Will Barack Obama put the voters of Illinois ahead of his own political fortunes in Indiana? Don’t bet on it.

Unless Obama takes quick action, he will have to accept responsibility for killing a constitutional amendment to allow voter recall in Illinois.

With just days left to get a Constitutional Amendment authorizing recall on the ballot, Obama’s political mentor State Senator Emil Jones (D-Chicago) shut down the Illinois Senate so that Democrat Senators could instead go to Indiana to campaign for Obama.

While the state’s House Speaker offered to keep state representatives in town all weekend if needed to meet a deadline for approving the recall amendment, Obama’s close ally abruptly adjourned the Senate May 1. Jones even cancelled a previously scheduled legislative day the following week, in order to give Senators extra time to campaign for Obama.

 Jones’ decision to place the Indiana primary at the top of his agenda effectively ran out the clock on efforts to add a voter recall amendment to the state constitution.

Ironically, the effort to enact a recall amendment in Illinois has been fueled in part by the revelations coming out of the trial of Obama associate Tony Rezko. Rezko’s corruption trial and the resultant testimony has helped drive demands from Illinois voters for the opportunity to recall Governor Rod Blagojevich. Rezko, of course, is the longtime supporter that Obama relied on when buying his home in an exclusive Chicago neighborhood.

“Obama has made the claim that he can capture Clinton’s voters more easily in the general election than she can capture his. I doubt it.” – Old Elephant Blog, Feb. 11, 2008

I love it when I’m right.

A new poll from the Gallup organization says 28% of those supporting Hillary Clinton will switch to John McCain if Barrack Obama is handed the nomination. A second-day examination of the survey provides further insights.

If the reverse is true, and Clinton gets the nomination, only19% of Obama voters bolt in the fall.

This should worry the super-delegates who will be picking the candidate. But, for reasons I’ve stated before, I don’t think they care. The super-delegates are almost all professional politicians, party professionals or would-be political professionals.

Personal political survival will always be the most important consideration and for them, an Obama nomination carries much less risk – even if he loses.

A loss with Obama at the top of the ticket can be worn as a badge of courage by the elites: “We did the right thing. It’s not our fault that narrow-minded working-class voters didn’t follow along to the Promised Land.”

Most of the liberal elite that make up the super-delegates have little in common and are downright uncomfortable with the working-class stiffs that make up Clinton’s base. These hard core party partisans never understood the appeal of Ronald Reagan and have been suspicious of these voters for decades anyway.

They tolerated Bill Clinton, but only because he managed to succeed. Now, they’ve got a chance to support a real, unapologetic liberal and they are licking their chops to do just that.

All political speeches have multiple audiences. The least important is the audience listening in person. That, of course, was the case with Barack Obama’s “race” speech. But, it is false conceit for either the media or the general public to assume that they were the primary audience.

The most important audience was a few hundred people critical to the future of the Obama campaign.

From the beginning the Obama campaign has been focused on the delegate count. He has followed a carefully orchestrated strategy to maximize the number of delegates under the Democrat party’s obscure delegate-selection rules. By staying competitive in large states and winning small states, caucus states and solidly “red” states, he has methodically built a slight plurality of delegates.

Had the party followed winner-take-all rules, the race would almost certainly be over and Hillary Clinton would almost certainly be the nominee. But, Obama’s shrewd strategy has enabled him to overtake Clinton and take a slight lead in delegates.

Obama knows that he will probably lose Pennsylvania, but because of the bizarre delegate distribution rules, he’ll remain slightly ahead in delegates. The nomination will be decided by the super delegates.

That was the audience that Obama had to appeal to with his speech.

While editorial writers and columnists have applauded the rhetorical beauty of the speech, on closer examination, the weaknesses, omissions and downright banality of the reasoning has started to show through and percolate through the Internet and the media.

But, in the end, that doesn’t matter. Obama’s speech really didn’t have to convince middle-of-the-road Americans who recoil at his minister’s fiery venom. Instead, what it had to do was reassure a far more receptive audience – the super delegates.

If Obama’s speech seemed designed to appeal to baby-boomer liberals anxious to demonstrate their open-mindedness toward a radical “liberation theology” minister and his church, it is because it is liberal baby-boomer super-delegates anxious to demonstrate that they are open-minded, that he must depend on for the nomination.

The super-delegates are cautious about being seen as “dream killers.” Anyone who has been following their public comments can sense that Hilary Clinton has a much steeper hill to climb. The Clintons know it. Their frustration and anger – as well as the frustration and anger of their loyal supporters – is obvious and frankly, understandable.

Both sides are arguing endlessly about which would be more electable come November, but the truth is, it is a tossup and likely to remain so. Regardless of who is matched up against John McCain, it is right now a 50/50 race.

Neither candidate can lay legitimate claim to the other’s base. While each candidate claims to be able to consolidate the party, the polling results we are seeing suggest that it is unlikely that there will be any significant movement of the other candidate’s base toward the ultimate nominee.

For the super delegates, the strategic choice comes down to a coin toss.

To further complicate things, there is no difference in the candidates’ policy positions. Both have tacked hard to the left during the primary and will probably stay there, because that is where they are most comfortable.

But, that is okay, because the super delegates would love, more than anything else, to have a true liberal win the presidency.

Obama needed to give the super delegates another reason to pick him. In short, he needed an edge over Clinton.

In his speech, Obama took perfect aim at the greatest sensibilities of the super delegates. “Nominate me,” Obama was saying, “and you can feel good about yourselves.”

“On the other hand, deny me the nomination and you will have to live with the knowledge that you passed up an historic opportunity to right a wrong that has plagued our nation for nearly two and a half centuries.”

The super delegates are trapped in a dilemma that they would all love to escape from, but cannot.

In the end, they know that it will never be possible to say with certainty which of the candidates is the better choice. There are no parallel universes here. One candidate will be the nominee and one won’t.  Either the Democrat nominee will win and they will be vindicated or the Democrat will lose and they will have to live with the criticism and disappointment.

Under these circumstances, the candidate who offers them the best deal wins. Obama’s bargain is simple. By defining his candidacy as the embodiment of a higher purpose, Obama is telling the super delegates that even in loss, they can take comfort in knowing that it is only because the rest of the country is not yet as fully evolved as they are.

For liberals, who love nothing better than feeling superior to the common masses, it is an offer that they will find hard to resist.

Give the man his due. Barack Obama gave a very good speech on race relations.If race was the central issue in America today, it might have worked. Unfortunately, for Mr. Obama, that’s not the case.

If only Mr. Obama were equally honest about other challenges facing America. But, instead, woven within the speech, and throughout his campaign, is the standard, simplistic subtext of economic class warfare that has come to embody the Democratic party in the first quarter of the 21^st century.

Obama bemoans how “black anger” and “white resentments” have “distracted  attention from the real culprits of the middle class squeeze…” he then turns quickly to the standard boogeyman of liberalism: corporate America.

We are told that the “real problem” facing America is that “the corporation you work for will ship it (your job) overseas for nothing more than a profit.”

Well, really now…if that corporation you are working for has to move jobs overseas in order to make a profit, can we really blame them? And, how would Mr. Obama suggest that they remain in America without making a profit?

The subtext reveals that Mr. Obama has indeed internalized a few things listening to Mr. Wright’s radical ‘liberation theology.” Unfortunately, what he has internalized is simply wrong.

Liberals hold tightly to a story that falls apart when viewed in the harsh light of objective evidence. Since 1776 and the publication of The Wealth of Nations, we have known that economic freedom and competition are the engines that drive the world forward.

It was not for nothing that Milton Friedman received the Nobel Prize. Yet, today’s Democrat party seems intent on turning the clock back to at least the 1930s.

Maybe an intelligent, honest discussion of how excessive regulation, high taxes, protectionism and a ludicrous litigation system have made it difficult for American companies to compete on the world market is in order.

It would be nice if Mr. Obama were to tackle that as his next policy speech. Don’t hold your breath.

Barack Obama and his campaign have worked tirelessly to make this election a referendum on personality, rather than on issues.

Not wanting the election to turn on whether or not Americans want the most liberal senator in the nation to lead their country, they have asked the nation to focus on his foresight and judgment.We are told that Obama should be elected President, despite a lack of experience or substantial accomplishment, because what really matters is judgment.

The all important factor is supposed to be his foresight in opposing the Iraq War when the rest of the world was convinced by multiple intelligence reports from multiple sources that Saddam Hussein posed an imminent threat.

We should choose Obama, we are told, because he foresaw the downsides of the war.

Based on that premise and rationale, Obama should welcome any examination of his foresight and judgment and Americans would be right to use that judgment as the defining criteria for determining his suitability for the presidency.

Today, Obama sought to address two of his most serious blind spots in judgment – blind spots that have festered for more than 20 years in one case and nearly as long in the other.

The first is Jeremiah Wright, the Senator’s minister who has become an Internet star thanks to some videotapes of sermons filled with anti-American, paranoid, anti-Semitic, divisive rants. The second is Tony Rezko, the Chicago developer currently on trial for corruption.

Deciding what church to attend is a personal decision – no one forced Obama to pick this minister. It speaks volumes about his judgment that he not only picked this particular minister, but that he stuck with the choice for two decades.

Obama sought to distance himself from Wright, but in doing so, he raised more questions than he answered. Obama condemned Wright’s remarks, but his explanation of their relationship was weak and contradicts earlier accounts he has provided.

Obama wrote: “The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation.”

What Obama is asking people to believe stretches credibility. When Obama returned to Christianity, he chose this minister and church. When Michelle and Barack Obama walked down the aisle to be married, they chose Wright to officiate. He baptized their children. He provided the Senator with the title of his book.

Are we really to believe that in 20 years of sermons, friendship and spiritual guidance, Obama never once heard anything that would even hint at the invective that Wright shows on the tapes?

But, his current explanation is inconsistent with past statements. Obama’s previous response to Wright was to compare his pastor to a slightly goofy “uncle” who says crazy things that make people cringe, but the rest of the family humors because he has some redeeming traits.

Now, Obama has categorically stated that never, in public or private, did he ever hear anything like the comments that are now being broadcast across the Internet.

Seriously now, folks, I’ve been known to snooze through more than one sermon, but Obama seems to be asking us to believe that for 20 years either Wright kept these bizarre opinions to himself when Obama was in church or Obama happened to be dozing during Wright’s most animated sermons.

Senator Obama wants us to believe that he successfully perceived problems in Iraq that the rest of the world failed to see. Yet, he never had any hint that his own pastor was a nut job?

At the same time Obama was releasing his response to the Wright controversy, he was giving separate interviews with the Chicago Tribune and Sun-Times, seeking to answer remaining questions about his 17-year relationship with Rezko. Frankly, there was little revealed that was not either already known or could be easily inferred from the previous stories.

Once again, the issue remains judgment. Tony Rezko and Obama have a relationship that goes back to 1991. Rezko sought to hire Obama, but he declined, although Rezko hired Obama’s law firm to work on some of his development projects. When Obama launched his political career, Rezko was his first campaign contributor. Throughout the years, Rezko proved to be a lucrative supporter – by Obama’s own admission, the developer is responsible for raising as much as $250,000 for Obama’s first three political campaigns.

Obama called on a campaign contributor who was under federal investigation to help him buy his home, toured the property with the man, came to an agreement to buy adjoining property and then later, in a private deal, bought a piece of land from him. Obama calls it “boneheaded.” That’s a whopper of an understatement.

Obama has defined the terms under which he wants to be judged. Looking at those terms, it’s clear he comes up short.

Okay, I know that looking for any rational, reasoned exchange of ideas on the Internet is pretty much futile.

Still, lately I’ve been finding the polarized comments between Obama and Clinton supporters a little stunning.

Commenters, like bloggers (myself included) are not typical voters. Still I find it fascinating how angry the Obama and Clinton partisans are at one another. It’s not just on one or two sites, but all across the Internet.

I am seeing a vicious war of words, and I wonder how any candidate can hope to put this all back together.

Oh, I know that Internet bloggers and commenters are only a tiny fraction of the electorate and they hold much stronger and less nuanced viewpoints than typical voters.

But, you can’t help be struck by how vehemently the two camps dislike one another. (Even on this very modest site, I note that the very first two individuals to comment when I launched the blog were an Obama and a Clinton supporter, trading insults with one another)

Obama supporters hate Hillary Clinton because she considers this to be a political campaign and is willing to fight for the nomination. But, should we expect (or even want) anything less from a candidate? The Clinton supporters are frustrated by the media’s fawning over Obama — but should we expect the left leaning media (and there are plenty of objective studies out there to verify the media’s liberal bias) to be objective when they’ve finally found an unrepentant liberal who actually has a chance at nomination?

Like many of my fellow Republicans, I am a little amused by the Clinton’s shock over finding out the the “vast right wing conspiracy” amounts to a flea, when compared to the Great Dane that is left wing media bias.

I just finished reading one well-thought-out article focusing on the risks to the Democrat Party if they fail to nominate Obama. But, I believe there are almost equal risks to denying the nomination to Clinton.

Demographically, Clinton’s base looks a lot like the Republican base. Certainly, a large percentage of that base is comprised of core liberals who won’t support John McCain under any circumstance.

But, what about the rest? Obama’s main (perhaps only) appeal is charisma. Clinton supporters have already demonstrated that they have a natural resistence to Obama Fever. They’ve found in Hillary a certain comfort level — whether it is perceived competence, experience, yearning for the safety and prosperity of the 90s, achievement…

However it is defined, these are characteristics that voters will find more of in John McCain than Barack Obama. Obama insists Clinton voters will support him in the fall. I’m not so sure.

Having attempted to raise three daughters, I’m familiar with the concept of feminine and masculine traits or values.

Competitiveness…defeating your opponents…killing the most vampires in the video game…those are supposed to be masculine traits. Making others feel valued…playing fair…taking turns…those are supposed to be feminine traits.

The Democratic Party’s nomination rules fall squarely into the “feminine” category – they devised rules that were supposed to include as many viewpoints as possible. Winner-take-all primaries, on the other hand are decidedly “masculine.” The winner, regardless of how close the margin is, gets to keep everything and the loser walks away with nothing except lowered self-esteem.

  One of many ironies of this extremely ironic political season, is that it appears these rules may block the nomination of the first woman presidential candidate in history and create exactly the kinds of rifts that such “inclusiveness” is supposed to avoid.

I did a rough count and it looks to me that if Democrats had used the winner-take-all system, Clinton would be leading by about 1,525 to 1,375. If you add in the Michigan and Florida delegates, she could be closing in on 1,900 delegates. A win in Pennsylvania would put her either over the top or very close, enabling the Democrats to wrap things up before summer.

It’s even possible that she might already have it wrapped up, because her campaign would have made strategic shifts in a winner-take-all system, taking resources from states that were sure losers to focus on close contests in large states – Missouri, where the two candidates essentially tied, comes to mind as one example.

Winner-take-all primaries should create hard feelings among the losers and the losing candidates’ supporters. They come within a percentage or two of winning, and they get nothing for their effort. It hardly seems fair, does it?

Yet, the winner-take-all system that is used in many Republican primaries seems to have actually helped the Republican Party.  Precisely because the system created winners and losers, Republican voters were able to reach consensus and settle on a candidate with a minimal amount of divisiveness. The losers, not wanting to shut the door on future opportunities, took great pains to show they were not “sore losers.” The winners, having comfortably pocketed the kitty, could afford to be gracious and humble in their victories.  

The Democrats’ proportional allocation rules will almost certainly prevent either candidate from winning enough delegates to capture the nomination. This will force party leaders to pick a nominee in a series of backroom deals that could make “Democratic Party” an unintentionally ironic title.

This is a great column. In the past few years I’ve come around to supporting the Cato Institute position that “the size of government is best measured by the level of spending and regulation. Reducing tax revenues only shifts part of the burden of government spending to future generations.”

The problem is that when you deficit spend, you disguise the real cost of government services – offering services as a “loss leader” to get customers in the door and then ultimately charging their children and grandchildren full price plus interest.

Instead, if we paid for today’s services today the public would know what it really costs for healthcare, social security, education, road construction, etc. It is only by knowing the true cost of services, will voters be able to decide what services they want and are willing to pay for. Perhaps if we had to foot the bill today, we might be demanding less of our government.

Finally, a handful of people in the natonal media are starting to pick up on the reality of Barack Obama’s record. Here’s one of the better examples:

“The Obama campaign has sent journalists eight pages of examples of his reaching across the aisle in the Senate. But these are small-bore items of almost no controversy … Bipartisan support for apple pie is hardly a profile in courage.

“On the difficult compromises that required the political courage to challenge one’s own political constituency, Obama flinched: the “gang of 14″ compromise on judicial appointments, the immigration compromise to which Obama tried to append union-backed killer amendments, and, just last month, the compromise on warrantless eavesdropping that garnered 68 votes in the Senate. But not Obama’s.”

Of course, this should surprise no one who is familiar with Obama’s record in Illinois, where he supported millions in higher taxes and compiled a very liberal record. The article continues:

“Who, in fact, supported all of these bipartisan deals, was a central player in two of them, and brokered the even more notorious McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform? John McCain, of course.

“Yes, John McCain — intemperate and rough-edged, of sharp elbows and even sharper tongue. Turns out that uniting is not a matter of rhetoric or manner, but of character and courage.”

It’s about 11 p.m. here in Illinois – it looks like the stories from tonight’s caucuses will be:  McCain clinches nomination and Clinton stays alive.Actually, I think it ought to be – Clinton gains the momentum – but, given the media’s massive man-crush on Obama, I think they’ll minimize her victories, just as they did on Super Tuesday I.

Some of the pre-primary columns today were unbelievable. Several were calling for Clinton to drop out even if she were to win both Texas and Ohio. (As I’m posting this, Ohio has been called for Clinton and Texas is officially too close to call, although Clinton is up by about two points with over half the votes in.)

I listened to Clinton’s victory speech in Ohio. Key message, I think, was that you can’t win the presidency if you can’t win the swing states. I expect we’ll see that message a lot during the coming weeks. Frankly, she has a point.

She continued on the “ready from Day One” theme, which I tend to agree with the pundits is a weak message. The campaign is trying to make the connection that being married to a president prepares you for office. I don’t think the public is buying that one. It seems to me to be a better argument for McCain than for the Democrats.

Contrast her remarks with McCain’s, which are posted on this blog. It strikes me that he’s really sharpening his focus and developing a good message. I want to believe that ultimately, voters will respect his straight talk – McCain really is unable to straddle the fence and waffle (even when it might be more prudent at times to do so.) 

I think he’s gambling that what the voters are tired of are politicians who think voters are so stupid that all you can do is feed them what they want to hear. It’s a risky strategy and I have to admit there is precious little evidence out there to support McCain’s optimism. But I admire the guy for taking that approach.

Ultimately, it will say a lot about this country if the voters reject the Democrat’ bromides and go for the real substance and change offered by McCain.