?

MR. ICKES: Well, they're in there, and whether or not we go to the Credentials Committee. But, Tim, all I want to say is that she will be leading in the popular vote. He will be leading in delegates. Neither one will have enough delegates to clinch the nomination. The new number now is 2,118, as you specify. Not since 1972 has our party nominated a candidate who was not leading in the popular vote. That was, as you know, McGovern. That was the McGovern year.

MR. RUSSERT: Oh, so you're comparing Barack Obama to George McGovern.

MR. ICKES: No, I'm not. I'm not.

MR. RUSSERT: And you only...

MR. ICKES: That's not--Tim, no, no...

MR. RUSSERT: Well, but, but there are only 19...

MR. ICKES: No, wait. I was giving--no wait a minute. I was giving you a historical fact.

MR. RUSSERT: There were only 19 primaries back then, and it appears as if you're trying to put an asterisk on the nomination, saying, "You know, Obama may win this by delegates, but we really won the nomination."

Congressmen Sent Millions in Earmarks to Own Families

Why aren't there more stories about how "our" government uses our tax dollars to benefit their own families. And why isn't this crime:

A number of U.S. congressmen and their families — including former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert — have personally profited from congressional earmarks they slipped into federal legislation, a FOX News documentary reveals.

The documentary, “Porked: Earmarks for Profit,” hosted by Chris Wallace, premieres Sat., May 31, at 8 p.m. EDT on FOX News Channel.

Budget earmarks became a national scandal — and a national joke — after some wasteful schemes made headlines recently: a $223 million “bridge to nowhere” in Alaska, a $500,000 teapot museum in North Carolina, a $10 million extension to Coconut Road in Florida.

Many lawmakers earmark taxpayer money for projects supported by contributors to their campaigns.

But the FOX News investigation exposes a far more disturbing practice: federal lawmakers earmarking taxpayer dollars on projects that offer them not just political advantage, but personal financial gain.

The FOX documentary focuses on three current and former congressmen — two Republicans and one Democrat.

The most recognizable name is Illinois Republican Dennis Hastert, who stepped down as Speaker of the House in 2007.