Hillary Clinton has a problem. Barack Obama needs something from Hillary. Together they have come up with a plan to circumvent the law and get what they both want.

Hillary’s campaign for president is millions of dollars in the hole and her big-money supporters have already given to her all the law allows ($2300 from each donor). Barack wants Hillary’s help in convincing her supporters to switch over and support him now that Hillary has ended her quest. Federal election law allows individuals to contribute the maximum to more than one candidate, so the plan is for Hillary to ask her big-money people to ante up to Barack and for Barack to use that money to pay off Hillary’s debts. In exchange then Hillary will throw her support to Barack and ask her followers to do the same.

This smells like money laundering to me. Under this plan some of Hillary’s backers will effectively be contributing twice the legal amount to her campaign.

Barack Hussein Obama’s solution to the high fuel cost problem is to raise the cost of fuel. He wants to impose a “windfall profits tax” on the oil companies, which will of course be passed on to fuel users. After noticing that the oil companies are still making a nice profit, Barack will probably push to raise his windfall profits tax and so on. Apparently the man hates profits. Never mind that his largest constituent base’s retirement funds depend heavily on corporate profits.

And there’s this other little fact that Barack ignores. The government profits a lot more than the oil companies from each gallon of fuel sold. Some estimates show the government profiting three times as much. Do you think Barack will levy a windfall profits tax on the government?

Since I was a teenager the percent increase in the cost of a Coca-Cola is as much or more than a gallon of fuel. And it has been reported that Coca-Cola’s profit rate last year was greater than the oil companies’ profit rates (where profit rate is roughly defined as the amount of profit divided by the amount of money invested in making that profit.) But we don’t hear any calls from Barack for a windfall profits tax on Coca-Cola.

Some people point out that the concern is about the “obscene” amount of the oil company profits, not the profit rate. Well, that’s like complaining to a bank that your neighbor is making more off his savings than you although both of you are getting the same interest rate, while ignoring the fact that your neighbor has ten times as much money in his account as you have in yours.

It is also argued that the focus is on the oil companies because their products are essential to our everyday lives and products like Coca-Cola are not. Well genius, that is why the oil companies’ gross revenues and profits are huge compared to companies like Coca-Cola. In times of shortages it is easier to do without Coke than fuel.

It is also worth noting that liberal Democrats will argue at the same time that oil is essential to our everyday lives and that we should implement extreme measures to limit its supply.

About a month ago I e-mailed this message to info@gop.com:

I received an e-mail from you asking me to donate to John McCain’s campaign. My position is very simple. Get McCain to change his mind and commit to extracting oil from ANWR and the lower Gulf of Mexico and I will make a very generous donation to his campaign.

This week he stated that he favors letting the states decide if they want to allow oil exploration and extraction off their shores and that he would reconsider his opposition to drilling in ANWR. That’s not quite what I asked for but it’s close enough. I’m not under any pretense that my message alone caused McCain to change his mind but I feel that I should hold up my end of the bargain.

Here’s my next challenge for McCain. Make this announcement in a major speech and I will make a second contribution of double the amount of the first one: 

As President you will oppose the revival of the Lieberman-Warner global warming bill and that you will veto it if it is passed by Congress. You have reconsidered the pros and cons of the bill and you now feel that the cons outweigh the pros. Chief among the cons is the devastating economic effect on the poor working class.

I have e-mailed the text of this post to the GOP.

On a related note, I heard Barack Obama criticizing McCain’s revised stance on oil drilling. He said that drilling offshore and in ANWR won’t lower fuel prices today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Well Barack, what about in six years or ten years? Even at my age I think I might need some fuel ten years from now and would like to think I’ll be able to afford it on my fixed retirement income. I thought leadership was about where we’re going, not where we are.

In discussing Barack Obama’s stated intent to meet face-to-face with Iran’s President Ahmightneedajob without pre-conditions, Ann Coulter sarcastically asks:

Because, really, who better to face down a Holocaust denier with a messianic complex than the guy who is afraid of a debate moderated by Brit Hume?

If you don’t know, Brit Hume is a commentator on the Fox News Channel. Obama has refused to participate in any debate sponsored by Fox News.

Another of Obama’s campaign promises is that he will unite the country. Looks like he plans to start by refusing to sit down with conservatives for a little debate. But he will talk to a tyrant who openly admits that he wants to destroy Israel. Good start on that uniting thing Barack.

Iran is a third-world country. How do you think Ahmadinejad is going to view the head of the most powerful country in the world agreeing to meet with him one-on-one? He is clearly going to think that he has the upper hand. And he will be right. Ahmadinejad doesn’t want anything from the USA, unless it’s for us to buy more oil. Obama wants a lot from Ahmadinejad. Obama is not going to get anything because he has no bargaining chips, except the threat of bombing them into the dark ages. If he uses that, how different is his approach from John McCain’s?

It absolutely frightens me to think of Obama looking after the security of our nation.

In her column this week Susan Estrich asks the question, Could Obama be Another Dukakis? My answer is, I hope so. She says:

There is no question that the Republicans will try to do to Obama what they did to Dukakis: paint him as a liberal, out of touch with the values of average (white) Americans, so far left that he has left America.

I don’t think it will take much paint to get the job done. If the Republicans can’t convince the voters that Obama is a liberal they need to just throw in the towel. I wouldn’t suggest the “white” qualifier as Estrich did, but would say that he is out of touch with all Americans who still believe in themselves more than government. Remember, about ten percent of blacks aren’t voting for Obama; don’t casually toss them in with the 90 percent who are.

Wright, of course, rewarded Obama for his loyalty by going on a narcissistic tirade the likes of which left Obama no choice but to do a month later what he should have done in the first instance. Lesson learned. Fool me once, shame on you. Barack Obama made clear by his turnaround on Wright that he would not be fooled twice. That is critical.

Excuse me Susan, but we need a President who gets it right the first time. We don’t want one who needs 20 years and two reminders to figure out that Wright is a hate-promoting, self-indulgent entertainer. There’s also the fact that his “turnaround” isn’t that convincing; it is more likely that he publicly denounced Wright purely for political purposes.

Political hacks like Estrich seem to think that their job is to convince voters that their candidate is someone else. They seem to never believe that a candidate can get elected if he shows his true colors. What side of the candidate do we want to show? In what states should she come across as more conservative? What should he wear today to make the people think he is one of them?

Wouldn’t it be refreshing if Obama would just proclaim that politically he sits very close to Karl Marx? If Clinton would admit that the only thing that drives her is her hunger for power? If John McCain would admit that he is a Republican in name only?

Barack Obama talks a lot about hope but he doesn’t seem to understand it. Hope is what you resort to in a situation over which you have no control. If a friend’s daughter is seriously ill you say to him that you hope that the treatment she is undergoing will work and that she will make a full recovery. Your friend would probably be looking for another doctor if the doctor said to him, I hope I’ve diagnosed your daughter’s problem correctly and prescribed the right treatment.

Obama is peddling false hope. He is telling voters that if they elect him he will give them hope that their lives will turn around. Hope is okay but it’s not sufficient. He should be telling voters that all the hope they can muster won’t make any difference if they don’t take some action to change their lives themselves. A wise, but coarse, man once told me to hope in one hand and defecate in the other and then see which hand fills up first.

Perhaps Obama is confusing hope with opportunity. More opportunity for training, education or employment would be more likely to help people than mere hope. But opportunity is harder to deliver. On second thought, maybe Obama does understand the hope thing. Hope is harder to measure than opportunity. It will be hard to hold him to account for not delivering the promised hope.

And how do you measure change? This dude is one clever demagogue!

CBS News is reporting that Hillary Clinton exaggerated the danger she faced during a visit to Bosnia near the end of that conflict in 1996. A few days ago she said that her aircraft landed under sniper fire and that she and her entourage had to run with their heads down to their vehicles. CBS video shows that she actually walked casually, amicably greeting people along the way, with her teenage daughter at her side.

A Barack Obama spokesman said Clinton’s Bosnia story “joins a growing list of instances in which Senator Clinton has exaggerated her role in foreign and domestic policymaking.” I suppose lost on him is the fact that Obama has no experiences to embellish. In 1996 he was still in the early stages of being taught how to unite the country by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright.

I keep wondering how any sane adult could seriously consider either one of them as the leader of this country. And then I remember that what the Republicans are offering is not all that great either. But I will hold my nose and vote for John McCain.

New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson has endorsed Barack Obama because “he stands the best chance of bringing this country together.” Right Bill, a man devoted to a minister and church that has spewed hate for “white America” for years is just the man to bring this country together. Do you really think the voters in this country are that stupid? Why don’t you just tell the truth Bill; your calculations led you to believe that Obama has the best chance of beating John McCain in November.

I believe that the non-brain-dead voters are tired of this “bringing the country together” nonsense. The only way I want this country united is behind my political beliefs. Any other honest voter would admit that the only way he or she wants the country united is behind his or her political beliefs. The only sense in which this country will ever be united is against some real and imminent external threat. And that hasn’t happened since World War II. It will never be united in regard to internal politics.

To politicians like Richardson and Obama the country is united when they win. The country is united when they have the power to force their socialism on the rest of us. The country is united when they have the power to squelch dissent by labeling it as racist and divisive. The country is united when they have the power to dictate acceptable behavior. The country is united when they have the power to indoctrinate your children. The country is united when they have the power.

Let’s keep the power out of their hands. Then we can determine how much they really want the country united.

Most of the commentators are misreading Jeremiah Wright and his disciple, Barack Obama. The commentators keep looking for lofty motivations for their crusades when they are just snake-oil salesmen. They do what they do for fame, fortune and power.

Wright made his outlandish statements in his pulpit because he knew it was what his congregation wanted to hear. He knew it was what got them revved up and caused them to put more money in the offering plate. He is no different than any of the high-profile, financially successful preachers around the country — black or white. None of them got there by being unremarkable.

Obama joined Wright’s congregation because he knew it would advance his “community organizing” efforts. He was working in a predominantly black neighborhood so it made sense to become involved in a predominantly black church. And when it worked for him then he saw no reason why it wouldn’t continue to work. He either agreed with Wright’s views or was willing to overlook them as long as he was getting what he wanted from the relationship.

But, you might ask, how could he not see that his long and close association with Wright would haunt him when he entered the national political scene? Perhaps because he didn’t anticipate becoming a prominent national political figure until it was too late to disassociate himself from Wright. Remember, he was first elected to national office less than four years ago.

Politicians and preachers are pretty much alike. They both know that to be successful they have to tell their followers what their followers already feel to be the truth. Can you imagine a preacher telling his congregation that even if they attend church regularly, do everything he tells them and tithe faithfully it won’t make any difference in their lives now or in the hereafter? Can you imagine a politician telling voters that even if they contribute to her campaign and vote for her she probably won’t be able to do anything for them if she is elected? If one did he or she would soon find themselves having to sell used cars or shill for erectile dysfunction medications for a living.

I don’t doubt that Pastor Wright has done a lot of good for his community, but I would bet my life savings that he has done the most for himself. I don’t doubt that Obama will improve the lives of some if elected, but I would bet my life savings that he will do the most for himself, his backers and other favored special interests.

As you probably know, Hillary Clinton ran a commercial suggesting that she will be better prepared to handle a national emergency than Barack Obama. She asked whom do you trust to take that 3:00 AM telephone call?

Some talking head suggested that if Clinton becomes McCain’s opponent in the general election, he should run a variation of that commercial. In McCain’s commercial Hillary would answer the phone and then cover the mouthpiece and say: Bill, you want to take this? It’s Putin.

I’m suggesting that Obama might want to use it in the primaries. In his commercial, as Hillary answers the phone the screen splits to show the caller is Monica Lewinsky. Monica says: Hi Hill, may I speak to Bill? Hillary shouts: (Bleep) off you bitch!! She then slams the phone down and glowers at Bill.

Obviously, impersonators would have to be used for Bill and Hill. But Monica might be enticed to play herself.