Gay Patriot Header Image

Edwards Endorses Obama

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 8:00 pm - May 14, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Post 9-11 America

Even after Hillary thumped Obama by a margin of greater than two-to-one in West Virginia, the last Democrat to drop out from the presidential race this year, John Edwards, has thrown his support to his party’s frontrunner.  Even if all 29,196 of Edwards’ Mountain State votes went to Obama, the Illinois Senator still would have lost by a smaller margin, but still 2-to-1.

Citing yesterday’s vote, Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said in a statement, “We respect John Edwards, but . . . this thing is far from over.

McAuliffe may actually be right.  At least this one time, his interests (electing a Clinton) coincide with those of the electorate, well, that is, his party’s electorate.  The voters seem to be speaking in a voice at odds with the party’s leadership, at least in West Virginia and quite possibly Kentucky as well.

As more and more questions are being asked about the likely Democratic nominee and more and more party leaders rally round him, the party’s rank and file doesn’t seem to have gotten the message and shows considerable anxiety about their standard bearer in this fall’s contest.

Obama…. Christianist?

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 4:41 pm - May 14, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Post 9-11 America

Okay, enough of this!  My puny, “bitter” brain can’t handle the hypocrisy and the clashing of MSM-doctrine in this poster.  (h/t – Instapundit)

Can you just IMAGINE the outrage (*cough* Keith Olbermann *cough*) if this were a John McCain for President flyer?

Don’t Liberals believe in “Separation of Church and State” anymore?   Will Liberal Bloggers become the New Moral Majority?

What is going on?  What bizzaro world are we living in these days?  Stop the madness!!!!!!!!


-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Would Different Primary Schedule Have Changed Outcome in Democratic Race?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:56 pm - May 14, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Post 9-11 America

Las night, as I returned him to review the results from West Virginia’s primary, I wondered how different things would have been had West Virginia held its contest last week, with the Indiana and North Carolina primaries this week. With that thought in mind, I concluded my post on the Mountain State’s returns thusly:

In that case, Hillary might have tightened the margin in North Carolina and widened it in Indiana. And we wouldn’t be talking about Obama today as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

Even after the thumping the Democratic frontrunner took last night, “he picked up three more superdelegates after the West Virginia loss, offering fresh recognition from Democratic leaders that he is likely to secure the nomination.

What if the schedule had been different this year? Would those three superdelegates have moved to Hillary had she won West Virginia before getting shellacked in the Tarheel State and holding on only by the skin of her teeth in the Hoosier State?

One of the great ironies of this presidential election year is that so many states rushed to hold their primaries as early as they could so as to increase their influence, but all crowded together on the same day in February, they did not get the focus some contests held later in the cycle enjoyed.

Perhaps it was Obama’s solid win in Wisconsin (58-41) on February 19 that secured his status as likely Democratic nominee. But, what if West Virginia had held its contest that day, would Hillary have then been able to move into the lead?

Should McCain Eschew Telling the Truth?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:05 pm - May 14, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Media Bias

During my morning blog read, I followed Glenn Reynolds’ link to Don Surber’s post on our all too dainty politics.

That Charleston columnist pointed out that Richard Cohen, one of his peers from a paper in the nation’s capitol, had faulted the presumptive Republican nominee for engaging in the “the sort of campaigning” he had once “vowed to eschew.”

And what had John McCain done to warrant this this tongue-lashing?

He had said, “Barack Obama’s foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders.” Something which has indeed happened.

So, I guess for a liberal columnist it’s mud-slinging whena Republican brings up unpleasant facts about his likely Democratic opponent? Cohen had just become yet another MSM pundit repeating the Democratic mantra that John McCain is no longer the maverick they once admired, but has become a clone of George W. Bush.

It’s all because he has a chance at winning the White House for the GOP. It seems columnists as well as reporters will eschew honest campaign coverage in order to prevent that from happening.

GayPatriot Scores One on Annoying TSA Agent

Posted by Bruce Carroll at 11:16 am - May 14, 2008.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America,Travel

The following takes place between 11AM and Noon Eastern Time:

GayPatriot to TSA Supervisor: Hi.  I’m curious to know why Orlando International is the only airport that doesn’t pull CPAP machines for extra screening.

TSA Supervisor:  Uh, which lane did you come through?

GP:  That one. (*points*) 

To be honest, the agents seemed more interested in socializing with each other than with paying attention.

TSA Supervisor:  I’ll be right back.

We, The People – 1
Mindless Bureaucrats – 0

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Obama’s West Virginia Slaughter

Holy crap.  I’m just catching up on the news this morning.   Hillary completely cleaned Obama’s clock yesterday in West Virginia.

Check this out:   Over 330,000 Democrats voted in the WV primary.  RECORD TURNOUT for a race that the media has declared OVER.  Of those, Senator Clinton received 239,062 votes (67%).   SIXTY-SEVEN PERCENT, folks.

Over on the GOP side, McCain got 76% of the 107,772 Republicans.

So the presumptive loser (Clinton) gets 67% while the presumptive winner (McCain) gets 76% respectively. 

And Barack — just 26% – 91,652.  Just 2,000 more votes than McCain while the Democrat turnout was THREE TIMES the GOP turnout yesterday.

That is a drubbin’.    I’m not sure it is time to play TAPS for Senator Clinton quite yet.  The Democrats have a serious problem on their hands.  Just how bad was Obama’s trouncing? 

It was so bad that, as of this morning so far, The Daily Kos seems to have completely forgotten there was even a primary in West Virginia yesterday.  *crickets chirping*

And Clinton has made John Aravosis have a hissy-temper tantrum fit.  (See: “Go Away You Horrible Human Being” at

We, The People aren’t listening to They, The Media.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Hillary’s Meaningless Mountain State Victory?

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 2:29 am - May 14, 2008.
Filed under: 2008 Presidential Politics,Post 9-11 America

Well, Hillary won the Mountain State by a larger margin than I had anticipated. But, as Glenn Reynolds wonders, quoting McClatchy News, “does it matter?

Most news analysts seem to share that view. For example, Beth Fouhy of the Associated Press writes:

Clinton’s West Virginia win — coming toward the end of the process — does little to alter the unforgiving political landscape she faces: only a handful of small contests left on the calendar and no indication that the superdelegates who may ultimately select the nominee have been persuaded she is the more electable candidate in the general election.

She’s not the only one. The Washington Post’s Dan Balz wrote, “the primary win may have come too late to have a significant impact on the trajectory of a nomination battle in which Obama has an almost insurmountable lead in delegates.” In commenting on her victory in West Virginia, the other Roger Simon asks, “does anybody care?” (The last two quotes via RealClearPolitics.)

Given the margin of her victory, I’d care a lot if I were a Democrat. It’s not just that she won the Mountain State by forty points (or 144,000 votes), she’s also favored to win Kenucky next week, the most populous state which has yet to vote. A victory there could narrow the popular vote lead he currently enjoys, possibly even push her ahead if Florida is factored in, creating what I termed “The Democrats’ ‘Nightmare’ Popular Vote Scenario.”

Hillary won last night after the news media and many Democrats have written her off as dead and as numerous party leaders have asked her to drop out of the race. Even her campaign has said as much, “Despite being the so-called ‘presumptive nominee’ and benefiting from these advantages, Sen. Obama has been unable to close a significant gap in the polls.

If her campaign is to be believed (and since it’s the Clintons, that’s an open question), not only did the Obama campaign outspend hers on advertising, but also had “more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices” (Via Instapundit). That he couldn’t break 30% of the vote (indeed, barely got one-quarter of the vote) even with those resources suggests he’s going to have a tough time bringing a good number Democrats back into the fold this November while convincing wary independents to choose him over John McCain.

So, the title to this post is not just rhetorical. It’s a real question. I don’t think Hillary Clinton’s victory in the Mountain State is meaningless. Her whopping win here may not shift the political calculus for the Democrats as would have a more comfortable margin in Indiana primary last week, but consider this: what if this primary had been held the week before Indiana and North Carolina?

In that case, Hillary might have tightened the margin in North Carolina and widened it in Indiana. And we wouldn’t be talking about Obama today as the presumptive Democratic nominee.

UPDATE: After I posted this, I read something published before I had and offering a thesis sort of similar to my own:

Barack Obama is lucky, damn lucky, that he convinced the punditocracy of his inevitability last week. If he had lost Indiana by a landslide and North Carolina by a little, West Virginia’s primary would be getting more attention than it is.

(H/t Instapundit.)