Andy Martin: Contrarian Commentary

My Photo
Location: Manchester, New Hampshire, United States

Tuesday, May 27, 2008

Barack Obama “supporter” steals $1 million in lifetime benefits from Illinois taxpayers

Andy Martin reports on the incredible cesspool of Barack Obama’s Illinois supporters. Illinois is bankrupt—looted by public officials through greed, incompetence and lavish public employee pensions. State Senator Carol Ronen has become the highest paid public official in American history: $1 million in lifetime benefits for one month in a no-show job. Now she is “volunteering” for Barack Obama. America: don’t say we didn’t warn you.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”







(CHICAGO)(May 27, 2008) It’s always embarrassing to say you are from Illinois. Barack Obama’s backyard is where he learned all of the dirty tricks and double-dealing that have brought him to the pinnacle of national power. The cronies he left behind in the Illinois senate continue to loot a prostrate state. And they are praying Obama will give them the opportunity to prey on the U. S. Treasury.

Over the slow news Memorial Day weekend the Chicago Sun-Times reported a story that is perhaps the most disgraceful example of shameless looting by one of Obama’s former colleagues and current “volunteers.” State Senator Carol Ronen served with Obama.

At a time when Illinois taxpayers are facing a financial abyss because of the deteriorating national economy, and when the state has been bankrupted by political greed, incompetence, and lavish public employee pensions,, the Sun-Times story disclosing Ronen’s financial shenanigans took greed and corruption to a new level of contempt for the public.

Illinois government has become a kleptocracy where part-time public officials scheme and maneuver to loot the public treasury, and to impose an endlessly escalating financial burden on working families and business in the state. Carol Ronen took honest graft to a higher plateau, although it is likely she is not alone in her quest for public cash.

The Sun-Times reported,CST-NWS-pension24.article that merely by being on Governor Blagojevich’s payroll for a little over a month, Ronen was able to fatten her lifetime public pension benefits by over one million dollars. Yes. $1 million. One month/one million.

Ronen has become perhaps the highest paid public official in history, and a poster girl for legislative greed in Springfield.

How did Ronen work her scam? Simple. “It’s legal.” The cesspool of Illinois politics is structured to allow part-time public officials such as state legislators to loot the bankrupt public treasury for “retirement benefits.”

As a part-time legislator, Ronen accrued an annual retirement benefit of $64,000 annually. Simply by being listed on the governor’s payroll for over 30 days—and there is no showing that Ronen actually did anything during that period—she jumped her lifetime pension from $64,000 to $102,000.

This scam is morally and legally outrageous. For someone to collect $1 million in lifetime benefits for being listed as a ghost employee for a month is nothing more and nothing less than stealing from the taxpayers.

Ronen is now working for Barack Obama and, no doubt, planning new scams to enrich herself if Obama is elected.

And they wonder why Americans think of Illinois as a bottomless cesspool of political greed and contempt for the citizens of this state.

I will have more to say about this naked theft in the days ahead. Ronen should not be allowed to get away with this theft of public property, which is now being paid for by Illinois’ impoverished taxpayers.

America: meet Barack Obama’s supporters back home in Illinois. A den of thieves, pirates and crass opportunists who have looted Illinois and are praying for the opportunity to loot the United States of America. America: meet Caron Ronen, a new “volunteer” for Barack Obama. Yah, sure. Just the way she volunteered to serve the People of Illinois, and ended up becoming the highest paid public official in American history. One month/$1 million dollars in lifetime benefits.

Chicago's Number One Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, Andy Martin, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois and Florida. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at;

Sunday, May 25, 2008

Andy Martin says Florida governor brings “blank canvas” to vice presidential weenie roast. Is Senator John McCain risking another Republican sex scandal? Martin says Republicans have at least as many gay staffers on Capitol Hill as the Democrats; columnist suggests Republicans end their hypocrisy on sexual issues.
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”



(PALM BEACH)(May 26, 2008) Republicans, the party of “family values” and opposition to gay marriage, seem to end up with more sex scandals than the Democrats. The latest scandal was the double life of Representative Vito Foscella, who had families on Staten Island, New York and in suburban Washington. As someone whose background in Florida politics go back far enough to remember the first time Congressman-to-be Mark Foley ran as a right-wing crusader and promised to vote against gay marriage, I am amused by the current national media fandango being conducted by Senator John McCain.

McCain says he is just hosting a weenie roast for a few friends this Memorial Day weekend, among them being potential “vice presidents” such as Florida Governor Charlie Crist.

Crist is a man with no sexual past, except a long-ago “paternity” suit and brief marriage to a spouse who has remained mute and may herself be gay. Crist denies being gay; he has repeatedly made that assertion. Of course, Republicans always deny being gay; Senator Larry Craig denies he is gay. He just has a wide stand in airport men’s rooms. Democrats, on the other hand, love to fess up and gain the notoriety. Such was the enduring appeal of “Gay American” and former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevy.

Adding an ironic note to this column, and in the interests of full disclosure, I actually ran against Crist a decade ago, and whipped him in Florida’s largest county, Miami-Dade. In fact I have probably received more votes against Charlie Crist than any other Republican. Anyway, in the same way that I crossed paths with Mark Foley in the 90’s I also crossed paths with Crist.

Adding irony to the enduring doubts about these officials, Foley and Crist were apparently roommates together in Tallahassee. The apparent Crist-Foley connection when both men served as state senators always interested me. It still does.

Let me be clear: I think Charlie Crist has done a very good job as Florida governor. I am amazed that while New York and Illinois Democrats are plundering their states, fiscally responsible Florida Republicans are cutting budgets and cutting taxes, albeit only marginally. But even a small cut in taxes is better than an increase, so I say, “Bravo Charlie.”

Charlie, however, seems to have adopted another tactic which was favored by Mark Foley. Foley would occasionally appear in Palm Beach with a woman, his “date,” though not his regular male companion. Indeed, Foley’s hypocrisy used to incense local gay rights groups. Crist does not draw the same opposition from gay activists because Charlie appears to have led an asexual lifestyle since his “paternity” incident and brief marriage decades ago.

But somnolent Tallahassee is not the same stage as a national campaign for Vice President. Crist would not be able to get away with the odd “date” on the national scene, while leaving his entire adult life a blank canvas. It appears that Crist is in fact gay, but that he has recoiled from participation in the gay lifestyle and has successfully remained celibate and virtually asexual. So what do we make of such a candidate?

Would Republicans flock to an asexual man with a blank canvas for a personal history, who has started salting his social life with female arm candy? I have no idea.

The most likely explanation for the Republican weenie roast is that Senator McCain genuinely likes Crist, and is aware of his “blank canvas” as an adult, and merely wants to “romance” Charlie to feed his ego. The Miami Herald on Sunday delicately suggested as much,

If there is one thing Senator McCain does not need it is the embarrassment of another Republican Party sex scandal. Florida, moreover, is a very different place than Kansas. Florida is tolerant in a way that few states are. If Mark Foley had “come out” early in his congressional career, and kept his attention focused on adults, it is likely he would still be in congress. The bible-pounders were content to vote for him. It was only because Foley insisted on living a lie, and letting himself act in a manner inconsistent with adult behavior, that he was the architect of his own downfall.

One of the problems that men such as Foley and Crist experience is that they start to forget that Florida ain’t Fayetteville, and that what goes in Florida doesn’t necessarily go elsewhere. That explains why Foley thought he could live a lie forever, and was brought crashing down to earth. Crist may believe that strict celibacy may be a substitute for a family or even conventional social behavior. He may live to learn otherwise.

While a strictly celibate gay man such as Crist is acceptable to a broad cross-section of the electorate in Florida that may not be the case when he goes through the meat-grinder of the national media. Hey, Florida is a tolerant place. I don’t know—indeed I have no idea—if such a “blank canvas” and hollow lifestyle would resonate broadly across the entire nation. In any event, if he continues to romance Charlie Crist as a vice presidential “contenda” Senator McCain may soon find out.

The bottom line is that the Republican Party as a party needs to “come out” and stop pretending that normal human urges and the full range of adult sexual activity do not exist among Republicans. On Capital Hill, there are rumors of more gay staffers on the Republican side than there are among Democrats. Indeed, Congressman Foley may have thought that “gays in high places” on Capital Hill would always protect him. They cut him loose to save themselves.

Likewise, the Illinois Republican Party staff enjoys a notorious below-the-radar reputation for being excessively populated with gays (which is why opposition to gay marriage has never generated any traction among Illinois Republicans). Ultimately, Republicans nationally should come clean and remove the stigma of closeting their own supporters while trying to cast aspersions on Democrats. Whether Senator John “DeGeneres” McCain is ready to take such a bold step is an open question.

In the meantime, Charlie, enjoy the McCain Ranch. You earned a visit. So have Florida Republicans.
Chicago's Number One Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, Andy Martin, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois and Florida. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at;

Wednesday, May 14, 2008

Andy Martin asks: “If Hillary Clinton were a man…”

Andy on “My Fair Lady” Hillary Clinton. Martin says even the language changes with male candidates. In the wake of West Virginia, Democrats and the media would be clamoring for Obama’s opponent to “take off the gloves.” Only on Broadway can we find the answer. Professor Higgins posed the question long ago.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”






(NEW YORK)(May 14, 2008) We are fortunate in the United States that both political parties have incorporated women as full partners in the political process. Or so they say. Republicans and Democrats go about the process in different ways. For sure. Republican women are different than Democratic women. And yet.

Between Sunday (May 11th) and Tuesday (May 13th) I was stunned by the sexual discrimination and condescension in the way Hillary Clinton was treated by Democrats and the media (is there a difference?).

First, Sunday. The Sunday morning talk shows acted almost as though Democratic Party poobahs were saying, “Oh, all right, let the little woman run.” There was senator Chris Dodd, who made not a ripple in his own presidential campaign, lecturing Clinton that she could run only if she was “positive.” Positive has become the new mantra of Democrats. Clinton would be allowed to run her campaign so long as she conducted herself in a manner consistent with Dodd’s diktats. Well thank you Senator Dodd.

The consistent theme was that Hillary Could run, but she could not “campaign.” Her voice as a candidate would have to be silenced. She would have to restrict herself to laudatory remarks about herself, not comparisons with or criticisms of her opponent. “Let the little woman run, so long as she remains positive,” was the apparent order of the day. Mr. Obama had become sacrosanct.

Would pundits and politicians be treating Clinton the same way if she was a man? Not on your life. If Chris Dodd were still in the race? Lecturing him? Telling him he had to limit his campaign speech to the politically correct and inoffensive? Barring him from comparing his campaign to that of his opponent? They would be telling Dodd to “take off the gloves.” Clearly there are overtones of sexual discrimination in the way Democrats are treating Clinton.

The odor of arrogance, sexism, chauvinism, condescension and overall contempt was inescapable. Even “Johnny Cool” Obama was telling Clinton she could stay in the race so long as she didn’t tarnish his record, in other words as long as she didn’t really campaign against him. The little woman was welcome to be a little woman, not a man.

Tuesday night Clinton won a massive psychological victory in West Virginia. Keith Olbermann, who has been known to have his own problems with women, trashed Clinton as though she had been discovered at a crack house. The hostility was not disguised. Olbermann was so abrasive even Chris Matthews was left at a loss for words how to respond.

Why would West Virginia be so critical if a man was Obama’s opponent?

Well, those of us who have actually been in the political arena know that anyone will draw a few negative votes. Even John McCain has been facing his Huckabee backlash and Ron Paul contingent in the later primaries. But no one indicates the protest votes are a sign of impending disaster. Or that McCain is doomed in November because of the “Huckabee vote” in May.

But in Clinton’s case, the more than 2-1 defeat of Obama in West Virginia, a bedrock Democratic state that is slowly but steadily trending Republican at the national level, surely indicates that the “mountaineers” are not as dumb as people try to suggest. West Virginians have seen that more welfare and higher taxes may not be in their interest either. Obama left them cold. They sent him to the showers. How can Obama pretend to be the salt of the earth when he is resoundingly rejected by the real salt of the earth state? Now that’s a conundrum for a Reverend Jeremiah Wright sermon.

And so, ask yourself, if a man was now Obama’s last opponent, and if that man decisively defeated the “presumptive nominee” in the backyard of Obama’s Democratic Party base, would that man be subjected to the invective Clinton received on Tuesday night? Not on your life. On the contrary, national reporting would focus on the abject humiliation and possibly fatal blow inflicted on the party’s frontrunner. Using masculine analogies, headlines would read “A new ballgame.” But for Clinton such headlines were not to be. She struck out.

People often ask me if I am supporting the Clinton campaign. I am not. I am not working for any candidate or campaign. But I do call ‘em as I see ‘em. And Democrats have a major problem of sexual arrogance and confusion on their hands. Equal means equal. Obama is not more equal than others. Or more equal than a woman.

Last week I said that perhaps only three people believed Clinton should “take it to the convention.” Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and myself.

This I know; If Hillary were a man, her supporters would be clamoring for her to make a floor fight of the nomination in Denver. They would be demanding a roll call vote. They would be cajoling. They would be welcoming a summer of competition and campaigning between the two contendas. No one would be demanding that the candidate cut it off in three weeks on June 3rd, or tell him to exit the stage at a time when votes could change and an unpredictable summer campaign could bring unexpected woe to the “presumed nominee” Obama.

On February 20th, I told Clinton to “take it to the convention.”

That is still my advice. If she was a man, I would not be so alone in making that recommendation. Not to crow, but in the same column I also predicted the “Myth of the Two Democrats,” and exploded the mainstream media’s illusory claim that the two candidates, Clinton and Obama, were interchangeable forces in November. I knew then they were not. The mainstream media pretended otherwise. And so I will take a bow. We were three months ahead of our martini-sipping competitors.

While I have never been fond of the Clintons, and I have not developed a late season admiration for Bill, I am still surprised at the way the party establishment has turned on him, and her. Let no good deed go unpunished. Clinton got elected. Twice. He took the party to the promised land. And with all due respect to his accomplishments, Obama is not electable. He may say he is of the “Joshua generation,” but for sure he is no Moses.

Make no mistake. “Johnny Cool” Obama was taken to the showers by the people of West Virginia. David Axelrod can pretend otherwise all he wants. Obama’s convention delegates were won a winter ago, at a time when Clinton faced a crowded and confused race. Since the race became one on one, Clinton has beaten Obama hands down. West Virginia was a stunning rejection of Barry O.

Will Clinton fold? Beats me. I have a possible book contract working on the chance she will take it to the convention so, yes, I have a very small vested interest in seeing her name placed in nomination in Denver.

Here is my best guess. Bill Clinton is not a fool. Hillary Clinton is an extraordinarily talented person. She will never be an electric candidate, but she is becoming a formidable campaigner now that she is reaching her stride and finding her voice.

Obama, on the other hand, is a delicious summer confection, a handful of political cotton candy. All sail and no anchor.

So, if I could reach into the heads of the Clintons, I would bet they are going to take it to the convention. That’s what a man would do. Democrats, you heard it first; from a Republican. If I were Bill, I would say “Honey, don’t get any ideas about early June. You’re staying on the road. We’re taking this one to the convention.” And he would be right to do that.

The media are all from Broadway. From My Fair Lady. “Why can’t a woman be more like a man?”

Bill and Hillary are listening to me, even if no one else is. Soon enough they will get around to reading my column, “The Alamo Speech,” and use that as their game plan for the “summer campaign.” And take it to the convention. Rejecting the media establishment and the party elders is a gutsy strategy. But there will be no tomorrows for the Clintons. No 2012. Denver, or bust. Take it to the convention. I’m already writing my column.

Chicago's Number One Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, Andy Martin, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at;

Thursday, May 08, 2008

Hillary Clinton's "Alamo" Speech

Andy Martin outlines why Hillary Clinton should stay in presidential campaign, and how her valor in the face of defeat could even bring victory.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(NEW YORK)(May 8, 2008) There aren't many people today who believe Hillary Clinton should stay in the presidential race. Maybe her. Probably Bill. And me. Here's why.

I am never impressed when someone complains of sex discrimination as a sop for losing a fair fight. But I also know that discrimination exists and it is real. Women are often held to a double standard. That is especially true in politics. And rather surprisingly for a columnist, I have had a small role in the history of breaking down sexual barriers and bringing equality to the workplace. Thirty-nine years ago I was a party to the FCC's landmark sex discrimination case involving AT&T (Docket No. 19801 for those who care). I was opposed to sexual or racial discrimination. I always have been; always will be.

Now why Clinton has to stay in the race.

National politics, and particularly Democratic Party politics, has been increasingly "feminized" in recent decades. There used to be rough-and-tumble battles for national nominations. Conventions were raucous places. And worse.

Today conventions have become sedate, desiccated. As a result they have lost their key role. Instead, midtown Manhattan TV news executives have become the mandarins of nominating politics. Candidates must be "positive," and avoid telling the truth about their opponents. They must fold their campaigns when ordered to do so by the media mavens. And women are permitted, but not welcome, to sit at the national table. Clinton faces all of these challenges.

One of the cable TV pundit complaints about Clinton has been that her campaign "moves the goal posts." That is, they change the metrics by which a campaign's viability can be measured. She is criticized for that. Because she's a woman. Obama was the one who said Indiana would be the "tie-breaker," and when Clinton broke the tie she was ruthlessly ridiculed and told to pack it in. How can it be "moving the goal posts" when Clinton does it, and be ignored when Barry O does the same? Congresswoman Shirley Chisholm said that the discrimination she faced as a woman was much worse than the discrimination she faced based on race. That may well be true.

The history of male conflict, and particularly male politics, is that men take their causes to the convention, and fight the good fight. Near as I can tell, Ron Paul is planning to do that in the Republican Party Convention in Minneapolis. Adlai Stevenson took his hopes for a third nomination to the 1960 Democratic Convention even though it was apparent Senator John F. Kennedy was leading. No one thought less of Stevenson. Or Lyndon Johnson. Goldwater and Rockefeller battled in 1964. No one is attacking Paul. It appears he will be seeking to have his name placed in nomination, and to speak to the convention, laying out his conservative agenda. Good for him.

Contrast, if you will, sports and politics today. What would happen if a football team, at any level of play from sand lot to professional, said at the end of the third quarter, "we can’t catch up" and forfeited a game? The rule of football is you play hard until the last play. In a legendary Illinois game, the Fighting Illini confronted a vastly more powerful Wisconsin team led by All-American Alan Ameche. An Illini player yelled, "Send Ameche at me" and stopped Wisconsin cold. Illinois won. These are the legends of sports. There are no teams that surrendered once the opposition had a lead.

Likewise, who in baseball would say "we can't win against the Yankees, so why bother. We will save the plane fare and just forfeit those games." No one would make such absurd statements. Ballplayers "run it out" until the last game of the season.

Politicians are the only ones who are two-faced. They tell us they believe in their causes, and then after promising to "take it all the way to the convention," collapse a few days later. Only in politics is such perfidiousness and inconstancy tolerated and encouraged.

So Hillary has a challenge, and she must meet it. If she really believes she is the best candidate, and I believe she does, she must deliver her "Alamo" speech. She should announce this week or next that indeed she will take her campaign "all the way to the convention." She will ask that her name be placed in nomination, and she will ask for a roll call vote. She should announce that she hopes her current supporters will stay true to the cause, or they are welcome to drop by the wayside.

Whether you want to call this strategy "Fixed bayonets," or the "300 Spartans," that is the way men who believe in their causes have traditionally fought throughout history. If Hillary wants to be equal, she must demonstrate equal passion and commitment. Her certitude and fortitude might even scare Obama partisans and make some of them defect. They will not be so cocky when they are warned in advance that they will have to fight until the last dog dies. Barry O may order double portions of arugula. And, as in the Saturday Night Live spoof, he might start smoking again.

If Hillary made such an advance commitment and a clear showing of strength, she would obviously lose some support on the fringes. Big names may even desert her. Feinstein and Schumer come to mind. But there will be an army of believers who will faithfully follow her to the convention floor. And into the history books. She will truly make history.

She will also short-circuit the pundits, and show them for what they are: hollow blowhards who have never been in the arena and panic at the slightest whiff of danger or unforeseen challenge.

Yes, Clinton may lose. The odds are against her. Teams and armies and organizations of men have been fighting and losing since the dawn of history. No one thinks less of them. Leonidas is enshrined as a Greek hero for his stand at Thermopolye. There is no shame in defeat. There is only dishonor in surrender. If her name is placed in nomination, and if she demands a roll call vote, there will be no discredit or deceit in saying at the end of the process, "I support the winner." That's what guys do every day.

Republican Karl Rove has a column in the Wall Street Journal today in which he notes that the endless primaries may have actually strengthened and energized the Democratic Party.

I agree. Decent opponents who fight for passionate views in an honorable manner have never left the battle field, and losing in a good fight is nothing to be afraid of. Ironically, the suspense of a convention floor fight and roll call vote could further energize the Democrats. Be careful what you pray for, Republicans. Karl Rove sees the risk.

The delegate totals for each candidate will be close. Super-delegates can change their mind up to the roll call. Nothing is set in stone. Yes, Obama has a lead. Good for him. I don't care much for him as a candidate but I very much respect what he has accomplished even if I disagree with him and his supporters. But in a close race, where only a hundred voters or so may separate two evenly-matched competitors, the decision should be made in a dramatic convention vote. Even if the outcome is known in advance, the vote itself will create an element of suspense that will draw huge TV audiences to the Democrats' activities in Denver.

If Clinton runs the good race, down to the convention floor, there will be no shame in defeat. She has every right to do what men since time immemorial have done: ask for a division of the house (vote).

And so, honey, that's how it has to be:

[1] Hillary, be a guy, a real guy. At the least, show the guys how it was once done, mano a mano on the floor of the convention

[2] In the style of the Alamo, draw the line in the sand. Tell your supporters that you believe in yourself and your cause, and let them exit if political expediency is what they prefer. There must be no hard feelings for those who abandon you. This drama will overwhelm the media and intimidate Obama. Barry is not a warrior.

[3] Announce your plans and strategy, now, early and openly, but be aware that once you lay out the battle plan, you must go through with it. No John Edwards-style announcing you are in to the end, and then surrendering a few days later.

[4] Craft a "fight/talk" message that is honorable but still throws tough punches at Obama for all of his obvious defects and limitations.

[5] Announce there will be no retreat, only defeat on the battlefield. Nothing spooks an enemy more than valor in the face of defeat. It has worked before. It could work for you.

And do all of this for every woman that ever looked up to you, or ever will. By demonstrating extreme bravery and self-confidence, you will find yourself remembered in the history books for honor and courage, and not for surrendering to a bunch of three martini expense account media jocks in midtown Manhattan. And if Obama loses, you will be an overwhelming favorite for 2012. The Democrats will know you have what it takes.

Do it for the girls. And take it to the convention.

We’re not always first because we are #1;
We are #1 because we're always first.
Andy Martin, Chicago's #1 Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at; [Editing note: we make typos, and we can’t recall every posting or e-mail; but updated versions are usually found on our blogs and web site.]

Andy Martin: Barack Obama has become the "McGovern Democrat"

George McGovern's endorsement of Obama: a plus—or minus? At a time when Republicans are on the defensive, Democrats are reviving their campaigns of 1972 and 1984, says Andy Martin. Hillary Clinton should stay in the race and talk truth to an unwilling-to-listen power media elite.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”






(NEW YORK)(May 8, 2008) Well, it's official. Barry Obama has been endorsed as the "McGovern Democrat" for president. Hillary Clinton should be celebrating, though I doubt it has dawned on her yet she just won a round without realizing it.

George McGovern was one of the most decent men to ever serve in public life or in the U. S. Senate. He served bravely in World War II. He represented a rural state and was reelected by conservative voters. And he was a nice guy. But he was a lousy national candidate who led the Democrats to one of their worse drubbings in history. In the midst of or closing days of (take your choice; sound familiar?) an unpopular war he managed to lead Democrats to one of their biggest defeats in history. The more things change…

Yesterday McGovern endorsed Obama. If Democrats ever doubted where Obama was going to lead them, now they know. Obama has received McGovern's endorsement. Bill Clinton's genius was that he managed to neutralize the Democratic Party's left-wing loonies while appearing "moderate" to mainstream voters. Increasingly as Obama acts as "The Candidate," he is going to unleash the left-wing in an uncontrollable "Days of Rage" (sound familiar?) for their marginalization under the Clintons.

Regular readers of my columns know I am a Republican. But in writing about politics I try to be scrupulously impartial. That does not mean I don’t develop viewpoints. I do. That's why I alone have championed La Clinton's efforts in the national arena. And I also admire true grit in any party, whatever the political philosophy of that candidate. But as a columnist I do not "support" any candidate.

Although I must confess I was very surprised by the outcome on Tuesday—we had predicted Clinton wins and belatedly last weekend everyone seemed to agree with us—we still have the most sensitive antennae on the national political scene. And the "chatter" we are monitoring tells us the first cracks in the Democratic base have begun.

The media elites in New York, Washington and Los Angeles have always discounted opposition to Obama, ignored the very large warts on his political history and pretended that all would be well once he was the candidate. Fa la la. It ain't going to happen. The exit polls, which showed Clinton trouncing Obama among white voters in Indiana and North Carolina, are just the beginning, the tip of the iceberg, and they speak truth to an unwilling-to-listen-power media elite.

Newton said that action produces reaction. It sure does. Obama's "victories" have come in states where he could rely on massive block voting by African-Americans. But the black vote is concentrated in regions which are either inhospitable to Democrats (in the south) or in states where Democrats already enjoy an overwhelming advantage (e.g. New York). And sure enough, as the enormity of the block voting for Obama has become evident, Obama's black bloc votes are slowly beginning to produce the predictable reaction from those who are concerned by the prospect of Al Sharpton sashaying through the White House.

Obama, of course, has always presented himself as the anti-Jessie Jackson and the anti-Sharpton. And indeed he is. Unlike Barry O, Al Sharpton probably thinks arugula is a small island in the Caribbean. But once Obama is elected (if he is) it is obvious he would knuckle under to the voting block that elected him. That has been his consistent history as an elected official.

Fraternities and sororities used to call (may still call) people like Jackson and Sharpton "peeps." They were legacy members who were admitted, but who would be unattractive to "rushing" new members. The "peeps" were "locked in the closet" at rush ("new member") time, so prospective new members would not see them and be turned off. Obama has succeeded for a long time in locking Jackson and Sharpton in the closet. But the louder the claims Obama is the "winner," the more insistent will become the demands from black "leaders" who, after all nominated Obama. I will have more to say about this topic in the next day or two.

The mainstream media, of course, are focused solely on impaling Hillary's head on a spear on 6th Avenue in Manhattan. I hope she frustrates all of them and stays in the race (more to say on that later, as well). But seen in context, she may have won-by-losing in allowing Obama to claim the mantle of "McGovern Democrat." Obama already had the black block to contend with; now he has officially been anointed as the left-wing Democrat as well. If the Internet chatter I am seeing is indicative, the mainstream media are again missing the evolving story, and Obama's problems have just begun.

I propose that Democrats now move their convention from Denver to San Francisco. It's 1984 all over again. The "San Francisco Democrats" are about to return. Arugula anyone?

Stay in there Hillary. On February 20th I gave you your marching orders: "Take it to the convention." You are still operating under those orders. Lady, do it. The mainstream media may not know who you are; but I do. And, oh, if you and Billy boy decide to sit down for a snack, make mine a double arugula. In honor of Barry O and McGovern.
We’re not always first because we are #1;
We are #1 because we're always first.
Andy Martin, Chicago's #1 Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at; [Editing note: we make typos, and we can’t recall every posting or e-mail; but updated versions are usually found on our blogs and web site.]

News travels slowly at Fox News and other mainstream media

Andy Martin on why the truth about Barack Obama is so slow to surface. Major media want to receive news tips in the form of e-mail, but then assign junior-level staff to screen and vet the mountain of e-mails that pours in.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(NEW YORK)(May 8, 2008) We will have more to say about Tuesday night and the pressure on Hillary Clinton to withdraw, but first I want to address an issue that is constantly a topic of e-mails we receive: "Have you sent this to Fox? Why are the mainstream media not covering this?" In other words, why is the "truth" which we develop about Obama so slow to reach the mainstream media, led by Fox?

My experiences on Tuesday indicate why.

First, a little background. In the old days, we had to literally hand deliver news releases. Someone either had to go out and hand them out (the way I began 42 years ago) or mail them. FedEx had not yet been invented. I became technologically advanced 35 years ago when I added a TWX (telex) line to our office, allowing me to directly communicate with some media (mainly TV stations) and others by Western Union "Mailgram."

Thirty years ago, overnight delivery began for high value communications, but overnight charges were also high-cost. Then came e-mail. Today most communication is by e-mail. You press the "send" button and the message is delivered instantly. Or is it? You see, experienced editors do not read the mountains of e-mail that pours into mainstream media. Usually, sifting and filtering of the e-mail is done by interns and less experienced staff members. Seldom do TV personalities have contact with the raw e-mail pouring in. The individuals who first see the e-mail are well intentioned but lack the experience and knowledge to really separate the wheat from the chaff. Very few senior editors actually go through their own e-mail the way I do.

Now back to Fox and Tuesday's election as an example of why facts are so slow to reach the surface.

Late Monday evening/Tuesday morning I sent out my story on the actual links between William Ayers and Barack Obama. This was/is a rock-solid piece of hard news and investigative analysis, and answered the open question: what was the extent of the relationship between the two men, and was Obama lying, again, about one of his associates?

I also added my interpretation on the Ayers-Hugo Chavez link, and suggested how the Venezuelan dictator and American radical might be teaming up to influence our presidential campaign, which was exactly what Chavez is accused of doing in the Argentinean presidential election. So, we had a story that was mostly based on solid rock, and partially based on conclusions that used the known facts to speculate on what could be in store.

Eighteen (18) hours after my story was released I was watching Fox News where Sean Hannity and Karl Rove were discussing the future. Both suggested there was a need for more information about the Obama-Ayers connection. In other words, in eighteen hours my story had not germinated to the point where anyone who was actually on TV was aware of the evidence.

Likewise, by today, columnist Robert Novak was still speculating about the Ayers matter and was apparently unaware of the connections we had published.

Yes, news travels slowly even when it is moving at the speed of light.

Is my story going to dynamite Obama at some point? Absolutely. But despite the immediacy of e-mail, actual facts travel a circuitous if not tortuous course to reach the scripts of on-the-air TV personalities.

Media other than Fox, many of which are unashamedly pro-Obama, are really not interested in unpleasant truths about Obama. More critically, Democrats themselves discourage and suppress truth-telling by asking their presidential candidates to avoid "personal attacks." Constant demands over the past year to "keep it positive" were directives to protect Obama from serious inquiry and exposure.

Tuesday night the cover-up was continuing. The airwaves were saturated with pundits saying it was "all right for Hillary to stay in the race," so long as she kept her comments "positive" and did not attack or expose Obama in any fashion. In other words, the mainstream media and leading Democrats have been in an active but informal conspiracy to suppress the truth about Obama.

Under these circumstances, ABC News deserves massive congratulations for allowing Gibson and Stephanopoulos to ask tough questions on matters of extreme relevance to Obama's character and fitness for office. In effect, Hillary was being told Tuesday night she can remain a candidate, but not be a "real" candidate that points out the weaknesses in her opponent's character and resume.

Today's Washington Post has an editorial calling on Obama for some truth-telling.

Next week, starting Monday May 12th, we are going to begin "Obama Truth-Telling Week," in which we challenge Obama to tell the public the truth abut his links to the various unsavory characters in his life. The process of getting the truth to the surface may be slow, sometimes tedious, but over the past four years since we first exposed Barack Obama as a fraud I have not tired of the task or hesitated to put the truth before the American people. Whether Americans want to know the truth about Obama is another question. Stay tuned for "Obama Truth-Telling Week," starting next week.

We’re not always first because we are #1;
We are #1 because we're always first.
Andy Martin, Chicago's #1 Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at; [Editing note: we make typos, and we can’t recall every posting or e-mail; but updated versions are usually found on our blogs and web site.]

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Andy Martin on the explosive relationship between Barack Obama, William Ayers and Venezuelan dictator Hugh Chavez

Andy Martin with a blockbuster analysis of what Barack Obama does not want you to know. Once again, scoops the mainstream media in disclosing the true extent of the long relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers, and the disturbing possibility Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez may be planning to repeat his corrupt campaign cash caper in the United States.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(NEW YORK)(May 6, 2008) This is a three-part story: [1] Hannity & Colmes bogus "exclusive" involving Senator Barack Obama's crony William Ayers, the "mad bomber" of Weathermen fame; [2] an understanding of why a "second look" is always essential in studying transient campaign issues, especially those discussed fleetingly on television, and [3] our "explosive" look at William Ayers, his ongoing relationship to Venezuelan dictator Hugh Chavez and their potential connection to Senator Barack Obama. Fasten your seat belts.

Although a great deal has been written about Obama and Ayers, the most critical link between the two men has been ignored by the mainstream media (MSMs).

First, Hannity & Colmes' bogus "exclusive:" On May 5th Sean Hannity said he had an "exclusive" picture of William Ayers stomping the U. S. flag. We had the picture and the story at 2:06 P.M., along with Hannity and everyone else, and put the information aside for this story. Others may have chosen not to use the material, but that in no way made the information "exclusive" to Fox News. I happen to think that Sean has done a very good job of "outing" Obama and his confederates. Sean cheapens his success when he tries to claim imaginary "exclusives." He should know better.

Second, one of the things we pride ourselves at is that we do analysis and interpretation better than anyone else in the media.

Broadcasters operate under extreme difficulty in a presidential campaign. The people on the screen are usually chosen for appearance and affability, not investigative experience or writing ability. Questions are initially prepared by "researchers," often young and lowly paid, and then thrown out in a debate, as they were about Ayers in ABC's now-celebrated debate. Obama gave ABC answers that were evasive and incomplete. But because a debate is not an inquisition, the opportunity for follow-up is usually very limited. And the ability to follow up can sometimes be critical to understanding the issues.

A story isn’t just a story. It is a set of facts that constitute an independent reality. How to get at the “real” reality? Not always so easy. Sort through facts to get to the core information? Often not so clear. It takes investigative experience to cull the wheat from the chaff. That’s what we found in the case of the relationships between William Ayers, Hugo Chavez and Barack Obama. So, here goes.

Third, what did the MSMs miss, and what did Chicago's pathetic print media cover up? The chronology of the aftermath of ABC's confrontation with Obama over Ayers is instructive. Once again, some media, notably the Chicago Tribune, made a concerted effort to mislead and intimidate the viewing/reading public. On April 18th the Tribune ran an editorial attacking ABC for using "guilt by association" involving Obama and Ayers.,0,7443216.story

On April 18th, Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times tried to pooh pooh the Ayers controversy by suggesting that the Obama-Ayers link was widely known in Chicago, and accepted. That was simply untrue. Sweet's claim that Ayers' past had "never bothered anyone" was misleading.,CST-NWS-sweet18.article

Sweet, however, disclosed another piece of the Ayers-Obama puzzle, the link between Michelle Obama, Ayers and her husband. Yes, this information was on the net; but no one had ever gone looking for it. Or connected the dots. Perhaps in a telling admission of the low quality of Chicago journalism—which I have been insulting for its lackluster coverage of Obama--Sweet also involved "local political reporters [and]…the editorial boards of the Sun-Times or Tribune" as part of the conspiracy of silence.

Is it any wonder we have repeatedly beaten Chicago's print media on the Obama story, or that Chicago print coverage of Obama has been a joke and embarrassment to American journalism?

On April 19th the Sun-Times led with more asinine and incendiary coverage of Obama-Ayers.,CST-NWS-ayers19.article

The Sun-Times quoted Ayers' brother calling questions about William Ayers' past a "pathetic red herring," and referring to Obama's "alleged ties to so-called terrorist Bill Ayers…" Rick Ayers called any inquiry into the Obama-Ayers relationship "the most base version of McCarthyism." Well. Brotherly love and loyalty may be endearing, but Rick Ayers acted like a complete nincompoop in trying to conceal his family's sordid past—and questionable present.

A law professor, Steve Diamond, has done what appears to be excellent research on the Obama-Ayers connection.

I have analyzed and interpreted Diamond's facts for some of my conclusions in this column. Diamond's April 22nd chronology offers perhaps the best time line and explanation for the decades-old close association between Obama and Ayers.

First, Obama was hired at a law firm where Ayers's father controlled the major client. Obama's sponsors also were associated with that law firm. Second, Ayers sponsored Obama for leadership of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge ("CAC"), a $50 million grant program. Here, I think we strike pay dirt in understanding the longstanding close links between Ayers and Obama. Obama did not just wander into Ayers' home when Obama decided to run for the state senate. The two men had an intimate prior working relationship through Ayers' sponsorship of Obama for head of the CAC.

The 1996 state senate fundraiser at Ayer's home was not a door opener or an introduction between the two families; it was a continuing extension of the links between Ayers and the Obamas.

In classic Chicago style politics, Ayers armed Obama with $50 million to distribute to local schools. Talk about a "door opener." Thus, when Obama tried to evade ABC's questions about Ayers by saying he was "eight years old" when Ayers was bombing buildings, Obama was trying to deflect attention from the real links between the presidential candidate and the mad bomber.

Obama's Annenberg role is discussed at length in an Education week article.

Ironically, MSM attention has focused on Obama's "board" service with Ayers, as well as the odd speaking engagement, and totally ignored the fact that Obama was Ayers' Potemkin (front) as leader of the Annenberg Challenge. In other words, Ayers used Obama as a front man to control the disbursement of CAC's $50 million patronage fund. Pretty close relationship, wouldn't you say? Pretty powerful, too. And, so, presto, properly analyzed and interpreted, we now know that Obama was a tool, or pawn, or stooge, of William Ayers as Ayers controlled the Chicago Annenberg Challenge from behind the scenes.

Sean Hannity has been sitting on a blockbuster story and, because of the limitations of cable TV, has entirely missed this "explosive" relationship as well as other potential future eruptions involving Obama.

Where do we go from here? There are three aspects that make the Ayers/Obama relationship a massive political issue, now in the primaries and later in the fall if Obama wrests the nomination from Hillary Clinton.

First, there is the Rezko/Obama/Ayers pattern of deception and concealment. When Rezko was indicted, Obama pretended Rezko was an obscure factor in his campaigns. Rezko got Obama his law firm job after law school, financed his campaigns and helped him buy the "Obama Mansion" in 2005. We now know Obama was blatantly lying (as I disclosed in November, 2006) about Rezko.

Obama has adopted the same deceptive tactics about Ayers, with his "red herring" that he was "8 years old" when Ayers was a mad bomber, when in fact it is the Ayers/Annenberg/Obama relationship that shows the longstanding relationship between the two men.

Second, while Ayers may have achieved "respectability" in a city controlled by a crooked mayor and that has long admired organized crime figures as the apotheosis of municipal manipulation, most Americans would find the "Chicago Way" grossly offensive. In most towns, associating with mad bombers would be a matter for shame, not pride. Ayers, moreover, has never apologized, has always been defiant, and continues to be a leading world proponent of fascist revolution.

The Ayers connection with Venezuela's dictator Hugo Chavez has also not surfaced in the MSMs. It is a time bomb waiting to explode. We make the connection today for the first time.

Chavez' alleged associates were indicted in Miami for trying to funnel illegal campaign cash to Argentina. Can Chavez be planning similar machinations on behalf of Obama? Only Chavez and Ayers know. The fact that Ayers is totally unrepentant, and continues to associate with vicious dictators who espouse violent revolution, makes the Ayers/Obama/Chavez connection one with long legs through November. The fact that a Chavez stooge recently pleaded guilty to participation in the Venezuelan campaign cash scheme raises the bar in so far as possible Venezuelan intervention in the U.S. campaign is concerned.

Well, I could go on, but you get the point. Barack Obama's links to unsavory people such as William Ayers raise not only historical questions about his past poor judgment and serving as a lackey and front man for unrepentant violent revolutionaries, but also provide concern for the present and future, that Ayers' associate Chavez may attempt to reprise in the United States the same kind of clandestine cash operation in support of Obama that Chavez was caught financing in Argentina. "Oh, what a tangled web they weave."

Obama isn't as dumb as he claims, and he's a lot more slick, and crooked, than he admits. A lot more than the MSMs have told Democratic voters.

Barry Obama, meet William Ayers and Hugo Chavez. MSMs, meet the "secret life of Barack Obama." Democrats. Is this the man you want to be your candidate?
We’re not always first because we are #1;
We are #1 because we're always first.
Andy Martin, Chicago's #1 Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at; [Editing note: we make typos, and we can’t recall every posting or e-mail; but updated versions are usually found on our blogs and web site.]

Monday, May 05, 2008

Barack Obama is a failed candidate

Andy Martin puts Reverend Wright and Barack Obama in context. Martin says Obama is guilty of "negotiation malpractice" and provoked Reverend Jeremiah Wright to counterattack.

On the eve of the Indiana and North Carolina primaries, Andy Martin calls Barack Obama a "failed candidate." Martin analyzes what is now known about the battles between Obama and his former pastor Jeremiah Wright, and condemns Obama for "negotiation malpractice." Andy also explains why is America's #1 political blog.

Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”





(NEW YORK)(May 5, 2008) Barack Obama has been criticized for saying he wants to "negotiate" with the Iranians, and the North Koreans and other adversaries of the United States. Sadly, he failed the test of "negotiating" with his own pastor, "Jeremiad" Wright. The Obama-Wright fiasco is also a Chicago/Mainstream Media (MSM) fiasco. But the entire episode demonstrates why is the undisputed #1 political blog of the 2008 campaign.

A few minutes after Obama's "Philadelphia speech" we published an instant analysis critical of the performance:

We called Obama "Reverend Wright light."

On April 7th, two weeks later, we presented a more detailed interpretation of Obama's Philadelphia speech that was contrary to virtually all of the MSMs conclusions:

We stated:

His flawed strategy and calculated but clumsy and callous confessions did fatal damage to his campaign… That is why I believe the long-term impact of Obama's declarations will prove toxic to his candidacy… The one time Obama should have used a Watergate-style "modified limited hangout" to deal with the Wright crescendo, he didn’t. He put faith in the power of his speechifying to calm the Wright-infested waters…

Bottom line: Obama blundered, and gave what will prove in retrospect to have been one of the most disastrous speeches in American political history, the turning point in his campaign. Obama, who worked so hard to evade race as an issue, now finds himself captured by the controversy. And hostage to the concept. Sorry, Mainstream media. You won't sell Obama's spin to the American people this time. The backlash is building. Would someone please save Barack Obama from his "supporters?" And from himself?

At that time, the full extent of Reverend's Wright's internal frustration or the reasons for his anger were unknown. The facts concerning Wright's humiliation by Obama in Springfield in February 2007 had been concealed by the senator. Obama was sitting on a time bomb. He lit the fuse in Philadelphia. Now that we know more of the facts, Reverend Wright's explosion is much more understandable. We also know that Philadelphia was the trigger to Wright's attack last week. Finally, we know that Obama is no negotiator. On the contrary, he is a complete incompetent.

Please note: I have written numerous columns in the past highlighting Obama's incompetence as an attorney and his flatulent misrepresentations that he was a "civil rights litigator," which is simply untrue. Obama was a ham-handed lawyer who found a patron in and a job through Tony Rezko. That he pretends to be competent to "negotiate" with foreign leaders is a joke.

And sadly, the joke lives. In yet another Chicago media coverup and embarrassment, the Chicago Tribune on May 4th urged Indiana voters to support incompetence and vote for Obama. The Tribune continues to live in a dream world, totally divorced from reality, and still praises the "remarkable speech in Philadelphia.",0,3206628.story

This column is not a Tribune-bashing story (more of that to come) but, nevertheless, is it any wonder the Tribune is hemorrhaging readers and revenues when it practices incompetent and fraudulent journalism parallel to Obama's incompetent politics and negotiation malpractice?

In February, 2007 when he announced, we now know Obama humiliated Wright by keeping him locked in the basement of the Old State Capitol while white politicians introduced the candidate. If I had been in Wright's place, I would have been seething too. Wright's reaction was not a case of "Black rage." This was a case of human outrage, and an instance where Obama's timidity coupled with his incompetence created chaos. Bringing Wright to Springfield, and then hiding him in the basement was disgraceful behavior for a man who had been labeled the candidate's "father-figure." Disgraceful.

Had Obama been as much of a negotiator as he claims, he would have seen the Wright sound bites for what they were, an extremely irritating distraction but something that ultimately concerned Reverend Wright and not Obama. That is why in my prior analysis I said he faced a situation where a Nixonian "modified limited hangout" was called for.

Obama, of course, wanted to go for the dramatic. And play to the MSMs. He succeeded in bamboozling the MSMs, as the Tribune's latest editorial embarrassingly indicates. But he totally failed to manage the volatile Reverend Wright. I don’t usually agree with Chicago Sun-Times columnist Mary Mitchell, because she has been a blind Obama partisan. But her recent writing has done more to place Wright's behavior in context than any other journalist.,CST-NWS-mitch04.article

If you want to know what happened, read Ms. Mitchell. The only missing link that we do not yet have is the date when Wright got wind of the fact he was going to be disgraced by Northwestern University. My guess: Wright scheduled his attacks after he was told Northwestern was planning to revoke his honorary degree. (Please note, that's a guess. Northwestern announced its action after Wright's Washington performance; common sense suggests universities do not move that quickly, and that the stab-in-the-back must have been in progress before that.)

Wright thus faced a "Captain Carpenter" situation. It is a maneuver I am familiar with, because I have faced similar challenges in the past. "Captain Carpenter" was a famous West Point athlete who found himself in Viet-Nam, surrounded and overrun by the enemy. With no hope of extraction or escape, he called in strikes on his own position. The tactic worked, and the enemy scattered and withdrew. In my mind, a "Captain Carpenter" operation is one where you are surrounded and have no option but to bring down the artillery on yourself as the only way to survive.

Reverend Wright saw his entire career being destroyed by Obama's campaign for national office. There was no escape. Obama had gone on national television in Philadelphia and "defended" Wright by disowning him politely. Then Northwestern probably hinted that it was reconsidering Wright's honorary degree. Wright snapped. The result was the effective demise of Obama's presidential hopes. At the National Press Club in Washington.

If Obama had been as good a negotiator as he thought, and as good a judge of character as President Bush said he was when he looked into the eyes of the Russian Dictator Vladimir Putin, Obama would have anticipated the danger he faced with Wright and done everything to neutralize the fallout. He could have acted quietly, and he could have worked the line without tearing up Wright's reputation and claiming he had never heard any of Wrights controversial sermons.

Obama clearly provoked Wright to counterattack. Obama tried to lie, professing ignorance of Wright's theology; he insulted a man that he had previously led into a basement for "prayer" in secret because he was too fearful of being seen praying in public with his "father." For shame. Obama misjudged the man.

Last year, we published a "psychological profile" of Barack Obama. Go back and read it.

We understood and presented a profile of Obama that is consistent with all of his hesitations and machinations since then. "Barack" Obama is still controlled by "Barry" Obama. He is a man trapped inside himself.

If Obama had handled Wright properly, and handled himself properly, there would have been no need for the Philadelphia speech. Mary Mitchell makes clear in her comments that Reverend Wright has not changed over the past 20 years; indeed Obama refers to Wright's fiery tongue in his own book, published over a decade ago. Mr. Obama has changed. Sadly, Mr. Obama is not any better a "negotiator" today than he was as a fledgling lawyer. He is an intelligent man, who lacks the very street smarts he claims to possess.

Seen in context, Wright's actions were very human and very understandable and very predictable. Faced with the same betrayal, many people would have acted the same way. I do not agree with Wright's theology; but I find it hard to disagree with his reaction to Obama's ingratitude and condescension.

And, not to put too fine a point on it, it was only that predicted on April 7th the Philadelphia speech would become "one of the most disastrous speeches in American history." Who knew? We knew.

We got it right. No one else did. Is it any wonder that we are the #1 political blog in America?

Question: would anyone now like to tell me Obama's Philadelphia speech was a masterpiece? Or tell me Obama is competent to negotiate with dictators when he could not negotiate with his own pastor? Obama is guilty of "negotiation malpractice." Obama is a failed candidate. And this man wants to be president? Be real. Or read the Chicago Tribune's fantasies and fabrications masquerading as "editorials."

Well, to throw the Tribune a bone, we both agree that Obama's speech was "remarkable." After all, that speech destroyed his candidacy. Pretty remarkable.

Chicago's #1 Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, Andy Martin, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at; [Editing note: we make typos, and we can’t recall every posting or e-mail; but updated versions are usually found on our blogs and web site.]

Thursday, May 01, 2008 leads the media in North Carolina

Andy Martin’s continuing commentary on the North Carolina primary. “Our survey results and predictions on the North Carolina primary were attacked by Obama supporters. But a new poll confirms our cutting-edge analysis,” says Executive editor Andy Martin. “In 2008, we are #1.”
Executive Editor

“Factually Correct, Not
Politically Correct”




(NEW YORK)(May 1, 2008) On Monday, April 28th we predicted Hillary Clinton would win both the Indiana and North Carolina primaries and throw the Democratic Party’s presidential race up for grabs. We explained why. And we provided our projected margins as of the 28th. They could change.

Take a look at our earlier story:

In response, we received threatening phone calls from Senator Barack Obama’s North Carolina supporters, as well as nasty e-mails from the Obama camp suggesting we were, well, forget it.

Wednesday evening, April 30th, a new poll also projected Clinton as the winner in North Carolina:

The InsiderAdvantage poll was tentative, but confirmed the trend we had first announced two days earlier.

Of course, we made our survey results known before Senator Obama denounced Reverend Jeremiah Wright on Tuesday afternoon (29th).

That’s why we claim to be #1.

We will have more to say about North Carolina in the days ahead. And Indiana is not being forgotten either.

“There is a fundamental fallacy which media pundits and political ‘advisers’ who appear on TV have stated over and over again,” says Andy Martin: “that the primary elections are over, that Senator Barack Obama has won, and that Clinton will be forced from the race shortly after June 3rd. We believe these comments which have saturated the media are fundamentally misinformed.

“We believe that the ‘herd instinct’ is going to undo ‘pledged delegates’ chosen in the snows of Iowa if Obama keeps losing primaries in May and June. He does indeed have a lead in pledged delegates today. But that lead will evaporate if he starts losing momentum. While ‘momentum’ is a trite phrase, momentum is still the key to understanding the current primary contest. Right now, Clinton has the momentum; Obama is losing momentum. If this trend continues, Obama’s lead in pledged delegates will not matter when the fat lady sings in June.

“Our dynamic analysis does not treat ‘old’ delegates equally with ‘new’ delegates or ‘old primaries’ equally with ‘new primaries’. That analytical approach is fundamentally flawed, for reasons which we explained on the 28th based on our 42 years of survey research experience. The political arena simply does not work that way.

“I do not expect Senator Obama to withdraw. I do not think Senator Clinton should withdraw. That is why I alone among media analysts told Hillary to ‘take it to the convention,’ on February 20th, and why I alone have held a positive view of her campaign’s potential. This was at a time when the media and Democratic ‘leaders’ were demanding that Clinton surrender.

“We are even evaluating alternative scenarios for the Democratic Convention.

“I have the highest respect for those who disagree with me, starting with Dick Morris on Fox News. But while they are very able analysts, the dynamics of the 2008 race defy description based on past electoral experience. We have consistently demonstrated the most sensitive antennae in this campaign. We continue to fine tune our radar.

“When Hannity & Colmes launched their cable show 12 years ago, I was an occasional guest/expert on the program during the first year. A review of my pronouncements and predictions then shows we were consistently right. Likewise, I volunteered some coverage as a favor to Fox News when the network was starting up. My contributions then have also stood the test of time. I have not had any recent association with FNC. I have been associated with cable news since the dawn of talk television. We have a rather unblemished track record accuracy and impartiality. And we are still at it, as our cutting edge pronouncements on the ‘Return of Hillary’ have shown.

“And now you know why they call us ‘contrarian’ commentary.”


We’re not always first because we are #1;
We’re #1 because we are always first.
Andy Martin, Chicago's #1 Internet columnist, broadcaster and media critic, is the Executive Editor and publisher of © Copyright by Andy Martin 2008. Martin covers regional, national and world events with more than forty years of experience. He is a chronicler of all things Midwestern and the authentic Voice of Middle America. He holds a Juris Doctor degree from the University of Illinois College of Law. He has been a candidate for U. S. Senator from Illinois. Comments? E-mail: Media contact: (866) 706-2639. Columns also posted at; [Editing note: we make typos, and we can’t recall every posting or e-mail; but updated versions are usually found on our blogs and web site.]