In this Issue:

Democratic Wars (do you think it is over?)

The Clinton Strategy (it is not over yet)

The Obama Strategy (Obama is a smart guy, he knows that it’s not over yet)

Obama’s “Acceptance” Speech 6/3/08 (My favorite part: Obama: “I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.”)

McCain’s New Orleans Speech 6/3/08

Hillary’s Speech 6/7/08

Did Michelle use the word “Whitey”?

Other Rush Links

Too much happened this week!

Enjoy...

If you receive this and you hate it and you don’t want to ever read it no matter what...that is fine; email me back and you will be quickly deleted from my list (which is almost at the maximum anyway).

You think the war is over and Obama won, and now we are in general election mode. You’re wrong. Furthermore, you probably don’t even know what happened.

Quite obviously, in the Democratic party, there are two factions fighting for power: the Obama faction and the Clinton faction.

The Obama faction: Obama, his people, many former Clinton supporters, most of the Democratic party heads, most news papers, news services, and most of the network news organizations, and the print media (like Vanity Fair, even). Now this is fascinating to me because, unlike Obama's populist support, these people know that Obama is an empty suit. They know he is a politician just like anyone else. They know that, once he gets away from a speech monitor, he stumbles, constantly pausing to think, between every 3-6 words, continually saying "uh" and "you know." He contradicts himself, he says things which are not true, he makes incredible gaffes any one of which would end the career of a conservative (remember George Allen and mukakah, or whatever the hell it was he said?). He has no record to speak of (we have examined this in a previous issue in more detail than you have read anywhere else) and no one really knows what he is going to do.

The Clinton faction: the Clintons, the Clinton Political Machine, and some Democratic party heads. Now, as you know, I have continued to say, despite the fact that every news organization, including FoxNews, has all but declared Obama the Democratic candidate, and have been doing so for the past several weeks, that Clinton will probably be the nominee (by the time that you receive this issue, 5 days after I write this, Obama may be more officially declared the presumptive nominee).

Hillary Clinton appears to be smarter and she can speak extemporaneously much better than Obama, and she has a better chance winning the presidential nomination. Bill Clinton, among most of the Democratic hoi polloi, is considered to be a good and possibly a great president. I have heard many of my Democratic friends praise Bill Clinton, even now (even though, half of them support Obama instead). Furthermore, Hillary arguably has more of the popular vote (although that statement alone can bring on an hour of debate between Democrats).

Given these facts, why does everyone in the liberal power structure, including the press, seem to lean toward Obama? I am going to offer up two reasons, and one is going to seem very racist, so brace yourselves.

1. The internet and FoxNews is one reason. Bill Clinton does not yet fully appreciate that, he can no longer say whatever pops into his head, and the press which is there will cover for him. Before, he could say anything and he could do anything; and those in the media, in the past, would cover for him (although the Monica scandal was just too salatious to be swept under the rug, even for media...plus, this did not hurt his popularity). Now, if he lies or pinches someone's bottom, someone is going to catch it on their cell phone, and, 10 minutes later, it will be posted on youtube, to be viewed by thousands of people and then discussed at length on every Fox program. He is not quite hip to this yet, although he is beginning to catch on (as is his wife, sniper-fire dodging Hillary). This is not the problem. The Clinton's are intelligent and they will catch on to this. However, their past is a problem. Despite Clinton being smooth and popular and doing a few good things for America, behind the scenes, there was a whole different thing going on. Bill Clinton was probably the closest thing that we have ever had to a crime boss ruling over America. Right now, this is not a problem. However, with the internet and alternate media, this is going to come out. The Democratic press cannot cover for all that Clinton did in his administration. Those in his administration recognize just how awful it was, and many of them have been leaving the Clinton ship like rats. Although this information is out there now, it is not really an issue, since, everyone has already designated Obama as the Democratic crown prince. So, who cares? But, if Hillary is the nominee, this stuff will come out and almost all Americans will become aware of just how corrupt the Clinton administration was (I have had 3 Democrats speak to me about the horrid Bush administration and about his cronies...wait till they find out what really happened from 1993-2001). This stain along with Carter's incompetent administration is going to hurt the Democrats for a decade or more.

2. This second reason is more important. If Hillary is not the nominee, there are going to be women's groups protesting, marching in the streets, carrying signs, grabbing up media attention. Best case scenario, on behalf of the party, Hillary will calm them down somewhat. Worse case scenario, this is news for a week or two, and a significant portion of them vote for McCain because they are so pissed off (5–25%).

Here is Harriet Christian, who represents the worst case scenario for Obama. She is quite entertaining, passionate and eloquent, if you have not seen her yet. By the way, extemporaneously, she can speak better than Obama.

But, let's say the Obama is not the nominee. Who is going to protest and what will their methods be? Will they walk through the streets carrying signs, speaking harsh words to the media, and then, at the end of the Democratic convention, go quietly home? We know who Obama has associated with. We have seen the congregation of Jeremiah Wright. When Wright or Pleger attack the United States or rich white people, we see them jumping to their feet, great wonderful smiles on their faces, as they clap and cheer. How do you think these "Christians" are going to react if Obama, the media-declared winner, is not the Democratic candidate? Will this all be over in a week or two? Will they march and carry signs or will their protests be a little more dramatic? Let me just say it: if Obama is not the Democratic nominee, there will be riots in the streets, and they will spread from Denver across the United States, and most Democratic party leaders recognize this. At first, there will be marching in the streets and yelling, but it won't stop there. Remember, there is a strong radical element in this country which supports Obama and who hate America. They hate oil companies, Wal-mart, and anyone who makes too much money. There will be smashed store windows, blazing cars, and people will die...many on camera and posted on youtube minutes later. Democratic supporters have rallied the masses to a strong hatred of George Bush and all things Republican, as well as hatred for any sort of business success. Huge numbers of Democrats even believe Bush to be responsible for or knew in advance about 9/11. This is not going to be pretty.

Democratic insiders know this. They are realists. They know Obama does not stand a chance and that Hillary is their best bet to become president, but do they chance wholesale rioting throughout the United States, rioting which will be blamed on the Democratic party and its faulty nomination process? Let Obama have his day, let him lose to McCain, and the Democrats will come back in 2012 with a new candidate, possibly Hillary. The Democrats are going to be picking up seats in the House and the Senate and McCain is practically a Democrat anyway (okay, that wasn't fair).

The choice is simple: do they want riots in the streets or demonstrations by angry women? Not a difficult choice.

Ideally, what do they do? Put Obama and Hillary on the ticket together, despite the fact that they hate each other. Obama does not want Hillary as his VP, no matter what he says. Do you think that he wants Bill and Hillary in the White House, day after day, gunning for his job?

Second possibility, is Obama hangs tough and chooses his own VP (it will seem as if he chooses his own VP). Maybe he will choose Pelosi to get the women off his back. Or Kathy Sebelius. If things look better a few months down the road, genetically speaking, then he chooses Ted Strickland or Jim Webb.

Can Clinton still take the nomination? Of course she can. She is not going to go quietly into the night and she could care less about race riots. She wants the power. She has not released her delegates. She will sound like she is soundly behind the Democratic party, but she is going to hold back and hope that Obama will make a serious mistake. Then she will offer herself again for the good of the party. Don’t be surprised to see this in the courts this September. Expect to see more negative revelations about Obama, suppressed as much as possible by the mainstream press, but placed on the internet and on FoxNews.

It’s not over until the fat lady sings, “I release my delegates to Barack Obama” (sorry). Up until that point, the super-delegates, without announcing a thing, can suddenly move to Hillary’s side and elect her on the first ballot.

No matter what happens, this is going to be a fascinating ride for us conservatives. Even though we have a Democrat running on the Republican ticket (okay, that still wasn't fair).

In case you are not aware of it, Hillary Clinton is still in the race to be the nominee for the Democratic party. I realize that every newspaper and news show in American has been proclaiming Obama the presumptive nominee for about the last month, but Clinton not only has a majority of the popular vote, but, as she has accurately pointed out, she has garnered more votes in the Democratic primary than any other nominee in American history.

Look for her or her surrogates to challenge in court, seating only half the delegates of Michigan and Florida (they will all be seated and given half a vote, but is that fair?).

Bear in mind, in the Democratic party, the super-delegates are the key, and both Clinton and Obama know this. It does not matter whether or not they have pledged themselves to either candidate; they could all change their minds tomorrow, and then change their minds the day after that, and then change again next Tuesday. Behind the scenes, both candidates will be working these super-delegates, and do not be surprised if many of these super-delegates find themselves with better Washington jobs than they have now, when all is said and done (no matter who the candidate is).

While Obama is acting as if he is the presumptive nominee, every time he stumbles, every time he missspeaks, both surrogates for the Clinton's (and some in the Republican party) are going to make as big of a deal of these things as possible. That is not to say, this will be easy, as the primary news services favor Obama, so they are not going to be running much negative Obama news.

So, for the next few months, the Clinton's will speak publically a few times, but these speeches may sound a lot like her speech last Saturday. She will tell those there to vote Obama, but she will not release her delegates and she will spend more time talking about herself and her supporters. However, mostly, both Bill and Hillary will be working behind the scenes.

Act as if you are the nominee for your party, and say "We're got to stop the destructive Bush-

McCain policies in Washington." Or "We need to move away from politics as usual in Washington, and vote against a 3^rd Bush term by nominating McCain." Or, "We cannot allow John McCain to continue the failed economic and foreign policies of this administration of George Bush." Or, "Our country cannot afford a third term of Bush-McCain." Now and again, things are going to occur in his campaign which will put Obama's judgment into question. At that point in time, he will sit down in a friendly venue, sometimes with his wife Michelle, and they will speak about how it is time to move on beyond old style Washington politics and divisive rhetoric, and turn the page on whatever situation is bothersome to the Obama's at that point in time. "We need to return to getting our message out there to the American people" he will conclude. Which message is, in case you did not get it the first 396 times that you heard it, is, "We need to turn the page on the old-style Bush-McCain policies." Oh, just in case you did not quite get his message the first 26,923 times he said it, he will need to say, "The people of American want to move beyond the old style Washington politics, which we would get in McCain's 3^rd Bush term."

I am relieved that Obama has moved beyond his old empty rhetoric (change) and has moved to a new empty rhetoric of saying Bush-McCain every 2 minutes. He will revisit change.

The only thing which is more vapid than listening to Obama talk about change, turning the page on the old style Washington politics, and the 3^rd term of Bush-McCain, is to here his surrogates say the same thing. You will note that, apart from his war person, nobody in his campaign speaks in specifics. Obama does speak in specifics now and again, and there are specifics on his website; but, most of the time, Obama says nothing. Can American hear him say nothing over and over again for the next 5 months?

On the McCain side, we will hear actual positions and actual propositions given regularly. No matter what McCain has as the theme for this or that speech, he is going to tell us exactly what he is going to do.

On the other hand, his “supporters,” Republicans, don’t like some of these positions and you will hear conservatives complaining about his goofy cap and trade position on global warming and what his immigration policy might be.

Michael Medved, although not quite the personality of Rush Limbaugh, consistently has the most diverse list of guests on his program. Today, he interviewed Peter Schweizer, who wrote the book: Makers and Takers: Why conservatives work harder, feel happier, have closer families, take fewer drugs, give more generously, value honesty more, are less materialistic and envious, whine less … and even hug their children more than liberals.

The interview was fascinating, and questions, such as, "Of course conservatives are happier; they are richer and have more stuff." as well as "How do you really define what a liberal and what a conservative is?" [by the way, have you noticed how one side of the aisle seems to be ultra concerned about the definition of this or that. Great interview.

In Makers and Takers you will discover why:

* Seventy-one percent of conservatives say you have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent versus less than half (46 percent) of liberals.

* Conservatives have a better work ethic and are much less likely to call in sick than their liberal counterparts.

* Liberals are 2½ times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck.

* Liberals are 2 times more likely to say it is okay to cheat the government out of welfare money you don’t deserve.

* Conservatives are more likely than liberals to hug their children and “significantly more likely” to display positive nurturing emotions.

* Liberals are less trusting of family members and much less likely to stay in touch with their parents.

* Do you get satisfaction from putting someone else’s happiness ahead of your own? Fifty-five percent of conservatives said yes versus only 20 percent of liberals.

* Rush Limbaugh, Ronald Reagan, Bill O’Reilly and Dick Cheney have given large sums of money to people in need, while Ted Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore, and Al Gore have not.

* Those who are “very liberal” are 3 times more likely than conservatives to throw things when they get angry.

The American left prides itself on being superior to conservatives: more generous, less materialistic, more tolerant, more intellectual, and more selfless. For years scholars have constructed—and the media has pushed—elaborate theories designed to demonstrate that conservatives suffer from a host of personality defects and character flaws. According to these supposedly unbiased studies, conservatives are mean-spirited, greedy, selfish malcontents with authoritarian tendencies. Far from the belief of a few cranks, prominent liberals from John Kenneth Galbraith to Hillary Clinton have succumbed to these prejudices. But what do the facts show?

Peter Schweizer has dug deep—through tax documents, scholarly data, primary opinion research surveys, and private records—and has discovered that these claims are a myth. Indeed, he shows that many of these claims actually apply more to liberals than conservatives. Much as he did in his bestseller Do as I Say (Not as I Do), he brings to light never-before-revealed facts that will upset conventional wisdom.

Conservatives such as Ronald Reagan and Robert Bork have long argued that liberal policies promote social decay. Schweizer, using the latest data and research, exposes how, in general:

* Liberals are more self-centered than conservatives.
* Conservatives are more generous and charitable than liberals.
* Liberals are more envious and less hardworking than conservatives.
* Conservatives value truth more than liberals, and are less prone to cheating and lying.
* Liberals are more angry than conservatives.
* Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.
* Liberals are more dissatisfied and unhappy than conservatives.

Schweizer argues that the failure lies in modern liberal ideas, which foster a self-centered, “if it feels good do it” attitude that leads liberals to outsource their responsibilities to the government and focus instead on themselves and their own desires.

Medved and Schweizer covered a lot of ground, but what stood out in my mind is--and this may explain a lot of the viewpoints and differences--but liberals tend to lean toward "if you don't take care of yourself, and your own needs and your own desires, no one else is going to do it for you." This fits in well with the idea that, your job owes you if you are a liberal; and the conservative tends to be more thankful to have a job. That attitude alone is going to have a profound affect upon a person's own work ethic--particularly when working for someone else.

It is important that you read this speech and ask yourself every now and again, “Just what is it that Obama is going to do as president?” On the other hand, Obama, with a prepared speech, can knock his audience back on their heels (as he did with this speech).

“Tonight, after fifty-four hard-fought contests, our primary season has finally come to an end.

Sixteen months have passed since we first stood together on the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, Illinois. Thousands of miles have been traveled. Millions of voices have been heard. And because of what you said - because you decided that change must come to Washington; because you believed that this year must be different than all the rest; because you chose to listen not to your doubts or your fears but to your greatest hopes and highest aspirations, tonight we mark the end of one historic journey with the beginning of another - a journey that will bring a new and better day to America. Tonight, I can stand before you and say that I will be the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

I want to thank every American who stood with us over the course of this campaign - through the good days and the bad; from the snows of Cedar Rapids to the sunshine of Sioux Falls. And tonight I also want to thank the men and woman who took this journey with me as fellow candidates for President.

At this defining moment for our nation, we should be proud that our party put forth one of the most talented, qualified field of individuals ever to run for this office. I have not just competed with them as rivals, I have learned from them as friends, as public servants, and as patriots who love America and are willing to work tirelessly to make this country better. They are leaders of this party, and leaders that America will turn to for years to come.

That is particularly true for the candidate who has traveled further on this journey than anyone else. Senator Hillary Clinton has made history in this campaign not just because she's a woman who has done what no woman has done before, but because she's a leader who inspires millions of Americans with her strength, her courage, and her commitment to the causes that brought us here tonight.

We've certainly had our differences over the last sixteen months. But as someone who's shared a stage with her many times, I can tell you that what gets Hillary Clinton up in the morning - even in the face of tough odds - is exactly what sent her and Bill Clinton to sign up for their first campaign in Texas all those years ago; what sent her to work at the Children's Defense Fund and made her fight for health care as First Lady; what led her to the United States Senate and fueled her barrier-breaking campaign for the presidency - an unyielding desire to improve the lives of ordinary Americans, no matter how difficult the fight may be. And you can rest assured that when we finally win the battle for universal health care in this country, she will be central to that victory. When we transform our energy policy and lift our children out of poverty, it will be because she worked to help make it happen. Our party and our country are better off because of her, and I am a better candidate for having had the honor to compete with Hillary Rodham Clinton.

There are those who say that this primary has somehow left us weaker and more divided. Well I say that because of this primary, there are millions of Americans who have cast their ballot for the very first time. There are Independents and Republicans who understand that this election isn't just about the party in charge of Washington, it's about the need to change Washington. There are young people, and African-Americans, and Latinos, and women of all ages who have voted in numbers that have broken records and inspired a nation.

All of you chose to support a candidate you believe in deeply. But at the end of the day, we aren't the reason you came out and waited in lines that stretched block after block to make your voice heard. You didn't do that because of me or Senator Clinton or anyone else. You did it because you know in your hearts that at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - we cannot afford to keep doing what we've been doing. We owe our children a better future. We owe our country a better future. And for all those who dream of that future tonight, I say - let us begin the work together. Let us unite in common effort to chart a new course for America.

In just a few short months, the Republican Party will arrive in St. Paul with a very different agenda. They will come here to nominate John McCain, a man who has served this country heroically. I honor that service, and I respect his many accomplishments, even if he chooses to deny mine. My differences with him are not personal; they are with the policies he has proposed in this campaign.

Because while John McCain can legitimately tout moments of independence from his party in the past, such independence has not been the hallmark of his presidential campaign.

It's not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It's not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college - policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

And it's not change when he promises to continue a policy in Iraq that asks everything of our brave men and women in uniform and nothing of Iraqi politicians - a policy where all we look for are reasons to stay in Iraq, while we spend billions of dollars a month on a war that isn't making the American people any safer.

So I'll say this - there are many words to describe John McCain's attempt to pass off his embrace of George Bush's policies as bipartisan and new. But change is not one of them.

Change is a foreign policy that doesn't begin and end with a war that should've never been authorized and never been waged. I won't stand here and pretend that there are many good options left in Iraq, but what's not an option is leaving our troops in that country for the next hundred years - especially at a time when our military is overstretched, our nation is isolated, and nearly every other threat to America is being ignored.

We must be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were careless getting in - but start leaving we must. It's time for Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. It's time to rebuild our military and give our veterans the care they need and the benefits they deserve when they come home. It's time to refocus our efforts on al Qaeda's leadership and Afghanistan, and rally the world against the common threats of the 21st century - terrorism and nuclear weapons; climate change and poverty; genocide and disease. That's what change is.

Change is realizing that meeting today's threats requires not just our firepower, but the power of our diplomacy - tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn't afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for. We must once again have the courage and conviction to lead the free world. That is the legacy of Roosevelt, and Truman, and Kennedy. That's what the American people want. That's what change is.

Change is building an economy that rewards not just wealth, but the work and workers who created it. It's understanding that the struggles facing working families can't be solved by spending billions of dollars on more tax breaks for big corporations and wealthy CEOs, but by giving a the middle-class a tax break, and investing in our crumbling infrastructure, and transforming how we use energy, and improving our schools, and renewing our commitment to science and innovation. It's understanding that fiscal responsibility and shared prosperity can go hand-in-hand, as they did when Bill Clinton was President.

John McCain has spent a lot of time talking about trips to Iraq in the last few weeks, but maybe if he spent some time taking trips to the cities and towns that have been hardest hit by this economy - cities in Michigan, and Ohio, and right here in Minnesota - he'd understand the kind of change that people are looking for.

Maybe if he went to Iowa and met the student who works the night shift after a full day of class and still can't pay the medical bills for a sister who's ill, he'd understand that she can't afford four more years of a health care plan that only takes care of the healthy and wealthy. She needs us to pass health care plan that guarantees insurance to every American who wants it and brings down premiums for every family who needs it. That's the change we need.

Maybe if he went to Pennsylvania and met the man who lost his job but can't even afford the gas to drive around and look for a new one, he'd understand that we can't afford four more years of our addiction to oil from dictators. That man needs us to pass an energy policy that works with automakers to raise fuel standards, and makes corporations pay for their pollution, and oil companies invest their record profits in a clean energy future - an energy policy that will create millions of new jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced. That's the change we need.

And maybe if he spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, he'd understand that we can't afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early childhood education; to recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; to finally decide that in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the wealthy few, but the birthright of every American. That's the change we need in America. That's why I'm running for President.

The other side will come here in September and offer a very different set of policies and positions, and that is a debate I look forward to. It is a debate the American people deserve. But what you don't deserve is another election that's governed by fear, and innuendo, and division. What you won't hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon - that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize. Because we may call ourselves Democrats and Republicans, but we are Americans first. We are always Americans first.

Despite what the good Senator from Arizona said tonight, I have seen people of differing views and opinions find common cause many times during my two decades in public life, and I have brought many together myself. I've walked arm-in-arm with community leaders on the South Side of Chicago and watched tensions fade as black, white, and Latino fought together for good jobs and good schools. I've sat across the table from law enforcement and civil rights advocates to reform a criminal justice system that sent thirteen innocent people to death row. And I've worked with friends in the other party to provide more children with health insurance and more working families with a tax break; to curb the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure that the American people know where their tax dollars are being spent; and to reduce the influence of lobbyists who have all too often set the agenda in Washington.

In our country, I have found that this cooperation happens not because we agree on everything, but because behind all the labels and false divisions and categories that define us; beyond all the petty bickering and point-scoring in Washington, Americans are a decent, generous, compassionate people, united by common challenges and common hopes. And every so often, there are moments which call on that fundamental goodness to make this country great again.

So it was for that band of patriots who declared in a Philadelphia hall the formation of a more perfect union; and for all those who gave on the fields of Gettysburg and Antietam their last full measure of devotion to save that same union.

So it was for the Greatest Generation that conquered fear itself, and liberated a continent from tyranny, and made this country home to untold opportunity and prosperity.

So it was for the workers who stood out on the picket lines; the women who shattered glass ceilings; the children who braved a Selma bridge for freedom's cause.

So it has been for every generation that faced down the greatest challenges and the most improbable odds to leave their children a world that's better, and kinder, and more just.

America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth. This was the moment - this was the time - when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves, and our highest ideals. Thank you, God Bless you, and may God Bless the United States of America.”

As this speech came to a crescendo, you were either moved by these words or, if you listened to what Obama said, particularly at the end, you said to yourself, “Are you kidding me?”

For those of you who saw this speech, you realize that, on a point scale of delivering a prepared speech of 1 to 10, where Obama is a 10 and Bush is a 5; McCain rates about a 4. Now, on the positive side, this speech is better read than seen, and, unlike most speeches by Obama, this speech has a considerable amount of meat in it (actual proposals and programs as opposed to soaring rhetoric). This particular speech, if you saw McCain deliver it, has fair to good content, but one of the worst deliveries I have ever seen.

“Good evening from the great city of New Orleans. Tonight, we can say with confidence the primary season is over, and the general election campaign has begun. I commend both Senators Obama and Clinton for the long, hard race they have run. Senator Obama has impressed many Americans with his eloquence and his spirited campaign. Senator Clinton has earned great respect for her tenacity and courage. The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received. As the father of three daughters, I owe her a debt for inspiring millions of women to believe there is no opportunity in this great country beyond their reach. I am proud to call her my friend. Pundits and party elders have declared that Senator Obama will be my opponent. He will be a formidable one. But I'm ready for the challenge, and determined to run this race in a way that does credit to our campaign and to the proud, decent and patriotic people I ask to lead.

The decision facing Americans in this election couldn't be more important to the future security and prosperity of American families. This is, indeed, a change election. No matter who wins this election, the direction of this country is going to change dramatically. But, the choice is between the right change and the wrong change; between going forward and going backward.

America has seen tough times before. We've always known how to get through them. And we've always believed our best days are ahead of us. I believe that still. But we must rise to the occasion, as we always have; change what must be changed; and make the future better than the past.

The right change recognizes that many of the policies and institutions of our government have failed. They have failed to keep up with the challenges of our time because many of these policies were designed for the problems and opportunities of the mid to late 20th Century, before the end of the Cold War; before the revolution in information technology and rise of the global economy. The right kind of change will initiate widespread and innovative reforms in almost every area of government policy -- health care, energy, the environment, the tax code, our public schools, our transportation system, disaster relief, government spending and regulation, diplomacy, the military and intelligence services. Serious and far-reaching reforms are needed in so many areas of government to meet our own challenges in our own time.

The irony is that Americans have been experiencing a lot of change in their lives attributable to these historic events, and some of those changes have distressed many American families -- job loss, failing schools, prohibitively expensive health care, pensions at risk, entitlement programs approaching bankruptcy, rising gas and food prices, to name a few. But your government often acts as if it is completely unaware of the changes and hardships in your lives. And when government does take notice, often it only makes matters worse. For too long, we have let history outrun our government's ability to keep up with it. The right change will stop impeding Americans from doing what they have always done: overcome every obstacle to our progress, turn challenges into opportunities, and by our own industry, imagination and courage make a better country and a safer world than we inherited.

To keep our nation prosperous, strong and growing we have to rethink, reform and reinvent: the way we educate our children; train our workers; deliver health care services; support retirees; fuel our transportation network; stimulate research and development; and harness new technologies.

To keep us safe we must rebuild the structure and mission of our military; the capabilities of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies; the reach and scope of our diplomacy; the capacity of all branches of government to defend us. We need to strengthen our alliances, and preserve our moral credibility.

We must also prepare, far better than we have, to respond quickly and effectively to a natural calamity. When Americans confront a catastrophe they have a right to expect basic competence from their government. Firemen and policemen should be able to communicate with each other in an emergency. We should be able to deliver bottled water to dehydrated babies and rescue the infirm from a hospital with no electricity. Our disgraceful failure to do so here in New Orleans exposed the incompetence of government at all levels to meet even its most basic responsibilities.

The wrong change looks not to the future but to the past for solutions that have failed us before and will surely fail us again. I have a few years on my opponent, so I am surprised that a young man has bought in to so many failed ideas. Like others before him, he seems to think government is the answer to every problem; that government should take our resources and make our decisions for us. That type of change doesn't trust Americans to know what is right or what is in their own best interests. It's the attitude of politicians who are sure of themselves but have little faith in the wisdom, decency and common sense of free people. That attitude created the unresponsive bureaucracies of big government in the first place. And that's not change we can believe in.

You will hear from my opponent's campaign in every speech, every interview, every press release that I'm running for President Bush's third term. You will hear every policy of the President described as the Bush-McCain policy. Why does Senator Obama believe it's so important to repeat that idea over and over again? Because he knows it's very difficult to get Americans to believe something they know is false. So he tries to drum it into your minds by constantly repeating it rather than debate honestly the very different directions he and I would take the country. But the American people didn't get to know me yesterday, as they are just getting to know Senator Obama. They know I have a long record of bipartisan problem solving. They've seen me put our country before any President -- before any party -- before any special interest -- before my own interest. They might think me an imperfect servant of our country, which I surely am. But I am her servant first, last and always.

I have worked with the President to keep our nation safe. But he and I have not seen eye to eye on many issues. We've disagreed over the conduct of the war in Iraq and the treatment of detainees; over out of control government spending and budget gimmicks; over energy policy and climate change; over defense spending that favored defense contractors over the public good.

I disagreed strongly with the Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq. I called for the change in strategy that is now, at last, succeeding where the previous strategy had failed miserably. I was criticized for doing so by Republicans. I was criticized by Democrats. I was criticized by the press. But I don't answer to them. I answer to you. And I would be ashamed to admit I knew what had to be done in Iraq to spare us from a defeat that would endanger us for years, but I kept quiet because it was too politically hard for me to do. No ambition is more important to me than the security of the country I have defended all my adult life.

Senator Obama opposed the new strategy, and, after promising not to, voted to deny funds to the soldiers who have done a brilliant and brave job of carrying it out. Yet in the last year we have seen the success of that plan as violence has fallen to a four year low; Sunni insurgents have joined us in the fight against al Qaeda; the Iraqi Army has taken the lead in places once lost to Sunni and Shia extremists; and the Iraqi Government has begun to make progress toward political reconciliation.

None of this progress would have happened had we not changed course over a year ago. And all of this progress would be lost if Senator Obama had his way and began to withdraw our forces from Iraq without concern for conditions on the ground and the advice of commanders in the field. Americans ought to be concerned about the judgment of a presidential candidate who says he's ready to talk, in person and without conditions, with tyrants from Havana to Pyongyang, but hasn't traveled to Iraq to meet with General Petraeus, and see for himself the progress he threatens to reverse.

I know Americans are tired of this war. I don't oppose a reckless withdrawal from Iraq because I'm indifferent to the suffering war inflicts on too many American families. I hate war. And I know very personally how terrible its costs are. But I know, too, that the course Senator Obama advocates could draw us into a wider war with even greater sacrifices; put peace further out of reach, and Americans back in harm's way.

I take America's economic security as seriously as I do her physical security. For eight years the federal government has been on a spending spree that added trillions to the national debt. It spends more and more of your money on programs that have failed again and again to keep up with the changes confronting American families. Extravagant spending on things that are not the business of government indebts us to other nations; fuels inflation; raises interest rates; and encourages irresponsibility. I have opposed wasteful spending by both parties and the Bush administration. Senator Obama has supported it and proposed more of his own. I want to freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top to bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones. Senator Obama opposes that reform. I opposed subsidies that favor big business over small farmers and tariffs on imported products that have greatly increased the cost of food. Senator Obama supports these billions of dollars in corporate subsidies and the tariffs that have led to rising grocery bills for American families. That's not change we can believe in.

No problem is more urgent today than America's dependence on foreign oil. It threatens our security, our economy and our environment. The next President must be willing to break completely with the energy policies not just of the Bush Administration, but the administrations that preceded his, and lead a great national campaign to put us on a course to energy independence. We must unleash the creativity and genius of Americans, and encourage industries to pursue alternative, non-polluting and renewable energy sources, where demand will never exceed supply.

Senator Obama voted for the same policies that created the problem. In fact, he voted for the energy bill promoted by President Bush and Vice President Cheney, which gave even more breaks to the oil industry. I opposed it because I know we won't achieve energy independence by repeating the mistakes of the last half century. That's not change we can believe in.

With forward thinking Democrats and Republicans, I proposed a climate change policy that would greatly reduce our dependence on oil. Our approach was opposed by President Bush, and by leading Democrats, and it was defeated by opposition from special interests that favor Republicans and those that favor Democrats. Senator Obama might criticize special interests that give more money to Republicans. But you won't often see him take on those that favor him. If America is going to achieve energy independence, we need a President with a record of putting the nation's interests before the special interests of either party. I have that record. Senator Obama does not.

Senator Obama proposes to keep spending money on programs that make our problems worse and create new ones that are modeled on big government programs that created much of the fiscal mess we are in. He plans to pay for these increases by raising taxes on seniors, parents, small business owners and every American with even a modest investment in the market. He doesn't trust us to make decisions for ourselves and wants the government to make them for us. And that's not change we can believe in.

Senator Obama thinks we can improve health care by driving Americans into a new system of government orders, regulations and mandates. I believe we can make health care more available, affordable and responsive to patients by breaking from inflationary practices, insurance regulations, and tax policies that were designed generations ago, and by giving families more choices over their care. His plan represents the old ways of government. Mine trusts in the common sense of the American people.

Senator Obama pretends we can address the loss of manufacturing jobs by repealing trade agreements and refusing to sign new ones; that we can build a stronger economy by limiting access to our markets and giving up access to foreign markets. The global economy exists and is not going away. We either compete in it or we lose more jobs, more businesses, more dreams. We lose the future. He's an intelligent man, and he must know how foolish it is to think Americans can remain prosperous without opening new markets to our goods and services. But he feels he must defer to the special interests that support him. That's not change we can believe in.

Lowering trade barriers to American goods and services creates more and better jobs; keeps inflation under control; keeps interest rates low; and makes more goods affordable to more Americans. We won't compete successfully by using old technology to produce old goods. We'll succeed by knowing what to produce and inventing new technologies to produce it.

We are not people who believe only in the survival of the fittest. Work in America is more than a paycheck; it a source of pride, self-reliance and identity. But making empty promises to bring back lost jobs gives nothing to the unemployed worker except false hope. That's not change we can believe in. Reforming from top to bottom unemployment insurance and retraining programs that were designed for the 1950s, making use of our community colleges to train people for new opportunities will help workers who've lost a job that won't come back, find a job that won't go away.

My friends, we're not a country that would rather go back than forward. We're the world's leader, and leaders don't hide from history. They make history. But if we're going to lead, we have to reform a government that has lost its ability to help us do so. The solution to our problems isn't to reach back to the 1960s and 70s for answers. In just a few years in office, Senator Obama has accumulated the most liberal voting record in the Senate. But the old, tired, big government policies he seeks to dust off and call new won't work in a world that has changed dramatically since they were last tried and failed. That's not change we can believe in.

The sweeping reforms of government we need won't occur unless we change the political habits of Washington that have locked us in an endless cycle of bickering and stalemate. Washington is consumed by a hyper-partisanship that treats every serious issue as an opportunity to trade insults; impugn each other's motives; and fight about the next election. This is the game Washington plays. Both parties play it, as do the special interests that support each side. The American people know it's not on the level. For all the problems we face, what frustrates them most about Washington is they don't think we're capable of serving the public interest before our personal ambitions; that we fight for ourselves and not for them. They are sick of the politics of selfishness, stalemate and delay, and they have every right to be. We have to change not only government policies that have failed them, but the political culture that produced them.

Both Senator Obama and I promise we will end Washington's stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn't. Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven't seen Senator Obama do the same. For all his fine words and all his promise, he has never taken the hard but right course of risking his own interests for yours; of standing against the partisan rancor on his side to stand up for our country. He is an impressive man, who makes a great first impression. But he hasn't been willing to make the tough calls; to challenge his party; to risk criticism from his supporters to bring real change to Washington. I have.

When members of my party refused to compromise not on principle but for partisanship, I have sought to do so. When I fought corruption it didn't matter to me if the culprits were Democrats or Republicans. I exposed it and let the chips fall where they may. When I worked on campaign finance and ethics reform, I did so with Democrats and Republicans, even though we were criticized by other members of our parties, who preferred to keep things as they were. I have never refused to work with Democrats simply for the sake of partisanship. I've always known we belong to different parties, not different countries. We are Americans before we are anything else.

I don't seek the presidency on the presumption I'm blessed with such personal greatness that history has anointed me to save my country in its hour of need. I seek the office with the humility of a man who cannot forget my country saved me. I'll reach out my hand to anyone, Republican or Democrat, who will help me change what needs to be changed; fix what needs to be fixed; and give this country a government as capable and good as the people it is supposed to serve. There is a time to campaign, and a time to govern. If I'm elected President, the era of the permanent campaign of the last sixteen years will end. The era of reform and problem solving will begin. From my first day in office, I'll work with anyone to make America safe, prosperous and proud. And I won't care who gets the credit as long as America gets the benefit.

I have seen Republicans and Democrats achieve great things together. When the stakes were high and it mattered most, I've seen them work together in common purpose, as we did in the weeks after September 11th. This kind of cooperation has made all the difference at crucial turns in our history. It has given us hope in difficult times. It has moved America forward. And that, my friends, is the kind of change we need right now.

Like Obama, Hillary can give a good speech. This, I think, ranks with her better speeches.

I want to start today by saying how grateful I am to all of you - to everyone who poured your hearts and your hopes into this campaign, who drove for miles and lined the streets waving homemade signs, who scrimped and saved to raise money, who knocked on doors and made calls, who talked and sometimes argued with your friends and neighbors, who emailed and contributed online, who invested so much in our common enterprise, to the moms and dads who came to our events, who lifted their little girls and little boys on their shoulders and whispered in their ears, "See, you can be anything you want to be."

To the young people like 13 year-old Ann Riddle from Mayfield, Ohio who had been saving for two years to go to Disney World, and decided to use her savings instead to travel to Pennsylvania with her Mom and volunteer there as well. To the veterans and the childhood friends, to New Yorkers and Arkansans who traveled across the country and telling anyone who would listen why you supported me.

To all those women in their 80s and their 90s born before women could vote who cast their votes for our campaign. I've told you before about Florence Steen of South Dakota, who was 88 years old, and insisted that her daughter bring an absentee ballot to her hospice bedside. Her daughter and a friend put an American flag behind her bed and helped her fill out the ballot. She passed away soon after, and under state law, her ballot didn't count. But her daughter later told a reporter, "My dad's an ornery old cowboy, and he didn't like it when he heard mom's vote wouldn't be counted. I don't think he had voted in 20 years. But he voted in place of my mom."

To all those who voted for me, and to whom I pledged my utmost, my commitment to you and to the progress we seek is unyielding. You have inspired and touched me with the stories of the joys and sorrows that make up the fabric of our lives and you have humbled me with your commitment to our country.

18 million of you from all walks of life - women and men, young and old, Latino and Asian, African-American and Caucasian, rich, poor and middle class, gay and straight - you have stood strong with me. And I will continue to stand strong with you, every time, every place, and every way that I can. The dreams we share are worth fighting for.

Remember - we fought for the single mom with a young daughter, juggling work and school, who told me, "I'm doing it all to better myself for her." We fought for the woman who grabbed my hand, and asked me, "What are you going to do to make sure I have health care?" and began to cry because even though she works three jobs, she can't afford insurance. We fought for the young man in the Marine Corps t-shirt who waited months for medical care and said, "Take care of my buddies over there and then, will you please help take care of me?" We fought for all those who've lost jobs and health care, who can't afford gas or groceries or college, who have felt invisible to their president these last seven years.

I entered this race because I have an old-fashioned conviction: that public service is about helping people solve their problems and live their dreams. I've had every opportunity and blessing in my own life - and I want the same for all Americans. Until that day comes, you will always find me on the front lines of democracy - fighting for the future.

The way to continue our fight now - to accomplish the goals for which we stand - is to take our energy, our passion, our strength and do all we can to help elect Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Today, as I suspend my campaign, I congratulate him on the victory he has won and the extraordinary race he has run. I endorse him, and throw my full support behind him. And I ask all of you to join me in working as hard for Barack Obama as you have for me.

I have served in the Senate with him for four years. I have been in this campaign with him for 16 months. I have stood on the stage and gone toe-to-toe with him in 22 debates. I have had a front row seat to his candidacy, and I have seen his strength and determination, his grace and his grit.

In his own life, Barack Obama has lived the American Dream. As a community organizer, in the state senate, as a United States Senator - he has dedicated himself to ensuring the dream is realized. And in this campaign, he has inspired so many to become involved in the democratic process and invested in our common future.

Now when I started this race, I intended to win back the White House, and make sure we have a president who puts our country back on the path to peace, prosperity, and progress. And that's exactly what we're going to do by ensuring that Barack Obama walks through the doors of the Oval Office on January 20, 2009.

I understand that we all know this has been a tough fight. The Democratic Party is a family, and it's now time to restore the ties that bind us together and to come together around the ideals we share, the values we cherish, and the country we love.

We may have started on separate journeys - but today, our paths have merged. And we are all heading toward the same destination, united and more ready than ever to win in November and to turn our country around because so much is at stake.

We all want an economy that sustains the American Dream, the opportunity to work hard and have that work rewarded, to save for college, a home and retirement, to afford that gas and those groceries and still have a little left over at the end of the month. An economy that lifts all of our people and ensures that our prosperity is broadly distributed and shared.

We all want a health care system that is universal, high quality, and affordable so that parents no longer have to choose between care for themselves or their children or be stuck in dead end jobs simply to keep their insurance. This isn't just an issue for me - it is a passion and a cause - and it is a fight I will continue until every single American is insured - no exceptions, no excuses.

We all want an America defined by deep and meaningful equality - from civil rights to labor rights, from women's rights to gay rights, from ending discrimination to promoting unionization to providing help for the most important job there is: caring for our families.

We all want to restore America's standing in the world, to end the war in Iraq and once again lead by the power of our values, and to join with our allies to confront our shared challenges from poverty and genocide to terrorism and global warming.

You know, I've been involved in politics and public life in one way or another for four decades. During those forty years, our country has voted ten times for President. Democrats won only three of those times. And the man who won two of those elections is with us today.

We made tremendous progress during the 90s under a Democratic President, with a flourishing economy, and our leadership for peace and security respected around the world. Just think how much more progress we could have made over the past 40 years if we had a Democratic president. Think about the lost opportunities of these past seven years - on the environment and the economy, on health care and civil rights, on education, foreign policy and the Supreme Court. Imagine how far we could've come, how much we could've achieved if we had just had a Democrat in the White House.

We cannot let this moment slip away. We have come too far and accomplished too much.

Now the journey ahead will not be easy. Some will say we can't do it. That it's too hard. That we're just not up to the task. But for as long as America has existed, it has been the American way to reject "can't do" claims, and to choose instead to stretch the boundaries of the possible through hard work, determination, and a pioneering spirit.

It is this belief, this optimism, that Senator Obama and I share, and that has inspired so many millions of our supporters to make their voices heard.

Together we will work. We'll have to work hard to get universal health care. But on the day we live in an America where no child, no man, and no woman is without health insurance, we will live in a stronger America. That's why we need to help elect Barack Obama our President.

We'll have to work hard to get back to fiscal responsibility and a strong middle class. But on the day we live in an America whose middle class is thriving and growing again, where all Americans, no matter where they live or where their ancestors came from, can earn a decent living, we will live in a stronger America and that is why we must elect Barack Obama our President.

We'll have to work hard to foster the innovation that makes us energy independent and lift the threat of global warming from our children's future. But on the day we live in an America fueled by renewable energy, we will live in a stronger America. That's why we have to help elect Barack Obama our President.

We'll have to work hard to bring our troops home from Iraq, and get them the support they've earned by their service. But on the day we live in an America that's as loyal to our troops as they have been to us, we will live in a stronger America and that is why we must help elect Barack Obama our President.

This election is a turning point election and it is critical that we all understand what our choice really is. Will we go forward together or will we stall and slip backwards. Think how much progress we have already made. When we first started, people everywhere asked the same questions:

Could a woman really serve as Commander-in-Chief? Well, I think we answered that one.

And could an African American really be our President? Senator Obama has answered that one.

Together Senator Obama and I achieved milestones essential to our progress as a nation, part of our perpetual duty to form a more perfect union.

Now, on a personal note - when I was asked what it means to be a woman running for President, I always gave the same answer: that I was proud to be running as a woman but I was running because I thought I'd be the best President. But I am a woman, and like millions of women, I know there are still barriers and biases out there, often unconscious.

I want to build an America that respects and embraces the potential of every last one of us.

I ran as a daughter who benefited from opportunities my mother never dreamed of. I ran as a mother who worries about my daughter's future and a mother who wants to lead all children to brighter tomorrows. To build that future I see, we must make sure that women and men alike understand the struggles of their grandmothers and mothers, and that women enjoy equal opportunities, equal pay, and equal respect. Let us resolve and work toward achieving some very simple propositions: There are no acceptable limits and there are no acceptable prejudices in the twenty-first century.

You can be so proud that, from now on, it will be unremarkable for a woman to win primary state victories, unremarkable to have a woman in a close race to be our nominee, unremarkable to think that a woman can be the President of the United States. And that is truly remarkable.

To those who are disappointed that we couldn't go all the way - especially the young people who put so much into this campaign - it would break my heart if, in falling short of my goal, I in any way discouraged any of you from pursuing yours. Always aim high, work hard, and care deeply about what you believe in. When you stumble, keep faith. When you're knocked down, get right back up. And never listen to anyone who says you can't or shouldn't go on.

As we gather here today in this historic magnificent building, the 50th woman to leave this Earth is orbiting overhead. If we can blast 50 women into space, we will someday launch a woman into the White House.

Although we weren't able to shatter that highest, hardest glass ceiling this time, thanks to you, it's got about 18 million cracks in it. And the light is shining through like never before, filling us all with the hope and the sure knowledge that the path will be a little easier next time. That has always been the history of progress in America.

Think of the suffragists who gathered at Seneca Falls in 1848 and those who kept fighting until women could cast their votes. Think of the abolitionists who struggled and died to see the end of slavery. Think of the civil rights heroes and foot-soldiers who marched, protested and risked their lives to bring about the end to segregation and Jim Crow.

Because of them, I grew up taking for granted that women could vote. Because of them, my daughter grew up taking for granted that children of all colors could go to school together. Because of them, Barack Obama and I could wage a hard fought campaign for the Democratic nomination. Because of them, and because of you, children today will grow up taking for granted that an African American or a woman can yes, become President of the United States.

When that day arrives and a woman takes the oath of office as our President, we will all stand taller, proud of the values of our nation, proud that every little girl can dream and that her dreams can come true in America. And all of you will know that because of your passion and hard work you helped pave the way for that day.

So I want to say to my supporters, when you hear people saying - or think to yourself - "if only" or "what if," I say, "please don't go there." Every moment wasted looking back keeps us from moving forward.

Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been. We have to work together for what still can be. And that is why I will work my heart out to make sure that Senator Obama is our next President and I hope and pray that all of you will join me in that effort.

To my supporters and colleagues in Congress, to the governors and mayors, elected officials who stood with me, in good times and in bad, thank you for your strength and leadership. To my friends in our labor unions who stood strong every step of the way - I thank you and pledge my support to you. To my friends, from every stage of my life - your love and ongoing commitments sustain me every single day. To my family - especially Bill and Chelsea and my mother, you mean the world to me and I thank you for all you have done. And to my extraordinary staff, volunteers and supporters, thank you for working those long, hard hours. Thank you for dropping everything - leaving work or school - traveling to places you'd never been, sometimes for months on end. And thanks to your families as well because your sacrifice was theirs too.

All of you were there for me every step of the way. Being human, we are imperfect. That's why we need each other. To catch each other when we falter. To encourage each other when we lose heart. Some may lead; others may follow; but none of us can go it alone. The changes we're working for are changes that we can only accomplish together. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are rights that belong to each of us as individuals. But our lives, our freedom, our happiness, are best enjoyed, best protected, and best advanced when we do work together.

That is what we will do now as we join forces with Senator Obama and his campaign. We will make history together as we write the next chapter in America's story. We will stand united for the values we hold dear, for the vision of progress we share, and for the country we love. There is nothing more American than that.

And looking out at you today, I have never felt so blessed. The challenges that I have faced in this campaign are nothing compared to those that millions of Americans face every day in their own lives. So today, I'm going to count my blessings and keep on going. I'm going to keep doing what I was doing long before the cameras ever showed up and what I'll be doing long after they're gone: Working to give every American the same opportunities I had, and working to ensure that every child has the chance to grow up and achieve his or her God-given potential.

I will do it with a heart filled with gratitude, with a deep and abiding love for our country- and with nothing but optimism and confidence for the days ahead. This is now our time to do all that we can to make sure that in this election we add another Democratic president to that very small list of the last 40 years and that we take back our country and once again move with progress and commitment to the future.

I forgot to mention a few things about Obama, his resignation from the church, and Father Pfleger. Obama, in his statement, said something along the lines of, He did not want to have to answer for every guest pastor who wandered into the Trinity Church (not his exact words).

Obama’s exact quote is: "It's clear that now that I'm a candidate for president, every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me, even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles," he said, praising the congregation and church leaders for their work in the Chicago community.

The implication was (and Obama is very careful with his words), was the old Father Pfleger just wandered into Trinity Church as some kind of a guest pastor with whom Obama had no relationship. Obama called him his spiritual mentor. Obama had a 20 year long relationship with Pfleger. Obama saw to it that Pfleger’s church received $200,000 worth of earmarks from our government (why are we giving money to churches?). So, Pfleger is not just some guest speaker at the Trinity Church, who Obama barely knows. Obama knows this man well.

Did you notice the dishonesty of Obama’s statement? “...every time something is said in the church by anyone associated with Trinity, including guest pastors, the remarks will be imputed to me, even if they totally conflict with my long-held views, statements and principles," So what is Obama doing going to a church for 22 years, and church that he gives 10's of thousands of dollars to, which routinely from the pulpit offers up remarks which totally conflict with his long-held views, statements and principles?

And I did not mention...Pfleger apologized for what he said. Fine, okay. But his sermon was not a slip of the tongue. His sermon was deliberate and it got the congregants all worked up and excited. They enjoyed it. How wonderful it is to blame someone else!

SNERDLEY: This is Bo Snerdley, official Barack criticizer for the EIB Network, certified black enough to criticize without reproach, and I have a statement. Senator Obama, once again you've risen to offer apologizes, this time for the remarks of a white pastor who supports you. That sounds like something John McCain would do, but that aside, the pastor in question only echoed the truth. He properly observed that Mrs. Clinton felt entitled to the nomination, that many of her white Democrat supporters are flummoxed, dismayed, that you, apparently, are going to snatch it from her. That analysis was stolen from America's Anchorman, Rush Limbaugh, who has chronicled the anger of Democrat whites, particularly women, that you, a rookie, with no experience, no real substance, are poised to win. So why apologize? You won't apologize for wanting to talk to thugs who want to destroy us; why apologize for this little white preacher who just tells the truth, the plagiarized truth? Instead, you've thrown him under the bus like you threw your white grandma under the bus. So, please, grow a set.

Now, a translation for the EIB sisters and brothers in the 'hood. Yo O, it's been awhile, bro. All right, look, what's up with you and your homey? Another one of your boys steps up, spits it true, and you diss him? First of all, my brother, it was Limbaugh who called it. These two-faced, you think they wanna faint and throw their panties at you white liberal girlie girls are the ones whose faces are all cracked 'cause you gonna win. Yo! So why you dissing your boy for just copping Limbaugh's lines and spitting the truth? Look, son, you need to represent. You want the big gig, you want to be president, you can't be apologizing all the time. You starting to look like a punk. And you know what, yo? We can't have no punks in the White House. That's dangerous, bro. That concludes our statement.

CALLER: I, like you, I am sick and tired of reading all these national papers, hearing on the news how bad our economy is. Now, granted I know, you know, there are some bad things and gas is going up there, but last weekend I think they said Indiana Jones is $130 million, is what it grossed. So honestly, you know, we have money, people are just choosing to do wrong things with their money. And for me personally, I am a school teacher, not ashamed to say I made a little over $37,000 this year. My wife is a stay-at-home mom to my two young daughters. Despite that, we own everything we have, includes two cars, except our house, which I just dropped down to a 20-year mortgage payment, and we have no debt, and we have money in savings. So, you know, for me, I'm tired of hearing people making excuses. It's definitely hard work to accomplish what we have, but I think it can be done in today's times even.

RUSH: Look, your situation is very admirable, and there are a lot of people like you in the country, and I, as commander-in-chief of US Operation Chaos, am very proud of you. Obviously you have a strong set of economic values and discipline, and you're sticking to it, which will stand you in good stead. The idea of a recession, I'm really not sure how many people are playing along with it. These polls that put out about what people think, I am so dubious of this stuff, 'cause I, like you, I look at the real world. I look at baseball games on TV every night just to see, the stands are packed. It's not cheap to go to a baseball game anymore. It's not cheap to park your car there. It certainly isn't cheap to eat there. The NBA finals, smaller arenas, but the playoffs, rather, they've been jam-packed. You have, like you describe, people going to movies in droves. A little cheaper than going to a ballpark or what have you, but there are still people spending money, and it's not a recession.

I am a little bit more confident and optimistic that the majority of the American people are not playing along with that as opposed to the media reports that most of America is down in the dumps and feeling hopeless. In fact, that reminds me, there's a story I have here in the stack about hopeless, and it regards the Drive-Bys and what we supposedly have no hope about anymore. I'll find it during the break. I've got so many stacks here. There is so much show prep that's assembled on a daily basis that if I put it in too many different stacks, I won't remember what stack. Ah! Here we are. It's an editorial from the Investor's Business Daily: "The Economy Isn't Hopeless; It's The Press." And here's the hopelessness list from the Drive-By Media: the war, the economy, gas prices, mortgages, global warming, summer vacation. Public schools ought to be on the hopeless list, but the Drive-Bys never bring that up. But all these things we're supposed to be hopeless about, let me share with you some of the points of this IBD editorial when we come back because it's excellent.

RUSH: Investor's Business Daily and a signed column by Dan Gainor, the T. Boone Pickens Fellow and vice president of the Media Research Center's Business & Media Institute. By the way, Gainor I think is one of the guys who wrote that great piece that we have celebrated numerous times on this program in which he chronicles the 25-year cycles of media reporting on global cooling versus global warming starting back in the late 1800s. I think he's one of those guys. But nevertheless, "'The Economy Isn't Hopeless; It's The Press' -- One look at statistics -- from GDP growth to the unemployment rate -- and it's obvious this isn't the worst economic time in US history. But it might be the worst journalistically. The major media give us only two degrees of economic news -- close to 'apocalyptic' and worse. They are so outlandishly negative that coverage of the Bear Stearns buyout was vastly worse than reporting of the 1929 stock market crash. As the stock market reeled from the Bear Stearns collapse back in March, ABC News asked: Is the 'economy heading over a cliff?' Journalists made it seem so, calling the American financial system everything from 'bleak' to in a 'meltdown.' ABC, CBS and NBC made comparisons to America's worst economic turmoil -- the Great Depression -- more than 40 times in the first four months of 2008.

"Compare that with how the New York Times summed up its own market outlook in an Oct. 30, 1929, story after billions of dollars were lost in record trading. 'Despite the drastic decline, sentiment in Wall Street last night was more cheerful than it has been on any day since the torrent of selling got under way,' wrote the paper. Words like 'optimism' and 'hope' shouted off the pages of major newspapers. The Oct. 31, 1929, Times described the devastating six-day decline: 'The market quickly regained its poise and stability. The same day, the Washington Post discussed 'the passing of the crisis.' The difference between how the media handled a crisis in 1929 and 2008 was astounding. Network news was four times more negative about the Bear Stearns buyout than major newspapers were about the 1929 crash, which many historians link to the beginning of the Depression.

"Nearly 80 years later, the crash and the depression that followed are viewed as 'the great American trauma,' as economist Murray N. Rothbard wrote in his book America's Great Depression. ... It's no surprise that with 22 million Americans exposed to that just on the evening news, so many fear another depression. The Business & Media Institute analyzed two much-discussed weeks in America's stock market history -- the crash in 1929 and the week of the Bear Stearns collapse in 2008. BMI compared stories in the 1929 Wall Street Journal, New York Times and Washington Post with daily reports on ABC, CBS and NBC in 2008." We know what the results were. "The modern news media had no such 'confidence' in the markets. ABC found a dark cloud for every silver lining, saying: 'And everywhere you look, it's bad news.' On network news, that statement was accurate." And so we have a hopelessness list: the war, the economy, gas prices, mortgages, global warming, summer vacation, hopeless. The Drive-By Media portraying your country as hopeless. I'm not convinced as many Americans are buying into it as the Drive-Bys would like.

ABC, CBS and NBC made comparisons to America's worst economic turmoil - the Great Depression - [to our current economy] more than 40 times in the first four months of 2008.

RUSH: There was a story about Soros in the Financial Times: "Soros Sounds Alarm on Oil 'Bubble.'" Soros says that the oil price is a bubble, exactly as I have said. I have said that this oil price cannot be maintained. Now, the difference between me and Soros is that Soros is saying the only thing that's going to break the bubble is the recession, which, by the way, there's not a recession. I don't care what Greenspan says. I don't care what Soros says, there's not a recession. The economy is growing. It may be growing at a small, tiny rate, but there is not a recession. If you think there is a recession and if you're buying into this notion and you're living like it is a recession, it's your problem, because there isn't one. But Soros says the recession is the only thing that's going to bust the bubble, and the way it will bust the bubble is because the recession will cause so much economic hardship, there will be no demand, people won't be able to afford it, and that will bring the price down. Really?

I know a little bit about George Soros, ladies and gentlemen. Have you ever heard the phrase "talking up one's book"? It's an old Wall Street term for a speculator who takes a position long or short and then goes on television to predict the very position that he's taken. So if you want to increase prices, you talk up the good points without telling anybody you have an investment or a bet. If you want prices to go down, you talk up the scare tactics without telling anybody that you're selling short. So the conclusion here, ladies and gentlemen, I wouldn't be surprised -- of course, I can't prove this, we'll never know -- but I wouldn't be surprised if Mr. MoveOn.org, George Soros, is loaded up with short sales in oil. I could be wrong, except why now, when oil prices are so high, so overextended, so vulnerable for a big correction? Well, didn't Mr. Soros make billions driving down the price of the British pound? He certainly did. So I wouldn't be surprised at all if Mr. Soros up on Capitol Hill talking about an alarm on the oil bubble, meaning the price has gotta bust here at some point. Maybe Mr. Soros is selling short in oil, meaning he's betting on it to lose value. He's betting on the price to go down. I wouldn't be surprised. It wouldn't be the first time somebody's done this. This happens quite frequently, talking up your own book.

There really aren't any good answers for this situation [McCain as the Republican nominee; no united conservative voice coming from Congressional Republicans]. It has nothing to do with leadership; it has everything to do with common sense and logic. But there are things that we can do nevertheless. Look, at some point, however it happens, the Republican Party, as it's currently constituted, is going to have to lose, and it's going to have to lose big. Can I tell you what's really happening with all this? You keep asking me, why do the country club Republicans and the blue bloods and the liberal Rockefeller Republicans, why do they want to control the party? It's follow the money, folks. You ever heard of K Street? You ever heard of lobbyists, special interests and all this sort of stuff? Look, Washington Republicans and Washington Democrats have a lot in common. And that is an agreement to sort of trade off on who runs the town every now and then so that both sides get to dip both hands in all the pockets that they can.

You and I are not of Washington. You and I, we don't get to pal around with lobbyists, we're not special interests, we don't find ways to go to Washington earning $140,000 a year and ten years later come out of there multimillionaires. They do. We care about ideas. We care about the country. We're not interested in power for the exercise of power. We're interested in preserving the country as it has been preserved for us by our forbears. But sometimes that doesn't become the objective of political parties. The Democrat Party cares about power, their own, forever, uninterrupted. Our side is happy for a couple little periods of time where they can get their hands and their beaks moistened as well. This is why Reagan was never really loved by the blue-blooded Rockefeller types. He brought ideas to the party, and he brought landslide victories. But he was not universally loved, even in his own party. So what we're really up against here is a party apparatus that does not have the same objectives. Inside Washington -- I'm not talking about the state parties. The state parties are whole different animals. And that's why I say, and I've gotta go real quickly here: Focus on the people in your local government, state legislatures, governorships, that's where the conservative farm team is. Bobby Jindal is an example, from Louisiana. That's where they are, find 'em, support 'em, promote 'em, make 'em confident because that's where the next cycle of the fix will lie.

CALLER: Rush, I want to tell you: the last caller that was calling you a wimp? That's so not the truth. You are the person, you're our coach. And I know it's a tough day for you, and I don't expect you to give us a big pep talk today. I want you to sit down and I want you to give us -- I mean I am 38 years old. I do want to run for politics. But you're afraid that everybody and their brother is going to hammer you because you're a Republican. You know, you have a little joke there where you come into the schoolyard and you turn down the radio. I live in a very Democratic society, my in-laws, everybody. I'm the only Republican, and I take abuse day after day. I love what you said about the president yesterday. The man is a great man. Sure, things right now don't look so good. Twenty years down the road when the history is written, it's going to look -- it's going to be great.

RUSH: It won't take that long. I predict to you that three years from now, maybe four, people are going to be looking back and saying, "You know, that Bush guy wasn't so bad."

CALLER: I agree with you. I think the thing that you need to do for us is -- you know, maybe on the website -- give us some direction for the young guys, because I know I'm not the only guy out there that wants to run that's scared of getting hammered. I think if you give us a little bit of guidance, I think my generation -- out of any of us -- we've been given so much, and we give our kids so much, that we need to start pulling back, and we need to start saying, "Hey, we can... We can... There's not that much wrong with it."

RUSH: That's the one thing I can tell you about very briefly. Look at it as a badge o'honor! Of course you're going to get hammered as a Republican conservative! The meaning of you being hammered is precisely because you will have been effective and that will scare them. You're going get hammered. Of course you are! You need to look at that as a badge of honor and hope that you keep getting hammered.

RUSH: Tammy in California City, California, next up you are on the EIB Network. Hello.

CALLER: Hi, Rush. I was listening to Pete, and he was saying that he was going to vote for Obama to send a message that, you know, he doesn't like the way things are done; but as far as I can remember in my 47 years, the only time things weren't done the Democrats' way was when President Reagan was in office and when Newt was the speaker of the House. All the rest of my life -- So the Republicans never get their way except for those two times. The Democrats just roll over the Republicans all the time, so how does he think it's going to send a message?

RUSH: Well, because the theory is that Obama is such a disaster and with a Democrat majority in the House and Senate, that they would literally wreck the US economy. It would be Jimmy Carter's second term, which led to Ronald Reagan, by the way, among many factors. I'm not trying to take anything away from Reagan, obviously. But Jimmy Carter with 21% interest rates and 14% unemployment and 68-degree thermostats in the winter, and Jimmy Carter telling people that the problem was the American people being lazy and so forth, that led to a 44-state landslide by Ronaldus Magnus. So the theory is, if the Republicans are not going to stand up for themselves and are not going to provide leadership in opposing liberalism, all right, fine. Also, part of the theory is, "Just clean house. If there's some deadwood in the Republican Party in elective office, get rid of them! At some point, start over. If they're not doing their job, then clean house and get rid of them. It's too important to just leave to chance." So that's why the people that like Pete are anything in that regard. There's also a second aspect to it. If indeed you have these huge majorities in the House and Senate, okay? And you got McCain as president. Well, McCain agrees with Obama, global warming, illegal immigration, cap-and-trade policies. What's the difference?

RUSH: Besides, McCain loves going along with his Democrats. That's how he gets his credentials. If the Democrats are a vast majority in the House and Senate, and if the country's going to go down the tubes anyway, who do we want to get the credit for it or the blame? Do we want Democrats or Republicans to get the blame for it?

RUSH: That's why people are thinking, bite the bullet, four years of Obama. Look, let me just shoot straight, folks -- and I'm glad you called, Tammy, because I've gotta get to these McCain speech sound bites. Let me just shoot straight. This is what we face, just in a real world situation -- and we all can do it. We have done it throughout our lives. One of the things about this whole discussion that sort of gnaws away at me is how focused we are on what's going on in Washington here. Now, I understand there's a logical reason for it. It's a presidential race, and we would love to have somebody leading the country, articulating our values, and inspiring the American people. That's not going to happen. We have got to face it. As conservatives, we are not going to have an inspirational leader articulating our values, inspiring the American people. Thus, therefore, we are going to have to inspire ourselves. We are going to have to lead ourselves -- and we've done this.

We did it through the Clinton years. We have done it through any number of previous administrations. For those of you old enough, we had to go through LBJ. We had to go through any number of bad presidents. Jimmy Carter. We triumphed. At some point, when this is all over, when this election season is all over, what we're going to have to realize here is something that's always true, regardless who's in the White House: We have the power to make ourselves content. We have the power to pursue happiness on our own without regard to who's in Washington, realizing that Washington is going to be a huge obstacle. It's just going to require more fortitude from all of us to work past it, to work harder, to overcome the obstacles that are going to be placed in our way. State governments are going to be raising taxes, too. There are going to be some serious challenges to economic prosperity if the Democrats get as much control as they seek, because they will try to wreck as much of the economy as possible. Now, they may not look at it as wrecking it, but that's what's going to happen if they follow through on all these things they're promising.

This global warming bill, which is theirs -- and John Warner's, but the Democrats are the ones running it through -- is a great example of what they're going to do. The whole global warming hoax debate is an example of what's ahead. But America as a nation is made great not by who's in Washington. On occasion, we do have greatness in Washington; we have monuments for those who have been great. They've saved the nation; they have persevered during wartime. We've got how many monuments, five or six, out of 40 or 41 presidents? But even during the times of great leaders and great presidents, they could have been great all they wanted, but it's the people... See, it's people that define greatness. Have you ever heard about American greatness, American exceptionalism? What is that? American greatness, American exceptionalism is all of us, not them -- and I'm not making an us-versus-them argument here. I'm just saying we're the ones who make the country work, you are. We're the ones that get up every day and make this economy hum. They're the ones who put obstacles in our way! Even when we have a friendly administration, we still have obstacles in our way.

There are previous policies that even our guys can't get rid of. Yet we always triumph because we have the freedom, the inertia, the energy, the ambition, the desire, the drive. We're just going to need a lot more of those things, and that's what we face. But that's such an opportunity, too, for genuine happiness. If you let your happiness and your contentment -- because happiness is elusive; if you let your contentment -- be permanently affected by whoever is in Washington, then you are sacrificing so much of your own potential as a human being, as a family leader, family member, or what have you -- as an American as well. Yeah, it's great to have leaders in Washington that are ours, but we're not going to have that this time around. It's just a reality. We're going to have it on the EIB Network. There'll be plenty of inspiration and motivation here. It isn't going to be elected leadership. So all is not lost.

[Doyou know the soldier] who got the Congressional Medal of Honor? McGinnis. He was a nineteen-year-old soldier who threw himself on the grenade, yes, to save his unit. And there was a ceremony in the White House to present the medal to his parents, with the president, with an official military contingent, speechifying and so forth and so on. This got covered on the cable news channels. I think Fox covered a little bit of it. Yeah, Ross McGinnis, 19 years old. But in the heat of this presidential campaign there wasn't a whole lot said about it. But as I was watching it -- and particularly focusing on the parents of this 19-year-old man -- I got to thinking, as I always do, it's just such a shame that we honor these people when they're dead. Congressional Medal of Honor doesn't only go to the dead, but it's still a shame. We name streets after people after they're gone. We build monuments to them after they're gone. We do all this for their families and for us and for the living, and it's not going to change. I'm looking at his parents. They lost their 19-year-old son -- and there are military families like that all over this country who have lost their sons and their daughters in this conflict and in previous conflicts. But I looked at those two people, and I saw the country.

Those are the people who make the country work: Ross McGinnis' mom and dad, and Ross McGinnis. Those are the people who make the country work. They're genuine heroes. It had to be a proud moment, but you could just see the combination of honor and sadness on both of their faces at the same time, and my heart just went out to them. My heart went out to these people because nobody knew who they were before this happened. They weren't seeking fame. They weren't making embarrassing life decisions, embarrassing their family and this sort of thing. They're just salt-of-the-earth people, backbone of America. They raised a son who wanted to save and defend his country, and he did. He lost his life in the process. I said, "Those are the people that matter. Those are the people that deserve the respect and the awe and the honor that we all have when we think about the greatness of this country and American exceptionalism." It was right there in the White House that day with Mr. and Mrs. McGinnis and that Congressional Medal of Honor. And I don't want to impugn any elected officials that were there, because many of them have served, some of them have, and have families that served, or family members that serve. But your heart didn't go out to the people in charge of the ceremony. President Bush had tears in his eyes, as all this was taking place. So when you think about what you can do with all these obstacles, like somebody in the White House we disagree with, it's really not much of an obstacle when you think of what other people have faced and lost and have to overcome. So, we just have to continue to make America great in spite of who happens to be leading the damn country. We've shown that we can do it in the past, which means we can keep doing it.

RUSH: Folks, there are millions, millions, millions of people, you among them, out there working every day to make the country work. At the same time, there are others who are sitting around, trying to figure out how they can take away part of what you have worked for. After they have figured out how to take it away from you, they then scheme to find ways to give away some of it to others who haven't worked for it, so that they will feel better about themselves, and vote for the people who are taking away from you what you've earned. We just have to work harder to overcome these obstacles.

RUSH: Now, a couple thoughts here. I meant to get into this yesterday, ladies and gentlemen, and events just superseded my intent. But I had a bunch of stories, and I talked about it on the margins yesterday, all these Drive-By Media stories, there was one Washington Post story mentioning Obama is black four or five times. There were three or four other Drive-By Media publications focusing on Obama's race and how what a great step this is for the United States of America, we've passed a major milestone. It just is so wonderful and so forth. Interestingly, there's a story today from Reuters: "Black Americans savored Barack Obama's unprecedented victory in the Democratic race for U.S. president, but said on Wednesday the higher stakes raised the prospect of deep disappointment in November."

So Reuters has a story here on, "Wow, this is so wonderful, why, tonight we're on the inside, we have overcome the one obstacle in our face, racism, slavery, discrimination, and now, uh-oh, oh, no, what if we lose? Oh, no, we're going to be so disappointed if we lose." They actually do a story on this. I'm going to give you the details of this a little bit later as the program unfolds. But as I read all these stories, there's no question this is a major achievement. I'm not bemoaning it at all. But there's nothing really new here. I mean you gotta win the election, yeah, but what we have here is a pure, unadulterated, undiluted liberal! That's what matters to me. Not anybody's race! After you go through the emotional realization that, yeah, for the first time ever, we've got a pure, unadulterated, radical liberal that's been nominated by the Democrat Party. After a while you can see all the liberal white guilt throughout the Drive-By Media because they won't let the subject of Obama's race go. I mean they're making a huge fuss about this, being black, being African-American, biracial or whatever. But I have news for those of you in the Drive-Bys. If Obama wins the election, he would not be the first black president. And I'm not talking about Bill Clinton and the phony baloney first black president bit.

Thirteen years ago in 1995, Time Warner, Incorporated, inaugurated a black president, Dick Parsons. Eleven years ago, 1997, American Express inaugurated a black president, Ken Chenault. Seven years ago, Merrill Lynch inaugurated a black president, Stanley O'Neal. Now, three of our greatest corporations, what the left calls greedy corporations, formally ended racism by elevating an African-American to the presidency. Now, you may know this and you may not know it. But these were incredible events, too. They didn't get that much news coverage, it didn't fit the media template or the action line or the talking points of the left because the Drive-By Media is so hell-bent on trashing America, on dwelling in the past, on inflaming racial confrontations, on elevating racial entrepreneurs that they underreported the real state of race in America. My point here -- and I realize it might have offended you to say, hey, he's not the first black president. I did that to get your attention. The point is that the real state of race in this country continues to be underreported. We continue to hear that we are no different now than we were in 1965 and in prior years. There's just as much discrimination, there's just as much racism, and incidentally, there's just as much sexism and we're not making any progress whatsoever, and that's why Obama's nomination is being hailed as some great point that has never been reached, and in fact it has.

Now, I understand the difference in a board of directors and a committee hiring somebody to be the CEO of a corporation and the votes of American citizens of a political party electing or nominating someone. I fully understand the difference. My primary point is that we have made so much progress in race relations in this country that people who are responsible for underreporting it or not reporting it, and the people who are responsible for continuing to try to keep this country roiled with racial strife are the very people who are now celebrating this wondrous event in the nomination of Obama, as though its only meaning is that he's black, and it's not its only meaning. He stands for things that are pretty bad. He's got some associations with people that are pretty questionable. All that's swept aside, all of that is ignored because of the momentous racial achievement.

I don't think we have, at least as it has been defined in the past, racism in this country. We have underclassism. We have broken-familism. We have single-momism. We have you're-a-victimism. We have the failure of the Great Society-ism. We have a bunch of isms that are genuine and real, but racism, said to be the root of all these, is not. If we were as racist as the left wants to portray us, there wouldn't be the phenomenon known as Oprah Winfrey; there wouldn't have been Bill Cosby. I could go on down the list. There wouldn't be Obama. There wouldn't have been Ken Chenault and American Express. There wouldn't have been Dick Parsons at Time Warner. There wouldn't have been Stanley O'Neal at Merrill Lynch, and there are countless other examples of this in smaller corporations. Herman Cain is one. And all of the truly achievement-oriented black leaders who don't fit the liberal mold are ignored or they are impugned. You've heard the names, don't need to mention them. Clarence Thomas is one, Dr. Sowell himself, Walter Williams.

So while the media is trying to catch up with old news, first black president, and signals they're ready to acknowledge America's fairness, ask yourself, why do the Drive-Bys say they're in the news business when they're actually in the old news business? That's what they thrive on is the past, narratives, action lines, and templates from the past. Congratulations are due to Obama, there's no question, but not for being black, what an insult. Hey, congratulations, Obama, welcome to politics, the first black presidential nominee. What an insult. The reason you congratulate Barack Obama, he's a guy who took on and beat the pantsuit off the Clinton machine, even if he did crawl across the finish line.

CALLER: I've been trying to call you for about four years since I first heard your voice on the radio at Fort Benning, Georgia.

CALLER: Well, I was calling to say that I personally believe that Mr. Obama's candidacy does represent a very historic event. And the reason is because, I'm a 26-year-old African-American young man myself, a soldier in the United States Army; and I personally believe that growing up in the America that I grew up in, anything is possible. But Mr. Obama is actually proving that anything is possible. I have a son that's six years old; and when I tell him he can be anything when he grows up, he can actually be anything when he grows up, and he can see an example of it. Even if Senator Obama doesn't win the election -- I think he will, but even if he doesn't -- it's still proof that anything is actually possible in this great nation.

RUSH: Well, that is a good point, and I'm all for role models and all for people who inspire others. But do you really think it took the nomination of Obama to be able to say to people, "You can be whoever you want to be in this country"?

CALLER: I think that in a lot of instances, it takes someone. People have to see someone succeed at something before they believe it's actually possible.

RUSH: Look, you said before you started talking about your son that you thought that anything was possible in America. How did you come to believe that before Obama?

CALLER: I believed that anything was possible. I still believe that anything is possible, you know, but that was just optimism. You know what I mean? Now I know it to be a reality. Because ultimately I feel like as long as I work hard and do what I need to do, I can -- as long as I put my mind to something, I'll probably be able to accomplish it. Now, for I don't know how long there has been a debate, you know, whether America was ready for a female president or a minority president. You know what I mean?

RUSH: Oh, that's a good point. That's a good point. By virtue of Mrs. Clinton's defeat, do you think if you had a daughter, that your daughter would say, "Dad, I can't be president. The country just rejected Mrs. Clinton?"

CALLER: No. I was... I think my daughter would say that it's still possible, because --

RUSH: Well, why wouldn't your son be able to say the same thing if she had beaten Obama?

CALLER: He would still be able to. By virtue of him being a viable candidate, you know what I'm saying? My son would be able to say the same thing. It's just --

RUSH: You know, I beg to disagree. I really believe if Obama had lost, the same phenomenon that's happening to Hillary would be happening with black voters who support Obama. I think the race industry would gin up, and I think you'd have the Sharptons and Jacksons -- especially if the Democrat superdelegates had taken the nomination away from him. Or, in another circumstance, if he had lost narrowly, legitimately narrowly without having the superdelegates get involved. See, this is a problem. I appreciate the historic nature of this, but I think in the areas I was discussing that inspired your phone call, nothing is going to change. The racial industry in this country is going to take any instance it can to keep this country roiled. For example, this story, Irving, from the Reuters News Agency. It's out of Atlanta: "Black Americans savored Barack Obama's unprecedented victory in the Democratic race for US president, but said on Wednesday the higher stakes raised the prospect of deep disappointment in November. ...

"'Black Americans are treading on thin ice, moving very delicately. This (Obama's) opportunity is frail and fragile (and many say) let's make sure that nothing happens to ruin it,' said [William Jelani] Cobb, a professor of history at Atlanta's Spelman College." So already there are people savoring this historic victory who are now beginning to think, "Uh-oh. We're just going to be really disappointed if he loses. This may not be worth it." And, see, this is just the racial industry getting up and rearing its head and sending out the feelers: "Hey, don't think nothing's historic yet, dudes. He hasn't won the big house. Until he wins the big house, nothing's happened -- and you better be prepared to be disappointed." I think this is horrible. This is not inspiring. These are people afraid of success. "You know, I don't think we want to win because to win we might have to risk losing. If we do lose everybody is going to be sad and disappointed and I don't know if we can take that." That's why I wish race were... I know it's historic racially, but there's far more at stake here than just the fact that we've elected or nominated a black guy. You know, Martin Luther King said something, Irving, and I know you'll remember this. Martin Luther King said, "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content their character." We are ignoring Obama's character and Jeremiah Wright's and Tony Rezko's and we're only talking about his color. So I don't know what kind of progress has actually happened.

RUSH: There's another huge error in this Reuters story on blacks. It said the Obama presidency would eliminate from the scene Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton. Wrong. It would elevate them. These people don't understand the race industry.

RUSH: (laughing) Well, that's sweet. Be nice, as though that would be a change.

CALLER: I am. More so than with your call screener even. You just have that relaxing, soothing voice.

RUSH: Well, I appreciate that. Well, he's in a hurry in there. He's gotta judge people's capability and qualification on the fly and if he doesn't he's gotta zoom on. I've heard him, "Rush Limbaugh Show, what do you want?" And then it's up to the caller to -- is that pretty much what he said to you?

CALLER: Okay. In response to the first caller of the day, I was thinking that, it's not a direct response, but it got me thinking this. And for all the Obama supporters that are supporting him primarily because he's black and that they want to see a first black president, I think they're missing the big picture. It seems they want him to succeed so badly that they're overlooking the fact that he may fail as a president and what those ramifications may be. For example, I think it's probable he may end up being another Jimmy Carter or worse, and if I were an African-American, I would be afraid that that would set us back more than him not being elected in the first place.

RUSH: Well, they are afraid, but they're afraid for different reasons. They're afraid he might lose. This is really psychologically interesting, Lori. Reuters went out and they talked to a bunch of black intellectuals at universities and average black people on the street and they're all excited, "Oh yeah, Obama finally got it," but they are distressed, they're anxious and they're a little nervous because he might lose and that would be disappointing. These are people that can't deal with success. We've talked about this before, people who are afraid of success, something successful happens to them, "This is not deserved," and they undermine themselves, and so they're in the process of doing that now. In terms of Obama actually failing as a president, they're not thinking of that. That's not even the point. He can't fail. You have to understand the psychological mind-set of the left. Having him elected is all that matters. David Dinkins, General Dinkins, one of the worst mayors in New York. First black mayor. I'm pretty right about this, Snerdley, pretty bad mayor. He was one of the worst. To this day that's not said about him. Just the fact that he was the first was all that mattered. And one of the things that the left does, these guilty white liberal plantation owners, they almost expect black failure. Why else is there something called affirmative action? They almost expect blacks to not be able to achieve things. That's why affirmative action and quotas were set up, so as to give them a boost. And once they rise to the top here, then they don't fail, failure is not possible, because they made it. The only failures are black conservatives. So his qualifications don't matter, he's running an image campaign anyway. Pure and simple.

CALLER: I just recently got some work done on my house, and I had some contractors come by, and I kind of interviewed 'em, and I wanted to see pictures of their work and what they did. So when you have a contractor, you will look at their work and how they've done on their previous jobs. Now, judging by what Obama is saying, the south side of Chicago must be just a paradise, all the kids in the schools must all be passing, there must be jobs everywhere, because that's who he represented so --

CALLER: Yeah, there's no trash everywhere, everyone's doing fine. And, you know, I doubt if it kind of is that way, so, you know, my main thing about Barack is that, you know, I just basically feel that he's being put up. I think one of the worst things that has happened to this country is white guilt. And I think he's there through white guilt, so that white people can feel good about themselves. And I think that's the only reason why he's there.

RUSH: Well, you know, I think you're on to something. I don't know if it's the only reason why he's there, but there's no question that he appeals to a whole segment of the population, white people, that can feel like they can assuage their guilt -- for supporting the guy. I think whoever is behind Obama, whoever it is, somebody has to be, there has to be a group of people that thought this is the guy that can get done what we need to get done, almost as though he's a puppet. His speeches are written for him. You know, when he doesn't give a teleprompted speech, he's a different guy. I think they made a calculation. A black guy can win. How do we beat Hillary Clinton? Black guy can do it, black guy can do it with liberals especially, put the right words in his mouth and we got a pretty good chance at it. I think you're right about that. Also, you've really done something very bright here. A lot of people -- I was expecting you to go a different direction, and I was expecting, when you mentioned your contractor, and I was going to give you a little bit of a lecture on how your analogy is somewhat flawed, but you came through with a grand-slam home run. What a lot of people say is, when you got a guy with a limited resume like Obama, they'll say, "Would you hire him to run any aspect of your business?"

RUSH: And they would say, no. No, of course not. But people don't look at government -- it is a business, and politics is a business, but they don't look at government that way. They look at government, the ideal is that government's represented by soaring people who have great imagination and who have great charisma and who can mobilize and motivate and inspire a nation, not so much run the bureaucracy and keep it running, because no president can do that. The bureaucracies are independent of any president. But your analogy of his past political experience, both as a senator from the state of Chicago and the Chicago state Senate and his community organizer work, and plus his, whatever it is, three years in the US Senate, where is this track record that suggests that all that he wants to do has come even close to being done where he has worked and lived before. You're right on the money with that. South side of Chicago is still the south side of Chicago. Lake Erie, it's still there, and it's still what it was when he got there and it hasn't changed. The work that he did as a state senator from Illinois to clean up all kinds of messes and make paradise, hasn't happened.

CALLER: I'd also like to say that John McCain scares me also. He does nothing for me. In this election, there's nothing there for me.

CALLER: His stance on illegal immigration. And I think one thing that the media really covers up is the effect of illegal immigration in the black neighborhood, how it's just kind of decimating schools that were bad already, especially here in Los Angeles. You know, it's decimated schools that were kind of bad already.

RUSH: I gotta agree with you again. Another leftist-oriented policy on top of what welfare did to the black family and the Great Society and all these things where the government became the substitute for the father and paying for all these illegitimate kids to be born and raised without a father. It was very destructive. Yeah, you're right on the money.

RUSH: Now, wait a second. Now, there may be nothing out there for you in terms of a candidate that can inspire you. So let me ask you something, Robert. What are you going to do? You have just told us neither of these two candidates, you don't give a peep --

CALLER: You know, Rush, I grew up in the Bronx, I grew up in the projects, you know, the first money that I seen being transacted was food stamps, and I've seen government programs, and I realized that the best program for kids to bring 'em up is like two parents and being in an environment where the parents can prosper, be it work and education, but it's gotta come through hard work because I'm just seen that, I've seen through life that giving people stuff, it just does nothing for them.

RUSH: Let's go forward to November 7th, a couple days after the election. No matter who wins, you've just told us neither one of them excite you.

RUSH: No, I'll tell you what you're going to do. You're going to do what all the rest of us are going to do.

RUSH: Damn straight. You're going to go to work and you're gonna work as hard as is required to overcome whatever obstacle policies either one of these two people put in your way. And you're going to go about trying to enjoy your life the best way you can despite the fact the there's nobody in Washington that inspires you.

CALLER: And despite the fact that here in California, all they want to do, the policies, they just want to take away your money, I don't care if it's -- they just want more, they just want their hands deeper into your pocket.

CALLER: It's almost like their God-given right to put their hand deeper into your pocket. And, you know, like I said, it's just the way it is, so I just keep on working hard.

RUSH: While telling you, Robert, while telling you that you're not doing your fair share, that you're not taxed enough, or that you're destroying the planet, or that you're destroying the local environment in Southern California or that you're committing some other sin against people, country, soil, that you have to pay for. And that's the basis on which they'll tax you even further. Well, Robert, I love you, man. You are fabulous. You are fabulous. I'm glad you called.

RUSH: I always get a big laugh when the Drive-By Media writes about something in the context that the Drive-By Media isn't covering it, and it happened yesterday in the Washington Post. The lead editorial. "The Iraqi Upturn" is the headline. "Don't look now, but the US-backed government and army may be winning the war." Don't look now? (laughing) The Drive-Bys are trying not to look! They don't want to see this. This is upsetting every apple cart known to the media. I want to take you back. I asked a question maybe a year ago, nine months ago when the Democrats -- led by Dingy Harry and Nancy Pelosi and all the rest of them, and Obama -- were running on and on and on about how the surge will not work. Remember the Petraeus ad in the New York Times by MoveOn.org? Remember the insulting questioning that he got from Mrs. Clinton, having to have "a willing suspension of disbelief," accusing him of lying about the success of the surge; Nancy Pelosi saying, "Don't you come up here and lie to us about how well it's going. That's not what we want to hear," and so forth and so on? I asked a rhetorical question at the time. I said, "Suppose... What happens if this thing works and it works well, and just suppose the president's approval numbers start coming up as a result of it?

"Obama has made his number one qualification to be president the fact that he never approved of the Iraq war, that he knew from the beginning it was a disaster, that he never supported it like Mrs. Clinton did." Now he's gotta find a way to find a graceful way out of this, and the Washington Post has come along and given him that. Let me give you a couple excerpts from their editorial yesterday. "There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd..." This is sort of like me telling you, folks, "It's really strange I haven't talked about this. I wonder why." Really, it's like me beating myself up. Seriously. I'm not trying to be funny. "There's been a relative lull in news coverage and debate about Iraq in recent weeks -- which is odd, because May could turn out to have been one of the most important months of the war. While Washington's attention has been fixed elsewhere, military analysts have watched with astonishment as the Iraqi government and army have gained control for the first time of the port city of Basra and the sprawling Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, routing the Shiite militias that have ruled them for years and sending key militants scurrying to Iran.

"At the same time, Iraqi and US forces have pushed forward with a long-promised offensive in Mosul, the last urban refuge of al-Qaeda. So many of its leaders have now been captured or killed that US Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker, renowned for his cautious assessments, said that the terrorists have 'never been closer to defeat than they are now.' Iraq passed a turning point last fall when the US counterinsurgency campaign launched in early 2007 produced a dramatic drop in violence and quelled the incipient sectarian war between Sunnis and Shiites. Now, another tipping point may be near, one that sees the Iraqi government and army restoring order in almost all of the country, dispersing both rival militias and the Iranian-trained 'special groups' that have used them as cover to wage war against Americans. It is -- of course -- too early to celebrate; though now in disarray, the Mahdi Army of [Mookie] al-Sadr could still regroup, and Iran will almost certainly seek to stir up new violence before the US and Iraqi elections this fall. Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow US commanders to make some welcome adjustments..."

Then we move on to page two. "If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most US troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise." You cannot get any more explicit than this from the Drive-By Media: the lead editorial in yesterday's Washington Post warning Obama -- Hey, pal, your plan of getting out of there as a failed enterprise is up in smoke. You better start figuring out a way to plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation. How does Obama do this with any credibility when all he has said is that it is a failure; it has no chance; it is doomed and we are doomed to defeat? I'm looking for an audio sound bite here because we have one on this, and it is from the lovely and gracious Mika Brzezinski. Let's see. Grab audio sound bite number 20. This is it. Mika Brzezinski this morning on Joe Scarborough's program on MSNBC. The New York Times reporter John Harwood says, I don't think Americans have forgotten Iraq.

BRZEZINSKI: You know what? I think Americans are tired of being duped, and I think this is coming back from the McClellan book. Everyone talks about how Americans want to win. I don't know so much with Iraq.

RUSH: So all this good news on Iraq, Mika Brzezinski of DNCTV (also known as MSNBC) says, "Well, I don't think Americans care. They don't care. They don't care if we're winning." Really? Obama has got a problem. The Democrats have a problem. I speculated about this long ago. The one what-if that no one was discussing, and nobody's discussing it now -- and it's a long shot, I admit. But so is this: Six weeks ago, much less six months ago, did you ever think that you would read or hear in an editorial in the Drive-By Media, the Washington Post, talking about how the war can be won; that Obama better shift his position to sustaining an improving situation rather than abandoning a bad one? That was just as big a long shot as this one is. What if, before the election, Bush's folly becomes Bush's triumph? What if before the election, President Bush's approval numbers go up? They've been hovering where, 32 to 25%? What if they hit 40? What if they start rising? What if there's a trend line of Bush approval numbers going up?

How many years did it take for Seward's folly -- that is, the Alaska purchase -- to be recognized as a stroke of genius? I mean, when Seward purchased Alaska, people said, "Oh, my, what a stupid waste of money," but now look. How many years will it take for Bush's folly, a/k/a the mission in the Middle East, to become one? What if it turns out to be right in the next five months instead of the next five years or 50 years? It's possible. When was the last time you heard we lost the war? When was the last time you heard we can't win the war? When was the last time you heard the surge can't work? When was the last time you heard the surge isn't working? When was the last time you heard the surge won't work? When was the last time you heard, "We've already lost"? Well, as recently as two months ago and as recently as exactly one year ago -- actually, 14 months ago now when Dingy Harry was waving the white flag of surrender. How long has it been since you heard, "Our troops are caught in the crossfire of civil war! Our troops have no business being in the midst of a civil war"?

How long has it been since you heard, "Why isn't the Iraqi government meeting its benchmarks?" Remember that? The benchmarks an incompetent US Congress couldn't meet itself put on the Iraqis, and they kept asking, "Why aren't their benchmarks being met? There's no political progress here." When was the last time you heard that success of the Petraeus strategery, the surge, calls for "a suspension of disbelief"? Something is happening out there, and it will become apparent to all sooner if not later. But this is the question. What if it becomes apparent to all sooner? The mainstream media says, not a chance. Washington Post writes this piece as though they're innocent bystanders and spectators: "How come the media is not covering this?" To which you ask, "Well, where the hell is this on the front page? Why is this on the editorial page? Where is this story on the front page? " Ask yourself, is anybody in the Drive-By Media today as respected as the great journalist Horace Greeley was? (chuckling) You remember Horace Greeley. "Go West, young man." One of the most severe critics of Seward's folly was the very same Horace Greeley, in the then mainstream New York Tribune.

Now, there wasn't any television at the time, it was the 1860s, and so when you hear the what-ifs, "Well, what if Mrs. Clinton goes to Denver? Well, what if the McClellan book kills McCain's chances? Well, what if Hillary supports Obama? What if Hillary doesn't support Obama? What if the Hillary backers stay home?" There's that one other what if: What if something happens in Iraq that shifts Bush's folly into Bush's triumph? Where does that leave the Democrats who have built their entire nominating process on the folly of Bush's war? Now, why did the Washington Post do this piece? I suspect they did it and they put it on the editorial page to get it out of the way. So that at least one Drive-By organ can say, "Hey, we reported it," and then wash their hands of it. I'll be surprised if the Drive-Bys pick it up. This does not fit the story line, doesn't fit the action line, doesn't fit the template. I doubt that we will see any significant reporting of this. But if the news continues to improve, it may be hard for them to continue to ignore it, and if -- big IF -- but if Bush's numbers start going up as a result of this, you think there's chaos in the Democrat Party now? Just wait.

RUSH: Vince in Victoria, Minnesota, I'm glad you waited. Welcome to the program, sir.

CALLER: Yes, sir. Yes, sir, thank you for having me on here. Rush, if I could first make a very quick point regarding that last caller that you spoke to. I think, honestly, I'm coming to the conclusion that we need to rename the political parties: one is the globalist Democrats, the other is, you might call them the American conservatives or something like that, we begin to understand what our geopolitical choices are, that is, I think everything falls into place quickly. But the real reason I called, and you had spoken a while ago about Iraq and the improving situation there, really I think it's time for Republicans to finally start speaking out with much more confidence about the Middle East, which is already in historic transformation. Where we gonna be in a few years with America-friendly governments in Iraq and Turkey and Afghanistan? If all that falls into place, I think the mullahs in Iran have to go away also or they will inevitably be turned out also. Any agreement about that, any comment about that?

RUSH: Well, I've got something here, and let me see if I can find it real quick that relates to something that you just said. It's in the American Thinker by Jeff Lukens: "'Was the Iraq War Worth It?' -- Before the war, state sponsors of terrorism in the Middle East were Iran, Syria, Libya and Iraq. Today, only Iran and Syria remain." Libya no longer a state sponsor of terrorism and abandoned its nuclear program, and of course we all know what's happened to Iraq, Saddam's gone, and they are no longer state sponsors of terrorism. Iraq has become a country where terrorism has been defeated in the Middle East. So you ask an interesting question. If we do end up successfully here -- we've got a pro-American government in Afghanistan, we have a pro-American government in Iraq. The Iraq government's pretty close to self-sustaining itself, major victory there. Pro-American government in Turkey. You think the Republicans need to get more confident about the success of the policies and so forth in the Middle East. You're right. Republicans need to get more confident, period. Look it, this is why I mentioned earlier in the program there are all kinds of what-ifs that people ask out there, but a year ago I thought it was fascinating because the Democrats were so invested in defeat, they owned it, and we hadn't been defeated, and I said what happens if this turns out really positive, what happens if Iraq box an undeniable huge success and win, and what happens if Bush's approval numbers start going up?

Right as we get into the summer and the fall of the 2008 election? Can you imagine the shakeup that will be an entire political party, the Democrats structuring themselves on the defeat of the US military in Iraq and the war on terror. They've raised millions of dollars on it. At least half if not more of the Democrat Party base is made up of lunatics who want this country to lose. They are so poisoned with their hatred, their personal hatred, their irrational personal hatred of George W. Bush that they have steered this party into a corner. And it is looking like they are going to be profoundly embarrassed. They are going to nominate a candidate on the basis of many things. One of the things is, "He was always against the Iraq war, he knew. He was the smartest guy in the room. He never supported this war. He knew it was a loser." Now, if he wins the presidency he may inherit a circumstance where we are victorious, and does he have the mettle to admit that, or will he continue on because of the requirement he be loyal to this kook fringe base of the Democrat Party? Will he continue to say that this is a defeat? Will he continue to say that this is a defeat? Will he say all these stories about success in Iraq, they were lies to try to shake up the election, that we can't win there, we never were going to win there, we had no business going there. This party is in such a mess, and it is so painful. It is so painful to see my own beloved party nowhere near being positioned to take maximum advantage of it.

RUSH: Obama. We were talking about Iraq and the surge, and "it doesn't work," and my brilliant prognostication of a year ago in which I asked: What happens if this all turns around? Do you realize how they've pigeonholed themselves? And after all, folks, we're talking about the United States military, which does not lose (unless the Democrats are in charge) and the Democrats tried to secure defeat but they couldn't, because on this George W. Bush hung tough. Last Friday on PMSNBC (otherwise known as DNCTV) Morning Joe, Obama campaign strategerist David Axelrod was asked by Mike Barnicle, "Do you know whether Senator Obama thinks there's been progress made in Iraq?"

AXELROD: I -- think w-w-what he's -- what he's said is that there's been, uh... I mean he never disputed the fact that if you throw a -- a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can, uh, make a difference.

RUSH: Really? "He never disputed the fact" never? "that if you throw a surge of American soldiers in an area that you can make a difference?" Let's go back to January 14th of 2007, about a year and a half ago, Senator Barack Obama is the guest and says this about more troops in Iraq.

OBAMA: We cannot impose a military solution on what has effectively become a civil war. And until we acknowledge that reality, uh, we can send 15,000 more troops; 20,000 more troops; 30,000 more troops. Uh, I don't know any, uh, expert on the region or any military officer that I've spoken to, uh, privately that believes that that is gonna make a substantial difference on the situation on the ground.

RUSH: He's an idiot. He is a lying idiot! He says he can't find a general who will tell him it worked? Have you ever heard of David Petraeus, who is a general? It is working. A year and a half ago, he is dead wrong. He doesn't know what he's talking about. When he's put on the spot like this, and he doesn't have an answer prewritten that he has memorized, he is wandering aimlessly in search of a thought. Axelrod said, "Well, of course going to throw soldiers at something, it's going to work." No! Just the opposite. Obama, in his own words: the surge is impossible. We will hold onto this bite, and we will continue to play it at the appropriate strategic times to clearly illustrate: This man knows not at all from what he is saying.

Will it admit to the same mistake 31 years from now when it comes to global warming?

RUSH: You know, this global warming business that's going on in the Senate, this debate here on the Warner-Lieberman Bill, which is the single largest transfer of wealth in the history of the country, it's nothing but a massive, massive series

of tax increases, it is not based at all on saving the climate, protecting the country, the planet, whatever. It is simply a huge power grab for huge government. It has no chance of passing this time around.

Time magazine suggests that we solve global warming in part by eating bugs (articles like this make you ask, am I the only sane person left on this planet?):

Rush: The ChiComs and the Cubans are drilling for oil 60 miles off Florida -- 60 miles away from here (while we aren't). Will's point is: "Hey, we have got an energy policy. The energy policy is let the rest of the world use theirs while we buy it and beg 'em to drill and produce more while we don't use ours."

Conservative Review
Issue #28	Kukis Digests and Opines on this Week’s News and Views	June 8, 2008