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

I previously have highlighted how I think Nancy Pelosi is a problem for Senator Barack Obama. Last night she spoke at the Democratic National Convention. I present her speech



I’ve listened to the speech a couple of times, and I think I was right. Speaker Pelosi was a horrible speaker. Her reading from the teleprompter was horrendous. She sounds weak. And the points she tried to make were abysmal.

First I have to ask why she was singling out Maryland. I understand California, she represents that state. But why Maryland, did she forget they were in Denver in Colorado? It’s not even the states of Obama or Biden. And Democrats say McCain has a memory problem.

But Pelosi starts with the accomplishments of the Democratic Congress since 2006. Get real. How much money has been spent in hearings on subjects that have no effect on the average America? The Democrat-led Congress brought in Alberto Gonzalez on lawyers being fired – which was legal and a right of EVRY President, for any or no reason. Waste of money and time. They brought in oil company executives – and learned that the inaction of Congress since 1972 was more at fault than their ability to make profits that support the economy, stock market, retirement funds, and American jobs.

She pointed out that the Democrat-led Congress helped out Hurricane Katrina and Rita victims. As if any Congress would not. It wasn’t a choice, it was an obligation. And the help that has been given has forced thousands of Blacks to leave New Orleans, not return.

The Incentive Rebate Checks that millions received was the idea of President Bush and Republicans. Democrats did not dispute it, but they didn’t come up with the idea. And the Rebate failed to do what it was supposed to, stimulate the economy. People paid bills and spent the money on keeping their homes, the idea was dumb but if they want credit for a failed idea they can have it.

The toxic toys that reached America from China should never have reached our country in the first place. Improving the laws should never have been necessary. And it was Congress to blame because they failed to pass strong enough laws in the first place, thus endangering our children.

The minimum wage has been increased. And those at the lowest pay levels must be happy. But I want to see the data on how many small businesses this caused to close, and how many became unemployed as businesses could no longer support all the workers they had.

Fuel efficiency is up, but that should have been increased years (decades ago). Congress failed to worry about efficiency since the Oil Embargo and now wants credit after crude oil prices have increased 1000% since then.

But what about the claims of the Democrats when they entered office after the mid-term elections? The extended work hours? The multiple laws? Everything Pelosi promised. All failed.

What about supporting our troops? The Democrat-led Congress claimed to want to help our troops under fire, and help back funding and fought sending supporting troops. And then Congress claimed our soldiers were failures before they had a chance to do anything (unless Speaker Pelosi and Harry Reid saying the Surge failed before the first military personnel even left to go to Iraq is considered success).

Speaker Nancy Pelosi speaks of honoring our veterans. Yet in her home state multiple cities refuse to allow returning soldiers to walk off a plane and enter the airports. In her home state military recruiters are blockaded and military vessels refused ports. If she cannot honor our troops in active service, how are we to believe they will get better respect after they have volunteered to serve our nation?

Speaker Pelosi wants to paint experience as bad. As ‘old’ politics. But only for Republicans. Yet Senator Joe Biden is part of the old politics of Congress, just as she is. In fact Biden is more of it than her. He is part of the politicians that failed to seek new energy alternatives until it recently got popular. He is part of the Congress that allowed America to buy more foreign oil instead of domestic oil, thus increasing the cost to the average taxpayer. He is part of the Congress that allowed the loopholes in the lead laced toys from China. He is part of the Congress that voted for the Iraq war. That wasn’t just Republicans at fault in these issues, and Biden has been around long enough to share the blame she wants to exclusively project.

Speaker Pelosi loves to use the dream of a Clinton financial surplus, as most Democrats do. It’s a fiction that is always overlooked. Bill Clinton essentially cooked the books and got away with it. He became President on a strengthening economy created by Regan and Bush policies. He sat back and allowed the economy to overheat creating a bubble that took down businesses and investors alike for years. And he did all this while saying he had paid of the debt, which is a fallacy. He projected a surplus, based on the bubble, and then spent the money that would not arrive (because of the bubble burst) for another 5 years.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi discussed nationalized healthcare. Something that doesn’t work anywhere in the world where it exists. Citizens in those nations spend huge amounts of money to travel to our country and pay for our BETTER medical services. And she, like Senator Obama, fails to mention where the money for this program will come from. Inevitably our pockets. She fails to mention that not one Department of the Government runs efficiently or on budget, or how this new division will work any better than the Post Office does.

But she calls this a right of Americans. I’m unaware of any mention of healthcare in the Constitution or the Amendments. I’m unaware of a right that any American must pay for to receive. I think children should receive healthcare, but it’s not a right or obligation of the Government – else it would have been some 200 years ago.

Perhaps one of the worst things about Speaker Nancy Pelosi speech is the fact that she continues to promote clean energy. Now does that mean the need for alternative energy or the stock position she holds, and is profiting from, in her investment portfolio. If her ideas are so good, why not mention she is making money on them? If they are so sure this technology will be the best answer why not let them compete with other options, including domestic drilling?

Speaker Pelosi speaks about Senator Obama renewing the American dream. Yet she fails to mention that the increased taxes - that Democrats have already voted to increase and will need to increase more to fund their proposals – will prevent Americans from creating or maintaining their own businesses.

Pelosi talks about a unified Democratic Party. Perhaps only by breathing the air in San Francisco is it possible to see that. Senator Clinton has continued to fuel her supporters interest in her gaining the nomination. Senator Clinton has yet to refute the comments made during the Primaries, or those made by her husband – Bill Clinton.

And Senator Biden is little better. He is well known for his racially insensitive (at best) comments. He disagrees with Senator Obama on multiple issues, including Iraq. Senator Biden has disputed the experience of Senator Obama to lead. Biden is a direct example of the ‘old’ inflexible politics that Senator Obama says he will challenge.

How can the Democratic Party be viewed as unified when the VP is at odds with the Presidential nominee, Primary losers are still campaigning, and the Speaker of a Democrat-led Congress (that has failed to live up to the campaign promises that elected it) is only willing to allow discussions on policies that promote her own personal finances (that she refuses to declare to the public). If that is unified I’m White.

No I’m sure Nancy Pelosi has no idea what she is talking about. I think her comments were weak. It was some of the worst polispeak I have heard in some time. Anyone that follows the politics as I do, and other bloggers and honest pundits, will see through her obfuscation and be disheartened for the potential of the future.

And lastly her comments on her grandson were perhaps the worst. I know (and hope deeply) that I am reading into her comment my own fears. But when she says that at a dinner in the Italian embassy a 5 year old calls Senator Obama a dream, I don’t like it.

The connotations make me wonder about how many other African Americans were in the room. I think of those saying that only a 5 year old could believe in Obama. I think it’s a badly worded, badly thought out, back-handed compliment. The result of a weak, polispeak spinning, agenda driven Speaker of the House.

Nancy Pelosi speaking at the DNC, strike one indeed.

Labels: Democratic National Convention, DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House

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

America is a nation of rules. Rules and the ways that we break them. If we look at baseball, particularly the MLB, we have steroids and the homeruns that fans love. If we look at football we have videotaping and the Super Bowl that is the number one event year after year. In the most important event that happens once every 4 years, not the World Cup – which is phenomenal – nor the Olympic Games, we now have a similar situation.

By that I mean we have Michigan and Florida. The event is the Presidential election. The leader of the free world and unarguably the strongest nation in the world is an event everyone should pay attention to. It’s an event that affects everyone. And it is the one event where the rules have consequences that are irrevocable.

Yet Michigan and Florida, and by extension the Democratic Party, feel that the rules established are not applicable to them. There is no advocate of throwing out the rules greater than Senator Hillary Clinton.

Long before there was a nomination race, before there was chaos in the Democratic Party, and before the Clinton campaign decided to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Senator Obama all the potential candidates agreed with the Democratic Party in penalizing Michigan and Florida.

Those 2 states were told not to move their Primary dates. They were told that to do so would cost them their delegates. Everyone understood the outcome if they violated this. And they did it anyway.

But today, they want to be in the game. They are demanding to have their delegates re-instated. They are devising plans to re-do their votes and alter the current nomination race. And in doing so they are laughing at the votes of every Democrat that has voted in a primary so far, in my opinion.

If these states are allowed to ignore their penalty, why can’t any other state? Why can’t all the Democrats get to re-vote, and why can’t all the candidates that were involved earlier allowed to jump back into the race? If one rule is to be ignored, then what rule is valid?

Where is the leadership that should stand up and say we are a nation of rules and laws. That none are above this, and that all are held equally to these rules. Because to do otherwise is to favor one candidate over another and to invalidate the votes of the public.

Sour grapes, and a desire to feel important is not a reason to alter the outcome of what has happened. Political ambition and a desire for power is not a reason to manipulate the public. And in doing so once, a presidence is set to do it always. Thus we move from a Democracy to another form of government, paving a path to hell with supposed good intentions and the so called best interest of the people at heart.

Some Democrats are claiming that keeping the penalty in place is disenfranchising the public. A year ago there was no worry about that. Before the Primaries there was no problem with ignoring portions of the party in those states. No cries of unfairness rang out. Because there are rules and penalties.

But political favor and gain motivate the call for changing the playing field now. Any politician that says otherwise is a liar. This is a game for control, and the public is being used as pawns.

No matter the outcome of any action that includes the delegates of Michigan and Flotrida, you the public and voters will be used and manipulated.

That does not mean that you should not vote. It does mean that members of the Democratic Party should hold their representatives accountable. That you should make them aware that their power comes from you. That your vote is their ultimate power and anything that dilutes your power destroys them.

Mark my words, if the changes being proposed for Florida and Michigan come to pass America will be damaged. Whether that is felt immediately in this election, or in a future election I do not know. But it will happen.

Senator Clinton may need this kind of stunt, and may use her power to alter the situation, but that just makes me sure that she is unfit for the Presidency. If she, as a leader of the Democratic Party, cannot abide by rules she was involved in creating and agreed to then what in the world makes anyone think she will be willing to abide by any other law, rule, or decision of the nation? And how can a person without regard for anything but what they want, be trusted with the power of the most powerful and influential nation in the world?

Florida and Michigan may not like the penalties, and Senator Clinton may prefer a change for her benefit, but America is a nation of rules and laws. That is something that must be remembered, because unlike a game for entertainment the Presidency is about our lives and there is no instant replay to correct a bad call.

Labels: Democratic Party, DNC, election 2008, Florida, Michigan, Senator Clinton

So Hillary Clinton has done it again. For the second time since the start of the Democratic nomination process this year, she has won a race that no other Democratic candidate has tried to be in. Even more importantly, the crucial number of delegates that will decide who is the party’s nominee, has not changed as Florida had 0 delegates to give.

This was generally known beforehand. All the Democratic candidates had previously agreed with the DNC not to compete or advertise in Florida. That there would be no delegates up for grabs. And at this moment not one candidate has entered Florida under that agreement, except Hillary Clinton. Something that The Nation had a few words on.

“Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.”

But after the significant and embarrassing loss in South Carolina, the intense backlash against the Clinton’s for their continuous and race based attacks on Senator Obama, and the impressive and highly publicized endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Senator Ted Kennedy the Clinton campaign needs a win.

Does the Florida result mean anything?

It depends on how you want to look on it. There was nothing at risk for any of the candidates, except the ability to say I won. Everyone was following pledges that they made previously and thus saved money for the use on Super Tuesday, except Senator Clinton.

But the Clintons do have a reason. Like their veiled actions in Michigan, they are looking to use their results to their advantage.

“On the Democratic side there is less and more in the results. While Senator Clinton did win, the race was hardly in existence. 2 of the major candidates were not available as a choice, half the number of delegates are possible and everyone knew it.”

In that case and in Florida the Clinton campaign is gambling that eventually the full delegates available will be released, and as the winner she will claim those delegates. The other candidates have respected the decisions of the DNC and are working with what is available.

But this seems to be a bit of a trend for Hillary Clinton, and her seeming win-at-all-cost efforts.

There are her actions in Michigan, which resulted in a huge turnout and nearly 40% of the voters choosing uncommitted instead of Hillary. There are her appearances in Florida. And there is the legal action that suddenly “just happened” to occur right after Senator Obama received an endorsement from that states biggest union.

Some could call that desperation. Especially when that is coupled with attempts of her campaign to incite images of stereotyping, terrorism and marginalization based on Senator Obama’s name, book on his life, and color of skin. Others would call it smart politics. In Florida it was called a win by Hillary.

One thing I will say is that it does set the tone of the Democratic race and what may happen on Super Tuesday. And I must pause as I consider this thought.

Many Democrats are livid with President Bush. They claim he has broken the law and done whatever he wishes with the Presidency. Yet Senator Hillary Clinton has continuously broken or bent the rules in multiple Primaries to date, and engaged in arms distance morally corrupt racist, Islam phobic, gender baited attacks. As the opinion of The Nation said and I quoted above

“You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.”

If that statement is true, how is it different than what Democrats say about President Bush? How is it better?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, DNC, Florida Primary, President Bush, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy