Phil Windley’s latest entry discussing Obama’s book, “Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance”, is so insightful I’m just linking to it.

Ferrara: “If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.” “And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept.”

Well, what’s wrong with that? Isn’t that the American dream, the American way? Americans love to root for the underdog, and being black does make you an underdog. But let’s not forget that Obama is a candidate who has inspired millions across the country. A candidate who creates hope, who is unpaid for by special interests, and who just may unite the country.

A spoiler in 2000, GOP donors are hoping Nadar will do the same in 2008. And it looks like he’s playing right into their hands. See the below article in the San Fransisco Chronicle:

GOP donors funding Nader

Bush supporters give independent’s bid a financial lift

Carla Marinucci, Chronicle Political Writer

Friday, July 9, 2004

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader — still not on the ballot in a single state — has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party, an analysis of federal records show.

Nearly one in 10 of Nader’s major donors — those writing checks of $1, 000 or more — have given in recent months to the Bush-Cheney campaign, the latest documents show. GOP fund-raisers also have “bundled” contributions — gathering hefty donations for maximum effect to help Nader, who has criticized the practice in the past.

The donations from wealthy Republicans — combined with increasingly vocal Democratic charges that they represent a stealth GOP effort to wound Democrat John Kerry — prompted Nader’s vice presidential running mate, Green Party member Peter Camejo, to suggest the consumer advocate reject the money that doesn’t come from loyal Nader voters.

“If there has been a wave of these (donations), then that’s something Ralph and I will have to talk about — and about returning their money,” he said Thursday in an interview with The Chronicle. “If you oppose the war, if you’re against the Patriot Act, your money is welcome.

“But if your purpose is because you think this is going to have an electoral effect, we don’t want that money. I take no money from people who disagree with us,” Camejo said. “We’re not interested in that.”

But Camejo’s views differ with Nader’s recent defense of the contributions.

“We have no indication that the Republicans are trying to maneuver support for us,” he said at a recent press conference. “There are three or four major Republican donors who have contributed to my campaign. But that’s because I worked with them on a number of issues. … It’s all very small, relatively small, contributions. And we like it that way.”

But the financial records show that $23,000 in checks of $1,000 or more have come from loyal Republicans. Among those who have given recently to Nader are Houston businessman Nijad Fares, who donated $200,000 to President Bush’s 2000 inaugural committee; Richard J. Egan, the former ambassador to Ireland, and his wife, Pamela, who have raised more than $300,000 for Bush; Michigan developer Ghassan Saab, who has given $30,000 to the RNC since 2001; and frozen food magnate Jeno Paulucci, and his wife, Lois, who have donated $150, 000 to GOP causes since 2000 alone.

All have donated the maximum $2,000 to Nader’s campaign since April, records show.

Asked about the money from GOP backers, Nader campaign spokesman Kevin Zeese countered that many of Kerry’s donors also had given to Republicans, including Bush in the past.

“(Kerry) should renounce those donations and give them all back,” he said. Pressed if Nader would do the same, Zeese said that wouldn’t even be discussed “until (the parties) start to change the rules.”

With just under four months left to the election, Nader has yet to qualify for a single state ballot.

A statewide poll by the Survey and Policy Research Institute at San Jose State University released Wednesday indicates that if Nader qualifies as a presidential candidate on the California ballot, the former consumer advocate would steal support from the Democratic ticket almost exclusively.

“He would drain about 4 percent of Kerry’s support, almost all of it from Democrats, while having a negligible impact on Bush’s vote or his support among Republicans,” according to Institute director Phil Trounstine.

Democrats are worried about Nader’s influence because they believe as a Green Party candidate in 2000, he pulled votes that would have gone to Democratic Vice President Al Gore in key states, thus helping Bush win the election.

Chris Lehane, a Democratic strategist who was a spokesman for Gore’s 2000 presidential campaign, said the check-writing was not “a merely serendipitous confluence of events,” adding that “folks supporting Bush because they want fewer environmental protections and less corporate regulations don’t have a lot in common with the Ralph Nader agenda. The only thing they have in common with Nader is they want to take votes from Kerry.”

But Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee, calls such charges ridiculous, adding: “It’s unfortunate that Democrats seem determined to disenfranchise voters who want an opportunity to cast votes for Ralph Nader.”

Still, other Republicans acknowledge that many in the party have mentioned that a donation to Nader may boost Bush, particularly in states where the vote is expected to be close.

“Republicans have no problem with it, if the goal is to keep President Bush in office,” said Hoover Institution research fellow Bill Whalen, a veteran GOP strategist. “It’s not pretty. But putting a guy (in the White House) you don’t like is not pretty either.”

Whalen said the Republican National Committee or the Bush-Cheney campaign can’t technically condone such donations, but “you absolutely want your activists to get out there and help Ralph run” because of the effects he had on the 2000 election.

“Do the math,” Whalen said.

Nader, who has decried the influence of corporations in the political arena, also has received more than $20,000 in “bundled” contributions since March from GOP fund-raisers, according to the Federal Elections Commission documents that tally donations through May 31.

Bundling is the practice of gathering contributions together for maximum influence.

Records show Nader raised just more than $1 million for his presidential effort through May 31. Most of the money came from small, individual donors.

But Zeese said the Republican donors were “people whom Ralph knows from previous work.”

He downplayed the bundled donations, such as $18,850 in checks collected and submitted to Nader in May by Peter Tanous, president of Washington D.C.- based Lynx Investment Advisories.

“That was a house party,” Zeese said of the donations collected by Tanous.

Tanous, who also made a personal $2,000 donation to Nader in May, was traveling and unavailable for comment Thursday, but his wife, Ann, said that her husband raised money for Nader because “he’s a good friend.”

“My husband’s a die-hard Republican who’s supporting (Nader) so that there are other voices, other than the ones we’re hearing in this election,” particularly on issues that include Middle East politics, she said.

She declined to say whether her husband, who also donated $4,000 to the Republican National Committee and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign this year, would vote for Nader.

Tanous, records show, has also donated in the past to some Democrats, including $500 last year to House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco.

Whalen says that Nader is playing games when he suggests that his donors are merely acting in friendship and that his message will resonate with GOP faithful.

“What’s at the heart and soul of the Nader campaign? That corporations are evil and that we need to get out of Iraq,” Whalen said.

---

Nader’s Republican supporters$275,249Total contributions of $1,000 or more to Nader as of May 31

$23,000

Contributions from those who have also given to Republican causes, including the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.

Among Ralph Nader’s top Republican donors:

– Billionaire corporate executive John Egan of Massachusetts, who has raised at least$200,000 for the president’s re-election campaign, donated $2,000 to Nader.

– Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.

– David Reed, president of Washington-based Foundation Petroleum Inc., who donated$1,000 to Nader and $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney campaign.

– Jack and Laura Dangermond, both executives in Redlands-based Environmental SystemsResearch Institute, who each donated $2,000 to Nader’s campaign and the Bush- Cheneycampaign and $25,000 to the Republican Congressional Campaign Committee.

Source: Federal Elections Commission

Courtesy of the Drudge Report. The Clinton campaign is getting desperate. It’s not like Barack is holding an M-16 in a Madrasah. Now that would be bad.

.

The New York Times finally decided to break this story, detailing an affair between John McCain, 71, and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman, 40. I knew several weeks ago that the Times had this story, as well as Joe Klein of Time Magazine. This stemmed from a conversation I had with  a New York PR Insider, who believed that either Time or the NY Times would wait until well into the general election to break the story, but for some reason the story broke tonight. Here’s a link:

For McCain, Self-Confidence on Ethics Poses Its Own Risk

Doesn’t Congress have anything better to do than harass professional baseball players? Like, say, fix our nation’s healthcare system? Social Security? It’s also amazing how partisan these Congressional hearings have become. The Republicans are backing Clemens, and the Democrats are backing McNamee. It’s anyone’s guess as to why. Rush Limbaugh’s explanation is that the Democrats are just trying to destroy one more American institution – baseball. Right . . . . . .
And Congress wonders why they have such a low approval rating.

As we speak, Mitt Romney is suspending his campaign in a speech given to CPAC. I’ve been a little disappointed by the Romney campaign. Somewhere down the line he got some bad advice. I don’t know why he thought he had to pander to the religious right. It would have been interesting to see how Massachusetts Romney would have done. The moderate Romney is the true Romney. Now it’s ironic that a moderate is the GOP nominee.

Now, Mormons are so upset with McCain and Huckabee, who may be on the same ticket, that a recent poll suggests Utah will go Obama if given a choice between the two. I’m certainly leaning towards Obama.

“The national media seems to have a crush on our ex-governor, but here in Arkansas, we know better.” That’s the subtitle to a revealing piece in Salon about Governor Huckabee, written by Arkansas Times journalist Max Brantley.

“The Dark Side of Mike Huckabee” reveals how people in Arkansas know him to be vindictive, vicious, untrustworthy, unfriendly, incompetent, you name the insult, it’s been applied to Huckabee. And deservedly, at least according to Arkansas residents.

I’m not going to rehash the article, but it offers some interesting insight as Huckabee rises in the polls in Iowa. Despite displaying the above characteristics, coupled with his religious fanaticism, he seems to be finding a niche among the Christian conservatives in Iowa. The New Hampshire primary follows Iowa’s, and New England is a much different place. Without the right-wing, religious nuts to support him, it’s very doubtful that he can sustain his current strength in the polls. In the meantime, Arkansas residents are holding their breath until Huckabee’s numbers drop. So, I imagine, are most level-headed Americans.

Looking past his religious differences with Gov. Mitt Romney, Dr. Bob Jones, chancellor of the fundamentalist Christian university, has announced that he will endorse the Mormon for the Republican nomination. Jones was quoted in USA Today as saying, “This is all about beating Hillary”, and “As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism, but I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.”

Although I believe the Christian Right has irreparably damaged (and will continue to damage) the Republican Party, it’s refreshing to see, at least to some degree, some level headed thinking from an Evangelical leader.