Capitalize on the digital era during the voting process

This is a call for all people to start collecting suspicious items and actions from now until a couple days after the election. In every election things get dirty on both sides and tactics are used that in many cases are downright illegal if not just unethical. When you go to the polling stations bring a camera with you, video camera's if possible. Stick around for a while, especially in high profile districts. I am not a conspiracy theorist nor am I claiming that this election is going to endure the most horrendous attempts at theft possible. Rather I am stating that for the first time in history, we as a people of the public, have the ability to capture and distribute material as evidence of these attempts to confuse, deceive, threaten, derail, and even deny voters. Simple things can now be done in a high tech fashion. If you have an IP phone try and see if you can find a way to utilize an audio recording software to record phone calls in case you get a "robo call," those calls that have automated voices and are related to political topics usually in regard to a specific candidate. Whether it is for the presidential election or just your local mayoral race we now live in a day where again we must fight for the right to vote and for our vote to be counted. No we are not facing an epidemic of voter fraud and voter denial but we are facing some and some is too much. It doesn't matter what side does it, either side is wrong if they do and the public has a right to know.
By capturing these moments we can begin to hold those responsible for these actions accountable and force them to face the due consequences that for so long organizations and individuals have so long been able to avoid. If you capture anything on film, video or audio or receive anything on paper in the mail or as a pamphlet or door hanger, please place it on the internet. If you do not want to do this yourself please send me a message or leave a comment.
Remember not only would you be capturing footage with the intent to look for suspicious activity but in the end you are possibly capturing VERY historical footage of maybe the election of the first African American President or one of the biggest presidential comebacks in history. So even for the sake of history bringing a way to document what happens at your local voting center is a great idea.
Remember that before you, millions of men and women have died for this right alone. Your right to place your vote for who you think deserves and is qualified to be the president of the United States of America. It is this right that makes this country so great and although our system may be flawed, it may not be perfect but it is our right to vote for people who we think will help make this country better and possibly help fix this process down the road. Don't let our heroes die or have died in vain. Make our millitary proud and our fore fathers and our long passed relatives who brought us here or our Mothers and Fathers who raised us here for this right. To make a statement, have a say and place a stake in what we believe in. Vote on November 4th at the VERY latest and vote even earlier if you can and help others vote on the 4th.

Presidential Election Cartoons of 2008: More of the Best Election Cartoons

Here are some cartoons for those looking for some new entertainment value from the economy and vice presidents as well as politics in general. Some very astute metaphors and downright funny presidential election cartoons as well as some decent bailout cartoons. Happy Laughing.


1st)A nice little metaphor for exactly what is happening with the new Bailout.

2nd) Well a Biden Cartoon is always funny. So here's another.

3rd) Bailout Cartoons are some of the most popular lately so here are a few for your enjoyment.

4th) Bailouts, Bailouts Bailouts. For this presidential election I think all the money will be gone and we can pay with earmarks.

5th)I really need to find a California Bailout Cartoon. You know they are now asking for a 7 Billion dollar Bailout plan...Wow, the government just has LOADS of money. Wish I would have known this last rent check.

6th) A little McCain Cartoon for all you McCain Enthusiasts who love a little joke.

7th) Palin is just so fun to laugh at aint she?

8th) Well I hope these satisfy some of your Presidential Election Cartoons of 2008 and you can be sure that I will provide you with many more as the days draw nearer. Also feel free to start taking some of these polls and we can get a good idea of where this election is going.

And for a little news about Twitter since I am a technology freak:
Like the Australian election worm but with witticisms, the Twitter Micro Blogging Application, buzzed yesterday with non-stop comments about vice-presidential candidates Joe Biden and Sarah Palin during their debate.

The site, which allows for public messages with less than 140 characters to be published online, was inundated with comments from Americans debating the duo's speaking prowess.

The comments ranged from their appearances: "Palin's looking fly tonight. Who is she wearing?'' and "Blinded by Joe Biden's teeth. Holy cow!'' to their policy stances: "Palin totally nailed the "who's to blame for the mortgage crisis" question; Biden missed it.'' and "Biden talking tax relief? Really? From a Democrat? Does he know what that is?''

But the primary focus of the tweets were on how the rivals were conducting themselves on television. Many were keen to see how Palin would perform in the live debate after she was widely panned for her one-to-one interviews with US news host Katie Couric.

Others wanted to see if gaffe-prone Biden would make another slip-up.

"Palin is sure speaking fast and sounds nervous, voice is rising in pitch,'' one user twittered. Another disagreed: "Palin is rockin' the debate! I think shes winning, if your' e keeping score.'' On Biden: "Can't wait for Biden to A] put foot in mouth B] fly off handle or C] all of the above. :)''

The debate was not restricted to Americans, and even Australians got caught up in the chatter.

"Hang on, I'm confused. Think I'm mixing up two threads on Twitter. Does Sarah Palin play for Melbourne Storm or Manly?''

"Palin says "Main Streeters", drink up people,'' someone twittered. "If I was taking a drink every time Palin said Alaska, I would be drunk already,'' wrote another.

Some users were also playing drinking games and playing Palin Bingo, a game where players competed to see how many key words Palin would repeat, while writing comments and watching the debate on television.

Golden Parachutes, Cement Boots and whats the cost for me and you? Election Cartoon of the Day.

So for a campaign bail out that is unpopular if voted for and unpopular if not voted for the Senate made the unpopular decision to pass and it is now heading to the house. Now we see Obama at least putting forth the effort and image by speaking at the Senate while where is McCain? 24hrs from NYC to D.C.? No speeches? Call off Debates to work on Bill? Well at least he voted unlike the 40 or so more missed votes he has than Obama, although to be fair most Presidential candidates miss a lot of votes. I wonder what Palin would have done if given the opportunity to vote or even speak and address senate on this issue? Golden Parachutes are handed out and whether or not popular it is the necessary evil at this point. I guess at least as Pundits put it we didn't get another Miss South Carolina speech from Palin on this issue to quickly kill McCain's credibility even further.

The US Senate has passed a reworked version of a multi-billion dollar financial package aka the Bail out Bill, designed to resuscitate the economy by a 74 to 25 votes, after adding several “sweeteners” including multiple tax breaks for businesses and greater security for bank deposits.
The new version of the bill included temporarily raising the limit on the size of bank deposit guaranteed by the government federal to $250,000 (£136,000) from $100,000 (£54,000).

A bundle of tax-breaks, for research and development and companies using alternative energy that was due to be part of different legislation was added on in an effort to win over Republicans worried that too much public money was being used.

After the collapse of six major US financial institutions and falling stock markets around the world, George W Bush was joined by both candidates to succeed him in urging the Congress and the public to accept the bill, which would use up to £380 billion in taxpayers’ money to buy bad assets on Wall Street.

Senator Barack Obama and Senator John McCain were both present for the vote, which was missed only by the ailing Edward Kennedy.

"I commend the Senate for tonight's strong, bipartisan vote," Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said in a statement on the 74-25 vote. "This sends a positive signal that we stand ready to protect the U.S. economy by making sure that Americans have access to the credit that is needed to create jobs and keep businesses going. I urge the House to act promptly to pass this bill."

Deliberations took place behind the scenes Wednesday, as senators added breaks and sweeteners to their version of the economic rescue plan.

McCain and Crisis derails the fight back

As the election campaign was again reduced to a sideshow, both men urged the Democrats and Republicans to reach agreement, repeating an appeal that had already fallen on deaf ears. Mr Obama delayed his appearance at a high school in Denver for an hour as he followed the drama unfolding in Washington and the subsequent stock market plunge.

"One of the messages I have to Congress is, 'Get this done'," said the Illinois Senator when he finally emerged. "Democrats, Republicans step up to the plate and get this done." He had clearly not been expecting the defiance on Capitol Hill. His prepared speech had already been distributed, saying: "Today, Democrats and Republicans in Washington have agreed on an emergency rescue plan that is our best and only way to prevent an economic catastrophe."

The American presidential hopefuls John McCain and Barack Obama were reeling last night and uncertain how to respond to the US economic crisis after Congress scuppered the $700bn (£388bn) bailout bill that both candidates had backed.

However, it may be Mr McCain, the Republican nominee, whose campaign is in greatest peril following his extraordinary gamble last week to suspend his campaign to thrust himself into the delicate negotiations about the financial crisis.

Republicans in the House ignored him yesterday, just as they ignored George Bush's appeal to pass the legislation. Many are more concerned about losing their seats in the November polls, as evidenced by just eight of the 38 lawmakers from swing states voting for the bailout.

Mr McCain lashed out at the Democrats, saying: "Senator Obama and his allies have used unnecessary partisanship... Now it's time for all members of Congress to go back to the drawing board. I call on Congress to get back immediately to address this crisis. The challenges facing our economy could have a grave impact on every American worker... if our leaders fail to act."

But a worsening economic climate in the five weeks to election day, promises more trouble for Mr McCain with his links to the Bush administration.

The shock vote distracted Mr McCain from desperate efforts to rehabilitate his vice-presidential running-mate Sarah Palin last night after much pilloried prime-time interviews left her open to accusations that she is now a liability for the Republican White House campaign.

The McCain fightback began with his first joint interview with Mrs Palin with the CBS News anchorwoman, Katie Couric, hoping that his forceful presence alongside his inexperienced running-mate will blot out the memory of a TV interview she did with Couric last week.

The woman hoping to become the first female vice-president offered excruciatingly poor answers on foreign policy and her understanding of the $700bn rescue plan.

And worse may be to come for Mrs Palin who faces the Democrat vice-presidential candidate, Joe Biden, in a debate on Thursday in St Louis.

One of Mr McCain's problems is that high-profile right-wing commentators are now attacking him for choosing an inexperienced running-mate who has not grown into the job. The best that columnists such as The New York Times's David Brooks could offer is that the Alaska governor brings something "fresh and telegenic" to the ticket. There was more damning commentary from The Washington Post's Carl Bernstein, who wrote: "No presidential nominee of either party in the last century has seemed so willing to endanger the country's security as McCain in his reckless choice of a running-mate."

Fox News Censorsing Stories: Fox News Removes Palin Story From Site

For those of you that are interested in the little Palin Game we are playing here in America I found a nifty little thing on Google today. Fox news apparently had an article on their site claiming that Republicans are beginning to jump off the Palin Bandwagon. But when you go to the site Google points you to it looks like FOX News removed the article. I wonder what happened there...Here is a link to the URL that WAS the story Old Palin Story Page and here is a picture of the Google SERP where highlighted is the link to the fox page. I know it is a little hard to see but if you want the results page link itself it is Here: Palin Election News Results in Google.

And What was the story actually? Well here it is verbatim, taken from the good old Google Cache:

A growing number of Republicans are expressing concern about Sarah Palin’s uneven - and sometimes downright awkward - performances in her limited media appearances.

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker, a former Palin supporter, says the vice presidential nominee should step aside. Kathryn Jean Lopez, writing for the conservative National Review, says “that’s not a crazy suggestion” and that “something’s gotta change.”

Tony Fabrizio, a GOP strategist, says Palin’s recent CBS appearance isn’t disqualifying but is certainly alarming. “You can’t continue to have interviews like that and not take on water.”

“I have not been blown away by the interviews from her, but at the same time, I haven’t come away from them thinking she doesn’t know s-t,” said Chris Lacivita, a GOP strategist. “But she ain’t Dick Cheney, nor Joe Biden and definitely not Hillary Clinton.”

There is no doubt that Palin retains a tremendous amount of support among rank-and-file Republicans. She draws huge crowds, continues to raise a lot of money for the McCain campaign, and state parties report she has sparked an uptick in the number of volunteers.

Asked about Palin’s performance in the CBS interview, a McCain official briefing reporters on condition of anonymity said: “She did fine. She’s a tremendous asset and a fantastic candidate.”

But there is also no doubt many Republican insiders are worried she could blow next week’s debate, based on her unexpectedly weak and unsteady media appearances, and hurt the Republican ticket if she does.

What follows is a viewer’s guide to some of Palin’s toughest moments on camera so far.

Speaking this week with CBS’s Katie Couric, Palin seemed caught off-guard by a very predictable question about the status of McCain adviser Rick Davis’ relationship with mortgage lender Freddie Mac. Davis was accused by several news outlets of retaining ties - and profiting from - the companies despite his denials.

Where a more experienced politician might have been able to brush off Couric’s follow-up question, Palin seemed genuinely stumped, repeating the same answer twice and resorting to boilerplate language about the “undue influence of lobbyists.”

These missteps could be attributed to inadequate preparation and don’t necessarily reflect more deeply on Palin’s ability to perform as vice president. But when reporters have tried to probe Palin’s thinking on subjects such as foreign policy, she’s been similarly opaque.

In an interview with ABC’s Charlie Gibson, Palin gave a muddled answer to a question about her opinion of the Bush Doctrine.

And given the chance to describe her foreign policy credentials more fully, Palin recited familiar talking points, telling Gibson that her experience with energy policy was sufficient preparation for dealing with national security issues.

In the same interview, Palin let Gibson lead her into saying it might be necessary to wage war on Russia - a suggestion that most candidates would have avoided making explicitly and that signaled her discomfort in discussing global affairs.

Then, asked this week by Couric to discuss her knowledge of foreign relations - in particular, her assertion that Alaska’s proximity to Russia gave her international experience - Palin tripped herself up explaining her interactions with Alaska’s neighbor to the west.
Watch CBS Videos Online

On the economy, too, Palin has avoided taking clear stances. In a largely friendly interview with Fox News Channel’s Sean Hannity, Palin spoke in tangled generalities in response to a question about a possible Wall Street bailout - and even preempted her campaign by coming out against it.

On Thursday, Palin finally took questions from her traveling press - but shut things down quickly after Politico’s Kenneth P. Vogel asked her whether she would support Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens, who has been indicted for corruption, and Rep. Don Young, who is under federal investigation, for reelection.

Unlike her other interviews, at least this time Palin had the option to walk away.

The Link to this story is found at Fox News Palin Story
Now I know that we all like to think that Fox News would never do anything like this on purpose and that this is a "Fair & Balanced" network and that any press that was too negative to the Republican party and Sarah Palin would never get removed. And I agree, so I wonder if I can find this story elsewhere....Well I went back to Fox's Site and I checked...Conservatives Question Palin Search query and to my surprise I could not find the story...What happened?
So I wonder if Fox News really removed the site? It's not an OLD story according to Google Cache "It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Sep 28, 2008 13:23:15 GMT." So I wonder if Fox thought it too tough on Palin? What do you think America? Chris Lacivita I think may have hit it spot on...She Doesn't Know "Shit" and he is on her side of the aisle. Man this should be a good one.

Please Leave Comments on whether you think this is Censorship or Not....?

Bloomberg Reports McCain Predicts Terrorist Attacks & Political Cartoon of the Day

``Al-Qaeda is on their heels but not defeated,'' McCain said today at a town hall meeting with General Motors workers in Warren, Michigan. ``I also predict that they will make an attempt, as we get into election season, to make more of these spectacular kinds of attacks'' by suicide bombers to destabilize the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.

McCain, an Arizona senator, has spent much of this week touting his foreign policy and war experience while Democratic rival Barack Obama prepared for a trip to the Middle East. McCain has criticized Obama, an Illinois senator, for vowing to withdraw troops from Iraq within 16 months of taking office. McCain said the deployment of extra U.S. troops to Iraq last year has worked.

Earlier this year, McCain adviser Charlie Black caused a controversy when he was quoted in a Fortune magazine interview that the assassination of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto before the New Hampshire primary ``helped us'' by highlighting that McCain ``is the guy who's ready to be commander in chief.'' Black added that a ``fresh terrorist attack certainly would be a big advantage'' politically.

Black later said he ``deeply'' regretted making the statement and McCain distanced himself from the comments.

``Senator Obama said the surge would fail. He still fails to admit that it has succeeded,'' McCain said in response to a question from the audience. ``I am confident we will win.''

Ok so the Political Cartoon of the day really doesn't have much to do with the election this year a whole lot, but todays article does deal with foreign policy and this political cartoon really does deal with foreign policy. This cartoon also was just a unique find for me since it is kind of old and quite witty. You could take this political cartoon and replace the swastica with a particular garment and suddenly it would become quite relevant but we wont discuss that too much. So lets just get on to the real foreign policy relevant to the modern world instead of an old political cartoon.

The Illinois senator has over the past two days escalated a campaign to minimize Iraq in the context of the overall war on terror.

Obama on Wednesday stressed the need to secure loose nuclear material and draw down nuclear stockpiles around the world. He said if the nation devoted just one month of Iraq combat costs, estimated to be $10 billion, it could virtually wipe out the threat of weapons-grade nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists.

In what was billed as a major foreign policy address Tuesday, Obama said the Iraq war has become a distraction from fighting terrorism in Afghanistan and pledged to end the war by the summer of 2010.

Barack Obama’s continued call for a troop withdrawal timetable in Iraq has critics complaining that he’s set on that policy before even taking his highly anticipated trip to the Middle East.

“He’s going to Iraq but he’s already decided his position,” Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, a top John McCain supporter, told FOX News on Wednesday. “He’s not going to listen to (David) Petraeus. He’s not going to listen to our troops. He’s not going to listen to his own eyes with what he sees there.”

The McCain campaign seized on an editorial Wednesday in The Washington Post that criticized Obama for sticking with his 16-month troop withdrawal timeline, even after hinting that he would “refine” his policy after visiting Iraq and Afghanistan.

“Mr. Obama appears to have decided that sticking to his arbitrary, 16-month timeline is more important than adjusting to the dramatic changes in Iraq,” the editorial said. “American commanders will probably tell Mr. Obama that from a logistical standpoint, a 16-month withdrawal timetable will be difficult, if not impossible, to fulfill. … If Mr. Obama really intends to listen to such advisers, why would he lock in his position in advance?”

McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann said on a conference call that Obama’s plan is an “ideologically driven commitment to withdrawing at any cost.”

“The American people have had enough of inflexibility on national security policy,” he said, obliquely criticizing the Bush administration.

McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds said in a statement that Obama was also “committing to a policy” for Afghanistan before even visiting the country, and that “Barack Obama has shown he views foreign policy through a lens of ideology rather than through looking at facts.”

The Obama campaign argues that McCain is just now “waking up” to problems in Afghanistan, and claims he has no workable plan for either conflict.

Obama foreign policy adviser Susan Rice said on a conference call that McCain “wants to stay indefinitely at high-troop levels in Iraq, regardless of the situation, whether it’s improving or deteriorating.”

Obama released a new ad Wednesday addressing his national security platform.

“Forty years ago it was missile silos and the Cold War. Today, it’s cyber attacks, loose nukes, oil money funding terrorism,” the narrator in the ad says. “Barack Obama understands our changing world.”

As for the Washington Post editorial, she said it represented a narrow-minded approach to a broad set of national security threats.

“The Post would have you believe that we have the luxury of worrying only about one challenge and, whether it’s going well or going poorly, the answer is the same: to stay indefinitely,” she said.

“But we have a fundamental difference on the threat environment that we face globally.”

Obama and McCain: The effect of economy on Polls & Todays Political Cartoon

So what do the polls say now? A little less hacker this week and a little more poll talk, things seem to be not so up in the air anymore. I thought that today's political cartoon, though old, was quite fitting. This cartoon is just a portrayal of the polling process and what it does to the candidates. So now let the cartoon be the introduction to the following, almost, report.

With four months to go until Election Day, the outcome is set in stone, barring some sort of miracle, some experts say.

Unfortunately for John McCain's chances, the economy is very weak, and almost everything else is going against him as well, which means Barack Obama will almost certainly be elected president.

That's the view of the overwhelming majority of social scientists who make it their business to peer into the future.

With four months to go until Election Day, the outcome is set in stone, barring some sort of miracle, they say.

The poor state of the economy, the casualties in Iraq, the unpopularity of George W. Bush, the current polling, and Obama's own political skills all point to the election of the Illinois Democrat in November, according to several political scientists, historians and economists who've had a pretty good track record in predicting past elections.

According to their models, it won't be close. Most of them are projecting a 52% to 48% victory for Obama, and that's with assumptions about the economy that are very kind to McCain.

Political scientists noted long ago that presidential elections are fairly predictable because they usually turn on several big issues: How's the economy doing? Is there an unpopular war? Has one party outlived its welcome at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue? Is one of the candidates a once-in-a-generation leader? Has the current administration done anything outstanding, or scandalous?

Obama it is!

What actually happens during a campaign -- the ads, the debates, the whistle-stop tours, the endorsements and the innuendo - don't really change the basic landscape that will determine who's in and who's out. In most of the models, it doesn't even matter much who the candidates are, any Democrat and Republican would do as well.

Of course, all these models assume that this year's campaign will be pretty much like those in the past. A major gaffe or stumble by Obama, or superb campaign by McCain could change the dynamics. So could outside events that alter the election landscape.

There's a whole cottage industry of experts who develop statistical models based on past elections and crunch the numbers to try to predict November's vote now. Almost all of the models say Obama will win.

This election could challenge the models' accuracy, for several reasons.

It's unclear how much Obama's race will influence voters; we've never had an African-American as a major candidate before.

And, for the first time since 1952, no incumbent president or vice president is running. McCain could expose flaws in the models if he's able to distance himself from Bush enough. Most of the models assume that the voters will reward or punish the incumbent party candidate in line with how the incumbent has performed.

And What the Models Are Saying

By Lichtman's reckoning, seven of the 13 keys are leaning against McCain, and that doesn't even count on Obama being considered charismatic, or on the economy falling into a recession this year. Since polls show the vast majority of voters think the economy is in a recession, we ought to hand Obama that key as well. Perceptions matter more than the technical declaration of a recession.

Yale economist Ray Fair has been at this game a long time too. His model is based on three economic variables, and now predicts McCain will get 48% of the votes. Fair's model had done a good job through the 1988 election, but has drifted further from the actual results in recent contests. You can plug in your own assumptions about the economy and make your own predictions on Fair's website.

The granddaddy of the prediction models is American University historian Allan Lichtman's 13 keys to the White House, which include factors such as the economy, foreign policy, scandals, social unrest and even the charisma of the candidates. No one's been elected president since 1860 without holding most of the keys to victory.

Economist Douglas Hibbs expanded on Fair's idea by including a war variable, which hurts the incumbent party if there are significant casualties in an undeclared war. Hibbs' "Bread and Peace" model explains Eisenhower's victory in 1952 and Nixon's win in 1968. The unpopular war could also be a factor in 2008, but the weak economy is a much bigger reason why the Republicans are likely to get just 48% of the votes this year.

"Support for the two major parties has solidified as the parties and their supporters have become increasingly divided along ideological lines," Abramowitz said. "Growing polarization may weaken the effects of short-term forces such as the economy and presidential approval." The approval rating of the president is one of three variables in Abramowitz's model.

Political scientist Alan Abramowitz of Emory University says his "Time for a Change" model is forecasting a Democratic landslide of about 54% to 46%. But Abramowitz doesn't think it'll be that much of a blowout because there are fewer true independents these days.

Political Cartoons for your Pleasure

Electronic Voting---How Safe are the 2008 Elections Going to Really Be?

The following article is a good example of what we face in the future of elections as we steadily move towards electronic voting during our elections. Beyond the chances of these machines being compromised by politicians and their circle of friends we also face problems regarding the software of the machines themselves. As many companies continue to insist that it would be impossible to compromise a machine during an election this article goes to show that an Obama v. McCain election could very well be compromised with the use of electronic voting. I will be the first to admit that something like the following is not the easiest of things to do and that we most likely will not face a plague of hacked voting machines but a couple machines in a couple of key counties in a couple of key states could prove to be more than enough as elections are becoming tighter and tighter races. Also I think it is a fair assumption to think that if voter fraud were to become a major problem during a presidential election that this election would be a large target. With a black presidential nominee with possibly a female vice president, if he so chooses, and a republican nominee who currently is slightly lagging in polls and has issues with the public because of his close ties to the current president, many organizations may find that their only hope of winning is to tamper with a voting machine. Now I know that voter fraud has existed for years and that to think that elections are completely and 100% free of any tampering is naive and irresponsible, but with the advent of electronic voting the tactics used become harder to trace, harder to prove, harder to fix, and easier to do. Please read the following article with a lens that will shed insight into the possibilities of our upcoming election. Then ask yourself; What can we do about this?, Is electronic voting really worth the risk of implementation?, is there a better way to improve the voting procedure?

What it Means to Be A Hacker:

My most recent confrontation with what it means to be a hacker started in March of 2006, after I went to vote for the local council of Amsterdam. At the polling station, I had to use a brand-new electronic voting machine that the city was renting from a company called Sdu. In fact, Amsterdam had contracted the entire election as a turnkey service, Sdu was even training the poll-workers. This "voting machine" was in fact a computer with a touch screen running Windows. To make maters worse: inside each computer was a GPRS wireless modem that sent the election results to Sdu, which in turn told the city. I had not been blind to the problems of electronic voting before, but now I was having my face rubbed in it, and it hurt.

Perhaps I should quickly introduce myself. My name is Rop Gonggrijp and I'm a dutch national that lives in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Some of you will know me as I have been mentioned in this magazine as well as been a regular guest on Off the Hook for almost as long as the show exists. I'm one of the main organizers for these Dutch hacker events. Between 1989 and 1993 I published Hack-Tic, a magazine not unlike 2600 except that it was written in Dutch. During the late Hack- Tic years I co-founded XS4ALL, which still is one of the larger ISPs in The Netherlands.

I guess I became part of the hacker community sometime during the early 1980s while playing with my fathers 300 baud acoustic modem, although arguably I was hacking before when I was soldering FM- transmitters together with a friend at age 12. But after reading Steven Levy's book 'Hackers, heroes of the computer revolution', I knew what I was and that I was to be part of a global community, even if I could only knew a few other hackers around me.

Imagine my relief when I went to Hamburg for the 1988 Chaos Communication Congress to find a few hundred other hackers. After that I was hooked, and by 1989 I was one of the organizers of the first European hacker event: the Galactic Hacker Party. Long and formative years of exploration, mayhem and mischief followed, during which, among many other things, we found and shared many new and interesting ways of making free phone calls.

And when we got our hands on the keys to the nuclear bunkers that underlied some subway stations in Amsterdam, we promptly organized tours there for all our friends and their friends. But even behind the greatest mischief was the motivation to educate, to sharpen the minds of fellow hackers and of the population at large.

XS4ALL, the Internet provider, was much more a political statement than anything else. The Internet back then would never make any money: way too difficult and freaky for the general population. I left XS4ALL in 1997 and started a computer security consultancy, and then after that a company that builds voice encrypting mobile phones, but I kept going to hacker events and co-organizing our own event every four years.

Fast forward to 2006 and the local elections. I was angry because I felt my election had been stolen: there was no way to observe a count, one just had to believe that this wireless-equipped black-box Windows machine was counting honestly. I knew a little bit too much about the risks associated with computer technology to go along with that. I wasn't the only one that was angry: my longtime friend Barry came home from that March 2006 election with the exact same story that I had come home with: trying to reason with poll-workers that clearly felt that only the medically paranoid would distrust such a wonderful shiny box. When we met later that day we vowed to not only get mad, but to do something about it.

Which wasn't going to be all that easy. By the time Amsterdam had gotten electronic voting, it was pretty late in the game: Amsterdam (pop. ~750k) was the last city in The Netherlands (pop. 16.5M) to get electronic voting. Some cities were renting the same system as Amsterdam, but the vast majority was using an older system made by a company called Nedap. While I studied the legal requirements for electronic voting, I became even more convinced that all of these 'machines' (that were all in fact computers) needed to go if we were to have transparent and verifiable elections.

The regulations treated these systems as if they were indeed mere 'machines': they worried about the amounts of humidity and vibration they could withstand and they made sure nobody would get shocked from touching one. Computer security wasn't even mentioned. But the biggest problem wasn't the lack of security, it was the lack of transparency. We got together a small group of like-minded people and started planning a campaign.

There had been previous attempts to raise the question trustworthiness in relation to voting machines, but the ministry of the interior was used to painting the opponents of electronic voting as technophobe luddites. Given that half our group consisted of hi-tech-loving hackers this was an approach that wasn't going to work this time.

During the next year and a half we managed to get the attention of the media. (((Believe it or not, this has always been a hacker specialty.)))

We claimed that the Nedap 'machines' were computers and not 'dedicated hardware' (as the manufacturer claimed) and that they could just as easily be taught to play chess or lie about election results. The person selling these computers in the Netherlands wrote wonderful long rants on his website, and in reaction to our claim he said he did not believe his 'machines' could play chess.

So we caused a true media frenzy when we got hold of a Nedap voting computer and made it play chess. (We also made it lie about election results.) There was a debate in parliament, during which the responsible minister promised to appoint two committees. That next election, an international election observation mission studied the problems with electronic voting in the country which until then had always been the example country for uncontroversial e-Voting. In their report, they advised that this type of voting computers "should be phased out" and the two committees also wrote very harsh reports about how these 'machines' came about and how they should not be used in the future.

A lot more happened: we threatened to take the government to court on several occasions, and we even won a case in which the Nedap approval was nullified. But by then the ministry had already decided to throw in the towel, retracting the legislation that allows electronic voting. The next elections in The Netherlands will be held using pencils and paper. (Which is really quite OK since over here we've only got one race per election, so counting by hand isn't all that hard.)

One of the things that struck me about this campaign is that in order to win, we've needed almost every hacker-skill imaginable. (((The converse to this interesting statement is that there isn't a single political skill which can't be hackerized.)))

Imagine all the stuff you can learn from this magazine, or from going to (or helping organize) a hacker convention. From general skills such as dealing with the media or writing press-releases to social engineering (getting hold of the system), lockpicking (showing the mechanical locks were bogus, the same 1 Euro key was used all over the country), reverse engineering (modifying their 68000 code without access to source) and system administration (website). Having published a hacker magazine and done the ISP, I was no stranger to conflict: at XS4ALL we had had serious issues with the infamous 'church' of Scientology as well as with the German government. Also the international contacts I got from growing up in the hacker community paid off: the hack was very much a Dutch-German project, and we're still working together tightly to also get rid of these same 'machines' in Germany. At certain moments I had the funny feeling that somehow this was the project that I had been in training for all these years.

So I guess what I'm saying is that if you are a hacker, if you're going to hacker conventions, if you like figuring stuff out or if you are building your own projects.... Please realize that, possibly by accident, you may also possess some truly powerful skills that can help bring about political change, and that these skills will become more and more important as technology becomes a bigger part of ever more political debates. So if you don't like the news: go out and make some of your own!

(This Article was taken from the 2600 Magazine and written by Rop Gonggrijp)

Obama Polls: Election 08 Obama v McCain

For the Political Cartoon of the Day I think it appropriate to go with the following cartoon which deals with the concept of electronic voting in the upcoming election. After today I am going to start dealing with some of the issues surrounding the election itself instead of just the candidates. I think this political cartoon shows what is at the heart of the election but by the voting population is not paid really any attention. Soon I will get back discussing the politicians and their ideals and ideas but for now I will just discuss the current issue of polls surrounding the candidates and how we are getting a little carried away and then the Electronic Voting Issues for a few Days. I will also be doing a post or two of just some funny and interesting Political Cartoons and Videos of the 2008 Elections. Today though we are just going to deal with the overwhelming number of polls and what exactly to they really mean?

“It’s increasingly clear from our ‘poll of polls’ average that Sen. Obama holds a small advantage over Sen. McCain as we head into the general election,” says CNN Senior Political Researcher Alan Silverleib. “Time will tell whether Obama's lead is a temporary bounce resulting from the end of the Democratic nomination fight, or whether it is a more permanent reflection of voters’ desire for change this year.”

The latest edition of the CNN Poll of Polls is an average of four new national surveys, a Gallup poll taken from June 9-12, an NBC/Wall Street Journal survey conducted from June 6-9, a Diageo/Hotline poll taken from June 5-8, and our own CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey conducted from June 4-5. The CNN Poll of Polls does not have a sampling error. Which in my opinion is kind of hard to understand considering my stats background.

Presumptive Democratic nominee Obama holds a six point lead over his Republican counterpart McCain a new CBS News poll finds. Obama leads McCain 48 percent to 42 percent among registered voters, with 6 percent of respondents undecided.

The poll contains troubling signs for Obama as he looks to mobilize the Democratic Party behind him following his long and sometimes bitter battle with Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, however.

So what polls are to be trusted? We know that with the White Male vote McCaine leads Obama by double digits and is also ahead of Obama in the Suburban Moms demographic while Obama leads in the Lation, Young Voters, and overall Women Demographic. All of this information leads to inconclusive evidence seemingly pointing us to the conclusion that as of yet we have not decided what we want as a country. We also know that 68% of all previous Clinton voters are saying they will vote Obama in the upcoming election while nearly 10 % are undecided and the rest say they will vote for McCain.

Twelve percent of Democrats say they will support McCain in the general election. That's higher than the 8 percent of Democrats who defected to President Bush in 2004. Nearly a quarter of Clinton supporters say they will back McCain instead of Obama in the general election.

McCain leads Obama by 8 points among registered independent voters, considered a key voting block in November. The Arizona senator leads Obama 46 percent to 38 percent, with 11 percent of respondents undecided.

And overall we know that the margin of error in a complete poll still overlaps leading to a direct tie between the two candidates in terms of the upcoming election. This year seems to show though that we are beginning to try a predict a little too much when we really don't have the information necessary to make any kind of informed decision, we still have not heard the two in a head to head debate with a widely publicized and distribution model and we still do not know at what point the two candidates are going to pick their running mates. Although many voters feel that the running mate does not bear too much weight on their decision for president I think that this year we could see a large change in that viewpoint if Obama were to pick Hillary as a running mate or McCain to pick another female as well. I also think it is quite plausible that McCain could pick somebody from the state of Alaska as his running mate for reasons of shared interest with the Bush Administration in terms of drilling, ecspecially with the rising price of gasoline in this country.

Clinton caught in Lie about Sniper in Bosnia and Political Cartoon of the Day

Todays political cartoon is a reminder of what Barack and Hillary's strategy should be in pursuing the Whitehouse. This cartoon emphasis the important aspect of the current political climate for the Democrats. Quit attacking each other and continue reminding the public of what the real problem is, not what our pastors say or who ducked out sniper fire or not. Although that is another pretty funny story in itself. Hillary is just getting old and it is affecting her memory.

Dilating on her extensive experience of foreign affairs, the New York senator told a campaign event last week that she vividly remembered how, with the Balkans still a cauldron of war, she had flown into an airfield under sniper fire. She had had to dash, head-down from the aircraft, she told the spellbound audience, to the safety of waiting cars, and the planned traditional arrival ceremony had been hastily canceled in the mêlée.

It sounded thrilling - like something out of a Tom Clancy novel. The problem was, it probably did come out of a Tom Clancy novel. It was pure fiction.

A good memory is needed once we have lied,” observed Pierre Corneille, the 17th-century French tragedian. He was right. The complexities involved in keeping an untruth plausible and consistent are so tortuous that to be really good at lying demands exceptional recall of what was said when and where.

But Corneille was writing before the age of YouTube. Nowadays, no amount of familiarity with memory's labyrinth will save you when there is downloadable disproof at the click of a mouse button. So Hillary Clinton discovered this week, when she was caught out in a prize fib about a trip she made to Bosnia when she was First Lady 12 years ago.

CBS unearthed some news video of the arrival ceremony and it was promptly disseminated on YouTube. There was Mrs Clinton, serene and smiling, strolling with her entourage from the plane, head held high, and in no evident danger from snipers, terrorists, or even the odd slightly miffed Serb. Seconds later she was being greeted in what looked very much like a traditional arrival ceremony on the tarmac where a small girl embraced her and the two chatted warmly for a while. I've been in more physical danger coming out of the car park at Heathrow.

Confronted with the incontrovertible evidence Mrs Clinton acknowledged this week that she “misspoke”. Misspeak is an Orwellian term deployed by politicians to describe what has happened when they have been caught in a barefaced lie.

The Clintons have a well-formed habit of misspeaking. Bill Clinton, of course, was always doing it. But his wife has also over the years mastered the art of misspeaking in what Mark Twain once described as an “experienced, industrious, ambitious and often quite picturesque” way.

She has misspoken on any number of occasions when the straight truth might have been very damaging: over her involvement in the various scandals of the early Clinton years. But alongside these instrumental whoppers, there have been some befuddlingly pointless little tiddlers too.

When she ran for New York senator she claimed to have been a lifelong fan of the New York Yankees even though no one could recall her ever having expressed the slightest interest in or knowledge of the baseball team.

For no obvious reason she once claimed her parents named her after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though she was born more than five years before the mountaineer's ascent of Everest, when he was known by almost no one outside New Zealand.

In fact the facility with which the Clintons misspeak is so pronounced that it is quite possible they have genuinely forgotten how to tell the plain truth. There was no real need for Mrs Clinton to make the claim about landing in sniper fire. But the compulsion to embroider, to dissemble and to dissimulate is now so entrenched in the synapses of the Clinton brain that it came to her as naturally as the truth would to a slow-witted innocent.

Someone once noted that the thing about the Clintons is that they will choose a big lie when a small lie will do, and choose a small lie when the truth will do. Most of the time they get away with it. But occasionally, an inconvenient truth, like a blue dress with DNA on it, or some forgotten news footage, shows up and damns them.

With this latest deceit stripped away, there is not much left to Mrs Clinton's disintegrating campaign for the Democratic nomination. It capped a bad week for her, a week that might have signalled the end of her hopes.

With a deft speech that was somewhat lacking in complete honesty itself, Barack Obama last week seemed to have acquitted himself quite well, for now, of the charge of being an associate of a ranting, anti-American black preacher. More important, the collapse last week of efforts to schedule a new vote in Florida and Michigan, two states whose earlier primary votes have been disqualified, was deadly to Mrs Clinton. It is now virtually impossible for her to finish ahead of Mr Obama in the delegate count when the primary season ends in early June.

That really ought to be that. After that final primary in Puerto Rico on June 1, Mr Obama will have won more states, more delegates and more popular votes than Mrs Clinton. How in those circumstances can Mrs Clinton claim a moral case for staying in the race?

Her answer is to persuade the party's super-delegates - top party leaders and elected officials who will have the casting votes - that she is more electable than Mr Obama, and that they would be doing the party a favour if they chose her over the wishes of the tens of millions of people who have voted in the primaries.

They are unlikely to be taken in. They are more likely to view it as another example of Senator Clinton's misspeaking. forgot bosnia forgot bosnia forgot bosnia forgot bosnia lie sniper lie sniper lie sniper lie
The Bosnia misspeak, unnecessary as it was, revealed much, however. It helped to expose a much bigger untruth Mrs Clinton has been peddling throughout the Democratic primary campaign - that her time in the White House means she has the necessary foreign policy experience to be president. forgot bosnia forgot bosnia forgot bosnia forgot bosnia lie sniper lie sniper lie sniper lie

First Ladies don't acquire real foreign policy experience. We know that Mrs Clinton did not, as she claimed, play a large role in the Northern Ireland peace process, that she was not, as she claimed, a key voice in counsels on the Balkans, and that she did not even have security clearance in the White House for the most sensitive of conversations about national security.

So the problem with the ripping yarn about the Bosnia snipers is that it offers hard evidentiary disproof of improbable claims about her role during the White House years.

forgot bosnia forgot bosnia forgot bosnia forgot bosnia lie sniper lie sniper lie sniper lie political cartoon is something we need to laugh at, because a political cartoon is funny as hell. Who doesn't like a political cartoon because political cartoon s are what makes things easier for us to deal with politically. The political cartoon is also a nice reminder of current events and a political cartoon makes certain topics relavent to people who would normally not pay attention

Super Delegate v Delegatge and Politcal Cartoon of the Day

This Political Cartoon Deals with the almost Cartoon Like Vice President referred to as Dick Cheney. The Political Cartoon illustrates how he always seems to tie his businesses in with reconstruction efforts in Iraq and other government contracts. This is more of an animated alternate Reality than a Fictional Political Cartoon. But now on to the real stuff:

Twice now Dick Cheney has looked the American public in the eye and said "So?" "Fuck You!" "What do I care what you think."

So, public sentiment be damned, he's going to do what he damn well wants to no matter the cost in lives, dollars or what we think. Our kids lives; Iraqi lives; the majority's opinion doesn't matter; he doesn't give a crap.

So, that means that before the super delegates vote, they must think long and hard about what democracy, will of the people and the popular vote means, because if they don't do the right thing, they will 'so' what they reap and the Democratic party will die an untimely death.

Whoever, Obama or Hillary, ends up winning the popular vote and a majority of delegates, then the super delegates must go with the people's choice.

Democrats are already disillusioned by a cowardly Democratic Congress that can't say no to a bullying, fear-mongering president.

The arrogance of the party leadership to say do it their way or they'll travel the highway to the convention without Michigan and Florida, turned out to be not only incredibly stupid, but disenfranchised thousands of voters along the way.

Disenfranchisement, was written on every signpost after the 2000 election, yet the DNC chose to do exactly what the Republicans did to more than half the country...made our votes not count...the only thing that counted were five Supreme votes.

Nobody knows how many fragile, disillusioned Democrats are out there.

I don't even know if I'm one of the 'fragile.' I do know that I'm already thinking about how I will react if the Supers don't do the right thing by us.

So, the Supers better take heed and not make the mistake of emulating the Supremes by saying "So?" to us.

Current Unofficial 2008 Delegate Totals:

Before squabbles between the national parties and some state parties over the scheduling of early primaries, the the Democratic national convention in August 2008 was to include 4,416 Democratic delegate votes (and approximately 4,436 actual delegates, since some territories are allowed to split delegate votes into ‘half delegates’). A simple majority, or 2,209, was to be required for the nomination.

The Republican national convention in September 2008 was to include approximately 2,517 delegates. A simple majority, or 1,259, was to be required for the nomination.

But the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee have reduced the delegations in the following states as a sanction for those states scheduling 1st tier events before the parties' official window': New Hampshire (GOP only); Michigan (Dem and GOP); Florida (Dem and GOP); South Carolina (GOP only) and Wyoming (GOP only).

The new official, 'post-sanctions' delegate totals are 4,049 for the Democrats (with 2,025 needed to win) and 2,380 for the Republicans (with 1,191 needed to win).

National Convention Delegate Types

There are 2 basic types of pledged delegates; district level and At Large. District level delegates are almost always associated with congressional districts (occasionally with state senate districts or with artificial 'delegate districts').

At Large delegates are considered statewide delegates.

Democratic Pledged Delegates: For the Democrats, these 2 categories of delegates are always pledged; they are the defined as the state's "base delegation" and are pledged by definition. The Democrats have a third type of pledged delegate; pledged party leaders and elected officials (PLEO) which is a separate group equal to 15% "Add on" to the "base delegation". PLEO delegates are typically big city mayors, legislative leaders, county party officials, etc. District, At Large and PLEO delegates together comprise the Democratic pledged delegation for a state. District level delegates are pledged or bound by the results of the primary or caucus in the particular districts, while At Large delegates are bound by statewide primary votes or state convention preferences.

Democratic pledged delegate allocation is standardized by the Democratic National Committee. District level delegates are allocated proportionally to Presidential candidates based on the presidential primary vote (or caucus/convention preferences) in that district. At Large and PLEO delegates are allocated proportionally to presidential candidates based on the Presidential primary vote (or caucus/convention preferences) statewide. In all cases, Democratic presidential candidates must receive 15% of the vote to qualify for delegate allocation in a jurisdiction.

Republican Pledged Delegates:

For the Republicans, delegate types are more amorphous. Some state Republican parties treat all their pledged delegates as At Large (New Hampshire), some treat them all as district delegates (Rhode Island), and some use both district and At Large designations.

Republican delegate allocation of pledged delegates is not standardized. Some states award all their delegates "winner take all" to the presidential candidate with the most statewide presidential primary votes (New York and New Jersey). Others award 3 district delegates to the winner of the particular CD, and award the At large delegates to the statewide winner (GA, OK). Others directly elect delegate candidates on the presidential primary ballot, with the delegate candidate receiving the most votes going to the national convention, either pledged to specific presidential candidates (Illinois) or as un-pledged delegates (Pennsylvania). Other states use some version of district or statewide proportional allocation, with specific rules varying significantly.

In some circumstances, pledged delegates are 'released' from their pledge to support a specific candidate. For the Democrats, At Large and PLEO delegate spots awarded to candidate A are released if candidate A withdraws from the Presidential race before the delegates themselves are selected. If the delegates are selected, candidate A keeps those delegate votes in spite of his/her withdrawal. Democratic district delegates are not released; even if candidate A withdraws after winning district delegates in New Jersey, those delegates remain bound to candidate A for one ballot at the national convention.

For the Republicans, pledged delegates can be released from their pledge by the withdrawn candidate, depending on state party rules.

To track pledged delegates, the Associated Press determines each state party's delegate allocation method, programmatically applies that method to the vote on primary or caucus night as appropriate. These totals are then examined in Washington D.C. and edited for consistency and completeness before being distributed to AP members and customers.

Un-pledged Delegates, or Super delegates

Un-pledged delegates are by definition "free agents" who are unbound by any prior Presidential primary or caucus results in the states. Their votes at the national convention are completely at their own discretion.

The Democrats base the number of un-pledged delegates which are apportioned to a state on 5 calculations: the # of state Democratic National Committee members; the number of Democratic Members of Congress; Democratic Governors; "distinguished Party leaders" (such as former Presidents or VP's, former Senate leaders or House Speakers from the state, etc); and finally an "add-on" group of un-pledged delegate spots based on the state's DNC member votes. Because the first 4 categories of un-pledged Democratic delegates are generally high profile elected officials, they are often called the "Super delegates". For the Democrats, these delegates are always free agents, able to vote for whoever they wish at the national convention.

The Republicans again are more decentralized and less standard in their usage of un-pledged delegates. Some states consider all of their delegates to be un-pledged (Pennsylvania), while other states designate their At large delegation as un-pledged (Illinois). Others have no un-pledged delegates; the entire delegation is considered pledged (Connecticut).

Un-pledged delegates should not be confused with "Uncommitted" delegates. The latter are usually pledged delegates who are bound to vote "uncommitted" at the national convention because the Presidential preference "uncommitted" did well enough in the Presidential primary or convention to qualify for pledged delegates. In other words, "uncommitted" is much like a Presidential candidate who won pledged delegates.

To determine the non-binding preferences of un-pledged delegates, the Associated Press calls and interviews them, and tracks their preferences.

Reverend Wright, Barack Obama, and the Political Cartoon of the Day

In Todays Political Cartoon we are touching the whole race and religion theme that is seemingly coming to face again in the political forefront. The Political Cartoon was taken from LostNation.tv. Now that we are done with the Political Cartoon we will touch on Rev. Wright and his role in the life of Barack Obama.


With Racism playing a newly found large role in this years election we are not only seeing the Clinton campaign as the perpetrator of the racist remarks. As Hillary Clinton as had to denounce previous statements made by members in her campaign, Barack Obama has had to deal witht the words of a previous pastor of his Reverend Wright. Rev. Wright had baptized Obama and has had a solid relationship with him for years. The problems is the views of Wright on many social issues and the most recent statements regarding being black in the United states and the concept that Hillary Clinton has no idea about the racism that exudes from many in this country. Below is a video, taken from the self admitted HORRENDOUS news network Fox News, where we can see Wright's comments regarding Clinton and race.


It will be interesting to see how this will affect the current climate in the Obama campaign and to see just how Obama will react. In other news we have Obama dealing with Jewish Concerns.

Here is the Times’ front-page profile of Obama’s mother. It’s a fascinating read. “Though it is impossible to pinpoint the imprint of a parent on the life of a grown child, people who knew Ms. Soetoro well say they see her influence unmistakably in Mr. Obama.”

Obama didn't appreciate the Wayne Allard stunt that called for appropriating every Obama presidential proposal. Apparently Schumer called Allard an a**, though Allard said the amendment wasn't his idea. Obama apparently asked Allard, "You working this hard," Allard shot back: "Vote yes." Allard, by the way, didn't vote for his own amendment.

Obama continues to make efforts to allay Jewish concerns. "Barack Obama has a solid Senate record in support of Israel… Yet there is unease among some Jewish voters about the Illinois senator and Democratic presidential contender. Why? Part of it is a division between blacks and Jews that's been growing for years, a split that Obama has challenged fellow blacks to confront. Another element is the praise Obama has received from Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, whose disparaging comments about Judaism are toxic to many voters. Obama's own pastor has a history of supporting Palestinian causes."

“Finally, there are rumors and outright lies about the candidate that have gained an audience through repetition in e-mails and on Web sites. Obama is working hard to win over this vocal, powerful and reliably Democratic voting bloc. Jews have accounted for about 4 percent of Democratic primary voters so far this year, and Clinton has held a 52-46 percent edge over Obama among them, according to exit polls.”

“On the day of the Mississippi primary this week, Obama took time to call Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni to express condolences over the deadly terrorist attack on a rabbinical seminary in Jerusalem. He also reaffirmed his support for Israel's right to defend itself and for its commitment to negotiations with Palestinians and underscored the need to stop Iran from supporting terrorism or getting nuclear weapons. The effort by the candidate and his advisers to calm disquiet among Jewish voters began more than a year ago."

Where do Jews go if Obama is the nominee? How big of a problem is this for him? Does it put Florida in jeopardy if enough older Jewish voters end up going for McCain?

The New York Post looks at the comments made by Obama’s former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, “who stepped down from his post after 36 years, preaches a form of black liberation theology, stressing ties to Africa and ways to empower Chicago's struggling black community.”

Ferraro Says comment wasn't racist and Political Cartoon of the Day

Maybe this political cartoon is a little old but I think that this cartoon shows the inherent abrasive nature that the Clinton campaign seems to be pulling off. Yes it was Ferraro who made the comments but as of yet she has not been asked to resign. This political cartoon is just a little representative of the current demeanor that the Clinton Campaign is giving off to the public. Regarding Ferraro directly, well, just take a gander at the following:

"My comments have been taken so out of context and been spun by the Obama campaign as racist," she said on ABC's "This Morning America." "That, you know is doing precisely what they don't want done -- it's going to [divide] the Democratic Party and dividing us even more."

Geraldine Ferraro, a onetime Democratic vice presidential nominee and current Clinton fundraiser, continued to insist today that she is being unfairly criticized for comments on Barack Obama that implied the Illinois senator has done well in the presidential race because he is black.

Ferraro, the first woman to be on the ticket as a vice presidential candidate in either party, ignited a controversy when she told the Daily Breeze of Torrance that: "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman [of any color] he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Ferraro, a former congresswoman from New York, said she was "hurt, absolutely hurt by how they have taken this thing and spun it to sort of imply in any way, in any way, I am a racist." But she said she was "absolutely not" sorry she had said Obama was benefiting from his status as the first African American perceived as having the chance to win the presidency.

"I was talking about historic candidacies," she said. "In 1984, if my name were Gerard Ferraro instead of Geraldine Ferraro, I would never have been chosen as the vice president."

But Obama, interviewed on NBC's "Today," said Ferraro's comments are absurd on their face.

"If you were to get a handbook on what's the path to the presidency, I don't think that the handbook would start by saying, 'Be an African American named Barack Obama.' I don't think that would be generally considered an advantage, and it certainly wasn't when I was running for the United States Senate or the presidency."

Saying that he respects Ferraro as "a trailblazer," Obama accused her of participating in "the kind of slice-and-dice politics that's about race and about gender and about this and that, and that's what Americans are tired of because they recognize that when we divide ourselves in that way, we can't solve problems."

On Tuesday, Clinton distanced herself from the remarks, but said intemperate remarks are a problem on both sides. Obama expressed distaste.

In a brief Associated Press interview Tuesday while she campaigned in Harrisburg, Pa., Clinton said she did not agree with Ferraro. She added, "It's regrettable that any of our supporters -- on both sides, because we both have this experience -- say things that kind of veer off into the personal."

Obama, in an interview with the Morning Call of Allentown, Pa., said, "I don't think Geraldine Ferraro's comments have any place in our politics or in the Democratic Party. They are divisive. I think anybody who understands the history of this country knows they are patently absurd. And I would expect that the same way those comments don't have a place in my campaign they shouldn't have a place in Sen. Senator Clinton's either."

But Ferraro, who ran on on Walter F. Mondale's losing ticket in 1984, dug in her heels.

"I'm sorry that people thought it was racist," Ferraro told Fox News on Tuesday. She said she was not acting as a Clinton representative, but was promoting a speech she had been paid to make, and resented the implication that she vets what she says with anyone.

"She can't rein me in," said Ferraro, referring to Clinton.

Later, in a statement that was e-mailed to reporters, Clinton's campaign manager, Maggie Williams, echoed Clinton. Her statement began with an Obama quote made in January while he was speaking to NBC's Tim Russert: "I think that, as Hillary said, our supporters, our staff, get overzealous."

"We agreed then," wrote Williams. "We agree today. Supporters from both campaigns will get overzealous."

Last week, one of Obama's unpaid foreign policy advisors, Harvard professor Samantha Power, resigned from his campaign after calling Clinton a "monster" in an interview with a Scottish newspaper. She apologized and blamed fatigue.

Ferraro, for her part, told Fox News that "if it makes David [Axelrod] happy, I would get off the [Clinton] finance committee."

But, she added, referring to Axelrod, "He shouldn't really antagonize people like me." If Obama is nominated, Axelrod "is going to come to me and ask me to raise money for Barack Obama, and I will do it for him, too, if he stops doing this kind of horrendous attack."

Alluding to Power in a conference call Tuesday with reporters, Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, said: "Ferraro should be denounced and censured by the campaign. Samantha resigned because it was not consistent with the kind of campaign we want to run. We want a candidate and president who will live by their words."

Clinton with Obama as Running Mate and Politcal Cartoon of the Day

A little Finance Humor with today's Political Cartoon as we come to the home stretch of the Clinton v. Obama Battle. Now for real news.

Campaigning in Mississippi over the weekend, the former president was quoted as saying his wife and Obama could form "an almost unstoppable force."

After winning the Democratic primaries in Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island last week, Senator Clinton suggested that she and Obama might end up on the same ticket, with her at the top of it.

Hillary and Bill Clinton have been talking up the idea that Barack Obama, whom they have called too inexperienced to be president, would make a strong running mate on a ticket headed by the New York senator.

Obama won the Wyoming caucuses Saturday, and the latest polls show him leading in tomorrow's primary in Mississippi. He is ahead of Clinton in pledged delegates, but neither candidate is expected to obtain the 2,025 needed for the nomination in the remaining state contests.

As of last night, Obama had 1,578 delegates and Clinton had 1,468. Democratic leaders worry about the damage that could be done if neither Clinton nor Obama has a clear lead by the August nominating convention.

In hailing Obama as a possible vice president, the Clintons are reaching out to him and, perhaps more important, to his backers, whose support she would need to defeat John McCain in the November election.

"The Clintons are in a difficult position," said Dennis Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Iowa, who has tracked the presidential race.

"If she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, she would need Obama's supporters. But she needs to be careful. If this talk of him on the ticket is seen as a cynical maneuver, it could backfire and hurt her," Goldford said.

The Clintons have charged that the charismatic senator from Illinois lacks the experience to handle an international crisis as president. But since Clinton won the Ohio and Texas primaries, she and her husband have repeatedly touted Obama as a possible running mate.

When asked about the possibility last week, Obama said he was focused on winning the nomination.

"I think it is very premature to start talking about a joint ticket," he said.

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts, who has endorsed Obama, derided the Clintons' suggestion.

"The first threshold question about a vice president is, are you prepared to be president?" Kerry said yesterday on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"So on the one end, they are saying he's not prepared to be president. On the other hand, they're saying maybe he ought to be vice president," Kerry said.

Former Senate Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota also mocked the idea.

"It may be the first time in history that the person who is running number two would offer the person running number one the number two position," Daschle said on NBC's "Meet the Press."

Governor Edward Rendell of Pennsylvania, a Democrat who has sought to rally support for Clinton in his state's April 22 primary, backed the idea of Clinton and Obama teaming up.

Pennsylvania, the biggest remaining state in the race for the nomination, should be a safe win for Clinton, but analysts say there are pockets of vulnerability for Obama to exploit - and plenty of time to do it.

"If the election were held today it would probably be Senator Clinton by 10 points, but seven weeks in this crazy race, anything can happen," said Clay Richards, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute.

A win in Pennsylvania could be crucial to Clinton's hopes of gaining support from "superdelegates" - elected officials and party insiders who can vote at the convention as they choose.

Mark Nevins, communications director for Clinton's campaign in Pennsylvania, said the state was "a proving ground."

"You can't really expect to win the general election if you can't win Pennsylvania," he said.

"Pennsylvania has more Catholics, more union members, more older voters, and fewer African-Americans," said Terry Madonna, politics professor at Franklin & Marshall College. "This is pretty much a Clinton state. It's hers to lose."

The demographics are similar to those of Ohio, which Clinton won by 54 percent to 44 percent. Madonna said Clinton also can play the "hometown" card because her father was born in Scranton.

Clinton will focus on healthcare and the economy to target the large population of seniors and union members, which is higher than the national average, Nevins said.

Richards of Quinnipiac said Obama must do three things to have a chance of winning: boost turnout among black voters, which is historically low in primaries; motivate students at the state's numerous universities and colleges; and win over affluent voters in the Philadelphia suburbs where Clinton is vulnerable.

Sean Smith, a spokesman for Obama, contends that the demographics claimed as friendly by the Clinton campaign had helped Obama win Wisconsin and could do so again.

"We did extremely well in Wisconsin with the same types of voters," he said, pointing to older voters who were "absolutely open" to Obama's message of hope and change and "bringing the country together to solve our problems."

News on Obama & Clinton in Wyoming and Today's Political Cartoon

Well Todays Political Cartoon is dealing with the current market trends and the concept of our Spending habits. I mean this cartoon doesn't even touch the fact that we are going to borrow the money for our next set of tax rebates from China. Hmmmm...Does that even make sense? Well This cartoon is at least funny. Now onto the real news.

With 96 percent of the precincts reporting, Obama had 59 percent to Clinton's 40 percent.

Democrats in Wyoming get little respect. The sparsely populated red state is home to just 218,000 thousand voters, most of them Republicans, like Wyoming's own Dick Cheney.

But this year, Clinton and Obama eagerly glad-handed voters across the state because even Wyoming -- with its 12 delegates -- counts.

Barack Obama won the Democratic caucuses today in Wyoming, a state the party's presidential candidates often overlook, but that in this nail-biter of a race saw heavy campaigning by both Obama and Hillary Clinton.

The excitement about the Democratic race was evident at the Teton County Caucus, held in Jackson. Originally scheduled for the Virginian motel, the caucus had to be moved to the larger Snow King Resort to accommodate the crowds that turned out.

In previous years, no more than 200 Democrats had ever turned out in Teton County, but this year Democratic State Committee chairwoman Lesley Peterson estimated the overflow crowd at 1000 or more by early evening.

The high turnout among Wyoming Democrats is more evidence of how tight the race is between Clinton and Obama nationwide.

A Newsweek poll released Friday found the rival candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination in a statistical dead heat, with 45 percent of registered Democrats and Democratic leanings favoring Obama, and 44 percent favoring Clinton.

That marks the latest pendulum swing in a race that last year saw Clinton as the all-but-inevitable Democratic candidate, to Obama's decisive lead during a sweep of February primary states. The poll was based on telephone interviews with 1,215 registered voters March 5-6.

The Newsweek poll also shows neither candidate has an edge when it comes to voters' number-one concern: The foundering economy, with 43 percent favoring Obama, 42 percent preferring Clinton.

The poll does show that seven in 10 Democrats want that dream team: Obama-Clinton or Clinton-Obama.

Today, former president Bill Clinton for the first time sent a clear signal that the Clinton campaign has given serious consideration to that dream ticket too, combining Obama's urban appeal and Clinton's rural appeal.

"You look at the map of Texas and the map in Ohio, and the map in Missouri," Clinton said during a campaign stop on his wife's behalf in Mississippi, "You look at most of these places -- he would win the urban areas and the upscale voters, and she wins the traditional rural areas that we lost when President Reagan was president. If you put those two things together, you'd have an almost unstoppable force."

Obama said Friday he's not interested in holding the No. 2 slot on a Democratic dream team.

"You won't see me as a vice presidential candidate," Obama said in a radio interview.

Despite talk of a dream team, the bitter tone of the campaign for the White House is likely to get worse, with Clinton on the offensive and Obama walking a fine line, talking tough while trying to remain above the mudslinging.

Iowa Republican Rep. Steve King gave a taste of what could lie ahead.

In an interview with KICD radio in Spencer, Iowa, the congressman virtually called him a terrorist ally.

"If he is elected president, then the radical Islamists, the al Qaeda, the radical Islamists and their supporters will be dancing in the streets," King said. "They will be dancing in the streets because of his middle name."

If he does win the nomination, Obama will have to respond to Republicans, and to his conservative critics who pointedly refer to him using his full name, Barack Hussein Obama.

Obama looking for the Knockout Punch and Political Cartoon of the Day

On the math side, it is a certainty that Sen. Barack Obama's lead in pledged delegates, at least 151, according to the Associated Press, after 11 straight victories last month, most of them by wide margins, is so wide that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton cannot catch up with anything less than blowout victories in the 60-40 percent range in both states.


On the eve of the Democrats' second Super Tuesday, polling is so close in both Texas and Ohio that the Clinton and Obama campaigns are preparing their own spin on what will matter when the nation wakes up Wednesday morning: Will it be math or momentum?

On the momentum side, however, if Clinton wins both states, even narrowly, she could blunt Obama's momentum and generate some of her own. Headlines will declare a Clinton victory in two giant states, lifting some of the pressure on her from party leaders to exit the race.

Obama's best chance for a knockout blow is Texas, where polls have given him a slight edge.

"Obama, to stop her, really has to win one of the two big states. Then the delegate math does take over," said Tad Devine, a top strategist for the Al Gore and John Kerry presidential campaigns.

But if Clinton wins both, she is likely to stay in the race.

"Even if the math works in Obama's favor, if he loses two big states, I don't think that's how you win the nomination," Devine said. "You don't win the nomination by losing. You have to win the nomination by winning, or at least splitting ... I think it's going to be incumbent on Obama to win one of those big states if he wants the race to end tomorrow."

Seeming to concede that Clinton could win the popular vote in both states, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the race hinges instead on "the cold hard reality of the math."

There are 370 pledged delegates, the kind chosen by voters, at stake Tuesday in Texas, Ohio, Rhode Island and Vermont. Even if Clinton ekes out victories in all four, she cannot begin to close the delegate gap because delegates are awarded based on vote shares. A close outcome will distribute the delegates nearly evenly in each state.

"If we can come out of Tuesday night's contests with a pledged delegate lead still healthy in our favor, and we're able to maintain or even build on it, I think that's going to be a major event in the nomination fight," Plouffe said. A close Clinton victory is "simply not good enough," he said, and will require "more creative math and tortured explanations" to conceive a path to the nomination.

For the Clinton campaign, Tuesday's votes are all about momentum: ending Obama's string of huge victories, generating a long-overdue win and allowing her to fight on to the Pennsylvania primary seven weeks away, hoping that Obama implodes in the meantime.

That breather would give Clinton time to press the hard-hitting attacks that seek to generate "buyer's remorse" among Obama supporters by undermining Obama's credibility on national security, trade and his relationship with Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko, whose racketeering trial has begun.

"We expect that by Wednesday morning, the momentum of Sen. Obama will be significantly blunted and new questions will be raised about whether he is the right nominee for our party," said top Clinton strategist Mark Penn.

"If we wake up Wednesday and Sen. Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, we have a whole new ballgame here," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson.

Clinton has watched her double-digit leads in both states vanish over the last two weeks, but her campaign said internal polling shows votes breaking her way. She would add two more big-state victories to her ledger, along with California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.

Ohio is critical in general elections, narrowly swinging for President Bush 2004. A Clinton win might persuade some super delegates - the elected and party officials who make up 20 percent of the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination - to stop jumping from Clinton's ship and allow her to continue the race.

By the same token, Clinton will be out of the race if she loses both Ohio and Texas and will find it all but impossible to continue if she loses one. The candidates are likely to split the two smaller states, as Clinton is ahead in Rhode Island and Obama in Vermont.

Garry South, a veteran Democratic strategist who once worked for California Gov. Gray Davis, said he voted for Clinton and feels bad for her but that Obama's advantage even now is overwhelming.

"The fact is, Barack Obama has been winning (earlier) states, not barely, but 2 to 1, 3 to 1," said South. "If she turns around and wins a close victory in Texas and Ohio, that doesn't change the momentum of the race" or flip Clinton's delegate count, in which South said she is "getting killed" by proportional delegate allocation.

"Look, I'm a world class spinner myself," South said. "I've had to spin myself in and out of all kinds of campaign situations over my 36 years in this business, but there comes a point where you can't spin away the facts."

Even if Clinton wins Texas and Ohio, however, she faces a tough calendar strikingly similar to the one she confronted after tying Obama on Super Tuesday Feb 5.

This time the wait for another big primary is even longer: seven weeks, not four, until Pennsylvania, with its 158 delegates and blue-collar base, where Clinton holds a large but declining lead. In between is a Wyoming caucus Saturday, exactly the kind of red-state, rally-style contest where Obama has a proven advantage. A week after tomorrow comes Mississippi, whose large African American population looks to be in Obama's pocket.

Though after Tuesday, there are still 611 delegates up for grabs in the remaining contests that end in June in Puerto Rico, many Democrats are eager for the rivalry to end so they can begin focusing on likely Republican nominee John McCain. Others worry that the sharply escalating negative attacks provide fodder for Republicans, who for now can sit back and let Democrats attack each other.

Some top superdelegates have begun to call for the race to end. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said Sunday that whoever is ahead in pledged delegates after Tuesday should be the nominee. Neither candidate can win the Democratic nomination on pledged delegates alone, thanks to the proportional allocation of delegates.

"Some superdelegates might see (wins by Clinton today) as persuasive enough to take the pressure off of her to drop out," said Bruce Buchanan, a political scientist at the University of Texas in Austin. "They might then say, 'Go ahead and go through Pennsylvania, we won't gang up on you and attempt to get you to quit,' as was happening over the last week."

Clinton's negative attacks, and Obama's aggressive responses, have escalated in the last few days, but experts say they do not feel they have crossed the line to be damaging to either candidate.

"These are charges that certainly would come out in a general election against either of these two candidates," South said. "And they better damn well be prepared to deal with them in the fall. One of the ways you do that is by having to fend off these kinds of charges during the primary election campaign."

John Gilliom, a political scientist at Ohio University, said the candidates are still in a healthy process of "checking for glass jaws." Voters "want to know what Sen. Obama's answers are on the various questions she's been asking," he said. "They're going to be asked in a lot tougher way later on."

If anything, they may be toughening Obama, who has enjoyed positive press coverage and comparatively little scrutiny.