Are you curious why Barack Obama is so “popular” despite being an outright and unabashed socialist? I am. It appears that the multifaceted nature of economic successes and woes have presented Obama with a perfect opportunity to exploit our excessive personal debt in order to force-feed socialism during an otherwise “decent” economy, at least by conventional measurements.  

There’s a lot of unrest about the state of our economy among voters. Yet, the data suggests that voter’s perceptions are largely out of sync with the actual rate of GDP growth – while most of us think we are in a recession (including NBC/ABC/CNN news) our economy is actually not in a recession at all. Rasmussen polls also suggest that voters are not overwhelmed by the stimulus package, although admittedly many of us haven’t gotten them yet, and voters also believe by a slight margin (54%) that excessive government is to blame for economic woes.  

So the question arises: who is correct on the economy – consumers or GDP? The answer to this question is probably more elusive than we would like, but a more relevant question is also presented: is it possible for consumer confidence to be dismal in an otherwise healthy economy? If we accept that consumers feel bearish and that we are also not in a recession, the answer appears to be yes. 

The key to this paradox might very well be a function of consumer debt. Americans presently are in over their ears in excessive amounts of borrowing and spending. Circuit City cards, Macy’s cards, Lowe’s cards, and your conventional Capitol One cards have allowed us to get our flat screens while still able to afford home improvement and clothes for our families.   Meanwhile, cars are racking up in the driveways and our mortgage debt is so pervasive it is not even worth mentioning. Aside from the omnipresent effect this has on our monthly bills, Americans are still highly productive and well-employed, for the most part at least. 

The effect this is undoubtedly having is that as consumers look at their future situation, they see a ton of bills, but not a lot of new spending. Many of us also realize that we have borrowed too much, and the cost of necessities (housing, gasoline, education, healthcare) is flirting on the point of unaffordable, if not already there. A pessimist might argue that it is high prices that are killing us, which is the inevitable result of free markets. A realist would argue that being able to afford those high cost necessities is admittedly difficult with our otherwise ridiculous spending habits. I do not attempt to place any moral judgment here, or to analyze why those necessities have always costs a lot of money, and probably always will. As an American myself, I have my fair share of indulgences, and common-sense people understand that nothing worthwhile in life comes for free, or cheap for that matter, unless of course you believe in the myth of Marxism. 

Rather, I want to argue how despicable it is of Barack Obama to take such a myopic view of the entire situation, in order to justify the conclusion that free market ideology is flawed. Lou Dobbs reiterated this statement weeks ago on his low-rated show, and if anyone has the energy to dig up the transcript please email me. This statement was along the lines of “all that free market hoopla is DEAD you know…DONE.”   I for one am baffled by this. But it seems to be picking up steam being that Obama has become so popular tapping into this idea. 

If you want to tell me Obama hasn’t tapped this idea, then please explain to me why he has frustrated bedrock democratic ideals such as free trade with other nations. This idea after all is the very pillar to which free nations rose up against the20th century communist movement calling for the “workers of the world [to] unite.” Also explain while you are it why Obama thinks secret ballot union votes are a bad thing, and why it is necessary to eliminate federal oversight of Jimmy Hoffa’s teamsters. Sounds like another calling for the “workers of the world [to] unite.”      

Free markets are dead? I have no energy to contemplate what exactly that means for the free world. But I do have excessive amounts of energy for opining how despicable, utterly despicable, it is for a major presidential candidate to pony up this radical idea.

It is true that many Americans have tough economic times ahead. But it equally unclear why, and also equally clear that our “economy” has not failed. It is in the state of an unprecedented number of consecutive quarters of growth. To the extent that our economy can have such a duplicitous nature – bad consumer confidence with positive macro trends – Obama is satisfied amplifying the former while entirely disregarding the latter. 

Isn’t that what liberals mean when they routinely bash others’ inability to spot “nuance and sophistication?” 

It appears Obama is content to see things objectively with nuance when he wants to, such as reverend Wright’s hatred, and to see things narrowly and subjectively when he wants to as well, such as the current state of the economy. On top of that, he also feels at liberty to exploit those narrow views to hide his own ignorance and covert bad consumer confidence into democratic votes. 

What a great guy. Truly our next JFK. 

The reason is that the result of the meeting established three important precedents.  One, that the FL and MI elections count, except that the delegates get a half a vote instead of a full vote.  This supports the idea that regardless of the delegate count, the Florida votes are fair game when calculating the popular vote, and by that I mean all of them.  As hard as it is to justify penalizing delegates, its impossible to justify throwing away votes when gauging the "true" will of the people.  Second, the decision suggests the Democratic party is corrupt and in the tank for Obama.  There is no surer sign of this other than the fact that Hillary lost 4 delegates she won in MI, when the DNC decided for whatever reason to give them to Obama instead.  This further supports the argument that the delegate count is not the reflection of the people's will.  Finally, and surprisingly the least relevant, the Democratic party is a deeply dysfunctional and undemocratic hypocrisy which has shamed many to call themselves democrats. 

I think Republicans should start reconsidering the notion that they may wake up one day to find themselves running against Clinton this fall, and not Obama. 

Why? Because all the relevant arguments have entirely shifted after Saturday. Neither candidate won enough votes, so now the super delegates decide. The main argument is that if the super-politicians overturn the will of the people, then that is a sham. However, after Saturday, it seems clear that supporting Obama, and not Clinton, is what would be guilty of that sham. Clinton now has the majority of votes, and the MI pledged delegates have been shadily re-distributed by party insiders. The case can now be strongly made that the delegate count is a ridiculous gauge of the voter’s preference.

Given Obama’s embarrassing defeats in late primaries, the gift to Hillary by the rules committee, and the state polls which show Hillary as MUCH stronger against McCain, a lot of opinions are going to change, and the past few days of protests are what is going to stimulate that and justify Hillary’s late takeover. 

Now that the Clinton's are paddling upstream with no oar, the Democrats are pure.  That's the theme of today's punditry at least. 

Does anyone recall early 2004, when the Democratic smear machine went full-throttle into demolishing the Bush administration's foreign and economic policy? 

While it was rather snaky to blame George W. Bush for a recession when the WTC center was recently attacked and the tech bubble had burst, that didn’t matter - it was GW's fault.  And while the same WTC attack and many years of Saddam's maneuvering around U.N sanctions that were the main thrust of his violent overthrow, that didn’t matter either - it was still GW's fault.  And while this is politics as usual and based on lots of misinformation and media conflation, it was all very effective but for one snag - Bill Clinton. 

Republicans foolishly got down into the mud with the dems and in addition to (versus rather than) defending GWB on the merits, they also quickly pointed out how Bill Clinton presided over the tech bubble which was a causal factor of the recession, and he also was the man to first begin drawing up war plans for the violent overthrow of Saddam Hussein.  In fact, it was partially Clinton's brilliant aerial assaults on Iraq's Airforce which made it oh-so-easy for the U.S. to later seize Baghdad in merely two weeks. 

And oh the intelligence failures.  The lies.  The Bush "propaganda".  All very effective political smear - but for that damn Bill Clinton.   

Well this week, the Democratic Party has now found their PURITY.  The Clinton's are finally gone (well, sort of.)  The activists in the party have been claiming the Clinton's were actually covert conservatives for years.  And now, without all of those ugly ties back into the Democratic administration of Bill Clinton, the Democratic party under the leadership of Barrack Hussein Obama may now effectively smear the entire last thirty years of conservative policy making - and look out, because its going to be effective. 

Never mind the fact that Democrats are foolish in bad-mouthing the Clinton years, which BHO and company have been doing casually throughout the campaign.  They know that most Americans agree with that, and now that the Dems don’t have to defend them anymore, they are willing to toss them right under the bus. 

What is important to notice is how quickly the momentum has changed for the Democrats.  While Hillary was still a real contender, the general impression was that Democrats were certain to ruin their chances for the White House.  Within 48 hours and Clinton no longer a real contender, the feeling now is that the Democrats are unstoppable. 

Im not so convinced.  The LA special election was won by a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat who stated publicly that he had never endorsed BHO.  The North Carolina congressmen who was attacked by the NC GOP, stated in an ad that he didn’t even know BHO.  This spells trouble for the Senator from Illinois.  Nevertheless, it’s going to be tough for Republicans to take the White House, although not impossible.

The main point I wanted to draw out today however is the notion that while most people thought it was BHO was really making the Democrats look so pathetic over the past two months, it was actually Hillary.  The evidence is plain - go read all the spin.  Today's headlines predict doom for John McCain, and covertly relish profound pleasure in the doom of HRC. 

So the Clinton's are gone, and a new order is rising.  More liberal, more socialist, and in their own eyes, more PURE then ever before. 

In their eyes, Wright, Michelle, BHO's inexperience, BHO's terrorist connections, and even the fallout from the closing of the Rezko trial next week will not taint their new-found youthfulness. 

Perhaps it has been a fetish for youthfulness, and a screaming painfulness in defending Clinton for 8 years, that has been damning the Democrats all along.