…and out of his campaign.

Yes, that’s right - the campaign of the youth, where college/youth voters find their home, about which young voters are just so excited…just isn’t so excited about them.

You see, the Obama campaign doesn’t trust their youth supporters (even some of youth leaders) to exercise their voting rights when the going gets tough and they are striping them of the right to vote at the Democratic National Convention.

The hilarity (did I intend the pun - you will never know) of this disenfranchisement knows no bounds, and the irony can be measured only by the metric ton, but the truth stings. Even some liberals are up in arms about this one as the Obama campaign - champion of the youth, remember - has lied to its youth supporters. From FutureMajority.com:

…perhaps most importantly, the Obama campaign made promises to a number of youth leaders that the right of refusal would not be exercised against young supporters.

A brief explanation:

Young people running for delegate positions on behalf of their candidate at the Democratic National Convention in California were informed earlier this week that they had been cut from the process. This happened within both the Clinton and Obama campaigns, but the issue became particularly focused on the actions of the Obama campaign, which cut far more potential delegates and which relied heavily on young voters to secure victory in the primary contests held thus far.

This is apparently happening in more than just California and is affecting even some of the leadership in the Democratic youth movement as Young Democrats of America Southwest Regional Director Kevin Bondelli was one of the delegates purged from the campaign.

No wonder Obama thinks all voters are so bitter - when your campaign is constantly kicking them in the face, they must look pretty pissed.  Et tu Barack?

And when John McCain was finally released from the Hanoi Hilton on March 14, 1973, Barack Obama was aged 11 and living in Honolulu with his maternal grandparents.

From  Moe over at Redstate.com

…also, Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton do not seem to get it.

By “get it” I mean national security. The public seems, however, to be more in line with reality and, coincidently, so does John McCain. Overwhelmingly in a new survey conducted by Gallup, the American public (let’s call them “voters”) agree with John McCain (and again, reality) when they say how we should deal with the situation in Iraq.

That is, voters want the US and our next president to behave responsibly and in the best interests of America:

 It gets worse for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Nearly two out of every three Americans surveyed (65%) believe “the United States has an obligation to establish a reasonable level of stability and security in Iraq before withdrawing all of its troops.” The reason is self-interest. Almost the same number of Americans (63%) believe al Qaeda “would be more likely to use Iraq as a base for its terrorist operations” if the U.S. withdraws.

Mr. Rove goes on to layout how the Dems have painted themselves into a corner of both political and foreign policy lunacy and describes how it will be perilous to their campaigns in November.

Elections are rarely decided over just one issue; to win, candidates don’t need to have a majority of Americans agreeing with them on every big issue. But when it comes to choosing a president, Americans take seriously the candidates’ views and experience on national security. Voters instinctively understand a president’s principal constitutional responsibility is protecting the country.

The Democrats have two candidates with less national security experience and fewer credentials than the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain. And they are compounding these difficulties with positions on Iraq and terrorist surveillance that are shared by a shrinking minority of Americans.

While Barack Obama is out chastising McCain for supporting “Bush’s war”, he seems to be missing some fairly important facts claiming that al-Qaeda was never in Iraq before the war in 2003. That’s all great and everything, except that the facts and the former Iraqi regime disagree. Newly released and translated Iraqi documents reveal a very extensive operation run by Saddam’s regime to recruit, train, and finance terrorism around the world including with the al-Qaeda network and people working within it.

Take these excerpts from a tremendous article found in The Australian:

Newly published Iraqi documents reveal just how extensive Saddam’s involvement with international terrorism was. The summary of these documents, published under the heading Saddam and Terrorism, has been reported across the world and read by almost no one.Its first paragraph reads: “The Iraqi Perspectives Project review of captured Iraqi documents uncovered strong evidence that links the regime of Saddam Hussein to regional and global terrorism. Despite their incompatible long-term goals, many terrorist movements and Saddam found a common enemy in the US.

These documents, researched and translated by the US Institute for Defense Analyses show a major, extensive effort in Saddam’s Iraq to work with terrorist enemies of the US and Israel around the world.

At times these organisations worked together, trading access for capability. In the period after the 1991 Gulf War, the regime of Saddam Hussein supported a complex and increasingly disparate mix of pan-Arab revolutionary causes and emerging pan-Islamic radical movements.

And yes, al-Qaede is among those he was supporting:

It is reasonable to assume the most sensitive stuff in a paranoid state such as Saddam’s was not written down. George Tenet, the former director of the CIA who became broadly an opponent of the Bush administration, states in his memoir as a matter of plain fact that 200 al-Qa’ida fighters relocated to Iraq with Saddam’s permission. Richard Clarke, who was director of counter-terrorism at the National Security Council on 9/11, and who went on to become a bitter foe of the Bush administration and is advising the Democrats, states as plain fact in his memoir that Saddam had engaged in sponsorship of al-Qa’ida.

200! 200 al-Qaeda terrorists were sheltered in Iraq before the fall of his regime. It only took the Greek 300 soldier to hold of the Persians, and yet Barack Obama thinks that 200 terrorists enjoying the shelter of Saddam (freakin!) Hussein isn’t a big deal!

But don’t worry…no one is hearing a thing about it:

We get too little real journalism about these subjects and too much “churnalism”, in which a single sometimes misleading wire report is repeated by thousands of commentators while nobody bothers to read the source document.

…

Acknowledging this support, but saying there’s no smoking gun directly to al-Qa’ida itself, means the report is taking an incredibly restrictive and precise view of al-Qa’ida.

But in any event this report is not claiming, as wrongly reported in the wires, that there was no link with al-Qa’ida, merely that it found no absolute smoking gun in the translated documents.

As Reagan said a while back, facts are stubborn things Barack…stubborn.

Another article (with quick bullet-points) detailing the relationships between Saddam’s Iraq and terrorist groups is here.

A long time ago, I blogged about the Dems tearing each other apart during a couple debates and in the media, and hypothesized that it would have detrimental effects on their ability to pull together this fall. Now my hunch is being confirmed not just by anecdote but through new polling evidence from Franklin & Marshall:

If [FILL preferred candidate] does not win the Democratic nomination, who do
you think you will vote for in the November election? Will you vote for [fill other
candidate], John McCain, some other candidate, or will you probably not vote in the
November election?

Hillary Clinton supporters (n = 228)
53% Barack Obama
19% John McCain
5% Other
13% Won’t vote
10% Don’t know

Barack Obama supporters (n = 126)
60% Hillary Clinton
20% John McCain
3% Other
3% Won’t vote
14% Don’t know

Yes, that’s right John McCain snares about 20% of Dems no matter who he’s running against. So much for he myth of the “Obamacan” Republicans - let’s talk about the McCainocrats!

But wait! It doesn’t stop there! Drudge has posted some new polls from Rassmussen:

 Thursday, March 20, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Thursday shows John McCain’s lead growing against both potential Democratic opponents. McCain currently leads Barack Obama 49% to 42% and Hillary Clinton 51% to 41% margin (see recent daily results).

Game on!

The Chicago Sun Times got a nice scoop on Sen. Obama’s long awaited release of his Earmarks for Change as I call them. 

The Story is available here, ive also posted the full list of earmarks after the jump.  (more…)

I want you (whoever you are) to watch both of these videos:

Now, tell me who is prepared to lead our country? Who is ready to be Commander-in-Chief? Who is inspiring?

Barack Obama vs. John McCain is a battle we can and will win - the country will make the right choice come November.

National Review has an awesome quote from one of Obama’s advisors on his unpreparedness: 

 In it, Susan Rice, a foreign policy adviser to Senator Barack Obama, discusses the foreign policy credentials of both Democrats against the tableau of Mrs. Clinton’s 3 a.m. phone call advertisement about who would be best prepared for an international crisis. (While your children are safely asleep.)

“Clinton hasn’t had to answer the phone at three o’clock in the morning and yet she attacked Barack Obama for not being ready,’’ Ms. Rice said. “They’re both not ready to have that 3 a.m. phone call.”

Check out the full article 

Well this whole superdelegate problem is taking an interesting turn.

Apparently, some Ohio superdelegates have banded together to force a plan of specifics from each Democrat to address local economic issues before they endorse either candidates….HAHAHA! I love it!

Yes, that’s right - official Democratic elites are now engaging in institutionalized pandering…something normally just left to each individual Democratic candidate to pursue.

Holding their presidential candidates for ransom is surely the way to bring a clean and quick end to their nomination process. I’m sure none of the other states (some with opposing economic needs from Ohio) will now start forming their own superdelegate militias. Good luck guys!

Ahh the media is finally beginning to pay some attention to this Rezko mess that around Barack Obama.

Here’s a new blog from the Chicago Tribune following the day-by-day Rezko trial updates.

Add it to your daily reading list.