Revealing Pictures: GWB, Obama, Palin

The best way to evaluate Presidents and potential Presidents is not by words written by someone else and recited from a TelePrompter, but rather by their actions. The pictures below are worth more a 1,000 words, and they illustrate actions that tell us nearly all we need to know about the basic decency of President George W. Bush, Gov. Sarah Palin, and Barack Hussein Obama. If every American would take a good look at these pictures, it would help ensure that Obama would be a one-term President. In words and actions, BHO has shown his lack of respect for the unborn, the disabled (remember his Special Olympics "joke" on Letterman?) and the elderly. Eventually, God will judge this deeply flawed man. Soon, say 2012, the American people will get to sit in judgment on his atrocious presidency.

Obama Makes Us Miss Bush

The notion that the robotic, self-absorbed, TelePromputer aided Barack Hussein Obama is "brilliant" is comical. Read on for sayings from Chairman B-O.

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVD's, when Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the non-existent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current on their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to “Cinco de Cuatro” in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the fourth of May (Cuatro de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had miss-spelled the word advice would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoe as “proof” of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on “Earth Day”, would you have concluded he’s a hypocrite?If George W. Bush’s administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually “get” what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a teleprompter installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how he is inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had proposed to double the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan’s holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in Chrysler, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?

Don't worry. He's done all this in 6 months -- so you'll have three years and six months to come up with an answer.

How are Hope and Change going for you today?

Hope, Change Become Grope, Harangue

The best characterization of Obama's speech today: "Hope and Change Become Grope and Harangue." Only Barack Obama could create a situation where, by contrast, Dick Cheney starts sounding like Abraham Lincoln. Michelle Obama once famously said, "America is a downright mean country." From the evidence of her husband's remarks, he clearly agrees with her.

There was much to dislike about the substance of Obama's ridiculous speech on "national security" (national insecurity?), but the worst part of it was his incredibly pompous tone. We often hear what a "great speaker" Obama is. In fact, he's a terrible speaker, and his speechwriter isn't any better.

He's in love with phrases like "on a daily basis." What that really means is "daily." The other words -- on, a, and basis -- are unnecessary. A good, straightforward speaker would know that.

He also uses uses phrases like "categorically reject" whenever he's talking about anything done by George W. Bush. What's the difference between "categorically reject" and just plain "reject?" There is no difference.

My friend Jill in Hawaii notes some more obnoxious Obamaisms: he also likes to use the phrases "fundamentally disagree" and "let me clearly state." All his minions use the same phrases (I just saw one on Fox News).

"Fundamentally disagree" means nothing more than "disagree." As for his "let me clearly state," the words are all unnecessary. Just state it, Barack. Don't tell us that you're about to state something.

Barack also tells us he's against "fear-mongering." Gee, is there anyone in America advocating it? The Obama Administration seems to believe that anyone with a justifiable fear of terrorism belongs on Napolitano's long list of supposed extremists.

In his speech today Barack talked of the "hateful ideology" of the people who used to be called, in a previous administration, terrorists. Alas, Obama didn't tell us anything about that ideology or who holds it. To do so might have offended some Muslims, the source of the aforesaid hateful ideology. Of course, a man who could sit through Rev. Wright's sermons for 20 years may have a strange definition of what's hateful.

Obama is NOT a great speaker. He's a guy with a baritone voice who reads a TelePrompter filled up with some inept speechwriter's words. Obama has too many words and too little substance. In short, he's a windbag.

Obama's Rules for Campaigning, Governing

To understand the tactics used by Obama and his campaign guru David Axelrod, it's necessary to grasp the "rules" outlined long ago by radical labor organizer Saul Alinsky (in his "Rules for Radicals"). In the last campaign, John McCain and, especially, Gov. Sarah Palin faced such tactics. (In fact, Alinsky influenced both Hillary Clinton, who wrotea thesis on him, and Barack Obama.)

[Note: I'm cross-posting today with my other blog; tomorrow, I will return to offering different columns on each site.]

Supporters of Gov. Palin need to understand Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals." Frankly, there's no reason they can't be used AGAINST Obama and his minions. The following points summarize Alinsky's Rules and note how Obama/Axelrod used them in the campaign -- and continue to apply them to undermine potential opponents, such as Gov. Palin.

1. “Rub raw the sores of discontent” – in other words, get irritated people angry enough to demand change, which was Obama's mantra;
2. Convince skeptical and demoralized people that real change is possible (“Yes, we can!”);
3. Understand that hopefulness can overcome a sense of powerlessness; (e.g., Obama's stress on 'hope");
4. Sharpen resentments, fan hostilities, and exploit controversies; (BO’s continual, contemptuous references to "George Bush!" and the targeting of Rush Limbaugh)
5. Begin organizing by first disorganizing the community – to overcome complacency;
   Convince your opponent that your movement is invincible; (“This is OUR time.”)
6. Stay within your people’s comfort zone – their limited experience (e.g., symbols are more effective than substance);
7. Force your opponent outside his comfort zone to create uncertainty and fear;
8. Demand your opponent obey his stated rules, which he usually won’t; (e.g., demanding that Obama's wife not be subject to any criticism -- "lay off my family," as BO said)
9. Use ridicule to infuriate your opposition and generate overreaction (e.g., Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” reference to Palin);
10. Apply tactics that your people enjoy carrying out (e.g., chanting slogans);
    Change your tactics regularly to keep your opponents off-balance; (e.g., wwitching attacks from Bush to McCain to Palin)
11. Maintain constant pressure on the opposition to encourage confusion (e.g., make so many charges your opponent won’t be able to answer them);
12. Threaten an extreme action, such as tying up a major highway, because it's more terrifying than carrying it out; (e.g., suggestions that if Obam lost, there would be “riots in the streets”)
13. Have a constructive alternative to your opponents’ proposals; (“95% will get tax cuts”; a phony promise by Obama)
14. Avoid vague abstractions by picking, personalizing, and polarizing the target (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, or George Bush!);

If you go through these “Rules” line-by-line, you’ll be reminded of what Axelrod and Obama did (such as using fear and ridicule/smear tactics). You’ll also understand exactly how we must proceed to overcome Obama and his minions. Being “Mr. Nice Guy” and “Miss Nice Gal” will get us nothing.

Why GWB's Presidency Failed

. . . and why the Palin presidency doesn't have to fail. Below: I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her -- about 2020, at the end of her second term -- saying, "I crushed George Soros, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and all those associated with them."

GWB was and is a good man, an American patriot. His wife was one of the greatest of First Ladies.

But he was a lousy salesman. (Today, Obama did a lousy job of "selling" the Afghan War, because he failed to make it personally meaningful to Americans.) Republican Presidents have a very small margin of error, because of media hostility, and somehow I never got the impression that GWB was having searching discussions of how best to "sell" the war or his handling of Katrina.

On somebody like Harriet Miers, the question is not whether she's an outstanding person, but rather: "How do I sell her as a credible nominee for the Supreme Court?' Yes, some conservatives stabbed her -- and GWB -- in the back, but that's the world we live in.

Compare the nomination of John Roberts, a bullet-proof candidate, versus that of Harriet, who never had a chance. The Gonzalez appointment turned out to be a disaster. Yes, he was loyal, but he wasn't much more than that.

He needed people around him who would say: "Mr. President, NO! It won't work." He didn't have such people.

Frankly, GWB's desire to have "friendly" relations with the White House Press corps showed a truly amazing naivete. Those people inhabit a culture that sees Bush's views and his religious faith as toxic.

His little "teasing" comments to journalists were seen as embarrassing and phony. They are not his friends; they will never be his friends.

Does he understand that? No, but Sarah Palin does.

Yes, Soros types and the Dems did everything they could to undermine GWB's presidency. What was his plan for counteracting that? Potentially, the POTUS is a thousand times more powerful than George Soros. It didn't work out that way. Soros lied -- and [the] Bush [presiency] died.

I don't want Sarah Palin in 2020 to be complaining that "Soros, Pelosi, Reid, and the media ruined my presidency." Instead, I want her saying, "I crushed Soros and all those associated with him and his kind." As Gen. MacArthur said, "There is no substitute for victory."

How McCain Wins the Election

About the new Gallup Poll showing Obama ahead NATIONALLY among likely voters by 2% and ahead by a somewhat higher percentage among registered voters (in the "expanded" model):

I'll be writing more about Gallup's so-called "expanded" model, which contains some major flaws. The expanded model looks for a very high turnout among the "new" Democratic voters. We heard the same thing in 2004, where there was high Democratic turnout -- which was offset by extremely high Republican turnout.

We also heard in 2004 (from Gallup and others) that 8 out-of-9 Independent voters were breaking for Kerry, WHICH TURNED OUT TO BE ABSOLUTELY UNTRUE.

In 2004, Gallup also said Bush would win PA; he didn't; and that Kerry would win OH, which he didn't.The expanded model over-represents votes in a number of states that Obama is already going to win, including DC (not a state), California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Michigan. It doesn't matter in terms of electoral vote whether he wins those states 51-49 or 90-10.

Also, the "expanded" model doesn't include the Bradley Effect, which means Obama polls better than he does on election day (as happened in the PA Primary). Ironically, Obama's own internal polls (showing PA as close) are probably a better model than Gallup's.

On "likely voters": In past elections, between one-in-four and one-in-five "likely voters" did not vote. Among registered voters, the ratio of non-voters is significantly higher. I believe Barack Obama probably will win a majority of the votes cast in the U.S. However, because he's getting a disproportionate number of those votes in states McCain is NOT contesting, the Republican candidate conceivably could win a majority of the electoral votes.

That's a major reason for Obama's panicked return to Pittsburgh, which is the wrong city for him to visit, since he's already going to win the 'Burgh. McCain and Palin are going to the right places (including Beaver County, Hershey, and State College).

Note: If John Kerry had gotten 150,000 more votes in Ohio, he would have won a majority of electoral votes. Yet countrywide, Bush still would have won by 2.9 million ballots.

If John McCain wins FL, OH, and PA, he will be the next President of the United States. Keep your eye on Zogby, which hit the 2000 race dead-center.

GWB Ready to Resign?

The speech George W. Bush just might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.

I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.

Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing.. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq 's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell.

And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' Instead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us.

While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel

Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic model s squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to outspend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are.

They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that.

When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight.. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well FedEx a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt

you 'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that 's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching. I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from.

But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.
So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it.

God bless what's left of America .Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

PS - You might want to start learning Farsi, and buy a Koran.

The Conscience of a Conservative

Me, Myself, and I -- very much "at home" in Beaver County, PA

A liberal reader of mine from eastern PA (I live in western PA) wrote me a long, mostly autobiographical e-mail asking why I -- living in a supposedly semi-distressed area of Beaver County -- believed generally in conservative principles. He (?) also asked me if I voted for GWB and Rick Santorum (our former Republican Senator). I replied at length, focusing mainly on why I oppose Obama and support McCain. In case you've been wondering about similar things, here's my reply:

Did I vote for GWB? Only twice. I think highly of him and his family.

Did I support Rick Santorum? I supported him when he ran the first time in 1994 against Harris Wofford, who was a man of extremely limited talents. I voted for him when he ran against Ron Klink (2000), but I always had problems with Santorum as a person. I can support individuals of various views -- I might vote for Specter in the primary and general election -- but I do want to see in any candidate signs of real affection for our diverse and sometimes irritating fellow human beings. Over the years, I started to see less and less of that in Santorum (whom I know but not really well).

Senator Bob Casey: I don't believe he is a honest man. If he's so ardently pro-life, which I don't for a minute think he is, why did he support the most pro-abortion candidate in American history: Barack Obama? This is not an issue of whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, but rather a question of basic honesty. I didn't like the Santorum-Casey choice, and I wasn't at all surprised when the electorate sent Rick on his way. My wife despises Santorum.

I believe most people can rationalize endlessly when it comes to political choices. I don't do a lot of rationalizing. For example, do you believe Rev. Wright's views really came as a surprise to Barack Obama after he spent 20 years listening to Wright's views? If your answer is "no," then of course you would have trouble voting for Obama (although you might do so).

There, I just screwed up any serenity you might have about voting for Obama. (It's what I do.)

Beaver County: I believe its future over the next generation can be very bright. There is good public transportation in the country and back-and-forth from Pittsburgh. The people here are generally wonderful. I have Black neighbors on both sides of our (modest) house -- we live right across from Ambridge H.S. Everything I need (almost) is within walking distance. It surely isn't suburban, affluent, but for our purposes it's a great place to live.

Members of my family, including two daughters, are like the many people who voted in the Primary, and thus opted for Sen. Clinton. I voted for John McCain in the Republican Primary.

The folks here in small-town Beaver County are not the "bitter" people that Obama described as clinging to religion, guns, racism, and xenophobia. (Yes, those are the people whose votes he now covets.) Obama knows nothing about the people in Beaver County or the many similar counties in PA, OH, IN.

His foreign policy adviser (Samantha Power), the one who called Hillary a "monster," also called the people of Ohio (I mean almost all of them) "obsessed." I don't know exactly what she meant, but I think it was a forerunner of the bitter comments.

Generally, I'd call the "race relations" here in this county very good. They are a whole lot better than what exists in Obama's Chicago area, such as Cicero, which MLK described as the worst he ever saw.

Philosophically, my problem with liberalism is that it preaches collective responsibility while denying the existence of individual responsibility. It's a view that makes no sense. How are we to take care of others if we can't take care of ourselves?

People who absolutely can't take care of themselves should receive help from those who can provide it. My wife has been disabled since 1991, but she does a great job of taking care of herself -- with some assistance from me and a daughter and some from Social Security/Medicare.

Many years ago I had a girlfriend in my single days. She told my mother (an artist and writer), "Oh, Mrs. Maloney, Steve and I will always take care of you." My mother said, "C, I think I'd prefer to take care of myself." The girlfriend was something of a legendary Democratic political figure in the Pittsburgh area. We eventually parted ways.

I haven't answered all your questions, but I've tried to be as candid as I can. Of course, I've also been challenging your beliefs, which is the way I conduct my life. As I suggested earlier, several of the members of my immediate family voted either for Mrs. Clinton or Sen. Obama (in various primaries).

The children are a very diverse group, and that's fine with me.

I spend a whole lot of my time "campaigning" (mostly online) for Senator McCain and others in whom I believe. I very much fear an Obama presidency because of his weakness and self-absorption. I read a while back that 20% of Democrats are rooting for the U.S. to lose the war in Iraq. I believe much of Obama's financial support comes from that group -- Moveon.org and Daily Kos types.

I am going to be writing this week about some of the comments in my "Black Conservatives" group. A big issue there is whether Obama's policies would help or hurt the Black community. I may send you one or two of the pieces I'll be using.

Sometimes policies designed to "help" people end up hurting them unintentionally. For example, the welfare policies of the Great Society ended up providing economic incentives for families to splt up. Thus, we now have twice as many single-mother Black families (percentage basis) as we did a generation ago. Obama alluded to this in his Father's Day speech but didn't seem to grasp exactly what had happened.

As bright as he appears sometimes, Obama is generally clueless about his own country.

As for me: To paraphrase Albert Camus' description of Sisyphus, "one must imagine Steve happy." I hope you and yours also are.

Steve Maloney
Ambridge, PA

Obama: A Radical Black Separatist?

I'd like to ask every visitor here to join me as a member of the online group of McCain supporters. You can do so by going to: http://unitemccain.com. You'll be asked to contribute $10, which will go to the McCain effort to win the presidency. Thanks

"The [U.S.] government lied about INVENTING the HIV virus . . . " (Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Obama's pastor at Chicago's Trinity Church)

Is Barack Obama, a serious candidate for President of the U.S., a closet believer in radical Black separatism? I fear the answer to that question just may be "yes."

I have recommended recently that Obama, because of his close ties to Pastor Wright, should suspend his campaign. Pastor Wright is scum, a man driven by deep hatred for white people. In one recent sermon, he said the following about the Clintons: "Bill [Clinton] did us [Black people] just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was ridin' [us] dirty . . . ."

Apparently on a preacherly roll, Wright then added the following: "God damn America." A Christian minister, Black, White, or otherwise, doesn't say such things. And a congregation that hears such verbal slime doesn't whoop and holler in approval, as the attendees (was one of them Obama?) did at Trinity Church. That group of Yahoos is the one Obama called his "faith community."

Obama has called some of Wright's statements -- somehow, he doesn't specify which ones -- "unacceptable." He seems to feel such tepid comments on his part will distance him sufficiently from the man he now calls his "former preacher." (Wright retired last month as Trinity's pastor, although he retains the title "emeritus.")

In fact, Wright was his pastor for 20 years. He's the man Obama called his "spiritual advisor" and his "sounding board," and his metaphorical "uncle." Famously, he provided the title ("The Audacity of Hope") for the book that made Obama a multi-millionaire.

If John McCain's long-time preacher -- or Hillary Clinton's -- had made such hateful statements over many years, they would no longer be serious candidates for the presidency. Wright's remarks are racist and separatist, and for Obama to pretend he was unaware of his pastor's views is totally disingenuous.

If you look closely at Obama's speaking style, you can see he's learned a great deal from Jeremiah Wright. Like the pastor, the Illinois Senator can work a crowd into an emotional lather. Where Wright denounces white people, Obama does the same with George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, the man he calls his "cousin." The notion of Wright's being a man's "uncle" and Cheney his "cousin" is a scary thought.

Michelle Obama has talked about being ashamed of her country -- until, of course, her husband started winning primaries and caucuses (often in states that are mostly populated by white people) -- and one wonders how her husband feels about America. Of course, we know how Wright feels -- he despises his native land.

To what degree does Obama agree with him? Is he really just another cynical politician looking out for "number 1?" Is he someone, totally unlike this pastor and mentor, who seeks to bring us together? Or he merely an egomaniac committed mainly to advancing himself through carefully crafted rhetoric?

Can Obama really drop out of the presidential race? "Yes, he can!" And yes, he should.

President Hillary Rodham Clinton?

As a Party we Republicans must get to a point where a very good candidate (a Giuliani or a McCain) has a fighting chance in the general election to win Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. I don't see Huckabee winning any of them.

Huckabee is the "candidate of the evangelicals." The problem is that evangelicals make up one-third of the REPUBLICAN voters. What a Hillary Clinton or an Obama would be targeting would be the other five-sixths of the vote (two-thirds of the Republicans, plus the Independents and Democrats).

What exactly is Huckabee's appeal, say, to young professional women (teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses, journalists, MBA-types)? His personality and policies are are going to a problem with younger voters, young female professionals, urban "Yankees," gays/lesbians, union members, Blacks, and Hispanics.

We hear a lot lately about the high "unfavorable" ratings Hillary Clinton has. But that view can be very misleading.

If you remember the 2004 poll situation, there was a great deal of discussion about how Bush's approval rating never got above 49%. Well, even with high disapproval numbers, he won the election by nearly 3 million votes (although the electoral college was close).

Kerry won NY, NJ, PA, and CA -- and they add up to a huge total in electoral votes. Mrs. Clinton would have a good chance of winning those states, plus IL, MI, and MN, in addition to MA and all the other New England states. She should also do well in the Pacific Northwest.

In presidential years, we Republicans can't keep riding on the razor's edge and expect to keep winning. We're now hearing how Hillary's favorable rating is only 47%-48%, etc. Well, that's about where Bush was in 2004. Hillary has very high negatives in states the Republicans would be expected to win (GA, UT, ID, AL, MS, and the like).

However, in many of the largest states, her favorability ratings are not that bad. The Republican candidate will have a tough time in the states where the Hispanic vote will be significant, including Colorado, Arizona, NM, and NV.

To get the nomination, Mrs. Clinton will have to win at least one of the early primaries -- IA, NH, or SC. She should be able to do so -- probably Iowa.

The problem with conservatives is that they tend to be egocentric. They say, "Well, I can't stand Hillary, therefore she has no chance of becoming President." What I think (or you think) is not translatable into national attitudes. Tens of millions of Americans think Hillary Clinton is just fine.

The upshot? If Mrs. Clinton can win the Democratic nomination, she has a good chance of becoming President of the USA.

NOTE: IF YOU GO TO MY OTHER SITE (HTTP://CAMP2008VICTORYA.BLOGSPOT.COM) AND LOOK AT THE BLOGROLL, YOU'LL DISCOVER A RAPIDLY GROWING NUMBER OF "BLOGGERS 4 RUSSELL." IF YOU'D LIKE TO JOIN, PLEASE LEAVE YOUR BLOG'S NAME ON THE "COMMENTS" SECTION OR E-MAIL ME AT TALKTOP65@AOL.COM. THE BLOGGERS ARE GOING TO BE AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN RUSSELL'S WINNING. BE SURE TO VISIT HIS WEB SITE AT: HTTP://WILLIAMRUSSELLFORCONGRESS.COM.