I had thought that I had pretty much sworn off on Crosman airguns. There are those in the sport who would say that they are decent, value-priced guns that perform decently and geez, they are made in the good ol' USA. Then there are those who say that due to their price point, you can't expect Diana/RWS-like quality. And then there are those who avoid them like a bacterial infection of the rectum. I tended to waver between perception number two and three, more so due to my previous experience with a Crosman T4. Now, I know what you may be thinking - just like anything else, you can't judge your overall view of a company based on one experience. That is generally true and it is a principle I hold when buying things from companies. My Dad reminded me of this fact lately as I was griping about the really crappy Honda dealership, of which my wife and I used to be regular patrons.
So, seeing how I would like to take my own advice on things like this, I thought I'd give Crosman another chance. This wasn't a CO2 pistol anyway, so we're talking about a completely different animal here (the Phantom is a break-barrel/hinge action spring rifle). What I got was the Canadian .22 caliber non-PAL version (even though I have my firearms licence, I still enjoy checking out under-500 FPS offerings). I say Canadian version because as far as I am aware, you can't get a .22 caliber Phantom in the U.S. And the higher velocity Phantoms are all .177 caliber anyway. I bought this in December 2007, taking advantage of a generous store-wide discount that was available.
It so happened that I bought the last one in the store, and heading out of the store with it, one of the gunshop guys remarked, "Why are you buying that? It's a toy!" That didn't exactly give me the warm fuzzies, but for $100.00, I was willing to check it out.
The first thing I noticed was that the box was pretty heavy. I was pretty sure it was the rifle, not the packaging. And sure enough, I was right. As far as air rifles go, the Phantom carried a decent amount of weight (I think it was 6 lbs+ - more if you scope it). It came with the manual and the frequently distributed plastic Crosman cross-block trigger lock. As it was sub-500FPS, I wasn't going to keep the trigger lock on it - may sell it on eBay if I get a chance. After taking apart the contents, I took it to the local range to check out (can't really shoot it in my backyard (neighbours too close and municipal bylaws) or in my house (kids and municipal bylaws). The first thing I noticed was that I couldn't break the barrel. It was solidly stuck. Now, I am not a strong guy, but I am not a weakling either, and based on my previous experience with several break-barrel rifles, this wasn't normal. I spent considerable amount of time trying to break the barrel before I realized that I probably bought a lemon. So I drove back home, but not before taking the barrel and hitting it against a chair in disgust - it actually broke at that point, but no way I am going to be hitting it on a chair every time.
I looked online for suggestions and it turns out that this is common with the Phantom - that you need to "slap" the barrel, sometimes significantly hard, in order to get it to break. That really sucks. So I said, "forget this", and proceeded to take it back to the store, from where I bought it. The guys in the gunshop, to my surprise, indicated that there is nothing wrong with it, and they were easily able to use the open side of their hand and slap that barrel to break it. Even after breaking it, they indicated to me that the spring was REALLY tight, and that likely, I may have an anomaly on my hands - that is, that I may have a spring that will produce velocities of well over 500FPS, putting it into firearms grade (interestingly enough, even though I verified this, they told me I need not worry about contacting the Canadian Firearms Centre to register it). Anyhow, they told me there was nothing wrong with it; that higher end spring-loading air rifles occasionally need a snap. Besides, at least I know the locking hinge is working properly. I suppose. So I took it back and figured that if it really became a problem, I'll just send it back to Crosman Canada (which has since turned over its support and parts operations to a company called Gravel Company in Quebec).
So back to the range I went, with the knowledge that to use this Phantom, I would have to give the barrel a big old slap (which on a skinny solid metal barrel, does hurt the hand somewhat). Most times I needed both arms to pull down the barrel to cock it. I suspected that maybe the guy was right - that the spring was indeed a Phantom 1000FPS version - that would make my gun a very rare item. Anyhow, I'll worry about that later. After exhausting myself in cocking the rifle, I loaded a pellet into the barrel, but not before I noticed that there was a tremendous (and I mean tremendous) amount of grease all over the gun. In subsequent research sessions, I also found out that this was not unusual with the Phantom, but it's still kind of gross having to get grease all over your hands. But that's a minor thing. So I simply decided to test-fire it (not dry fire, which you never do with a spring loader).
Well, after my first shot, I smelled this nasty burning smell. I knew it wasn't from any gunpowder or primer from people around me, as there was no one beside me on my lane at the time. Of course, it was only a minute later that I realized that the burning smell came from the rifle, as smoke started rising from it. No word of a lie - white smoke from an air rifle. In subsequent research, I learned that this was also not unusual and in some air rifles, this smoking gun effect, called dieseling, was simply a way for the gun, when shot, to deal with excess oil and grease (of which the Phantom had plenty). I'd say after about 75-100 shots, it went away. But between that and the barrel not breaking without slapping it, I wasn't overly impressed.
The Phantom, despite common perception, is actually not the same rifle as the popular Crosman Quest. Some believe it is the same rifle, with only a synthetic vs. wood stock being the only difference. The Quest has its own share of quality control problems, but that is another conversation for another day. Anyhow, the Phantom is more along the lines of a stripped down Crosman TAC-1 tactical air rifle (which is not cheap, but mostly due to all the crazy stuff that comes with it).
As for performance, I finally have some good news. The Phantom hits the targets hard and is very accurate (I had on it initially for my tests my Bushnell Sportsman 3-9x32mm w/ AO scope, though I have since moved the scope to a better rifle and put the cheapo Crosman 4032 4x32mm scope on it - both scopes were fairly accurate within 30 yards, producing somewhat close groups (I won't give the actual measurements since I'd like to believe what I shot was considered close groupings, though in all likelihood it probably wasn't). Now, I had to satisfy my curiosity about the theory that I inadvertently received a stronger spring in my rifle, so I decided to take my trusty F1 Chrony and measure velocity. Well, I can say that I won't have to deal with legal issues with having a "oops" model - the chrony recorded average velocities between 470 - 480 (the box advertised it as up to 495, which was obviously correct).
The Phantom comes with a trigger safety (pull it toward the trigger to activate the safety) inside the trigger guard. The length of the rifle is around 44.5", which is a pretty decent length. With the scope attached, you definitely feel the weight.
All that being said, I think it's safe to say that my opinion of Crosman hasn't changed. And since then I have also heard that Crosman has pulled all of its "fireball" pellets off the shelves for serious quality control and worksmanship issues (inconsistent skirts on the pellets, nicks on the same, etc.). I won't return the Phantom, even though it's under warranty, since I already got by the dieseling issues. The slapping of the barrel is a royal pain in the butt, but I can live with it. I'd just hate to sent it to Gravel and get a replacement that has the same issue (in the past, Crosman has been known to simply issue a new replacement, sealed in package), or worse, send it to Gravel, and I never see it again. But I'd seriously need some convincing to buy another Crosman product. Sure, the Discovery is out and the Benjamin line is great, but the old adage applies - you get what you pay for. Crosman is great for backyard plinking and not-too-serious target shooting, but if you're looking for performance and quality, you'd probably want to consider some of the other brands of air rifles on the market.
Sunday, March 30, 2008
Friday, March 28, 2008
Hammerli Air Magnum 850 .22 Caliber CO2 Rifle Review
Well, it's been a few weeks since I last posted. I've since become a father once again (yay!), so I've been taking it easy for the online activities. Anyhow, I have a few moments between diaper changes and such, and since my son is sick today, I'm home with him. He's napping now, so I have an opportunity to get back into the swing of posting here.
Well, lots to post about, and we can talk parenthood and fatherhood and childrearing and what not in future posts for sure, but for the avid air gun and air rifle enthusiasts out there, I want to make sure I put a review in your hands of what I consider to be the absolute best air rifle that I have owned thus far. It is the RWS (rebranded Hammerli by Umarex) Air Magnum 850, in 22 caliber. This is, without a doubt, the sweetest shooting CO2-powered rifle one can get their hands on. In Canada, this baby requires you to have a gun licence, or a PAL, so if you want one of these, go for your CFSC safety course and exams and be prepared to wait a bit, not to mention the mandatory registration of this rifle with the Canadian federal long-gun registry.
First, a little about the rifle. It is an all-black synthetic stock CO2 rifle, which uses an 88gram canister. I guess for those who play paintball, you'd be used to 88g markers, but make no mistake, this ain't no paintball gun, folks (the fact that you need a firearms licence to possess would make that obvious). It comes in .177 and .22 caliber, but why anyone would want the .177, I do not know. It weights around 5.5lbs, and is a little over 40" long (maybe 43 or 44"). It has rails built-in, should you wish to add scoping optics. It uses an 8-round cylinder magazine, which is extremely well made. It also features and automatic safety, and it uses a bolt action system. The factory specs on velocity for .177 and .22 are 760FPS and 655FPS respectively. On a 88g cartridge, the manufacturers say that you can get around 200 shots with it.
At around $250.00 + tax, this rifle is not one of the cheaper ones. But once you get the box in your hands, you'll know that like anything else, if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it. The rifle arrives in a fairly large box, which upon closer inspection is actually a fitted foam box with an outer wrap-around cardboard shell. Regardless, you should know that your rifle will not arrive damaged. It is packaged really well, with the rifle itself being wrapped in a plastic bag, and includes a nice big bag of silica salt to ward off moisture (of course, I just bought a huge box of silica salt the week before, but that is neither here nor there). It comes with a manual, and two 8-shot magazines. You'll have to buy your own CO2, but that's OK, since they're around five to six bucks per 88g canister.
The feel and weight of the gun is really good, even for my stature. The CO2 is inserted in the front of the gun in compartment, of which the snappable plastic cover removes quite easily (the downside is that it feels a little too plasticky and can eventually break). The CO2 canister is screwed in tightly and then turned about a 1/4 turn counterclockwise (don't worry, the gas will only leak for about one second). Now, with 200 shots, you're probably thinking whether it's wise to get this, since you may not use 200 shots and as such, be releasing the rest of the gas out, wasting it. I know of this concern, as I had it myself, but in looking further and talking with airgun experts, it is actually OK to leave your CO2 cartridges in your rifles and pistols, despite what the manufacturers say. More damage can be done to the O-rings if you were to release the gas manually, freezing the rings. Besides, leaving the gas cartridges in the gun keeps the seals from drying out, and dust out as well. I've done this with no adverse effect on any of my CO2 guns. Still, if you're ultra-paranoid, you can always buy the additional attachment that allows you to use two (2) 12g cartridges instead of a single 88g unit. However, the adapter runs around $100.00, and in my opinion, is not a worthwhile expenditure.
The automatic safety is right on the back of the breech, and you need to manually disengage it with your thumb before taking the next shot (it's a two-stage safety, more or less, with a bigger external button and one inset button that have to be pressed to disengage the safety). This is OK the first time, but when you have to do this 100+ times in a row, it gets a bit annoying.
The bolt, I will have to say, is one of the nicest features on the rifle. It is a huge side bolt and pulls back very nicely. The cylinder magazine is loaded from the left hand side and is locked into place by a switch on the same side. The rifle features fiber-optic sights, but no doubt you'll want to put a scope on this thing. Another additional item you can add is the muzzle-brake, to give it a more tactical look (my wife thought it looked like a silencer, but it's not, since silencers are illegal in Canada).
OK, performance. I found that out of the box, the 850 Air Magnum will shoot around 620FPS when chronied. Now, for a firearms-grade airgun, that may seem rather low, but this is not a hunting rifle, and you can't expect supersonic performance with CO2 anyway. This is probably the fastest and most powerful CO2-powered gun you can buy. Of course, bear in mind that with CO2, the faster you shoot a repeating airgun, the lower your velocity will drop. So while you can probably train yourself to cycle the bolt and safety pretty quickly, don't expect consistent velocity as a result. This rifle's use is really in plinking, target shooting and if you must, small rodent control (and I mean small rodents). The report of the rifle (sound) is not too bad - lot loud at all, and shooting decent groups is possible (provided you have a half-decent scope attached - I use the Bushnell Sportsman 3-9x32mm with AO).
I don't believe you get get a better rifle for the money. There's not a whole lot of .22 caliber CO2 rifles out there anyway, and even less in the firearms-rated range, so this is definitely a must-have for any airgun enthusiast.
JUNE 2008 EDIT: It has become abundantly clear to me that this gun is not designed for Crosman Premier Hollowpoint .22 pellets. Avoid these at all costs. The intial few were fine, but then I started experiencing extreme jamming when the cylinder magazine was cycled. Then somehow, one of the pellets fell back into the bolt action (DO NOT LOAD THE MAGAZINE WITH THE RIFLE POINTING UP). That jammed the bolt action to the point where I could not even remove the magazine since the bolt pin was in the way. Eventually, through shaking it here and here I managed to get the magazine out, but then the bolt would only retract 90%, which of course is useless. I was about 10 seconds from looking to disassemble it (and knowing me, I would have likely destroyed the gun as a result), when I put a Q-tip into what I could see of the bolt and trigger assembly and did some more shaking, and lo and behold, the bolt cycles now. That being said, I looked online and from the people who have experienced similar bolt problems, they said it is either Crosman Premier's or Beeman pellets that contribute to these problems - not to mention a poorly designed cylinder magazine with which the pellets can fall out, skirt-first, into the action. I have read that RWS Hollowpoints or RWS Hobby pellets are the only way to go here, as the mag is only designed for RWS (but not Superpoints). *sigh*
Well, lots to post about, and we can talk parenthood and fatherhood and childrearing and what not in future posts for sure, but for the avid air gun and air rifle enthusiasts out there, I want to make sure I put a review in your hands of what I consider to be the absolute best air rifle that I have owned thus far. It is the RWS (rebranded Hammerli by Umarex) Air Magnum 850, in 22 caliber. This is, without a doubt, the sweetest shooting CO2-powered rifle one can get their hands on. In Canada, this baby requires you to have a gun licence, or a PAL, so if you want one of these, go for your CFSC safety course and exams and be prepared to wait a bit, not to mention the mandatory registration of this rifle with the Canadian federal long-gun registry.
First, a little about the rifle. It is an all-black synthetic stock CO2 rifle, which uses an 88gram canister. I guess for those who play paintball, you'd be used to 88g markers, but make no mistake, this ain't no paintball gun, folks (the fact that you need a firearms licence to possess would make that obvious). It comes in .177 and .22 caliber, but why anyone would want the .177, I do not know. It weights around 5.5lbs, and is a little over 40" long (maybe 43 or 44"). It has rails built-in, should you wish to add scoping optics. It uses an 8-round cylinder magazine, which is extremely well made. It also features and automatic safety, and it uses a bolt action system. The factory specs on velocity for .177 and .22 are 760FPS and 655FPS respectively. On a 88g cartridge, the manufacturers say that you can get around 200 shots with it.
At around $250.00 + tax, this rifle is not one of the cheaper ones. But once you get the box in your hands, you'll know that like anything else, if you want quality, you're going to have to pay for it. The rifle arrives in a fairly large box, which upon closer inspection is actually a fitted foam box with an outer wrap-around cardboard shell. Regardless, you should know that your rifle will not arrive damaged. It is packaged really well, with the rifle itself being wrapped in a plastic bag, and includes a nice big bag of silica salt to ward off moisture (of course, I just bought a huge box of silica salt the week before, but that is neither here nor there). It comes with a manual, and two 8-shot magazines. You'll have to buy your own CO2, but that's OK, since they're around five to six bucks per 88g canister.
The feel and weight of the gun is really good, even for my stature. The CO2 is inserted in the front of the gun in compartment, of which the snappable plastic cover removes quite easily (the downside is that it feels a little too plasticky and can eventually break). The CO2 canister is screwed in tightly and then turned about a 1/4 turn counterclockwise (don't worry, the gas will only leak for about one second). Now, with 200 shots, you're probably thinking whether it's wise to get this, since you may not use 200 shots and as such, be releasing the rest of the gas out, wasting it. I know of this concern, as I had it myself, but in looking further and talking with airgun experts, it is actually OK to leave your CO2 cartridges in your rifles and pistols, despite what the manufacturers say. More damage can be done to the O-rings if you were to release the gas manually, freezing the rings. Besides, leaving the gas cartridges in the gun keeps the seals from drying out, and dust out as well. I've done this with no adverse effect on any of my CO2 guns. Still, if you're ultra-paranoid, you can always buy the additional attachment that allows you to use two (2) 12g cartridges instead of a single 88g unit. However, the adapter runs around $100.00, and in my opinion, is not a worthwhile expenditure.
The automatic safety is right on the back of the breech, and you need to manually disengage it with your thumb before taking the next shot (it's a two-stage safety, more or less, with a bigger external button and one inset button that have to be pressed to disengage the safety). This is OK the first time, but when you have to do this 100+ times in a row, it gets a bit annoying.
The bolt, I will have to say, is one of the nicest features on the rifle. It is a huge side bolt and pulls back very nicely. The cylinder magazine is loaded from the left hand side and is locked into place by a switch on the same side. The rifle features fiber-optic sights, but no doubt you'll want to put a scope on this thing. Another additional item you can add is the muzzle-brake, to give it a more tactical look (my wife thought it looked like a silencer, but it's not, since silencers are illegal in Canada).
OK, performance. I found that out of the box, the 850 Air Magnum will shoot around 620FPS when chronied. Now, for a firearms-grade airgun, that may seem rather low, but this is not a hunting rifle, and you can't expect supersonic performance with CO2 anyway. This is probably the fastest and most powerful CO2-powered gun you can buy. Of course, bear in mind that with CO2, the faster you shoot a repeating airgun, the lower your velocity will drop. So while you can probably train yourself to cycle the bolt and safety pretty quickly, don't expect consistent velocity as a result. This rifle's use is really in plinking, target shooting and if you must, small rodent control (and I mean small rodents). The report of the rifle (sound) is not too bad - lot loud at all, and shooting decent groups is possible (provided you have a half-decent scope attached - I use the Bushnell Sportsman 3-9x32mm with AO).
I don't believe you get get a better rifle for the money. There's not a whole lot of .22 caliber CO2 rifles out there anyway, and even less in the firearms-rated range, so this is definitely a must-have for any airgun enthusiast.
JUNE 2008 EDIT: It has become abundantly clear to me that this gun is not designed for Crosman Premier Hollowpoint .22 pellets. Avoid these at all costs. The intial few were fine, but then I started experiencing extreme jamming when the cylinder magazine was cycled. Then somehow, one of the pellets fell back into the bolt action (DO NOT LOAD THE MAGAZINE WITH THE RIFLE POINTING UP). That jammed the bolt action to the point where I could not even remove the magazine since the bolt pin was in the way. Eventually, through shaking it here and here I managed to get the magazine out, but then the bolt would only retract 90%, which of course is useless. I was about 10 seconds from looking to disassemble it (and knowing me, I would have likely destroyed the gun as a result), when I put a Q-tip into what I could see of the bolt and trigger assembly and did some more shaking, and lo and behold, the bolt cycles now. That being said, I looked online and from the people who have experienced similar bolt problems, they said it is either Crosman Premier's or Beeman pellets that contribute to these problems - not to mention a poorly designed cylinder magazine with which the pellets can fall out, skirt-first, into the action. I have read that RWS Hollowpoints or RWS Hobby pellets are the only way to go here, as the mag is only designed for RWS (but not Superpoints). *sigh*
Monday, March 10, 2008
Eliot Spitzer Sex Scandal
Well, well, well...another politician involved in a sex scandal, a a fairly significant one at that. New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, and a supposed champion on crime and immoral conduct, has now been linked to a high-cost prostitution ring in the Washington area. True, not all the facts have come out, but my goodness, Spitzer has a press conference yesterday, the day the news broke and admitted that he has done something in his personal life that violates his family vows and shames him to his constituents. Geez, I wonder what it is? I'm pretty sure he wasn't caught shoplifting.
Several people were arrested who is linked with this ring, and in the subsequent reports, Spitzer was positively identified as "client number 9", who met with a particular short, brunette prostitute that charges in the thousands of dollars per hour. He allegedly requested unusual sex acts and was bold enough to meet her at a Washington hotel, less than a month ago for their rendezvous.
The news coverage has once again shown that people are morons for putting certain people on pedestals. I've written about this before, so I won't rehash it, but this goes to show you that almost anyone who purports to be living an exemplary outward life has something to hide. I have always believed this. In this case, Spitzer was considered a person who as attorney general of New York state, had a track record of fighting prostitution rings, drugs, the mob, etc. The fact that he has been caught soliciting the services of a young prostitute shows the real hypocrisy in these elected officials who seem to live squeaky clean lives. In talking with my wife about this case, she suggested that it always seems to be these types who have something to hide, and I think this is nothing new - in the Bible, Jesus had His most stern condemnation for the religious leaders of His day (Pharisees) who similarly projected a outwardly stellar lifestyle, but inside were rotten to the core.
Of course, Republicans and some sensible Democrats are calling for Spitzer's resignation. No doubt, this will be forthcoming, since this now has criminal implications as well (of course, I believed that Bill Clinton should have resigned or have been thrown out, but the generally liberal political establishment back in 1998/99 did not have the balls to do the right thing and give him the boot. That, of course, set a bad precedent for dismissing moral character flaws in those we elect. Larry Craig, the Idaho senator who last year was embroiled in his own scandal (remember the wide stance toilet seat foot touching in a public washroom?), seems to have weathered it, more or less. But in this case, Spitzer has no choice but to resign; not only has he let down his state in his abhorent conduct, but he can potentially be convicted of a criminal offence. Hardly the resume you want your elected officials to have.
I often wonder, on the other hand, whether we collectively as a society put too much pressure on these guys in public office to perform to a certain standard. Maybe we do. These guys are always wearing suits and ties and always are expected to say the "right" things and when they don't, we and the media criticize them. Perhaps this drives these folks into a secret life where such things happen. Ultimately, though, people like this should take the responsibility and evaluate their own weaknesses and shortcomings before they enter into public office. A smooth talking guy (or gal) hardly is indicative of a upstanding private life. I think we need to place more value on substance and character, rather than focus on words, style, and presentation. But as is so often the case in today's world, people seem to have an idealized and romanticized version of others - perhaps it is in the hope that maybe just once, this elected official will be different. Unfortunately, what they fail to take into account is the fact that people are essentially the same everywhere.
Several people were arrested who is linked with this ring, and in the subsequent reports, Spitzer was positively identified as "client number 9", who met with a particular short, brunette prostitute that charges in the thousands of dollars per hour. He allegedly requested unusual sex acts and was bold enough to meet her at a Washington hotel, less than a month ago for their rendezvous.
The news coverage has once again shown that people are morons for putting certain people on pedestals. I've written about this before, so I won't rehash it, but this goes to show you that almost anyone who purports to be living an exemplary outward life has something to hide. I have always believed this. In this case, Spitzer was considered a person who as attorney general of New York state, had a track record of fighting prostitution rings, drugs, the mob, etc. The fact that he has been caught soliciting the services of a young prostitute shows the real hypocrisy in these elected officials who seem to live squeaky clean lives. In talking with my wife about this case, she suggested that it always seems to be these types who have something to hide, and I think this is nothing new - in the Bible, Jesus had His most stern condemnation for the religious leaders of His day (Pharisees) who similarly projected a outwardly stellar lifestyle, but inside were rotten to the core.
Of course, Republicans and some sensible Democrats are calling for Spitzer's resignation. No doubt, this will be forthcoming, since this now has criminal implications as well (of course, I believed that Bill Clinton should have resigned or have been thrown out, but the generally liberal political establishment back in 1998/99 did not have the balls to do the right thing and give him the boot. That, of course, set a bad precedent for dismissing moral character flaws in those we elect. Larry Craig, the Idaho senator who last year was embroiled in his own scandal (remember the wide stance toilet seat foot touching in a public washroom?), seems to have weathered it, more or less. But in this case, Spitzer has no choice but to resign; not only has he let down his state in his abhorent conduct, but he can potentially be convicted of a criminal offence. Hardly the resume you want your elected officials to have.
I often wonder, on the other hand, whether we collectively as a society put too much pressure on these guys in public office to perform to a certain standard. Maybe we do. These guys are always wearing suits and ties and always are expected to say the "right" things and when they don't, we and the media criticize them. Perhaps this drives these folks into a secret life where such things happen. Ultimately, though, people like this should take the responsibility and evaluate their own weaknesses and shortcomings before they enter into public office. A smooth talking guy (or gal) hardly is indicative of a upstanding private life. I think we need to place more value on substance and character, rather than focus on words, style, and presentation. But as is so often the case in today's world, people seem to have an idealized and romanticized version of others - perhaps it is in the hope that maybe just once, this elected official will be different. Unfortunately, what they fail to take into account is the fact that people are essentially the same everywhere.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Man, Do I Dislike Hillary Clinton
So, the big contest on Tuesday is over, with Hillary Clinton seemingly bouncing back, even though Barack Obama is still leading in pledged delegates and overall delegates. In looking over the exit polls, I gotta tell ya - the Hispanic vote is killing Obama - look at Texas alone - most whites voted for Clinton, most blacks voted for Obama. And with a sizeable Hispanic population, latinos (and latinas) voted overwhelmingly for Clinton. This is really what contributed to Clinton winning California. I'm not sure why Hispanics don't seem to like Obama (or why they seem to like Clinton so much - could be their infatuation with Bill previously). I originally thought that the voting patterns would be more or less split among white/black racial lines, but in looking at predominantly "white" states (Iowa, Utah, Idaho, etc.) backing Obama, I don't think there's much credence in arguing that race is a component - at least not for the historical black/white relationship.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Still, in watching Obama and Clinton over the past few months, I have definitely come to one conclusion and one conclusion only: Hillary Clinton is really annoying. Her whiny, fake, bitchy voice, especially during debates, makes fingernails on a chalkboard sound like a classical masterpiece. Her dirty tactics, especially as of late, in how she has really been making personal attacks on Obama's experience and character, show the shallow, selfish, egotistical human being that she is. And of course, after winning the Ohio primary and barely winning Texas, she remarks that Ohio has decided that she is the better candidate, so therefore she should be on the ballot, should there be a "super ticket" where Clinton and Obama will be campaigning together against John McCain, who handily won the Republican nomination by capturing more than the needed delegates to be the presumptive nominee in November.
It's interesting that Clinton is now thinking about a super ticket with Obama, but with her being the presidential candidate and Obama being a VP. Not only do I believe this to be highly unlikely (since Clinton has bashed Obama recently, so why Obama would want to team up with her is anyone's guess, as well as Bill Clinton being the unofficial VP if Hillary wins), but I think that it will be destructive to Obama's political future. As a guy who stands for change and have campaigned on the same platform, accepting a partnership with Hillary is like the allies accepting trade with axis countries during World War II times. Not to mention, it is highly pretentious for Hillary to even suggest this, considering that Obama still retains a fairly decent lead in delegates. Right now, she is positioning herself to consider forming an alliance with Obama, since doing otherwise will fracture the party before the party convention in Denver (in August, I believe). I can sort of see why she would consider such an option, since McCain is ready to start planning and if the Democrats continue to slosh it out to see who would come up victorious in August, that only gives them a few months before the general election to prepare. I personally think that Hillary will entertain having Obama on the ticket, as long as she is on top. I seriously doubt that, Obama, on the other hand, would even consider having Hillary on the ticket. Her ego is too big anyway, but moreover, she is way too polarizing of a figure to be on a "change" ticket. Obama's best choice would probably be John Edwards. Of course, she will spin it in a way to show that by winning a big state like Ohio (where in certain parts, economic times are tough and Hillary has capitalized on it, not to mention the recent negative ads against Obama), she can win the general election. What she won't emphasize is that Obama is won more states and more diverse states - it's as if she thinks that the only states that should count are the ones that she has won.
Which leads me to discuss her latest stupid suggestion - that the stripped delegates for Florida and Michigan should count. You may know that the DNC stripped both States of their delegates after both states broke party rules and pushed up their primary dates. Of course, almost all of the candidates, including Obama, respected the DNC rules and did not campaign in these states (Obama's name was not even on the Michigan ballot). The primary voting was in Hillary's favour. But the DNC rightfully stood on principle and rejected the results, not counting them. But now Clinton is appealing to the states and the DNC to reconsider, and is making some pretty weak arguments suggesting that by ignoring the results (which were flawed to begin with) would be to silence a voice in two big states. Of course, Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, has stood firm, indicating that why should the states that observed and followed party rules be penalized in allowing rogue primary states' results to count? Besides, since most candidates did not campaign there, I can't see why they would even recognize the results. This is just another desperation attempt by a desperate woman to put her own ambition over what is for the best of her party and country. I am not fond of Obama, but I dislike Hillary much more. I hope she loses badly to Obama and goes back to scheming with husband Bill on ways to ruin the U.S.
Now, a word on John McCain. I've said this before and I'll say it again - I'm not crazy about him. Commentators have remarked on how he is not really a true conservative, and I tend to agree. I'm surprised that Bush has recently endorsed, him, seeing as how he has disagreed with Bush on many policy items. Then again, the Republicans are likely showing a clear contrast between them (who are showing a uniting type of mindset) and the Democrats, who are still embroiled in in-fighting in trying to determine who the party's nominee will be. I personally would have loved to see Mike Huckabee win, but I think after Super Tuesday, it was a foregone conclusion that he would have a real uphill battle to even come close to McCain (Mitt Romney likely realized this earlier and dropped out at that point). But to Huckabee's credit, he stayed in, stayed principled, and showed a humourous and personal side, which is nice to see in politicians. I will be forever proud to wear my "Mike Huckabee in '08" t-shirt that I bought. Huckabee's future is a bright one, I believe, as this experience has exposed him to many new fans and supporters. Of course, Huckabee is probably way too right wing for the American public to bear, whereas McCain is clearly a centrist, and therein lies his appeal to right of center democrats and left of center conservatives. I am not sure how effective McCain will be, but at age 70, I doubt that there's a whole lot left in the tank for a full two terms. His pick of a running mate will be that much more important, and I believe he will pick a younger guy (or gal) to run with him. Possibly Bobby Jindal, very recently minted Governor of Louisiana (who would have thought that a 36-year-old Indian dude would become governor of a deep south state) - Jindal is a really staunch conservative, pro-life, pro-guns (for a visible minority to have an A+ and A rating from the NRA and Gun Owners of America, is pretty damn impressive), and is intelligent and articulate (born in Louisiana, he even has the natural southern drawl). I would love to see Huckabee as VP, but I'm not sure that will happen. But I think McCain needs to select a proven full-credentials conservative, likely someone who appeals to evangelicals, in order to ensure that he does not alienate this large voting block. Condoleeza Rice would be a good choice, especially given the fact that his opponent will be Obama or Clinton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)