The next shoe to drop? Al Franken and Obama 2008 campaign voter fraud Voter intimidation and fraud are nothing new in the democrat party

NOVEMBER 2008—New allegations are coming from both documentary directors and conservative watchdog groups about shenanigans in the 2008 elections. Clinton supporters charge they were routinely turned away from caucuses by Obama supporters and 341 felons have purportedly been identified as voting illegally in Minnesota—eventually ousting incumbent Norm Coleman by 312 votes.

We here at KP are skeptical of the Obama rumors that allege Hillary supporters were routinely turned away as part of a mass conspiracy and choose at this time to rely on our earlier theorization that an upstart junior senator could out maneuver a Clinton for the democrat nomination without the aid of Clinton fatigue in the media, beltway, and democrat party at large.

But the Franken charges are more troubling in that the senatorial election followed the Gore/Bush model, cherry picking voting districts and filing lawsuits. For those who don’t recall, Norm Coleman was initially declared the winner but the margins were small enough to trigger a recount. And Team Franken kept recounting until the former SNL comedian “won” the seat.

Both instances should be fully investigated and we here at KP are sure action will be taken by the FEC, just like the Philadelphia Black Panther voter intimidation case.

-- Owen E. Richason IV

Chief Editor, Killswitch Politick

Click here to subscribe 

Click here to contact

A Dud Debate

Last night's debate was a snoozer; period.

McCain looked as though he was just thawed out, programed with voice-recognition software and put on stage. Obama came across as arrogant at times and the majority of his remarks either made little sense or were peppered with euphemisms for "big brother government".

But niether candidate made a news-worthy gaffe or botched an answer or got in a knee-slapping zinger.

What this means is the race still remains just as it was yesterday before the debate: close.

Today's national tracking polls among likey voters are beginning to show signs of turning back to McCain, but this assertion requires another two days of the same tracking. And by that accepted standard, would effect a trend. Last night's debate will not have a full three day effect because (by comparison to the veep debate) no one watched the damn thing.

And with viewership as low as this debate garnered, the polls are highly unlikely to show significant swings. So with the polls starting to shift, and without a big bang to point to, the explanation must lie elsewhere.

Rush Limbaugh on his radio program today made a point to note that Obama has never put-up a fight in a tight race and won. "He can't close the deal" the radio talk show host observed. Even the primaries put on display the Illinois Senator's weakness: practically all media had declared Hillary down-and-out and then, like Rocky Balboa, she got up and fought back. Mrs. Clinton won state after state and put to-the-test the democrat primary system.

But as pointed out in this very blog, the fix was in from the get-go as the beltway dems, the far-left activist 527's, the DNC, democrat pundits and sympothetic media had enough of the Clinton reign.

Yet even with that massive support group Obama could not stop Hillary from capturing the most important primaries. His nomination came not of his own integrity and valition, but by the grace of the superdelegates.

So what would explain the stagnating poll numbers?

As William of Ockham would conclude, the simplest explaination tends to be the correct one. And that is: Obama is still a relative unknown and what is becoming known isn't so appealing to the man-on-the-street. And with Labor Day now five weeks behind, the voting public are paying day-to-day attention (probably because they have little choice given the onslaught of 24/7 meida and campaign politicking both by the parties).

McCain will also suffer from more media attention because of his lack of charisma and frankly, because of his age. But McCain has an advantage: he is a statesman whereas Obama is an upstart.

Moreover, though some of McCain's associates might be lobbyists, none have bombed the Pentagon, none have preached America a racist country, and probably none have been convicted of fraud, attempted bribery and money laundering charges.

Further, with negative ads characterizing Obama as a typical tax-and-spend liberal coupled with the his own gaffes, and those of his running mate, Joe Biden, the voting public are forming their opinions.

The polls are begining to reflect that as Obama's past associations, public statements and voting record become more known the harder it will be to explain away.

The Clinton's Campaign

The Internet buzzing rumor that gaffe-o-matic Joe Biden is due to be dropped by Barack Obama the first week in October and replaced by Hillary Clinton has now been picked-up by the international tabloid media.

While the credibility of the email that's claiming this strategy cannot be quantified by Snopes.com (which lists the virtual chain letter as undetermined), it nevertheless is garnering more attention. Probably because Biden's gaffes are becoming impossible to ignore: asking a wheelchair-bound state senator to stand, lauding Roosevelt's televised leadership when the stock market crashed, trashing coal energy in one state while his running mate cheered it in another, telling Katie Couric he disapproved of a negative McCain ad that was approved by Obama.

But to spite Biden's gaffes, the Obama camp has not made any moves to drop it's veep. Though I and many others have written that it would be a way to shake the presidential campaign and possibly fast-track Obama to victory. But the likelihood of this stunt in the current political climate is both nil and frankly, stupid (see George McGovern's 1972 campaign).

It is quiet clear the democrat party remains divided, polls consistently show Hillary supporters are not flocking to Obama and a small but unwavering percentage are supporting McCain.

Let's be completely honest, the Clinton's have no love for Obama and feel (rightly so) they were mistreated by the media, betrayed by the beltway dems and left campaign-cash poor by the far left. Indeed, the Clinton's were being jettisoned from the party leadership and figured to be resigned to political flotsam.

And when the history of this race is told in hindsight, that is precisely what happened: the DNC, K-street dems, and anti-war, anti-establishment left and the media were tired of being collectively suffocated by the Clintons and when presented what at the time seemed to be a viable alternative, took it with blind enthusiasm.

But the irony of the Obama nomination is that it wasn't ever supposed to happen. After George McGovern's electoral thrashing, the democrat party took it upon itself never to be caught nominating a far-left nominee, estopped in future elections by their "superdelegates". Yet with their eagerness to rid themselves of Bill and Hillary, the democrat party did just that.

Returning the favor as revenge dish served cold, Bill Clinton has been all over television in different interviews throwing Barack under the bus. All the while, Hillary has become more tepid in her tongue-biting support of Obama. Moreover, media elite liberals are beginning to question the viability of their nominee.

Thre is no doubt that Obama needs the full support of both President Clinton and Senator Clinton to win in November, while the former president and his senatorial wife are campaigning, they certainly aren't campaigning for their party's nominee...the political irony is just too much.

Turn Strategy (Part II)

McCain/Palin are up in Florida, they're up in Ohio, they're within the margin of error in Michigan and Pennsylvania. Intrade Market Odds have McCain over Obama 52.6 to 46.1. Rasmussen, Gallup, Hotline/FD tracking, Ipsos all have McCain up in their national tracking. Moreover, Intertrade has Biden's potential withdrawal from the democrat ticket skyrocketing.

So here's the rub: Obama is remains in serious trouble and Biden is weighing him down. Make no mistake about it, among the newest Joe Biden gaffes was a deliberate trial-balloon regarding his higher qualification of Hillary Clinton to be Vice President. What makes it appear to be a gaffe is that the Delaware democrat is gaffe-o-matic.

Since being tapped as Obama's running mate, I have been unable to offer one serious compelling reason to add Biden to the ticket. Joe is gaffe-o-matic, he was run-out of the 1988 race for plagiarism, he didn't garner any substantial support in the primaries, he doesn't bring any identity politicking (other than white males).

The turn strategy I just wrote about is needed this instant, if Obama wants to regain control of the polls, the race, and momentum perception. With desparation clearly setting-in on the left and what the interals are identifying, Obama is self-imploding. Desparte times call for drastic measures and he needs to do the following:

1) Dump Biden (give him a graceful exit and then leak vetting governors Bill Richardson and Kathleen Sebelius; let the press have a feeding frenzy for a few days, then yank the rug and name Hillary Clinton).

2) Stop running against Bush, it is not working. If it were, the latest polling wouldn't show that voters are even less confident in democrat's on national security.

3) Drop the ad-libbing, drop the ad-hominem attacks, and drop the pessimism. Get optimistic about the future under an Obama administration.

4) Stick to the stump issues and talk-up tax cuts for middle-class America, energy independence with new technologies requiring the oil companies to lead the way, turn education around from the ground-up, a better health care system with doctor's in charge and let the Iraqi's take the lead, while the US begins an incremental draw-down.

McCain and Palin are leading because they're looking forward and have divorced themselves from Bush, while Obama is looking backward, and you can't lead by looking back. Dump the hope and change and the more-of-the-same messages and get voters to look at a better America four years from now.

Media Oblique

This past week has put on full display for anyone who pays even scant attention the blatant bias of the "mainstream media" (e.g. MSNBC, CNN, the New York Times) vis-a-via the assualt on Sarah Palin and the likewise treatment given to Hillary Clinton during the primaries.

Even Oprah has shown her political bias by not inviting the GOP VP nominee, claiming that she does not want to lend her ratings as a political platform (yet that self-imposed standard was not applicable when Barack Obama appeared twice as a presidential candidate).

The common thread here is not particularly gender bias, but political bias.

Ask the average man on the street if Rush Limbaugh is a conservative or liberal, you're going to get the correct affiliation (perhaps peppered with explicatives). Dittos for Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck, the second and third most listened-to radio talk show hosts. The answer maybe correct but the source from which the answer given is likely to be third-party drawn.

But if you actually tune-in to one of these three, they won't claim objectivity, they tell their audiences their political diposition.

When the New York Times, CNN, or MSNBC cite one of these three personalities they routinely qualify the introduction with "conservative talk-show host". While Chris Mattews, Keith Olberman rant against anything Republican or conservative, they claim objectivity.

If you've seen the TV ad for National Review, it boasts its conservative dispatch, but the New York Times TV ad says nothing of its ever more left leanings; instead it highlights its fashion, style, weekend, and et cetera sections.

Remember Rep. Gary Condit?

That's pricely how most ever print publication and TV news crawl labeled the former California congressman. His (D) political affiliation rarely appeared after his name, whereas in 2006, Republican Mark Foley's name was ubiqitous.

This is also explains why so little coverage is given to Biden's public record, but the same outlets are quick to highlight Palin's personal life.

The Matthews/Olberman demotions are proof positive that news consumers know when they're listening to commentary and when they're listening to hard news. The late Tim Russert was a democrat, but you wouldn't know it by his moderating, you'd have to derive that fact from his work-history.