Andy Martin says no one would seriously consider Senator Barack Obama (or Hillary Clinton or John Edwards) as turnaround artists or crisis managers

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

OBAMA AND THE BOARDROOM:

WOULD ANY TROUBLED CORPORATION HIRE SENATOR BARACK OBAMA TO BE A “TURNAROUND ARTIST” OR CEO?

CLINTON OR EDWARDS? NOT LIKELY

WHICH DEMOCRAT WOULD YOU TRUST WITH YOUR MONEY?

(CHICAGO)(January 21, 2008) The Democratic Party has three major candidates for president who say America is in a mess and they know how to fix it. OK. Which one would you hire?

Each of the candidates promises to be what in corporate–parlance is a “turnaround artist,” someone who is brought in to clean up the mess of a prior management.

By looking at the presidential election as a corporate problem rather than a governmental one, we may be forced to confront the limited qualifications of the junior candidate in the race, Senator Barack Obama, and then look at the other candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton and former senator John Edwards, and disqualify all of them.

And, rather deliciously, we have a full plate of troubled corporations that have hired or are looking for new CEO’s, from Merrill Lynch and Citigroup in New York to the collapsing Countrywide Financial in California. Let’s use these companies as templates. Would any of these troubled businesses hire Obama to lead their turnarounds? Clinton? Edwards? I doubt it.

Some of my audience believes, incorrectly, that I have a personal agenda or personal hostility to Mr. Obama. That is not really the case. I live in Chicago and Barry O, as I call him, is being marketed as a “Son of Illinois,” which is grossly misleading, considering that he is really a creature of Chicago Machine Democratic Party politics in this state. Has Obama occasionally been a maverick or independent? Of course he has, when it suited his personal interest in political advancement.

But once ensconced in the “management” of his law firm or the state senate or U. S. Senate, Obama has been a reliable management vote for the local establishment. Obama has never turned anything around.

And no, I am not a closet supporter of the “likeable enough” Hillary Clinton. Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani has noted that Clinton has never managed anything, not a business, not a state, nothing. As for Mr. Edwards, I have opined that he would probably be the Democrats’ strongest candidate in November. Edwards, at least, has proven to be a successful trial lawyer. Being a good courtroom lawyer does require management skills. But all of them want to “manage” what they claim is the most troubled government in the world. Not so fast.

Back to Obama. Can you envision any troubled corporation hiring Mr. Obama to lead a turnaround? Would you hire him if you had troubled finances? Is “hope” a substitute for experience? I don’t believe so.

And yet the Democrats argue we have a troubled economy. We have a troubled foreign policy. We have a troubled nation. Why would any voter hire any of them to be a crisis manger and turnaround artist if the United States was a corporation instead of a government? Would you trust your money to a company that hired Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) to turn around your investment? I don’t think so. You would sell your shares.

Bottom Line: The Democrats fail the Boardroom Test.
------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of http://www.ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. http://www.AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin says Barack and Michelle Obama mishandled the Iraq/Martin Luther King/President Johnson fracas

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

OBAMBI AND THE WITCH:

CONTRARIAN COMMENTARY FOR JANUARY 15, 2008

OBAMA SUFFERS MAJOR DEFEAT IN "RACE" WARS.

CLINTON BOMBS EXPLODE OBAMA BUNKER

(CHICAGO)(January 15, 2008) Talk about being done in by your supporters. Barack Obama may have lost the presidential race during the past few days. The exchange of "racist" claims by the Clinton and Obama camps has been devastating to Obama. Perhaps Obama is smarter than his supporters and handlers; his wisdom could explain why he took the initiative in tamping down the conflicts concerning Martin Luther King and the Iraq "fairy tale."

The Clintons attacked on two fronts. Without realizing it they may have inflicted direct hits on Obama's command bunker. And, as usual, the mainstream media missed the significance of what happened.

First, Bill Clinton compared Obama's record of fighting against the war in Iraq to a "fairy tale." Immediately Obama's racial warriors—and even Obama's wife—tried to suggest the attack on Obama's Iraq inaction was an attack on his entire campaign. Piffle. Obama is a big pussy when it comes to actually opposing the war. He keeps talking about what he did in 2002, and does not address what he has done since being elected to the U. S. Senate in 2004.

As I do so often, I return to my days as a Fighting Illini in the football program at the University of Illinois. We had players we called "dummy scrimmage All-Americans." These players would hit the dummies with gusto during the week, but would cower when they saw the big guys on the other team on Saturday afternoons. They were terrified of injuries. Obama has always been a Dummy Scrimmage All-American on Iraq. He talked tough when it was safe to do so; and he weenies out now that it is risky not to do so.

Can anyone point me to a TV ad Obama ran in 2004, during his senate race, opposing the war? So far as I am aware, there is no such ad. And, as Bill Clinton made absolutely clear, Obama was in full weasel-mode in 2004 after he won the senate nomination. Obama compared himself to George Bush, and said he kept quiet on Iraq to help Senator John Kerry. Well. Since taking the oath of office in 2005, Obama has been pretty quiet on Iraq, limiting himself to proposing pie-in-the-sky solutions that have no chance of passage, He has done nothing to "unite us." And so Bill Clinton was 100% correct when he called Obama's "opposition" to the war a complete fairy tale. I would go one step further and call it a fabrication.

Barry O thinks that the same bull jive and shadowboxing that passes for discussion of issues in Chicago represents real action. If you want to see real courage, look at Senator John McCain's support of the Iraq war last year, at a time when the conflict was horribly unpopular. That's bravery. McCain is a man. Obama? Well, you'll have to ask Robert Johnson about that. McCain said he would rather lose an election than compromise our men and women in uniform. Would Obama be willing to lose an election to protect a principle? Are you kidding?

On the issue of the relationship between President Lyndon Johnson and Martin Luther King, Mrs. Clinton told it like it is. Indeed, I have a dog in this race because I am writing a column focusing on the roles of Everett Dirksen and Paul Douglas, and giving them credit for the civil rights successes of the 1960's. No one owns the 1960's. Not Martin Luther King, not President Johnson, not anyone. It took a collaborative national effort to end segregation.

Mrs. Clinton was only pointing to her wonkish credentials as a "doer" when she juxtaposed the contributions of King and Lyndon Johnson. I don’t think she had a racist intention at all. Without King there would have been no civil rights revolution. Without Johnson there would have been no civil rights revolution. I often spoke with Senator Douglas about Senator, then President, Johnson's contributions. Douglas credited Johnson with the breakthroughs.

But here's the rub. And here is what the mainstream media missed. The issue of King/Johnson and Iraq are only the subtext for Obama's management failure and totally incompetent response. His campaign should have ignored Mrs. Clinton and Bubba. Instead, the response of Obama's supporters amounted to a self-inflicted wound.

Mrs. Obama tried to expand the "fairy tale" comment into a general attack on her husband's campaign, when that was utter nonsense. Likewise, Mrs. Clinton's remarks about Lyndon Johnson were innocent enough. But by trying to respond through a prism of pure racism, the Obama camp devastated itself in the eyes not only of mainstream media but also of mainstream America. David Brooks in the New York Times came close to the core of the disaster when he said that Obama's supporters were using the race card to "make all criticism morally off-limits." Presto. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15brooks.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Mrs. & Mrs. Obama have tried to use race as a defensive mechanism to deflect any criticism of Obama on any issue during the campaign. I suggest that this strategy has and will backfire both with Democrats and ordinary Americans.

Obama has always been careful to be the African-American candidate of "white America." That's fair enough. Whites are a majority. But white voters, not even white Democrats, are going to nominate a team (not just a candidate) that seeks to racialize every campaign dispute. Obambi's record of actually fighting against Iraq policy is poor, and certainly nowhere near as strong as John McCain's criticism both of the old policy and support for the surge. Obama's one speech six years ago is an insufficient foundation for his flatulent rhetoric today. He hasn’t done anything. Criticizing Obama for talking the talk but not walking the walk is fair comment.

Likewise, the civil right battles of the 1960's were a white/black collaborative effort. To suggest that one cannot praise President Johnson's work without diminishing Martin Luther King's contribution is racist nonsense. And it won't work. And it won't sell in November. And it exploded in January.

When I finish my article about Dirksen and Douglas as civil rights lions, I don’t want to be pilloried as a racist for taking away from Dr. King. There were many champions during the civil rights era. We are entitled to worship all of them without diminishing any of them. But the racial hypersensitivity exhibited by the Obama campaign has inflicted a gaping wound in their long-term strategy. That is why Obama was the first to cry "uncle" yesterday.

And, as if on cue, Richard Cohen of the Washington Post appeared today with a column on the racist claptrap in Obama's church magazine, and his church's endorsement of Minister Louis Farrakhan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/14/AR2008011402083.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

But that's an Obama disaster for another day.

Honestly, I don't know who to root against in the Democratic Party. So I just call'em as I see'em. That's bad enough.

NEXT: Obama's religion. Again.

------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin says Chicago criminal trial may involve “wheeling and dealing” for testimony against Barack Obama

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

ContrarianCommentary.com update:

OBAMA’S DEALS WITH TONY REZKO COME UNDER SCRUTINY BY ABC NEWS

INTERNET STORM BEGINS TO BUILD OVER OBAMA’S REAL ESTATE DEALS WITH DALEY MACHINE SWINDLER

IS “THE REAL WHEELING AND DEALING” ABOUT OBAMA SET TO BEGIN BETWEEN REZKO’S ATTORNEYS AND FEDERAL PROSECUTORS?

WEB LINK:

http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-says-chicago-criminal-trial-r381284.htm

(CHICAGO)(January 10, 2008) Andy Martin, Executive Editor of ContrarianCommentary.com and Republican candidate for U.S. Senator, noted today, Thursday, January 10th that ABC News was now following the Obama-Rezko real estate connection.

“Since 2006 I have been pointing at Barack Obama and Tony Rezko and stating that as Rezko came closer to trial, Obama would be in greater jeopardy. In a ‘perfect storm,’ Rezko’s trial is set to start in February, just as the primary season is reaching a climax.

“Obama’s excuse that he was not aware of Rezko’s shady politics is an insult to the intelligence. Obama has also said he had no idea that Rezko had slum properties right inside Obama’s state senate district, a few blocks away.

“And Obama’s law firm was doing Rezko’s legal work.

“Does Obama think we are all dumb?” Martin asks.

“Moreover, Rezko’s assistance to Obama in acquiring his home took place after Obama was already elected to the U. S. Senate. Obama knew then who he was dealing with, a Daley Machine fixer. Some people are confused and have told me they don’t think Rezko helped finance Obama’s home purchase. Indeed he did. Rezko provided financing for part of the package of two parcels of property. If I am buying two parcels of adjacent property, and a person helps me buy one of the parcels, he is helping me acquire the entire package.

“You heard it here first, but I predict Rezko will try to ‘give up’ Obama as part of a plea deal to avoid trial, and offer to testify against Obama as an influence-peddling newly-elected U. S. Senator. After thirty-five years of fighting Chicago corruption I have learned something, and when a crooked pol faces the pen, then the real wheeling and dealing begins,” Martin states.

Links:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115565&page=1

------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin says Chicago criminal trial may involve “wheeling and dealing” for testimony against Barack Obama

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

ContrarianCommentary.com update:

OBAMA’S DEALS WITH TONY REZKO COME UNDER SCRUTINY BY ABC NEWS

INTERNET STORM BEGINS TO BUILD OVER OBAMA’S REAL ESTATE DEALS WITH DALEY MACHINE SWINDLER

IS “THE REAL WHEELING AND DEALING” ABOUT OBAMA SET TO BEGIN BETWEEN REZKO’S ATTORNEYS AND FEDERAL PROSECUTORS?

WEB LINK:

http://www.pr-inside.com/andy-martin-says-chicago-criminal-trial-r381284.htm

(CHICAGO)(January 10, 2008) Andy Martin, Executive Editor of ContrarianCommentary.com and Republican candidate for U.S. Senator, noted today, Thursday, January 10th that ABC News was now following the Obama-Rezko real estate connection.

“Since 2006 I have been pointing at Barack Obama and Tony Rezko and stating that as Rezko came closer to trial, Obama would be in greater jeopardy. In a ‘perfect storm,’ Rezko’s trial is set to start in February, just as the primary season is reaching a climax.

“Obama’s excuse that he was not aware of Rezko’s shady politics is an insult to the intelligence. Obama has also said he had no idea that Rezko had slum properties right inside Obama’s state senate district, a few blocks away.

“And Obama’s law firm was doing Rezko’s legal work.

“Does Obama think we are all dumb?” Martin asks.

“Moreover, Rezko’s assistance to Obama in acquiring his home took place after Obama was already elected to the U. S. Senate. Obama knew then who he was dealing with, a Daley Machine fixer. Some people are confused and have told me they don’t think Rezko helped finance Obama’s home purchase. Indeed he did. Rezko provided financing for part of the package of two parcels of property. If I am buying two parcels of adjacent property, and a person helps me buy one of the parcels, he is helping me acquire the entire package.

“You heard it here first, but I predict Rezko will try to ‘give up’ Obama as part of a plea deal to avoid trial, and offer to testify against Obama as an influence-peddling newly-elected U. S. Senator. After thirty-five years of fighting Chicago corruption I have learned something, and when a crooked pol faces the pen, then the real wheeling and dealing begins,” Martin states.

Links:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483&page=1

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4115565&page=1

------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin says Barack Obama may face scrutiny in Chicago criminal trial

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

WHODUNIT?

WHO BROUGHT DOWN THE 96-HOUR OBAMA DYNASTY?

MAINSTREAM MEDIA DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME: THE INTERNET

OBAMA SAYS “VETTING HAS ENDED.” SAYS WHO?

THE “CANNED” CANDIDATE FINALLY GETS THE CAN

OBAMA SAYS HE GOING TO TALK “CHICAGO TOUGH,” AGAIN

WILL CLINTON’S “CRYING GAME” WORK, AGAIN?

(CHICAGO)(January 10, 2008) In the Broadway hit and later award-wining movie “Mr. Roberts,” the enraged captain of Roberts’ ship runs amok when his beloved palm tree disappears. “Whoooo did it?” the captain screams. “Whoooo did it? Whooo did it?”

Whodunit?

Who brought down the Barack Obama dynasty? The 96-hour wonder. Was it Hillary Clinton’s crying game? I don’t think so.

The mainstream media dare not speak its name: the Internet.

Mainstream media have professed shock at the sudden decline of Obama from front-running victor in New Hampshire to also-ran. Not since president Truman’s Chicago Tribune “Dewey Defeats Truman” headline has such a shocking event scalded presidential politics. So who did it?

Nothing so reflects the lack of connection to reality in the Obama campaign than the remarks cited in Lynn Sweet’s Chicago Sun-Times column Wednesday. http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/01/sweet_column_obamaville_caught.html

Obama apparently believed “he was done being vetted.” Sweet, a Chicago veteran, begs to differ. So do I. As if on cue, John Kass, another Chicago muckraker, popped up with his own anti-Obama sentiments: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass_09jan09,0,4588673.column

And then there was a sort-of Obama defender, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson, who ended up making my own case even better than I had, even if that was not Gerson’s intention.

I was inundated with Obama’s supports’ criticisms after I pointed out Obama had used a teleprompter to say “thank you” to the People of Iowa. Gerson thought a canned speech was evidence of “well-crafted rhetorical ambition.” Not in my play book.

I was also criticized because I said Obama’s Iowa speech sounded canned, and stale. Was it ever. A TV dinner of political platitudes. Gerson confirms my instincts. He discloses that not only were Obama’s remarks canned, they were canned before the caucuses even took place. “But a few days before his Iowa win, Obama called his speechwriter in Des Moines to say his victory speech…Obama’s bright young wordsmith, Jon Favreau…” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/08/AR2008010803487.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

So Obama canned his spontaneous and sincere victory speech days before he even won. Some sincerity. Some spontaneity. Gerson shows just how far removed the Washington Post and he are from reality when he congratulates Obama, when he should be castigating him. And, once again ContrarianCommentary.com comes out smelling like a rose because we brought you the truth first, based on appearances and not based on an insider’s leak from within the Obama camp. Obama’s supporters should be quaking. Obama not only doesn’t write his own speeches, he cans them days in advance. Canned sincerity? Canned spontaneity? Watch out for the Clinton can-openers.

I wonder if Obama canned his concession speech in New Hampshire days in advance. Or was that spontaneous? Mr. Favreau, are you talking?

Well, as president Reagan would say, “That’s just not the way its done, sonny.” And that from a cannery captain of the first order.

Obama got canned by the voters in New Hampshire. Big surprise and no surprise. And his reaction is, well, no surprise either. Obama is talking “Chicago tough” again. He said he “comes from Chicago politics,” and “We’re accustomed to rough-and-tumble.” He better get ready for the real thing.

Obama’s spiel has been stale for a long time. Now that he is at the top, the Clintons’ long knives will come out. Obama’s “dream house” was purchased with financing from a Chicago swindler and slum lord, Tony Rezko. Rezko’s criminal trial is approaching next month. Rezko’s lawyers say he fears “anti-Syrian” bias because of his parentage. What? An Arab in Obama’s background? Not really.

Rezko was a notorious campaign influence peddler and purchaser. He was strictly business. And he did business with Senator Barack Obama, after his election to the United States Senate. To paraphrase president Bill Clinton, that’s no “fairy tale.”

In the Broadway/movie hit “The Music Man,” the huckster Harold Hill eventually has to go legit. Will Obama eventually go legit? I’m not sure. I’m not sure he can. Wednesday Obama was at it, soliciting new campaign contributions. He’s going to need the cash, for the long, drawn out battle ahead.

The Obama dynasty began on Friday, January 4th. It ended Monday, January 7th. Maybe instead of comparing Obama to John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King we should be comparing him to the fictional “king” Ozymandias of Percy Shelly’s poem. I do not for a moment suggest Obama’s campaign is over. But as the campaign goes on, people are going to become as aware as I am that Obama’s speeches are stale, and canned, and he keeps repeating the same old sizzle without ever delivering any real solid steak. Or should I say, “Where’s the beef?”

In all of the drama of January 8th I believe the Internet received grossly insufficient credit. If the material which crosses my desk is any indication. Obama is far, far away from being vetted, either in the mainstream media or on the Internet.

Finally, to avoid crediting the Internet, mainstream media have sought to explain Clinton’s victory based on her “crying game” the day before the election. Personally, I am doubtful. Crying is not a viable campaign strategy. It could work, once, but not again. It may even be sexist patronizing to suggest a woman won because she cried. No one knows for sure. But I put my chips on the Internet influence. Unseen, and unstoppable.

Next up: the Tony Rezko fiasco. Why did Obama ever take Rezko’s money to buy a house? I’ll “rough-and-tumble” on that one. Over a year ago, I pointed out desperate men change their tunes, and deliver the goods:

http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.html?col=687
http://www.contrariancommentary.com/community/Home/tabid/36/mid/363/newsid363/116/Default.aspx

Rezko may be primed to deliver Obama to federal prosecutors. At a minimum Rezko’s lawyers may call Obama as a witness. As Barry O would say, “I’m from Chicago.” So am I. Which is why I have been questioning Obama’s bona fides for 3-1/2 years.

Bring on the Clinton can-openers. Obama may be canned. But the presidential campaign obviously is not. It’s wide open.
------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin says Associated Press and CNN continue to distribute disinformation about Senator Barack Obama’s relatives in Kenya

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

ASSOCIATED PRESS AND CNN CONTINUE TO DISTRIBUTE DISINFORMATION ABOUT SENATOR BARACK OBAMA’S RELATIVES IN KENYA

WHY ARE AMERICAN MEDIA INCAPABLE OF PRINTING ACCURATE FACTS ABOUT THE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE?

(CHICAGO)(January 9, 2008) There has been a great deal of disinformation about Senator Barack Obama on the Internet and in mainstream media. One of the reasons for this confusion is that United States news organizations that champion the accuracy of their facts continue to convey disinformation about Obama’s family ties.

The latest disinformation was released today by Associated Press and CNN:

http://news.aol.com/elections/story/_a/obama-family-in-kenya-watches-us-vote/20080108163509990001?ncid=NWS00010000000001

Both Associated Press and CNN claim that Sarah Hussein Obama is Barack Obama’s “grandmother.” CNN refers to her as “granny,” which is only an honorific title, not a statement of relation. Sarah Obama was married to Obama’s grandfather, but she is a subsequent wife and is not the mother of his father Barack Obama, Sr. Many cultures refer to “aunties” and “grannies’ as honorific titles, assigned to other relatives and sometimes even friends, neighbors, and stepparents, when they in fact have no basis in blood relation.

Yet AP and CNN continue to avoid disclosing that the “grandmother” to whom they are referring is not the senator’s grandmother in fact.

Mrs. Obama’s picture has appeared in media, erroneously listing her as the senator’s grandmother. Despite all of the controversy over erroneous descriptions in 2007, Associated Press and CNN negligently continue to convey false facts to their audiences in 2008.

Is it any wonder the public will believe anything about Obama, when media are feeding their audiences outright distortions?

Concerning the religious beliefs of the Obama family, it is noteworthy that the uncle quoted in the AP’s Obama story also has a Muslim name. Said Obama. I fully accept that Barack Obama is a practicing Christian today, but why has he gone to such lengths to obscure the religious origins of his family? He could have put all of this confusion to rest last year if only he had made a simple and straightforward disclosure of the undisputed facts.

Finally, although AP was not under any duty to do so, it could have disclosed that Senator Obama said nothing about the chaos in Kenya until he was prompted to do so by ContrarianCommentary.com. Not one word appeared anywhere reflecting Obama’s “concerns” until we chastised him for his prevarication on the post-election breakdown in Kenya.

During the past several days ContrarianCommentary.com has received a bevy of e-mails from persons either claiming to be or seeming to be close to the Obama family or the campaign. It is obvious that ContrarianCommentary.com continues to drive the news agenda where questions about Senator Barack Obama’s past and family background are concerned, and that the Obama operation pays intense attention to our reporting and opinion commentary.
------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin explains why Barack Obama won an even bigger victory than reported by the media

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

OBAMA WINS BIG, AND THE NATIONAL MEDIA MISS THE STORY

HOW THE IOWA "CAUCUSES" CHEAT THE ACTUAL VOTER

JOHN EDWARDS, ANDY MARTIN'S PROJECTED WINNER, RUNS AHEAD OF HILLARY CLINTON

DEMOCRATS SURGE IN IOWA, AND THE BELL TOLLS FOR REPUBLICANS; A BAD OMEN FOR REPUBLICANS NATIONALLY

(CHICAGO)(January 4, 2008) Senator Barack Obama won an even bigger victory Tuesday night than the national media reported. As usual, in announcing the "big" story, the national media missed the even bigger story. But we have the real deal at ContrarianCommentary.com.

Before the caucuses began, media tried to explain how the caucuses work. Unfortunately they failed to offer a correct explanation of how the "voters" are actually translated into the "delegates" that then appear on TV as "percentages" of victory. Tonight Barack Obama was cheated out of an even bigger and even more astounding victory than the press reported. Here's why.

Unlike an election, where voters show up and cast a ballot that is counted—which is/was the Republican party's system in Iowa—the Iowa Democratic Party's (IDP) caucuses operate on a very different and much more confusing wavelength. The caucus system worked to Obama's significant disadvantage and understated the extent of his victory.

Prior to the caucuses, the IDP assigns a fixed number of "delegate votes" to each precinct. These "delegates" eventually go on to state convention where national convention delegates are actually selected. Here's the quirk. The number of "delegates" assigned to a precinct has no bearing on the number of people who actually show up to vote. Thus, if you win by an overwhelming percentage in any precinct, you still only get the assigned number of delegates. Moreover, if 20 people or 200 or 2,000 people show up in a precinct, the delegate number is the same. Ultimately, "voters" are not tallied, precincts are.

The national media were not reporting the raw vote for Obama; they were only reporting the "projected delegates" and assigning percentages based on those delegate numbers, not actual voter numbers. The upshot: Obama brought many more voters to the caucuses than were reflected in his delegate totals. In other words, he may have won "38%" of the delegates on TV screens, but he may have produced over sixty percent of the actual voters. The disparity between voters who show up, and delegates that are assigned by precinct, is a major reason why the caucus system should be abolished. And that is why, in reality, Obama won an even bigger victory than the delegate numbers that were used to calculate his percentage.

I am not an Obama fan, and I have always been skeptic of Obama's staying power and credibility. He was fibbing again in his victory speech, when he claimed to have provided "affordable health care in Illinois." He did nothing of the sort. It is precisely those types of fibs that will do him in if he maintains misrepresentations as a front-runner. But there is no denying Obama won a massive victory. And he drove a stake through the heart of Team Clinton.

Despite all of the polling that predicted Obama would win, my internal poll told me Edwards would/could win and I predicted he would. Not bad. He didn’t come out on top, but he made a very strong, unexpectedly strong, showing and collected more delegates than Hillary Clinton. Some pundits stated after the vote that the race was now between Obama and Clinton, and that Edwards would soon be eliminated. I don't believe that.

Yes, Obama and Clinton have the national organizations, the huge piles of money, and the better media visibility. But in the face of these overwhelming odds, Edwards mounted a successful challenge, and survived. That was a massive moral victory for Edwards. He has every right to be proud.

Now here's the interesting part, and an explanation of why I think Edwards may still have a future. All three Democrats have now adopted the same message: "change" and "the middle class." But I feel Edwards articulates that message better than either Clinton or Obama. I liked Edwards' speech better than either Obama's or Clinton's. It was superior. Clinton's remarks were, as always, wooden. Obama's were rote. Edwards not only reads the American jury better than either of his opponents, he knows how to deliver a better closing argument. And he does. Can Clinton and Obama force Edwards out of the race by appropriating his message? I don’t know. I know Edwards is a fighter and he will be a factor.

Now the bad news for Republicans. But first, a small explanation. I am also a candidate myself. A Republican. I have not endorsed any candidate for president. In order to avoid any conflicts of interest, or suspicion that I favor one Republican over another, I have generally avoided writing about the Republican presidential race. There are exceptions, but not many. I also make generic comments on the status of the Republican Party. I have chosen, instead, to be the Republican "expert" on the "opposition" Democrats; that's my role for now.

Tuesday night, the Republicans did not show well. The Democratic turnout surged and almost doubled the Republican participation. That's not a good sign for Republicans in November. The caucuses fulfill the equivalent of a primary election. They test voter enthusiasm. Both parties were well organized and had candidates who had the resources to produce voters. And still the Democrats turned out almost double the number of participants as the Republicans. Primary turnouts are usually a rough approximation of underlying party strength. In Iowa, usually a swing state, Democrats are energized by a factor of almost 2 to 1. That's not a good omen for November. Iowa may not swing to the Republicans if present trends continue.

Bottom line: Senator Barack Obama won an even bigger victory than the media suggested. His "voters" appear to have accounted for over 50% of the actual participants in the caucuses. John Edwards won a victory by running ahead of Hillary Clinton. And the three of them will fight on to the national convention in Denver. As for Republicans, they now have a
catfight as well.

------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.

Andy Martin says Barack Obama blundered in accepting Dennis Kucinich's support


ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
For Immediate Release:
ANDY MARTIN HANDICAPS THE DEMOCRATS IN IOWA: PART TWO
THE KISS OF KUCINICH: OBAMA MAKES A SMALL SLIP WITH BIG CONSEQUENCES, BAD ONES
WILL KUCINICH'S FLYING SAUCERS BE LANDING TO CAUCUS FOR OBAMA?
(CHICAGO)(January 3, 2008) When the media would challenge President Reagan after his endorsement by controversial groups, he had a stock answer: "They endorsed me; I didn't endorse them." Barack Obama should pay more attention to the Gipper.

A few weeks ago, Obama was encouraging college students to come back to college (in Iowa) early from the Christmas break, to caucus for him on January 3rd. The Chicago newspapers got wind of Obama's entreaties, and called him on seeming to encourage possible double voting. In Chicago, of course, we have a long tradition of "voting early and often." Had Obama learned from Chicago Mayor Ritchie Daley, or his campaign maven Tony Rezko? The senator denied encouraging illegal student voting. The matter dissolved.

Obama is not likely to escape as easily from his stumble on January 1st, when Congressman Dennis Kucinich, running for president to put forward an extreme agenda, "endorsed" Obama as a "second choice." Only for the Iowa caucuses. Instead of ignoring Kucinich, Obama made a classic error that will return to haunt him. Obama's mistake was in accepting Kucinich's "endorsement" and "honoring" DK for making the announcement of support.

The Chicago Tribune's "Swamp" reported that Obama responded to Kucinich's Iowa-only support in a statement saying:

“I have a lot of respect for Congressman Kucinich, and I’m honored that he has done this because we both believe deeply in the need for fundamental change,” he said. “He and I have been fighting for a number of the same priorities -- including an end to the war in Iraq that we both opposed from the start."
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/kucinich_obama_is_my_second_ch.html

Iowa's crackpot caucuses encourage candidates to praise each other, because the Democratic caucuses (unlike the Republican caucuses which engage in "one candidate-one vote" process) are based on the European socialist system of voting with "second choice" balloting for candidates.

Under second choice voting, used by almost all social democracies in Europe, second place votes can be added to a first or second place candidate to determine the winner. In Iowa, supporters of candidates without enough representatives to reach 15% at any caucus can revote for candidates who will then meet the 15% threshold. So Clinton, Edwards, Obama & Co. praise each other, knowing a few second round, second choice, votes could mean the difference between winning and losing.

In 2004, Kucinich made John Edwards his "second choice" and may have propelled Edwards into a second place caucus finish. This time Kucinich's "kiss" of support may prove to be the kiss of death for Mr. Obama.

With Clintonian dexterity, Obama has carefully tried to triangulate away from the extreme left of the Democratic Party that adores him. Indeed, the Democratic blogosphere has begun to criticize Obama for being "too Republican."

Well, Obama has just jetted from being "too Republican" to landing on the lunatic fringe of the Democratic Party in one movement. Will Obama and Kucinich be encouraging flying saucers to land and disgorge potential caucus attendees? (Kucinich has stated he has seen flying saucers.) By being "honored" by Kucinich's support, Obama has aligned himself with the extreme left, in the party where he is striving to appear to be middle-of-the road. Like Dr. Strangelove's uncontrollable arm, Obama's congenital left-wing orientation has popped up when he least needs it.

Now Obama's opponents will be able to tar and feather him for making common cause with Kucinich and his band of loonies. Are Kucinich and Obama kissing cousins on the need for reform? That what they say. That kind of association is precisely what Obama does not need going into Iowa today, and New Hampshire next week.

Kucinich's "kiss" of common cause with Obama may prove to be a very costly the kiss of death in the long run. Obama has received the "endorsement" from hell. In return for meaningless support in one state, Obama has opened the door to allowing himself to be branded as an extremist by his more moderate front-runners.

There will be hell to pay as Democrats realize that Dennis and Barack are perfect together. "Mama, gas up the flying saucer. We're heading for Iowa to caucus for Obama. Kucinich told us to."

What a team.

--------------------------Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. Copyright Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers national and international politics with more than forty years of experience. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Andy is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois.AndyforUSSenator.com; AndyforUSSenator.blogspot.com, AndyforUSSenator.wordpress.com.

Andy Martin predicts John Edwards will win Iowa


ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”
For Immediate Release:
ANDY MARTIN HANDICAPS THE DEMOCRATS IN IOWA: PART ONE
MARTIN PICKS EDWARDS TO WIN BASED ON HIS CLOSING ADVERTISEMENT
ANDY ANALYZES THE BEST TICKET FOR THE DEMOCRATS IN NOVEMBER
(CHICAGO)(January 3, 2008) This year I celebrate forty (40!) years in broadcasting. Some time after February 5th we will be having a commemoration. During four decades I have done everything there is to do in radio and TV: field production, on air talent, talk show host, commercial production, and advertising sales. Whew.

For the past couple of weeks I have been laying out a column on "The Democrats, Iowa and November." Here it is.

Republicans usually say they want to run against Hillary Clinton. I took an opposite approach. As a Republican, which ticket would I find hardest to fight in November? The answer may not be so obvious. It seldom is.

I want to stress that I did not do any field research for my conclusions. I base them on the usual gaggle of TV heads, the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times and Chicago Tribune. And all of the above filtered through forty years of broadcasting experience.

In particular, I know how to produce a doozy of a TV commercial. I've done it. And tonight, just as I was finishing off a ham and cheese sandwich and getting ready to write this column, I saw "the" commercial that is going to move votes this evening and tomorrow.

What I came up with as a bottom line over the past couple of weeks is that the Democrats should nominate John Edwards for president and Barack Obama for Vice president. That ticket would be tough for the Republicans to play defense against. I have always been an Obama skeptic, and I still am. But I think voters would accept him for VP even if they think he is not ready for the Oval Office.

Picking between Edwards and Clinton for President was easy. Mrs. Clinton is wooden. She is miserable on TV. Because he was/is a trial lawyer, Edwards understands the arena. He does well on the tube (or flat screen). Mrs. Clinton may have money and she may have organization but she is death warmed over on TV. I don’t think she can change.

The tube sees what it wants to see; the screen reveals what it wants to reveal.

As I was listening to the blah, blah and getting ready to write, excerpts from the three closing ads of Clinton, Obama and Edwards were broadcast. Clinton's final words were wooden. Obama's last words were leaden. And Edwards final message was golden. I have seldom seen a more powerful advertisement. By effacing himself, Edwards allowed an explosive message to enter living rooms: economic insecurity, loss of a job, the relationship of a father and son. Care and concern. It was an unbelievably powerful message. http://www.johnedwards.com/media/video/bishop/

Edwards knows how to read a jury. As a lawyer myself, I appreciate that. The ability to read and respond in a courtroom is part talent, part science, part art. Part gift. Ultimately, Edwards reads the mood of the Democrats better than either of his two principal competitors. Working with much less money than either, he had managed to keep his smaller ship afloat in Iowa. That resilience reflects staying power. And Edwards is actually slightly ahead of the political curve. Economic issues are only now coming to the fore.

Wall Street excesses, corruption. Flim flam mortgage schemes. "Private equity" pirates stealing from public shareholders and pension funds, parties with grotesque excesses, there is a long road ahead as we face economic challenges this year. Republicans may not want to hear this message (although Governor Huckabee understands it) but we are in for a rough economy. Oil at $100 a barrel? What does that mean for summer driving?

Edwards understands the battlefield better than either Obama or Clinton. Clinton's "experience" means nothing when we face new and uncharted challenges; Obama's optimism is useless when he lacks the cohones to stand up to the plutocrats because they are all his contributors, from Warren Buffet down to Chicago's Pritzker family.

What can I say? We don't call this newspaper Contrarian Commentary" for nothing. Edwards strikes me as the man who could strike fear in the hearts of Republicans in November. And his final TV ad confirmed for me that he knows how to attack, and he has the personal means to attack far better than either of his two competitors.

What does this mean for Iowa? Here I put on my "Midwestern" cap. I know Iowa. I have campaigned there. The state's small cities and Des Moines are familiar to me. I was once listed in the Des Moines telephone directory. Iowans are solid, loyal, and sensible. If Edwards has managed to hold on to as many of them as he has, for so long, with so few resources, he is going to have a reliable vote on Thursday. His commercial message will move votes. Count on it.

Edwards, of course, needs to win; Clinton and Obama do not. They each have a $100 million war chest to continue. Edwards does not.

Can Edwards win? I think he will. If not, he will be so close as to make the caucuses a photo finish. If he does win, it becomes a three-way race to the convention floor in Denver.

In my opinion, John Edwards is the strongest Democrat, that Republicans should least want to face, in November.

Remember, the camera never lies.

NEXT: PART Two: The Kiss of Kucinich: Obama makes a small slip with big consequences
--------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. Copyright Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers national and international politics with more than forty years of experience. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Andy is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois.AndyforUSSenator.com; AndyforUSSenator.blogspot.com, AndyforUSSenator.wordpress.com.

Where is Obama? Kenya is burning, his relatives are endangered, and his granny needs a toilet

ANDY MARTIN
Executive Editor
ContrarianCommentary.com

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”

WHERE'S BARACK OBAMA? KENYA IS ON FIRE; 275 ARE DEAD

IN YET ANOTHER UNEXPECTED INCIDENT IN THIS PRESIDENTIAL CAMPAIGN, OBAMA ABANDONS HIS "BROTHERS" AND "SISTERS" IN KENYA AS THAT COUNTRY BURNS, BECAUSE IT IS POLITICALLY EXPEDIENT FOR HIM TO DO SO.

WHAT ABOUT GRANNY? WHY WON'T MILLIONAIRE OBAMA WHO LIVES IN A CHICAGO MANSION PAY TO INSTALL RUNNING WATER AND PLUMBING FOR SOMEONE HE CALLS "GRANNY?"

IS OBAMA STAYING AT THE SAME HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS AS HUCKABEE?

(CHICAGO)(January 2, 2008) Senator Barack Obama is missing in action. Nothing so reveals the character of a man as how he acts during a crisis. Last week all of the presidential candidates were evaluated on their responses to the murder of Benazir Butto. Earlier, Governor Mike Huckabee made light of a foreign policy question by attesting he stayed at a "Holiday Inn Express last night." Tuesday it was Obama's turn to roast and revel his mendacious character and hollow principles.

In 2006 Obama went to Kenya and cried out "All of you are my brothers; all of you are my sisters." http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2006-08-27-obama-trip_x.htm

It seems Barry O has forgotten his brothers and sisters now that Kenya is on fire.

Obama's Luo tribe, of which he is so proud in presidential debates, trotting out his "international" relatives as evidence of his expansive and experienced world view, are at risk of losing their lives and their "big man" in Washington is ignoring the situation.

And while we are at it, why does Obama brag about his "granny's" lifestyle with no running water and no plumbing or flush toilets? He has made millions; can't he send his step-grandmother a thousand bucks to install a well and faucet? Or does he prefer that his relatives live in squalor so he can make political capital of their deprivation? What a creep.

Obama, the more you know, the more disgusted you became.

I would not be writing this and blaming Obama if he had ignored his Kenyan relatives. But when he constantly tries to exploit the existence of his foreign relatives and makes political hay out of both their poverty and loyalty, as Obama has done, doesn’t he owe them something more than nothing when they are in danger?

Kenya has just gone through a national election that was relatively peaceful. Until this weekend when tribal loyalties trumped democracy and unleashed mass murder. When the ballots were counted in a suspicious manner, riots broke out. Over 275 people are dead. Over 50 people died in a church that was torched. People are literally being hacked to death with machetes.

And Obama is silent. Not a peep out of him about either the violent situation or concern for his Kenyan relatives. He's "doing a Huckabee" about current events in Kenya. Who? Me?

Well, any fool in Iowa, and there appear to be a lot of fools in Iowa, who votes for a man who forgets "family" in Kenya as casually as he changes his socks, and who talks about his "granny" living without water or a toilet when he is a multimillionaire and lives in a mansion in Chicago, is uninformed and in denial. Would you want a candidate like that for a relative if you didn’t know his last name? I don't think so. Of course not. Then why would you vote to put this joker in the White House?

Obama has fooled a lot of people during this presidential campaign. A lot of suckers have donated over $100 million to his campaign. Suckerrr.

But just look at his reaction to the anarchy in Kenya—total silence and disinterest—and you will know how Obama will treat the American People if he were ever in power. It's always all about Obama, all the time. What can you do for him, and what can he do you for? Look at the way he exploits his Kenyan relatives, and then ignores them when they are in danger. Look. Obama is the classic huckster pol that knows how to milk the people for every last drop. And then gives nothing in return.

I don’t know about you, but if I had a "granny" that was living without running water and without a toilet, as Obama constantly reminds us his is, I would see to it that she got the comforts of life. Yesterday. Amazingly, Obama brags about his Granny's deprivation and the media cheers him on.

Obama and the media, sickos together. Perfect together.

I can hear the toilets flushing in the background.
------------------------------------------
Chicago-based Internet journalist, broadcaster and media critic Andy Martin is the Executive Editor and publisher of ContrarianCommentary.com. © Copyright by Andy Martin 2007. Martin covers regional, national and world events with over forty years of experience. He is currently a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. AndyforUSSenator.com. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. Columns also posted at ContrarianCommentary.blogspot.com; contrariancommentary.wordpress.com. Comments? E-mail: AndyMart20@aol.com. Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Web sites: ContrarianCommentary.com.