M Hope is a contributing author, writing to Black Entertainment USA and Vass.

There is a question that is being asked during this political race. The question has been asked and answered and debated and even blown off as being ridiculous. It’s a question that has been asked on both sides of the political line. The question is:

“Will there be an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2008, regardless who wins?”

Many people say “No, there is too much bad blood between them”, others say “Hillary will never pick Obama to run with her”, still others say “Barak will not be comfortable with HER as a running mate, having to deal with her legacy with Bill”.

The sad truth is that all those answers are wrong.

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are THE 2 strongest running candidates in the Democratic Party. They also represent something much more than just popular candidates. They represent how far we as a diverse country have come to looking past things as trivial as race, gender, religion, and looking into the “content of character” so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. (not that I think Clinton has much content, but go with me on this).

If they do not team up on this election that will say to me 2 things:

• 1. Neither of the 2 candidates have this country in mind when running for the presidency. This is all just a quest for power and fame, plain and simple. The fact that both Clinton and Obama have some different views on how this country should be run is the perfect dynamic needed to bring about change in the government today, which is still doing business as usual. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently.
  
  
• 2. Neither of the 2 is qualified for the Presidency. Pardon me for being out of line, but being the President requires that you make some decisions that will preclude trivial things like pride, self-worth, feelings, etc. If you can’t make a decision about what is best for your Party as opposed to your feelings, how can you begin to hope to lead this country which is now at a crossroads the like we have never seen before and will never see again?
  

I don’t claim to support either Democrat or Republican candidates, but I do know this. In order for the Democrats to win this election, I can’t see how Clinton and Obama (or Obama and Clinton, whichever way you prefer) can not partner up and focus on the business of bringing change to this country. That is, if that’s what they really want to do…

Labels: Demcratic Party, election 2008, presidential cantidates, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

The question of the day has to be the fact that Gen. David H. Petraeus will be addressing Congress today. That report, being given as I write, has massive political ramification as well the long term effects on our nation. From what I have heard at this time, neither party will be completely pleased with the report I am hearing. But that leads to a bigger problem.

Overall the Republicans want to hear that the war is going well and that the Iraqis are taking over for U.S. troops. Democrats want to hear that the war is as they have long claimed a failed effort. The public though wants to hear that there is a timeframe by which they can expect to have our loved ones home.

The summary has been stated that ‘the surge has been effective, Iraqi forces are slowly making inroads to taking control of their own country, and it may be possible to see the start of a withdrawal in the summer of next year.’ That is a near direct quote from Gen. Petraeus as he has spoken live. In addition troops will be removed from December up to July 2008, to reach pre-surge levels at that time.

So what does this mean? We can expect that several of the Democrats, especially the leading 3 Presidential candidates will not be satisfied. Already Senator Clinton has stated

“There is no military solution,” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said last night. “That is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home.”

And the other candidates have made similar comments.

On the other side will be the Republicans and their Presidential hopefuls. They have backed the President and the military from day one. Continuing to do so based on this report means that they will be identified for the continued fighting our soldiers will go through. Considering the large numbers of the public that is hoping for the end of this war in a relatively quick manner, this will not bode well for many during upcoming elections.

But why is this political at all? Did this nation learn anything from Korea and Viet Nam? Have we not realized that when politics override, or guide, decisions of an active war and the commanders waging it, that it inevitably leads to the wrong decisions and increased American deaths?

I was speaking with a philosopher (an actively teaching and writing philosopher) friend of mine over the weekend. She mentioned something that I thought was quite important. She seeks the ideal, the conceptual best path, and is upset that America does not try to attain more of that path. I can understand that and in part agree with it. I think much of the nation would also like to follow that path. But such a path is not completely feasible in real world actions.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Demcratic Party, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Iraq War, presidential election, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton, Viet Nam

There seems to be quite an uproar over the recent news about political contribution bundler Norman Hsu. As quickly as it has been found out that Mr. Hsu has a warrant for his arrest, various Democratic presidential candidates have moved to take his donations and given to charity. So far there has not been a reaction similar to the reactions related to the Republican political contribution bundler's. I can attribute that to the press, and separate issues that the Republican Party needs to address currently.

Still, this is a serious matter. The donations made by Mr. Hsu are reputed to total $1 million. This total has been collected over a period of roughly 2 years, which is quite a short amount of time. Surprisingly, very little is known about this man, or why his donations have been so large. One would suspect that some sort of quid pro quo would be a logical expectation.

I am further suspicious of the donations, and their cost, because of the actions that have been taken by the Democratic presidential candidates. It may play well to the media, and the public in general, to donate some of the funds Mr. Hsu has collected to date, but it does not stand up to inspection. By this I mean, what the presidential candidates have done with the bundled funds. There are perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars that Mr. Hsu is responsible for yet mere pittances of all those funds are being addressed by presidential candidates. And this is only one example of questionable donors. Mr. Abdul Rehman Jinnah is another example of a bundle donor that had troubles, and his donations were not given away, or even addressed by Senator Clinton or Sen. Barbara Boxer.

By law, the Democratic presidential candidates, actually all candidates, are not required to divulge how much money comes from any one source of the bundled funds they receive. This I am sure is a failure of the legal system, but little can be done about that now. Yet and quite interesting is the fact that one of the sources of funds that Mr. Hsu, bundled for Senator Clinton is a mailman named Mr. Paw. The reason why Mr. Paw is of interest is because he has donated to Senator Clinton alone, $45,000, which is exactly what he makes in a year. But there's been no statement by Senator Clinton or any of the other Democratic elected officials that have accepted the bundled funds of Mr. Hsu. [Beyond the statement

We regularly review contributions as we receive them; we will continue our practice of scrutinizing contributions and, should we have a basis to return a contribution, we will do so.

]

Some might say, what is the big deal about money that is donated? Some would point out; there are bigger issues in American politics such as the war in Iraq, nationalized health care, and immigration to name a few. They would be right, but the question stands what is it that Mr. Hsu or any other bundling contributor getting for the funds they commit to whichever candidate? Perhaps it's just me but I find it somewhat troubling. I mean, what would the top bundling contributor expect after donating $225,000 to then-presidential candidate John Kerry or a $1000 a plate dinner for Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island or Senator Ted Kennedy, or Senator Sherrod Brown. That does not include the elected officials in California, where Mr. Hsu is facing charges.

Elected officials are supposed to hold themselves to a higher standard. That is, what were supposed to believe in America. Obviously, many are as corrupt as officials in countries across the world. The question of what this costs the nation is an unknown, and an unknown factor is something that is not a value in the next potential president.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Demcratic Party, election donations, Norman Hsu, Senator Boxer, Senator Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy