Are you curious why Barack Obama is so “popular” despite being an outright and unabashed socialist? I am. It appears that the multifaceted nature of economic successes and woes have presented Obama with a perfect opportunity to exploit our excessive personal debt in order to force-feed socialism during an otherwise “decent” economy, at least by conventional measurements.  

There’s a lot of unrest about the state of our economy among voters. Yet, the data suggests that voter’s perceptions are largely out of sync with the actual rate of GDP growth – while most of us think we are in a recession (including NBC/ABC/CNN news) our economy is actually not in a recession at all. Rasmussen polls also suggest that voters are not overwhelmed by the stimulus package, although admittedly many of us haven’t gotten them yet, and voters also believe by a slight margin (54%) that excessive government is to blame for economic woes.  

So the question arises: who is correct on the economy – consumers or GDP? The answer to this question is probably more elusive than we would like, but a more relevant question is also presented: is it possible for consumer confidence to be dismal in an otherwise healthy economy? If we accept that consumers feel bearish and that we are also not in a recession, the answer appears to be yes. 

The key to this paradox might very well be a function of consumer debt. Americans presently are in over their ears in excessive amounts of borrowing and spending. Circuit City cards, Macy’s cards, Lowe’s cards, and your conventional Capitol One cards have allowed us to get our flat screens while still able to afford home improvement and clothes for our families.   Meanwhile, cars are racking up in the driveways and our mortgage debt is so pervasive it is not even worth mentioning. Aside from the omnipresent effect this has on our monthly bills, Americans are still highly productive and well-employed, for the most part at least. 

The effect this is undoubtedly having is that as consumers look at their future situation, they see a ton of bills, but not a lot of new spending. Many of us also realize that we have borrowed too much, and the cost of necessities (housing, gasoline, education, healthcare) is flirting on the point of unaffordable, if not already there. A pessimist might argue that it is high prices that are killing us, which is the inevitable result of free markets. A realist would argue that being able to afford those high cost necessities is admittedly difficult with our otherwise ridiculous spending habits. I do not attempt to place any moral judgment here, or to analyze why those necessities have always costs a lot of money, and probably always will. As an American myself, I have my fair share of indulgences, and common-sense people understand that nothing worthwhile in life comes for free, or cheap for that matter, unless of course you believe in the myth of Marxism. 

Rather, I want to argue how despicable it is of Barack Obama to take such a myopic view of the entire situation, in order to justify the conclusion that free market ideology is flawed. Lou Dobbs reiterated this statement weeks ago on his low-rated show, and if anyone has the energy to dig up the transcript please email me. This statement was along the lines of “all that free market hoopla is DEAD you know…DONE.”   I for one am baffled by this. But it seems to be picking up steam being that Obama has become so popular tapping into this idea. 

If you want to tell me Obama hasn’t tapped this idea, then please explain to me why he has frustrated bedrock democratic ideals such as free trade with other nations. This idea after all is the very pillar to which free nations rose up against the20th century communist movement calling for the “workers of the world [to] unite.” Also explain while you are it why Obama thinks secret ballot union votes are a bad thing, and why it is necessary to eliminate federal oversight of Jimmy Hoffa’s teamsters. Sounds like another calling for the “workers of the world [to] unite.”      

Free markets are dead? I have no energy to contemplate what exactly that means for the free world. But I do have excessive amounts of energy for opining how despicable, utterly despicable, it is for a major presidential candidate to pony up this radical idea.

It is true that many Americans have tough economic times ahead. But it equally unclear why, and also equally clear that our “economy” has not failed. It is in the state of an unprecedented number of consecutive quarters of growth. To the extent that our economy can have such a duplicitous nature – bad consumer confidence with positive macro trends – Obama is satisfied amplifying the former while entirely disregarding the latter. 

Isn’t that what liberals mean when they routinely bash others’ inability to spot “nuance and sophistication?” 

It appears Obama is content to see things objectively with nuance when he wants to, such as reverend Wright’s hatred, and to see things narrowly and subjectively when he wants to as well, such as the current state of the economy. On top of that, he also feels at liberty to exploit those narrow views to hide his own ignorance and covert bad consumer confidence into democratic votes. 

What a great guy. Truly our next JFK. 

The reason is that the result of the meeting established three important precedents.  One, that the FL and MI elections count, except that the delegates get a half a vote instead of a full vote.  This supports the idea that regardless of the delegate count, the Florida votes are fair game when calculating the popular vote, and by that I mean all of them.  As hard as it is to justify penalizing delegates, its impossible to justify throwing away votes when gauging the "true" will of the people.  Second, the decision suggests the Democratic party is corrupt and in the tank for Obama.  There is no surer sign of this other than the fact that Hillary lost 4 delegates she won in MI, when the DNC decided for whatever reason to give them to Obama instead.  This further supports the argument that the delegate count is not the reflection of the people's will.  Finally, and surprisingly the least relevant, the Democratic party is a deeply dysfunctional and undemocratic hypocrisy which has shamed many to call themselves democrats. 

I think Republicans should start reconsidering the notion that they may wake up one day to find themselves running against Clinton this fall, and not Obama. 

Why? Because all the relevant arguments have entirely shifted after Saturday. Neither candidate won enough votes, so now the super delegates decide. The main argument is that if the super-politicians overturn the will of the people, then that is a sham. However, after Saturday, it seems clear that supporting Obama, and not Clinton, is what would be guilty of that sham. Clinton now has the majority of votes, and the MI pledged delegates have been shadily re-distributed by party insiders. The case can now be strongly made that the delegate count is a ridiculous gauge of the voter’s preference.

Given Obama’s embarrassing defeats in late primaries, the gift to Hillary by the rules committee, and the state polls which show Hillary as MUCH stronger against McCain, a lot of opinions are going to change, and the past few days of protests are what is going to stimulate that and justify Hillary’s late takeover.