There is no question that Bill Clinton is a great speaker. So there was no shock in the fact that he spoke well at the Democratic National Convention. The overall thing that impressed me though was that Bill Clinton did was Hillary could not; he gave reasons to believe Senator Obama would be a good President and finally admitted that Obama was ready to be President.



Unlike Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech, which was self-serving, Bill Clinton started off and continued to evoke his support and good will for Senator Barack Obama. Bill bit the bullet on his personal disagreements with Obama and did what was best for the Democratic Party. I have not seen a politician flip on a position so well on national television in some time.

You have to love the fact that Bill, unlike his wife, had no problem mentioning Senator Obama’s name more than 3 times in his speech. Then again Bill is a better speaker.

Now Bill did make some mistakes. First his comparison to President Carter is not a good one. Carter is accepted as a horrible President that did virtually nothing to improve the economy, resolve the energy crisis, lower unemployment, or protect Americans abroad. In fact his policies made all of that worse. This is why Carter was part of the long list of Democratic Presidents that have never gotten a second term since Roosevelt. (Only Bill Clinton has.) So stating that Obama is like Carter implies that America will have a worse time if he is elected than some think it is today.

On top of that is the fact that Bill Clinton’s Administration did nothing to improve America’s safety (he let Osama Bin Laden live to create the 9/11 attack), create alternative energy sources (crude oil increased some 150% during his time in office, no nuclear plants were made, and oil refineries dropped in number), or prevent the devastating economic burden of the internet bubble that I would argue did more damage than any other single factor in decades. It was also his Administration that failed on healthcare.

But particularly I want to address the spike in food, the core in the CPI index. Food prices are up because of one of the major initiatives that Democrats are pushing right now. Corn Ethanol. In playing to the farmers of the nation corn was picked as the source to create ethanol – a product that is less efficient than gasoline by 25% and unavailable to 97% of the nation – and while there is a glut of ethanol the mandatory increase of it’s production has caused the price of corn to go up and therefore food prices to increase.

This is a problem caused by the tunnel-visioned emphasis of the Democrats on specific exclusionary choices for alternative energy. Like wind power that benefits Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s investment portfolio the Democrats allow political and financial interests to dominate what they believe is the energy choice America should have, without being honest enough to say why they refuse any other option. I believe we need to invest in all energy sources and let innovation discover which the best choice is, and that we switch to grass ethanol that does not affect our food supply and costs.

But getting back to Clinton’s speech, you have to love the way Bill has ignored and reversed his thoughts espoused about Obama during the Primaries. It’s about time too. But his credibility is weak considering this is the first time he has changed his opinion, under pressure that his wife is out and if she is ever to have a chance he must shore up the political divide they created together.

It is correct that Senator Obama has the ability to rally the public, and inspire our minds. That is critical in a President. Curiosity and intelligence are equally important in a President. So at the 6:51 minute of the speech Bill Clinton is correct. But he leaves out something else a President needs. Experience in working with the Congress and creating bi-partisan policies that benefit the nation. Experience and respect from the international community. Senator Obama has neither. And while President Bush now has experience in both (to limited degrees) few in America approve the degree to which he has gained both. But Senator John McCain, and even Vice Presidential candidate Joe Biden have more experience, international respect, and bi-partisan ability than Obama, with as much intelligence, curiosity, and inspirational capacity.

Bill Clinton makes an excellent attempt at claiming Senator Obama has made solid choices on international policy. But he ignores facts, like the fact that Senator Obama was among those opposing the Surge (in fact joining those that declared it a failure before it started), that his position on Georgia and Russia was weak, that his choice of Vice President directly opposes his views on Iraq, and is inaction (and in fact reluctance to discuss) on Darfur.

I agree that Senator Obama has a unique and beneficial view of America that every White President to date has not had. If Obama becomes President it will be the first time that someone who has lived with racism, prejudice, the biased legal system, and the disadvantages enforced in our media and culture will be in the Oval Office. Such a perspective is needed in a nation that is very diverse, with 1 in 3 Americans having to endure those challenges ever day.

But while the Primaries may have tested Senator Obama, they also presented his weaknesses. Senator Obama performed outstandingly in the early Primaries, only to be massively attacked and eventually beaten in the last several states. Senator Obama showed his ability to create a lead, and the inexperience to keep it. The gaffes that occurred late in the Primaries are examples similar to the choices many make in their late teens and early 20’s, which are remade and rethought upon gaining the wisdom of experience and age.

And As for Obama’s choice of running mate, I still don’t get it. There is no synergy here. Senator Biden opposed Obama on several critical points. He represents the ‘old’ politics that Obama has stated he wants to change from. Biden had even said, as did the Clinton’s, that Obama lacked experience enough to be President. I have worked for inferior bosses before, and I think anyone who has will say that it created more problems than solutions.

Thus the national security leadership Bill Clinton mentions is fractured. It is based on an internal argument of diametrically opposed views. It is anything but a team effort. Which means either Biden, or Obama, either lied about their views or do not believe in them strongly enough and will flip their previously stated thoughts. Because if either of those conditions are not met, then we have the potential for a divided Executive Office fighting against itself.

By the way, when Bill says

“revitalize the international institutions, which help to share the cost of the world’s problems”

He is speaking of the U.N. It is that organization that has always failed to match our funding, that has failed to pay its full dues. Always. The United Nations has never had a major military presence anywhere that did not involve the U.S. in an over weighted manner. And in 40 years of life I have never heard a single President mention how the U.N. has satisfactorily done anything that America has wanted. Share the cost? How about just paying their post-due fees as a start.

As for HIV/AIDS I agree that more needs to be done to highlight the fight. But it would be a lie to say that America has given up on this. More needs to be done, but we have not stopped funding or fighting this disease, abroad or domestically. The major news media may have moved on to another ratings grabbing issue but various governmental and individual efforts have continued. Still I say again that more can be done, and needs to be.

And a President Obama is seen as a weak military commander. Senator Obama is seen as without the guts to fight, or continue the efforts already on-going. That is why Iran and other Middle East nations, and various militant groups have endorsed Obama. Because they believe they can push him around, as Hillary did in the Primaries, as John McCain is currently doing in various ads. If it takes just one television political ads to take the Obama campaign off message, how hard would it be to take him off of a potential military crisis? And his initial response to Russia in the current Georgian conflict has been seen universally as weak and toothless.

While many nations in the world may need the innovations and financial support America can provide Senator Obama does not strike me as capable of providing it. He has yet to take a stance on Darfur. When asked directly about that nation at the recent Civic Forum Obama instead discussed Rwanda. As a Senator He has made no strides in Darfur, or in the Primaries drawn any attention to it. If he cannot do this, then how can we believe he will lead America in beating the Chinese at providing financial and industrial aide to Africa? Or any other nation?

But Bill Clinton then goes to attack Republicans. Now criticism is fair, and many problems exist over the last 8 years. But it is a fallacy to believe all the problems were created by Republicans, or to ignore the fact that some of these issues were created by or failed to be resolved by the Democrat-led Congress.

The issues of the economy, and in part failing retirement accounts, are partially a Republican failing. But they are also the failure of the Clinton Administration. The excesses allowed in the internet bubble, that he did nothing about, had immediate and lingering effects on the economy. Millions have still not recovered the losses they incurred then, and the debt it created. The failure of Congress to address the issues in the commodities and options markets caused the recent, and soon to recur, runs in energy prices. These are issues that both Democrats and Republicans share in, from the Clinton Administration’s 2nd term thru Bush.

And the image of American’s without healthcare is yet another example. The Clinton Administration failed to change healthcare, and after the disaster of Hillary Clinton’s attempt never picked the ball up. Bush as well has failed to run with this issue. Both are culpable. And any reform will need to be bi-partisan to effectively help anyone.

And Clinton should never talk about favors for the well connected. Mark Rich and Norman Hsu. Do I need to say more?

But he is dead on about the cronyism that helped to worsen the devastation of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. But those were direct results of President Bush, not McCain or the Republican Party.

At the 15:39 minute of his speech Bill Clinton discusses Senator McCain. He mentions that McCain is defined by the extreme of the Republican Party on the issues of rebuilding America, and restoring America’s leadership. America’s leadership is something that Europe and other nations have been complaining about since the 1960’s. When Bill was President France would not let us use their airspace to bomb Quadafi in Libya – an accepted promoter of terrorism in the world outside of the U.S. American leadership has always been questioned and fought against, and it always rolls through hills and valleys – but ultimately it exists because the rest of the world needs out money, military and expressions of freedom time and again. But when we have weak Presidents, like Carter and Clinton, we see the emergence of long lasting problems – like the emergence of radical Iran, Bin Laden, and the initial problems with Saddam Hussein (which Clinton bombed constantly as Kurds were killed by the thousands).

And to rebuild America requires innovation. That innovation usually comes from small businesses growing and taking chances. Like Dell, or Apple, or Microsoft, these companies need an environment to grow in. But increased corporate taxes and higher minimum wages restrict small business and diminish that innovation. So how will that help rebuild the nation? How does increasing the burden of the nation with higher debt for funding a new department in charge of healthcare help to rebuild a nation? How does higher unemployment and lower work hours help to reduce the tax burden and higher taxes stimulate home purchases?

So in effect the extreme views of the Democratic Party are no more efficient or likely to achieve the goal of a better, stronger America. I agree that the extreme Right Wing of Republicans may be wrong, But the extreme Left Wing of the Democrats (or hardcore Democrats as Bill states) are equally wrong.

And I must dispute the claims about 2001. In that year we had the worse tragedy in American history. Caused by inaction of his Administration. All of America overreacted on multiple issues. Those reactions were not the historical claims of any Party. But the fact was that America was under attack, and the people sought the Republicans for their strength in that time, not Democrats. And now the nation is at war (rightly or wrongly, the cause is moot as our soldier fight).

And again I must also note that many of the things he mentions about that time were repercussions of the burst of the internet bubble. Caused again by his inaction on that bubble. The debt of the nation was never decreased; just the accounting of the Clinton Administration was changed. The jobs created en masse by the internet died with the bubble. The exorbitant salaries went with the start-ups, as did numerous jobs. No matter who was President, the internet crash would have caused the same problems. And the realization of that fact is in part why Democrats lost in 2004 trying to claim it was a Republican problem alone.

So yes, Bill Clinton was impressive. His ability to polispeak is nearly unmatched. His spin of facts, viewing them with squinted eyes, does sound attractive. Until you look at facts and causation. Until you pay attention to the details.

I admire that Bill Clinton has flipped his position on Senator Obama. I admire that he stepped up where his wife Hillary would not. I enjoy that while he and Obama don’t get along; Bill is able to rise to the need of the Democratic Party. He was a unifier, Hillary was out for herself.

But still he is unable to identify why America should vote for Obama. His misrepresentation of historical facts, his uniquely envisioned interpretation of actions and consequences sound great. And I am sure some will believe him wholeheartedly, because he sounds sincere. But he is not credible. And I do not believe he is sincere.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Congress, Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama

Finally the question is over. Senator Hillary Clinton has spoken at the Democratic National Convention. And she has made her position clear.

As completely expected, Senator Clinton started her speech with her stated support of Senator Obama. Not a surprise, but it’s just so telling that she has said something that her husband – Bill Clinton – refuses to do. Not that she expressed any personal belief in Senator Obama, or mention his positives. That would have been a surprise, selfless and so anti-Clinton as to make you think you were in an alternate universe.

Now as I expected Senator Hillary Clinton did not refute any of her Primary attacks on Senator Obama. She did not refute Bill Clinton’s racist remarks. She didn’t even mention Barack Obama’s name until the 4th minute, and did not give a reason to support him til the middle of the speech (11:48). This speech was about her and how good she can make herself look.

So I went over her speech, line by line. And I looked for the honesty within the polispeak. And I pulled out the facts from the spin. And I exposed the raw ambition that will do anything to win, including selling out a fellow party member for a shot down the road.



Senator Clinton started with the same old campaign polispeak ‘misquotes’ she loves. She mentioned her “35 years in the trenches” – though she only got into elected office 8 years ago, and Bill did all the work in the past (except for a couple of months failed work on a nationalized healthcare plan). I would call that a lie, but I’m not a politician.

She mentions her “fight for women’s rights”, like her efforts while she was at Wal-Mart (never a single word while she was a Board member and had the power to change things in the company).

She mentioned how hard she and Bill have worked. Now while they are multi-millionaires, politics is hard. Not as hard as construction or retail but hard. Though I have to wonder how hard she has worked since I don’t recall the last Congressional Bill she passed into law, and I have yet to see the 200,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York to get elected as Senator (in fact there has been a net decrease in jobs of 30,000 during her time in elected office). Hard work indeed.

But she continued as we hit 6 minutes about the horrors of a guy in a Marine t-shirt. The assumption was that he was a Marine (but she failed to make that clear, or why he was in need of medical help) and wanted his buddies to be taken care of. Meaning leaving Iraq, I suppose, a war she voted for and urged others to vote for based on her extensive research of the facts (look it up, she’s on video saying it).

She then went for the heartstrings in discussing a mother that had her hours cut at a minimum wage job. Now was that after or before the Democrat-led Congress raised minimum wages forcing businesses to cut hours because they can’t afford the increase?

And Clinton correctly stated that in the last couple of years things have gotten tough. Though I have to wonder if things are better or worse than when I watched the internet bubble burst and take out businesses and retirement funds, and family savings because Bill Clinton was too busy looking good, and trying to define “is” – while Hillary was ducking invisible bullets, to stop the impending carnage. How tough was that.

How tough did it get after the Clinton’s allowed Bin Laden to live and escape the crosshairs of our military, thus giving him the chance to plan and execute the 9/11 attack? Somehow I think that was a tougher time for America.

She hinted on Iraq, the war she voted for, and Iran, a country that would like to see America wiped of the face of the Earth and where Senator Obama would talk without condition. She stated that China has bought into our banks. And it is true, and troubling. But the alternative of letting our banks fail sounds worse to me. Not that a single Democrat has a better option to present – unless it’s a secret and therefore they prefer America to be in a dangerous position financially rather than tell us.

She claims that Democrats will help Americans save for college and buy homes? Now is this like her quickly dropped campaign promise to give every child $5,000 for college – paid for by some unknown source (taxes). Does this savings happen before taxes are increased, not on the rich but everyone who makes over $31,850 as she voted for this year (along with Senator Obama and Senator Biden as well as I recall)? Or is it after taxes are raised to pay for her nationalized healthcare, causing businesses to close from the cost?

She discussed the various things she wants to promote next. Promoting clean energy – which she never advocated while Bill was in office, and only mentioned after polls showed it popular.

She wants to promote unions, who are in the pockets of Democrats. Though she skipped her time at the union-less Wal-Mart (where like women’s rights she said nothing during her time on the Board).

And her desire to promote equal rights and stop discrimination seem hollow from a woman that can’t even stop her husband from making racial remarks, at least, in front of cameras.

She desires a “nation of immigrants”, because only she can answer yes, no, and maybe when the issue of immigration is asked of her on national televised debate – all in 2 minutes too (Michael Phelps beware her polispeak speed).

And she desires to end “private plunder”, which I think means that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her efforts to promote energy alternative that increase her personal stock investments - which she does not disclose to the public - is in trouble.

Senator Clinton wants to talk about America’s efforts to end genocide. And I believe her because she has said so much about Darfur during, or since, the Primaries. Or is it only genocides in White nations?

But this Democratic National Convention is not about Senator Clinton. It’s about Senator Barack Obama, and in the middle of her speech she finally speaks about him for a moment. She makes a great question when she asks what her supporter are for. But she forgets to ask if they were voting for her because she is White, or a woman. Both were reasons she campaigned for in the Primary and I would like to know if they were reasons they are so fanatical now?

And she mentions that ‘global warming’ (an unproven yet Democratically sound concept) is a problem that America must fix alone in the world. Never mind the growing industrialization of China and India. Nor the potential fact that some Democrats are using this subject to make money while denying any other alternative including domestic drilling.

But Hillary Clinton is correct that America should not “favor few”. Like Hollywood stars and executives, or eco-fanatics that would have you use on sheet of toilet paper, or alternative energy companies, or big money fund raisers that are criminals evading the law for 15 years (Norman Hsu).

And I want to pause here because Democrats say that Senator Obama is a good choice for America. She never said he would be great. She never mentioned a single quality for Obama.

But she did ask Americans to “imagine what America will be”. Now I do remember when she was in Bill Clinton’s White House (because he was elected and the political power not her) I recall that no major promised initiative ever was passed (correct me if I am wrong). But I do recall that Bill was busy with dictionaries, and teaching America to lip-read, and her serving tea to end the conflict in Ireland, and avoiding Whitewater.

But If I were to imagine the America she envisions (and liberal Democrats as well) I suppose it would involve being overtaxed, unemployed, under terrorist attacks, without power, on lines to get medical care, isolationist, with Spanish as the main national language and without the funds to allow Americans to retire. There is Hillary’s America as she has explained it to date, and that most liberal Democrats prefer (oh, and Senator Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress, Joe Biden is 3rd).

But Hillary emphasizes that national healthcare, especially under her plan, is great for America. Though no Democrat can explain how it will be paid for. Or how it will be efficeint. Or run on budget.

But remember that under a Democrat-led Presidency, especially as Clinton envisions it, America may well be too busy running from Iraq, and Al Quida to worry about that. Watching anti-American groups gain power as we try to create new sources of power without oil, and sending even more money to the Middle East.

But not to worry because Senator Biden is a great guy, and by default she implies Obama is not. And don’t consider that a Democratic win means an Executive Office that will be split since Biden and Obama don’t agree on Iraq and other national issues. Heck, Biden – like both Clinton’s – does not even think Senator Obama is qualified or experienced enough to be President. You can imagine how smoothly that Administration would run.

But at this point Senator Clinton looked to the past. I don’t mean Senator John McCain’s age, or his 35 years of service to America. I don’t even mean the 30+ years of Congress (and thus solid stance in old politics) of Senator Biden. I mean the Carter Administration, where many of the current Democratic policies seem to have originated.

The Carter Administration stood out for its stagflation, something the Democrats definitely did before. Along with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, and having Americans taken hostage by Iran (hey, don’t they still have a beef with us? Aren’t they building weapons to kill us? Didn’t Carter talk with them – and not release a single hostage?) Don’t believe me, ask someone 40 or over.

President Carter didn’t like domestic drilling of oil either. Today oil costs 1000% more than when his Democratic Administration was in charge. President Carter and Democrats didn’t like nuclear energy, a new plant hasn’t been made in decades. And all the jobs that are involved in creating those industries, and the power they provide went up in the smoke from tankers importing oil to us from overseas.

But back in the world of today Senator Clinton misquoted the policies and ideals of Senator McCain. Her “friend and colleague”, a man she said would be a good President with experience – something she has not said about Obama – was now described as being a bad choice.

I’m confused. Is he better than Obama or not? Or is it that she just wants to look helpful without being helpful?

But the last part of the speech I want to address are the points on her mother and Harriet Tubman.

I understand that her mother could not vote and her daughter can. And I’m glad they can. But I’m reminded that my Great-grandfather’s generation could not vote. And my grandfather’s generation was blocked from voting by Jim Crow laws. My parent’s generation was beat up for voting, and sitting in the wrong spot, or asking for a good education. My generation now has a chance to see the first Black President, and Senator Clinton is trying hard to do nothing to allow it. In fact her husband has been active in trying to prevent it. So excuse me if I’m not impressed that Hillary is miffed.

Because of that reason I was upset she dared to mention Harriet Tubman. Was that supposed to make me feel better? To unify the Party with the name of a Black woman that made inroads for the rights of African Americans and inspired women of the time (if not now as well).

Taking Senator Hillary Clinton’s words a bit out of context,

If you heard dogs behind you Obama, it’s Hillary trying to chase you off track. If you see torches, it’s Bill Clinton lighting the path for your competition. Don’t stop, don’t slow down.

I may not agree with Senator Obama and his policies, but I’ll be damned if I won’t make sure Hillary is revealed for the snake in the grass viper that her speech proved her to be. She did what I expected in her speech. Strike 2 for the DNC. Next up is Bill Clinton, what do you think he will do?

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Looking forward to Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight I am wondering what will be said, just like every other pundit out there. My interest is based on a simple set of facts. Senator Clinton went a long way to damage the chances of Senator Obama winning, from his inexperience to his race. And these attacks are now the fuel of political ads from the Republicans and the Mc Cain campaign.



Senator Clinton set up this attack. In fact it is almost verbatim what she said in the Primaries. The McCain campaign can’t be blamed for using the words of the Democrats to benefit himself, whether it was Hillary or Joe Biden’s words.

So what Senator Clinton says tonight will be very interesting.

Either Senator Clinton will come out with a major flip flop, essentially saying that the Clinton campaign was willing to say and do anything to win – including making comments she felt were untrue – or she will use the well known Clinton polispeak spin to obfuscate and ignore everything she has said in the past.

The speech tonight must address the comments she has made about the lack of experience of Senator Obama, and why that is now not important as opposed to just a couple of months ago. Her speech must refute if not denounce the words of her husband, former-President Bill Clinton – and explain why he has refused to say that Senator Obama is ready for the Presidency, which he has claimed for every other Democrat that ran in the Primaries. Senator Clinton must also find a way to gap the chasm created in dividing the Democratic Party along lines of race and gender. The Clinton campaign was very effective at using race and gender, and caused a lasting question of stereotypical and racist fear in the minds of many in the nation; this must be addressed.

If the speech by Senator Clinton fails to address each of these issues, if she fails to close all these doors she opened, she will leave the Democratic Party divided in a manner not seen in decades. And if I were in Las Vegas I’d bet that she won’t do it.

My instincts, and my read on the polispeak of the Clinton’s during the Primaries and after them has given me the belief that neither Clinton is really willing to help Senator Obama. They will stand by him, raise money and say the words that need to be said. But they will also leave just a bit of doubt, leave him just a bit weak on critical issues. Because then it will not be said that they weren’t team players when the next Presidential election comes up.

To this point everything the Clinton campaign has done has been part of a plan to prepare for the 2012 election, in my opinion. We have been watching the beginnings of a new campaign and Primary run since the day Senator Obama took the presumptive nomination and Hillary Clinton refused to acknowledge it.

So my ultimate thought is that Senator Hillary Clinton will leave the door open for her supporters to try to steal the nomination for her. She will leave ajar the thought that her supporters should vote for Senator McCain or just not vote at all. She will keep her option alive to say “I told you I would have won”.

Tonight Senator Hillary Clinton will rally women, and racially sensitive Democrats. That is a given. Now whether she will polispeak and spin them closer to Senator Obama or not is a question that won’t be clear until after her last words are said.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

And here goes Strike 3 for the Democratic National Convention. The often discussed and well-rumored submission of Senator Hillary Clinton’s name for the nomination ballot has now been confirmed. The Democratic Party looks weaker and more dysfunctional by the day.

I’ve already noted the problems that will be created once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes the stage.

“But I think that having Nancy Pelosi speak is a mistake. She is the symbol of the ineffective Democrat-led Congress. She is a reminder that Democrats would prefer to allow millions of Americans to have to choose between food and/or work or paying their energy bills. She is the voice of the Democratic Party that refused to even consider having a vote on domestic drilling - effectively saying that Democrats have no intention of being bi-partisan if Senator Obama is elected.”

“Speaker Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.

Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.”

And in the recent past I noted the danger of the Clinton’s to any hopes of Senator Obama winning the Presidency:

“And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.”

But today a joint press release from Senator Obma and Senator Clinton stated that Hillary will have her name submitted for nomination consideration. Senator Clinton stated in that release

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again.”

Right. This is the same woman that

“It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes.”

And whose husband, Former President Bill Clinton, has said on her behalf





And then there is





This all says nothing of the comments made during the actual Democratic Primaries.

So when you consider that Senator Hillary Clinton has never stopped her push to be the Democratic nominee, that former-President Bill Clinton refuses to acknowledge or support Senator Obama, that the Clintons have virtually blackmailed their ‘support’ to date to the repayment of the debt they incurred campaigning against Obama, and the fact that all of this is being used to weaken Senator Obama’s chance of winning the election the DNC looks to be a way to break Democratic unity as opposed to securing it.

All in all, between the Clinton’s and Nancy Pelosi the Democratic National Convention seems to be shaping up to be somewhat of a farce and a losing proposition for the chances of winning the election. But the Vice-Presidential candidate will be announced as well. Depending on who is picked it may be the base hit that Obama needs right now.

So is it 3 strikes and out or will the Democrats still be at bat?

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

I recently received a link that I found interesting. Since there is a bit of time before the March 4th Primaries I thought I’d delve into this a bit. But let me first state that I have nothing against a woman as President. Like any man that may wish to hold the highest office in the nation, my only concern is that it is the best person that receives the Presidency. I must also disclose that I have previously stated that I am locked between Senators McCain and Obama as my choices, which is based on their political profiles only.

This post will be addressing a column by N.O.W. President Kim Gandy. The full post can be found on the N.O.W. site.

To start with I have no doubt that there are women that face sexism in their fields of work. I don’t doubt this because I know that there is still massive and pervasive racial bias in the media, business, and politics with examples of this being displayed nationally everyday. So to say women still face similar difficulties is neither a surprise nor a reach.

But I will say that I think Kim Gandy protests too much on a couple of points, and seeks the election of Senator Clinton more to make a point than her actual qualifications. This is not a fault that is uncommon, as there are many African Americans that vote for Senator Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin. Neither is a reason for the candidates to receive the nomination nor Presidency.

Kim Gandy starts her column stating that Senator Clinton is the object of venom from media, in television and print, and receiving an unfair amount of negative coverage. In part I would say that is correct, as several pundits have made their comments personal and not relevant to Senator Clinton’s qualifications or they unfairly involve the Clinton family. But at the same time some of the coverage is fair and according to national polls taken from 2007 to now reflects the 47% of the nation that dislikes Senator Clinton. In politics, if polls say you are unliked the media will make their tone less favorable, no matter what your sex or color.

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

“First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system…His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?”

While I will agree that Senator Clinton has been criticized about her apparel and mannerisms there is more to this. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen posts and articles that have critiqued the colors and clothing that all the candidates wear. I feel that it is perhaps the least effective or useful reason to judge anyone for any position. I admit that several pundits have focused more on Senator Clinton for these reasons. But in a society where multiple organizations run and directly focused on women consistently choose to evaluate and critique the apparel of famous women in all walks of life then that is to be expected. Were there less interest in the clothes worn during red carpet events, as an example, I would agree whole-heartedly. But when there are dozens of television programs and magazines that exists solely to critique women on this basis, to complain when the highest profile woman in America at the moment is placed under that same flimsy microscope is silly. I don’t think it has anything to do with Senator Clintons abilities, but it is a reality that many women (apparently) find important or at least of interest.

As for the emotional outbursts, this is unfair. Several of the Presidential candidates have been singled out for their emotional reactions. Notably there are the numerous comments on Senator McCain. Whether it is commentary on his attempts at joviality (Bomb Iran) or his well known temper, his outbursts are well covered, as are most of the candidates.

And there are none that I think do not believe that Senator Clinton knows how to use the political system. Consistently Senator Clinton has been shown to use the media and polls to gain attention and political clout without actually doing anything. In looking at Senator Clinton’s record as a Senator, votes on both sides of issues and correlating directly to changes in polling positions exists. Do you recall the “Hot Coffee” scandal? Senator Clinton was prominent in her denouncement of a truly overblown subject, yet she did nothing about it and walked away from the issue immediately after it stopped gaining press attention. It is this kind of use of the media to improve her image that is considered manipulative, and she is not the only Senator to do so. But to call her on that is not a gender based reasoning, it’s just honest.

“In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil.”

Well that’s not exactly true either. All politicians are calculating to some degree. Whether is campaigning in areas more favorable to their voter base, or picking to campaign in this state over another is politics today. Rudy did it when he picked Florida as his main focus; Mitt Romney did it in Wyoming, and so on. All the candidates calculate what is in their best interest and strategize, organize, compare and contrast to that end. What might be considered fake or evil are actions like promoting a half-conceived idea, like the $5,000 bond for every child in America towards their college education, and dropping it after it has gained her press coverage and positive voter sentiment. Promoting ideas that are infeasible and not having the ability to answer reasonable questions on such a plan is pandering to gain votes, and any candidate that does such needs to be called on it.

“Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill.”

To a degree that is a true statement. There is no question that the fame and recognition of President Bill Clinton elevated the political hopes of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton had no official, and questionable unofficial, political experience prior to Bill Clinton gaining prominent political positions. There is no question that either Clinton has no ties or connection to New York State. Thus her initial claim to fame in that election was that she was the former-First Lady and the headlines in New York City at that time was the fact that Bill Clinton was considering taking an office in Harlem. Often in this election cycle, Bill Clinton has dominated the media coverage, beyond any other spouse of a candidate – and most of the other candidates, because of his former office. This drew media coverage to the Clinton campaign, for good or ill and thus benefited the Senator. While an argument can be made today that Bill Clinton’s status is not the sole reason for Hillary’s current Presidential race, it is undeniably a factor and significant in her ability to be elected initially in New York State. To deny these facts is to deny modern politics and the power of political clout and endorsements in electing any official to office.

“Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow.”

I am unaware of any pundit that has belittled voters. Nor have I heard that women voting for Senator Clinton are “irrational and biased”. That may be my own inability to follow every pundit and talking-head in the media. Any that might have made such a statement is wrong and I agree that such statements are unfair.

“Hillary Clinton and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men.”

It is true that John Edwards in particular was criticized by the media for his notorious $400 haircuts. But this criticism was not about priming himself in some feminine manner. It was the obvious disconnect from his stance about 2 Americas. It seems odd when someone states they care about the poor, and is then seen paying for haircuts that are equivalent to the weekly paycheck of some Americans. And any candidate that wishes to state they are “looking out for the common worker” is at a disadvantage if they lavishly spend money on common grooming. That seems hypocritical and deserving of comment.

“Regarding women and men and politics, we really ought to be past the tree house-years. It's not just those in the public eye who are hurt when the media promote sex stereotypes. Daughters everywhere are hearing the message that a woman can't be as competent and effective a leader as a man.”

Obviously America is not beyond many things. Racism and gender bias are just a few of those things. Since both exist and are promoted on the media daily, it’s no surprise when they appear in politics. African Americans should not be presumed to be poor, violent, drug-addicted felons yet most Black men are. If we cannot get past color, is it s surprise we cannot get past gender on some issues?

Again I will ask, who has said women can’t be effective leaders? There are many women in political office. Nancy Pelosi leads the House. There are many women that lead major corporations, or own them. Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the best known, but she is not singular. Could there be more? Definitely, just as there should be more African American, Hispanics/Latinos and people of color. But to depict the political landscape or the general one at that, as devoid of women in leadership positions across the world is to be blind and instilling gloom and downtrodden view that is inaccurate in my opinion.

The column goes on to then quote several pundits and talking heads that have made various statements. Some are bad, and others depend entirely on the way you wish to perceive them. (I do find it interesting that they are virtually all from organizations that are considered highly liberal and pro-Democrat) One in particular I think is accurate.

“Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's Tucker, Jan. 22, 2008
"It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. . . . She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?"

There is no question that Senator Clinton is rich. There is equally no question of her political prominence. And from what I have read about her, she has not had to endure the difficulties 90% of Americans combat daily in over 3 decades at least. I’m not sure how much pity I am supposed to feel for Senator Clinton when she has sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a partner of a law firm, indulged in commodities trading, and had the ability to, questionably, influence public policy. My mother and sisters on the other hand have strived against discrimination and they don’t ask for any special recognition for their achievements.

So while Kim Gandy has some points, the real issue boils down simply to is Senator Clinton deserving of being the first female President. Based on her abilities as expressed as her actions in political office (which is limited to her time as a Senator since she held no elected office or political position prior) I would say no.

I would say the same for why I would not support John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and others. It’s not a bias against women to say she is not the best option; it’s just honest in my opinion. That’s the same as saying Jesse Jackson was not the best option for a potential Black President. Nor does it preclude a future candidate that is more worthy attaining the office.

Labels: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Kim Gandy, Mitt Romney, NOW, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Wal-Mart

**While this post includes personal thoughts of my political views, M V Consulting, Inc and it's I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign is not partisan. Your vote is your Constitutional Right and it matters. No matter who you chose, make a choice. Register to vote and make a difference.**

It has been over a year in the making, and while there may not be fanfare I imagine some may have been waiting for this list. It is not an endorsement yet but it is one step away.

The following candidates are all people I would not vote for and reasons why. In almost no particular order.

Ron Paul – Extremist and I do not agree with his retreat oriented, isolationist plans dealing with Iraq. I do respect his desire to get his message out and his ability to gather some 4% of vote made in Primaries so far.

Alan Keyes – Deserves even less comment than Ron Paul.

Rudy Giuliani – While he may have been America’s Mayor on 9/11 and there after, I am among many New Yorkers that recall his tenure as Mayor before that horrendous day. He was not well liked among many. His social policies were massive steps backwards, especially his encouragement and protection of police action that resulted in death and torture of African Americans. Suffice to say his one word Presidential campaign failed and I’m glad.

Fred Thompson – I actually liked his direct manner. His concerns for the nation are real. He had decent fiscal plans, and a focus on protecting America from abroad and at the borders. Sadly he didn’t get seriously involved in campaigning until far too late in the game.

Mike Huckabee – I do not agree with his mix of religion and politics. I respect his belief, but it has no place in government; least of all a refashioning of the Constitution based on his religious ideals. He has raised taxes, and under his governorship there were several bad decisions made like the pardon of a killer. It may not have been his sole decision, but as the head of that state it’s his responsibility and he needed to stand up and take the hit rather than try to deflect it. Leaders accept responsibility for all the actions that happen, good and bad.

Dennis Kucinich – I respect that he, like Ron Paul, was able to stay in the race as long as he did. I really respected that he is the only candidate to speak at a public debate and talk about an apology for slavery, and reparations. None have had the balls to even open their mouths or raise their hands on the subject. But he had no real strength of message beyond this. More importantly, since virtually all the Democrats believe the same things, he did not have the charisma t get farther than he did.

John Edwards – Where do I start. I feel that he is a hypocrite. He talks of how bad the rich are, yet he is one of them. He worked at a firm that made money taking advantage of the poor and minorities. His haircuts cost $400. His regular income neighbors hate him. He already was part of a losing equation for the Presidency. He has never once donated money to the government, yet he feels that taxes should be higher than they are for the rich. He has flipped on several issues. He is an advocate of retreat. And it just goes on and on. And his wife’s illness is a distraction were he to somehow win the election.

Most of the Democratic and Republican field not mentioned – Never had a chance, and never had any real plans worthy of considering. Their weaknesses are multiple and would take far too long to discuss.

That whittles the field down to 4.

Mitt Romney – Because he also raised taxes. He has made the most flips of virtually all the candidates. Because while he barely discusses his faith (that few understand and many negative are rumored about) he has mentioned that it would be part of his decision making process. Because he has pandered to the ultra-religious. Because he is a Mormon and that makes him unelectable in a nation that is almost as obsessed about religion as it is race. Because he has been so negative in so many ads. He is no Ronald Regan, though he tries to portray himself as such.

Hilary Clinton – The worst for last. She is the worst candidate of all the choices. I would gladly vote for and elect anyone except for her. It has nothing to do with her gender, which she has used as a weapon and shield. There are several women I would be happy to vote for, they just haven’t run. But Hillary has massive issues.

I have followed her tenure as a Senator, and found no action that has improved the lives of New Yorkers – her adopted state – though she made many campaign promises that have not been completed. I have looked at her votes and seen a pattern of her flipping her votes, both in favor and against virtually the same issue. I have listened to her speak for years, speaking polispeak on the most popular buzz issues and then moving on to the next. Remember her anger over the Grand Theft Auto “Hot Coffee” issue? What about the negative portrayal of Blacks, and degradation of women in that game and the series? Not a word. And ultimately what did she do about it? Nothing except grab headlines and let it go.

Hillary Clinton has actively avoided providing the public with her real thoughts. She polispoke her was through the issue of illegal aliens on national television resulting in her saying yes, no and maybe in all of 2 minutes. Then she proceeded to take multiple sides on the issue for 2 weeks until it no longer was an issue. That’s an example of hiding from the public.

She has lied in saying she has 35 years of political experience. She does not having first served the public as a Senator for New York. She has little if any business experience. She shares a position with John Edwards in that she thinks the rich should pay more taxes, and has never voluntarily paid a dime more than what was required.

She has actively engaged in smear campaigns, using fear and racism in place of serious political debate. And she wasn’t honest enough to say this herself, using staff and virtual staff members to make the comments for her. And do not forget that she was among a handful of those in Congress to vote in favor of MoveOn.org when it viciously attacked our military.

She cannot campaign on her own, using former President Bill Clinton as a shield and weapon. He is no mere spouse; he is a former President and can generate attention beyond anything any of the spouses of other candidates could ever do. And many believe that his policies are hers, which is unknown. They assume that he will be involved in running the nation, which is not possible depending on the degree. And they forget that it was President Bill Clinton that allowed Osama Bin Laden to become the instigator of the worst attack of American citizens, on or off American soil, ever.

She has offered bribes, in the form of potential campaign promises, to buy votes. Do you recall the ill formed and ineffective plan to give every child in America $5,000 for college? I do and I recall that all the questions about this ‘plan’ went unanswered before she dropped the idea and moved onto the next attention grabbing comment.

As I mentioned her gender is a shield. When it’s useful she had ‘nearly’ cried to engender the women’s vote. She has calculated when a laugh may make her seem more humane, and avoid actual answers. She has claimed that the men in the race are unfair due to her gender, and then turned around and campaigned on the fact she is a woman. She has made false claims of her record at Wal-Mart.

She has taken money from active fugitives of the law, and actively tried not to return that money. She has denied money from Wal-Mart, who she now decries as a terrible business, but she takes 4x as much money from its executives and related personnel quietly.

She has multiple scandals and rumors of improprieties that follow her and her former-President husband. She self-aggrandizes her importance during her husband’s tenure, and assumes some of his few achievements as her own. She has refused to allow proof of her political activities to be released to the public until 2013.

There is no candidate neither less Presidential, nor more power hungry than Senator Hillary Clinton. Anyone who so wishes to rise to the highest office in the nation, but refuses to reveal their motivations and intentions is dangerous to the nation. Every candidate is more worthy of the office than her. Every candidate will benefit women, African Americans, minorities, illegal aliens, homeland defense, and the war on terror more than Senator Hillary Clinton. Anything I can do to prevent her from winning is worthwhile.

I have documented many of the actions that I mention above in multiple posts [at www.mvass.com and www.presidentialraceblog.com] since 2005. I’ve not made up anything; these are facts of what she has done. My interpretation of the reasons why could be debated, but I cannot see how anyone looking at the facts could claim she deserves to serve in any public office.

But who is left?

Senators Obama and McCain. I believe this will also be the choice in the election in November. Honestly both are good choices and may be very good for the nation. At this moment I endorse neither. But I will endorse one of them soon.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, election 2008, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Presidential race, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

Astounding. Senator Barack Obama has been called the winner of the South Carolina Primary. He has resoundingly beaten all the other Democratic candidates. The numbers are roughly 58% of those identified as Democrats, 25% of Whites, and 50% of those under 30 years old. I’m sure those numbers will change at time passes.

So what does this mean? Well there is good and bad in these numbers. 78% of African Americans voted for Senator Obama, 17% for Senator Clinton. But Senator Clinton has been targeting the poor, uneducated, White and Hispanic/Latino vote. South Carolina has been used as a stepping stone for the Super Tuesday national votes.

There is no question that former-President Bill Clinton has introduced race in a manner that was obvious and calculated more than anything in 2007. That is not so much a surprise but a signal. The Clinton campaign has consistently been seeding the racial divide in the nation, with subordinates making comments and passing emails that attack Senator Obama, for months. But it was Bill Clinton that brought this to a new level.

As Senator Clinton disappeared from the major news coverage, Bill to front stage. Being a former President, there is no competition anyone can give him for media coverage of anything he chooses to say. And he said exactly the things that would emphasize to White voters that Obama is Black.

Now why does that matter? Besides the fact that the majority of voters are White, it’s the fact that race still does matter in America. It affects our perceptions and is evident in our daily lives. Look at virtually any television show, cable or broadcast, and count the number of minorities on that program. You will virtually always see 1 supporting cast member that is Black, 1 will be Hispanic/Latino, 1 or 2 women, and maybe 1 in 5 shows have an Asian. Race matters.

In addition is the fact that the attacks against Senator Obama, by a former-President minimize the importance of Senator Obama. Not because of his qualifications, but because he is JUST a Black candidate. It presumes that he is just a flash in the pan and not a serious option.

And lastly because Bill Clinton is so revered by Democrats, his disapproval implies that there is something wrong with Senator Obama. In a nation that was built upon the thought that A White male is always right versus a Black slave, it makes an impact. And for those that say we have grown beyond that, just look at the numbers of African Americans that are still being proven innocent of crimes they have spent decades in prison for, solely on the basis that a witness said that they thought this was the perpetrator of a crime. Often that misidentification, by a White witness, is more than enough to convict a Black defendant.

So now Senator Obama has been officially labeled the Black candidate. He is perhaps finally Black enough. Or too Black if you go by some small minds and the suggestions of people like BET founder Bob Johnson.

So what will be the outcome? Obviously Senator Obama will continue forward, as will Senator Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards has no real chance of winning the nomination. So I expect he will drop out after the Super Tuesday primaries on February 4th. Without question I expect he will shift his support to Hillary.

Major emphasis will be made that Senator Obama only is getting 25% of the White vote, ignoring his Iowa dominance and cross the racial lines popularity. And for those that thing Obama will get the Vice-President nod, I don’t think so. It’s not even an option.

Obama is too popular, and a ticket that has 2 ‘minorities’ [White women are not a minority to me] is too likely to be beaten by a Republican ticket. Especially if Senator John McCain is the Presidential candidate.

Overall I am upset by the numbers we are seeing. Because there is such a racial divide, caused by the calculations of the Clinton campaign, the Democratic nomination is now virtually assured of going to Clinton. And it means that it was won not because of qualifications, or the belief of the nation of who is the best candidate for the Presidency, but because of the lingering racism that is the backbone of this nation.

I had hoped America was better than that. But the Clinton campaign has bet big on this, and I expect they have won that bet.

At least Senator Obama will have made credible and real in-roads for the next qualified candidate. Perhaps then America will be ready. Though I would love to see that I am wrong, and race drops out of this nomination process. But like Pandora’s Box, once it’s been opened it’s too late.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, election 2008, John Edwards, presidential election, Presidential race, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton