Friday, April 25, 2008


This weekend's column will be up Friday night, and its title will be: "Obama: A Disaster for Democrats." In many states (PA, NM, NC) Republicans are running ads to support state ("down-ticket") Republican candidates that feature criticisms of Barack Obama. In perhaps 30 states, he is becoming radioactive. My friend, Melissa Hart, who's running for Congress in the 4th congressional district is launching almost daily attacks on her opponent, Jason Altmire, for his "fawning," uncritical behavior toward Obama.

Consider the following information disseminated by Sharon Caliendo, a political superstar and consultant in Oklahoma and Texas:

Sooner Survey: Barack Obama Would Be A Disaster For State Democrats,
Drag Entire Ticket Down

Barack Obama as the Democratic nominee for president would be a disaster for Oklahoma Democrats and possibly drag down other Democrat candidates, the new edition of the Sooner Survey reports.

Survey Director Pat McFerron reports that with either Obama or Hillary Clinton as the party nominee, Republican John McCain should win the state easily. But while McCain now leads Clinton 2-to-1, he leads Obama 3-to-1 and Obama displays startling weakness in Democrat areas of the state.

While Oklahoma Republicans once salivated at the opportunity to again run against a Clinton, McFerron writes, "Barack Obama’s numbers in the state make him an even more appealing Democrat nominee to run against."

For Oklahoma Democrats on the fall ballot, McFerron sounds an ominous warning: "When looking at their individual favorability numbers, there is not much difference between Obama (32% favorable vs. 54% unfavorable) and Clinton (34% favorable vs. 57% unfavorable).

However, when looking at ballot match-ups against McCain, there is a sizeable difference that could have dire consequences for down-ballot Democrats. Against Hillary Clinton, John McCain has a two-to-one advantage (60% McCain vs. 30% Clinton). Against Barack Obama, however, it approaches three-to-one (62% McCain vs. 21% Obama)."

Obama drew a favorable rating from 32 percent of those in the survey, with 54 percent expressing an unfavorable opinion. And 40 percent have a "strongly unfavorable" impression of him.

McFerron writes that in the Ada/Ardmore area, an area of significant Democrat strength, 81 percent of those surveyed picked McCain and only 5 percent picked Obama in a head-to-head matchup.

In Little Dixie, McCain has an astounding 5-to-1 lead over Obama.

Sharon Caliendo added the following:

"I think this is pretty much what you are going to see across the South including Texas and Florida. I work with a good friend out of Florida that said he believes the OK numbers will be similar for Florida which is outstanding news. I expect Sen McCain to have coattails in a lot of our states that were all or predominately red the last time. OK and UT had every county go for Pres Bush and as it stands now I expect those numbers to rise for Sen McCain as we draw in the American Indian vote for the Senator. He has spent years working for the Indians on the Senate Committee and all the ones I have talked with in OK support McCain.

"Getting a good feeling about this election in our part of the Country. Now to reach out to those states that were blue in the last election to bring some of them red so on election night we can celebrate instead of waiting until the next day and longer."

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

Why Hillary Should Be Nominee

Obama: More White People Needed

"Get me more white people!" -- Said by an Obama campaign coordinator looking for Caucasians to put behind Michelle Obama at a rally at Carnegie Mellon Univeristy (CMU) in Pittsburgh (as reported by CNN).

"America in 2008 is a mean country." (Michelle Obama, a Princeton and Harvard Law graduate who makes $300,000-plus annually working in "community outreach" at a Chicago hospital)

"A typical white person." (Obama in Dreams From My Father talking about his white grandmother)Note:

Although she remains a long-shot, Hillary Clinton should be the Democratic nominee. Yes, we've all heard that she's behind in pledged delegates, popular votes, and number of states won, but those facts hide some important realities. In fact, she can make a very plausible case that she is the stronger candidate.

For example, so far she's won 15 states (including Pennsylvania) with with 46%-plus of the nation's population. True, Obama has won 27 states, but they have only 34% of population.

If you include Florida and Michigan, both of which she won handily, her population total rises to 56%. The fact that Obama has won a lot of small states (Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and others) with low population numbers (and few electoral votes) shouldn't be used against Senator Clinton.

She has a habit of winning battleground states, ones that Democrats absolutely must win in November if they're to take the presidency. Among those states are: Florida, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. There's little doubt she'd be stronger than Obama against McCain in those four critical states. Most polls show Mrs. Clinton winning Ohio and Pennsylvania against McCain, while Obama loses not only Florida, but also Ohio and Pennsylvania. (Note: The Illinois Senator also loses most of the small states he won in the primary, including Idaho, Wyoming, and Utah.)

In terms of so-called superdelegates, the national media often tells us that they shouldn't go against the wishes (i.e., the votes) of their constituents. But somehow that does apply to Obama superdelegates. For example, Senator Clinton won Massachusetts by double-digits, but that hasn't stopped Senators Kerry and Kennedy, as well as Gov. Duval Patrick, all of them superdelegates from backing Obama. By doing so, they're thumbing their noses at Massachusetts voters.

Yes, Mrs. Clinton has some much discussed flaws, including "high negatives," but she has a strong argument that she deserves to be the nominee. The Democrats' bizarre primary rules (including the disqualification of Florida and Michigan) have hurt her badly. Hillary supporters who believe the first serious female candidate for President is getting shafted are correct.

Do I support John McCain? Absolutely. But I also support at least basic fairness and common sense in the country's politics. Hillary should be the Democrats' nominee -- but probably won't be.

Note: Tomorrow (Friday) I'll have a column (mildly) critical of John McCain for asking North Carolina Republicans to withdraw a commercial critical of the Obama/Wright connection and the pro-Obama Democratic gubernatorial candidates in NC. I know John McCain is a thoroughly decent and honorable man, but sometimes I wonder if he fully grasps the kind of opposition he's up against. Also, I don't believe he's in position to tell a state party how to conduct its campaigns -- any more than they are to give him instructions. I hope you'll visit. (The column will appear on my national blogs: and

Forecasting Hillary's Big PA Win

Eric Dondero, popular radio talk show host and blogger ( sent out the following message today:

You all, please take a moment to visit the Blog this morning. I've got an article up praising our own Stephen Maloney of PA for getting the PA predication 100% correct.

Can you all believe this? Stephen bucked the conventional wisdom. Told us last week that Hillary would win by 55% to 45% contrary to all the Pro-Obama propoganda the MSM was pushing at the time, about a "late Obama Surge."

Stephen gave us the view from the ground.

Stephen: You are now officially nicknamed "Nostradamus." Good job my man! Good job!!
Libertarian Republicans

Fiscally Conservative, Socially Tolerant & Pro-Defense!

For the latest libertarian political news

Eric Dondero is a US Navy Veteran, former Libertarian Party National Committeeman, Founder of the Republican Liberty Caucus and fmr. Senior Aide to US Congressman Ron Paul R-TX. He is now a national Republican Political Consultant based in Houston, Texas.

Why the Polls Were Wrong in Pennsylvania . . .

A week ago, I told Terry Madonna, who heads the Franklin & Marshall College poll (a good one) that I was right and his poll and (most) others were wrong. I said so because people (especially African-Americans) who are voting for Hillary sometimes say they're voting for Obama. It has happened before (Ohio) but the pollsters keep getting it wrong. Michael Barone on FOX said the same thing early last night, even before there were any real numbers out. The exit polls of voters said that Hillary would win by 52-48.

The point is that it's not fashionable in some areas for people to say they're support Hillary. However, when they go in the voting booth, they do just that. Thanks to everyone who honors me by visiting this site.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Hillary Supporters: Start Backing McCain

Tomorrow (Wednesday) I'll have a column up about why Hillary Clinton supporters should start getting behind . . . John McCain. Here's how I announced it on my national blogs ( &

As many of you know, I believe it's critical to reach out to Hillary Clinton supporters, many of whom say they will vote for John McCain if Barack Obama gets the nomination. Recently, I started an innovative site called: I sincerely believe Mrs. Clinton is a better candidate than Obama, but he's likely to end up with nomination. On my Hillary site tomorrow (Wednesday), I'll have a column about why Mrs. Clinton should get the nomination. I will contain information you haven't seen before. I urge you to visit the "Hillary" site.

Senator Clinton won a major victory tonight in Pennsylvania. As some of you know, I predicted her winning margin would be either 55-45 or 54-46. It appears that I was right on target. Obama may very well win the nomination, but his campaign is floundering badly.

Choose Hillary Over Elitist Obama

Here's a reposting of the column that appeared on my national blog (

You’ve already heard a lot about Barack Obama’s so-called “bitter” comments. As columnist Jack Kelly said Sunday in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, the national media – strongly pro-Obama -- emphasizes the word “bitter” because it’s the least objectionable part of the candidate’s statement. The most objectionable part is where the candidate says that typical Americans cling to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia (hatred of foreigners).

The best analysis I’ve seen of Senator Obama’s statement is in The Economist (April 19-25 , 2008, p. 44 ). Here are some excerpts:

“Barack Obama has a magic way with word, but when the magic deserts him, it deserts him big time. April 6th saw Mr. Obama making the worst verbal gaffe of this seemingly endless campaign. He told a group of fat cats in San Francisco that the reason why he is finding it hard to appeal to blue collar voters in Pennsylvania is because they are ‘bitter.’ They have suffered from so many broken promises that they prefer to ‘cling’ to God, guns, and xenophobia rather than reaching out for a helping hand from the government.

“ . . . Conservative radio talk show hosts have been bellowing 24/7 that Mr. Snooty knows nothing about the real America.

“And no wonder! Mr. Obama has always been in danger of coming across as an elitist. He was educated at Columbia University and Harvard Law School. He not only reads books but writes them [Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope]. He once urged a group of Iowa farmers to check out the price of arugula in Whole Foods – an upmarket store that has no branch in the entire state. His Ivy League educated wife [Michelle] – who is paid nearly $300,000 a year for promoting ‘community outreach’ – is in the habit of telling audiences how difficult it is to afford ballet classes for their daughters.”

Those of us in America might ask: Why do we have to rely on a British journalist to provide such insights? Why is our own national media seemingly mesmerized by such a flawed candidate as Barack Obama? Perhaps because they’re easily mesmerized?

In Pittsburgh, about 15 miles from where I live, the Post-Gazette recently endorsed Obama on the grounds that he would take America “beyond partisanship.” Oh really? The (non-partisan) National Journal recently assessed Obama as the most liberal – and thus among the most partisan – member of the U.S. Senate. The Post-Gazette editorial board (alas, Jack Kelly is not a member) knows Obama’s record, but they chose to misrepresent him to their readers.

In Dreams From My Father, Obama describes his remarkable grandmother, whom he’s now using in ads, as “a typical white person.” What if John McCain, or any other Caucasian, had described ANYONE as a “typical Black person?” That white American would no longer be seen as a serious candidate for the presidency.

Media outlets like the Post-Gazette are engaging in a journalistic form of Affirmative Action. They’re holding Obama to much lower standards than they are Hillary Clinton or John McCain.

In fact, the media’s failure to live up to its obligations is a major reason people are turning to the new media for information. In fact, it’s one reason you’re here rather than relying on a manipulative news organ like the Post-Gazette.

Thanks for visiting this site – and keep coming back.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Big PA Victory for Hillary?

Note: I've been predicting a double-digit victory for Hillary Clinton in Tuesday's Pennsylvania Primary. Most of the polls are predicting a single-digit win, the number now favored by Gov. Ed Rendell, a Hillary supporter. I've also pointed out that Obama, post-"bitter" comments, has been dropping like a rock in national polls. Tomorrow night will be a big one for Sen. Clinton. (I know, I'm going out on a limb.)

I'm very interested in hearing from Hillary supporters who will back McCain if Obama gets the nomination. This site will not one that solicits "Hillary bashing." In fact, Mrs. Clinton is not my first choice (McCain is), but she's a far superior candidate to the Senator from Illinois.

In recent polls, up to 30% of Senator Clinton's supporters say they'll be disinclined to vote for Obama is he gets the presidential nomination. I don't blame them. McCain is an American hero, and Obama is not. We hear Obama say he is post-partisan, yet according to the National Journal, he has the most partisan voting record in the Senate. Who's he kidding?


I've been writing recently about the big drop in support for Obama nationwide (and in Pennsylvania). If you want to read an excellent article on why Hillary is gaining -- and should stay in the race -- click on the following link:

The article is by Lanny J. Davis, a Clinton friend and fundraiser. It's titled, "Obama and Clinton in a Dead Heat: Will the Media Analyze Why?"

Here's a snippet from the Davis piece: "In the three-day ongoing Gallup Poll of 1,252 Democratic and Democratic-leaning independent voters, from Thursday-Saturday April 17-19, Senator Obama leads by 47% to 45%. Because that 2-point edge is within the 3% margin of error, it means Hillary Clinton is now in a statistical head heat with Barack Obama.This represents a dramatic drop by Senator Obama among Democrats and independent leaners of about 9% in less than a week — a drop that Gallup says began just before the recent ABC debate, and that continued and has leveled off as of Saturday."

Davis asks: will the media analyze the changing Democratic race? The short answer is: no. That's because most of the media remains enamored of Obama, a deeply flawed candidate with a "closet" jam-packed with skeletons.

Sunday, April 20, 2008

Hillary Supporters Backing McCain

I'm hoping this will be an innovative, exciting, much visited blog. The basis for this site is the knowledge that, if Senator Clinton doesn't get the nomination, many of her supporters will be inclined to vote in the general election for John McCain. I'm very interested in getting comments from people of all political stripes -- perhaps with emphasis on how McCain can "seal the deal" with Hillary supporters. I especially invite people to use the "comments" section or to write to me via e-mail (either: or I also invite you to visit my national blog site at: Also, I have a site focused on the battleground state of Pennsylvania (

Right now, I'm interested in your view on why so many Hillary supporters (as many as 30% in polls) say they might vote in the general for McCain. At times, Mrs. Clinton has implied that she and McCain are the two most qualified candidates for the presidency. She did so famously in her campaign that she and McCain both "have a life-time of experience," while Obama has "a speech he gave [against the Iraq War] in 2002." Recently, she said that Obama could win the presidency, but she didn't say it with any enthusiasm.

As I said, I'd love to hear your comments. I'll print anything that isn't either obscene or nonsensical.