With all the questions floating around about which politician should be the Vice-President for the Presidential candidates, I wanted to take a stab at who I thought made sense. Now to be fair, most of the potentials being bandied about by pundits are not well known names to me. Then again I doubt that most of America is familiar with almost any of them either.

I will delve into the Democrats first. That’s only because I think that Party is the weakest, with the worst political platforms. I also disagree on most issues with them. But not least of all is the fact that I don’t know many that I think would be a good candidate – so I will just mention who I am sure it will not be.

Senator Hillary Clinton. Not even in a pipe dream. Senator Obama and the Clinton machine share no love. Senator Clinton is actively trying to stab Obama in the back right now. Former- President Bill Clinton has insulted every aspect of Obama’s campaign as well as African Americans in politics.

Beyond all that, she is the one person that every Republican would love to see on the ticket. There is so much ammunition ready based on the fiascos, lies, and corruption of the Clintons that it would be the fastest way to ensure a McCain win. Women and Black votes included.

Al Gore. Is anyone that wants this not on drugs? Yes he is popular today with his allegations that the world will end tomorrow in a boiling ball of flame. Of course he thinks he is the smartest man in the room, no matter where the room is. Including the Oval Office.

He is slightly better than Hillary as he is less hated. But he is also seen as being very weak. Internationally he may do well with scientists, but that’s about it. Say what you will but the nation was SO happy that Gore was not in charge after 9/11. And he is directly linked to most of the baggage the Clintons have because he was part of their do-nothing Administration.

John Kerry. Do I really need to say more? You might as well want John Edwards.

Colin Powell. Now this is interesting. He is respected in politics and internationally. He is a war hero. He is unquestionably patriotic. He is Black. He is intelligent. He is personable. But he is also a Republican.

Now if he were to be convinced that would be something. But I do not believe that he would take the position just because Senator Obama has made history. To my knowledge virtually all the positions that Obama has announced are opposed by Powell. Though it would be the biggest move since the Lincoln Administration (took a Republican to go with the best people regardless of political affiliation – that’s bi-partisan), I can’t see it happening. It’s a long-shot at best.

And that’s the Democrats I know and care about. All the others being spoken about I don’t know enough to make an intelligent choice on.

As for Republicans I only think there needs to me a choice of 2 people. Condoleezza Rice and Mitt Romney.

Condoleezza Rice is the first Black woman as United States Secretary of State, and just the second African American, or woman, in the position ever (only took 220 some odd years). She is unquestionably intelligent (unless you think Stanford is a community college), experienced both before this Administration and during on international affairs. Oh, and she speaks 5 languages.

She survived the trials and tribulations of the Jim Crow laws in Birmingham yet she is relatively young, at a politically youthful 53. She is an accomplished pianist. And she was a Democrat until 1982.

Let me focus on the last sentence. Like many African Americans, Secretary Rice was raised to look at Democrats favorably. Unlike many of the youth today that believe the ultra-liberal views of Obama is the only option, Secretary Rice has seen several of the current proposals in action under President Carter. Anyone old enough to have lived through the fiasco that President Carter made of the economy at the time, and the weakness he projected of America (by being incapable of recovering our hostages from Iran) logically would never want to go back to that process.

Secretary Rice helps to pull the Black vote, as well as women. She is young, balancing well against McCain’s age. She is in excellent health. She is a success, it cannot be said enough. She has experience, which in combination to McCain severely outweighs the experience of any combination the Democrats can come up with.

The patriotism us unquestioned, and for those that care she is Presbyterian to my knowledge.

And let me step back. I mentioned 2 people, and thinking about it as I write I have changed my mind. I think she is the only real and solid choice. A McCain – Rice ticket wins in my opinion. Do the math as you wish, but Democrats have nothing to compete with this.

And the only negative I can think of is the pre-existing issue of Iraq. But we already know how Senator McCain feels about that, so it’s moot.

Well in a mere few days we will see, and then the real decisions will start to be made.

Labels: Al Gore, Colin Powell, John Edwards, Presidential election race 2008, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John Kerry, Senator John McCain

So we are in day what 6 now of the John Edwards sex scandal. Almost every angle of this story has been covered by the media by now, except one. One particular aspect of this case kept bugging me until today I noticed what it was.

The bias of the major news media.

Forget the fact that the 24-hour nature of news today means that cable news is more about a rush to ratings than journalism. Forget that a sex scandal is primetime news. Even forget that some Clinton supporters are trying to use their best polispeak to spin the idea that had this come out during the primaries Senator Clinton would have beat Senator Obama (a fallacy proved incorrect by polls showing an overwhelming number of Edwards supporters – then and now – prefer Obama).

The bias is of the major news media to protect and fail to report negatives of Democrats and Liberals, and to highlight the same type of actions of Republicans and Conservatives.

Senator Obama is unquestionably favored by the major news media. He has been since at least January of this year. And the news showers praise on his every move, covering his actions better than our current President in some instances. And the tone of all the coverage has been overwhelmingly positive.

But John Edwards was a liberal and Democrat as well. And his press was very good for quite a while. And to preserve the image of all liberals and Democrats the major news media ignored the news we now know to be true. It took the National Enquirer to break the story – though the rumor was around for months at least.

Think about that. All the news media knew of the rumor. Not one media outlet, except the Enquirer, bothered to follow-up anything, accepting the denial of John Edwards verbatim.

Yet the New York Times was more than willing to run a story alleging that Senator John McCain was cheating on his wife, without proof or even a rumor. Without anything to back up the story they sought to destroy the career of one politician while at the same time protecting another.

That’s not reporting, that’s creation of news. That’s manipulation of facts. That’s yellow journalism. And it’s an attempt to coerce voters to make a decision that the media industry prefers. So much for the rights of the public.

And the bias has more ramifications than just that. The major news media is effectively admitting that it changes the truth to suit their ends. So how much can you believe about what they have said about Iraq, Afghanistan, or nationalized healthcare? If they would bias the public to a position they prefer in one story, why not another – or a dozen?

Do I mean that there is news about Senator McCain or Senator Obama that we don’t know about right now, or that has been altered to fit their desires? I can’t say with 100% assurance. It is quite possible that the facts reported in the polispeak 10 second soundbites the media loves is accurate, or not even close to the truth. So we have to ask what is probable.

Well it is fact that the media loves Senator Obama. And his own words and speeches do sound quite good – in a general, unspecific, ultra-liberal manner. But given their bias as displayed by the disparity between similar accusations against Senator McCain and John Edwards I must pause.

Ask yourself these questions:

What has Senator Obama done to show he is a bi-partisan politician? Pundits laud his ability to work with Republicans, but where is that in his voting or Senate record?

What plans has Senator Obama actually provided on issues like funding for national healthcare, funding for Social Security, the consequences of leaving Iraq without a victory under preset timetables? The media has lauded that he is for all these items, but not mentioned how he will do them or what the effect will be.

The media has followed Senator Obama for months, like puppies around their master, but when was the last time he had an interview that seriously questioned any policy he has touched on? How many news organizations have pursued answers on issues that will affect America, like they have with Senator McCain?

I’m not saying that Senator Obama is a bad choice for President. I am saying that relying solely on the major news media to give an unbiased presentation is like handing an alcoholic a bottle of vodka and expecting them not to drink it. They might not, but I wouldn’t go to Las Vegas and take odds on it.

Labels: cable news, John Edwards, media bias, New York Times, news media, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama

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

So Mitt Romney has left the race for the Republican Presidential nomination. This has virtually ensured the nomination of Senator John McCain. Mike Huckabee is so far back in delegate counts, his rallying to a victory is beyond unlikely. So Super Tuesday has settled one half of the question on who will be running for President of the United States in November.

That just leaves the Democrats. And there it seems will not be an answer anytime soon. While Senator Obama won on states, and is now seen to have basically drawn even on the popular vote, Senator Clinton is slightly ahead on the delegate count. Because both candidates are almost at the half way point, and can likely win several more primaries, neither will give up. This is both interesting and problematic.

The interesting thought is that it shows the similarities of both candidates and the desire of the American populace to overlook the inexperience of both candidates in favor of change in government policy and race or gender. To say that both Obama and Clinton draw many supporters on the clear and singular basis of their respective race and gender is to be foolish. African Americans and women both have strong feelings that a candidate like themselves will be sensitive to and a vehicle to improvements on the daily challenges both experiences.

The problem is that since neither will back down, and should not at this point, and the Republican race is essentially over they will lose potentially months of campaigning for the Presidency directly. In short order McCain will be releasing television ads that will be promoting why he should be President. They will go virtually unchallenged, allowing him to gain momentum across the nation.

One of the real telling moments will not only be Senator McCain getting the official nomination, but his choice of a Vice-Presidential candidate. It’s doubtful that Mitt Romney will get this position. While he is very popular, the issues of raising taxes and his religion would be drags on their campaign. Plus there is the apparently bad blood between both men generated over the race in debates and commercials since 2007.

Mike Huckabee is also not a choice as his highly religious leanings, and desire to re-write the Constitution will alienate many voters. In addition his policies on raising taxes among others are too weak. I feel America is not willing to elect another religious zealot, as President Bush is currently viewed by many, and portrayed by the major media.

So another individual that has gone unspoken may be chosen. There is also a chance that Fred Thompson will re-enter the arena as a V-P choice. His views are very similar to Senator McCain, though he is seen as more conservative, equally as direct, and with stronger fiscal positions. Even if he is not the choice, I expect rumors to this end shortly.

For the Democrats, I feel it is virtually impossible for a Obama – Clinton ticket [or however you wish to view the combination]. There is extremely bad blood, generated by the racial attacks, smear campaigns, and insults made against Senator Obama. While such a combination would be vital to healing the division that has been created in the Democratic Party, it won’t be healed by this illusionary ticket match.

John Edwards is a horrible match as Vice President. So some other individual will be named, with Governor Richardson being a potential choice for either candidate. His appeal to Hispanic/Latino voters would be critical for either candidate. Considering the appeal that Clinton has so far, such a match is essential for Senator Obama and a deathblow if gained by Clinton.

Time is becoming short, and March 4th is approaching shortly. With the pressure of a virtual nomination having been claimed now by Senator McCain, the need to have a Democratic counterpoint is heightened.

Labels: Bill Richardson, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

**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

John Edwards is gone. Wow, the candidates are dropping like rocks. Not that there is a surprise here. There was no question that his campaign was done. It was just a matter of when.

The Ted Kennedy endorsement must have been the final blow. It sealed the door, and signaled the fact that he had no chance whatsoever. And the remaining Democratic candidates should take heed at what it says about Democrats and the nation.

John Edwards was the voice of ‘2 Americas’ as he called it. The though that there was a rich and poor America and nothing else. He ignored the middle class in this manner, and was a hypocrite at the same time. I call him a hypocrite in the same way that I call Senator Clinton and Warren Buffett that. Because it is each of these individuals that have said that the wealthy, which is never defined, need to pay more in taxes. Yet not one of them, each at least a multi-millionaire, has ever voluntarily paid an excess in their taxes. Not one has made a gift to the IRS, money that is not from their taxes or a write-off. Not one has ever been willing to lead by example, thus that whole complaint falls flat with me.

That does not mean that we don’t have poor in this nation. As I’ve mentioned about my own experience, the education system is abysmal for African Americans, Hispanic/Latinos, and minorities in the cities around the nation. But listening to a man who gets $400 haircuts and made money off of the vulture financing that caused the mortgage crisis that is magnified in the minority communities in the nation, seems disingenuous.

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

Some pundits expect him to give his support to Senator Obama. Some pundits think that such a call will fail and his supporters will go to Senator Clinton instead. But the best answer is this; the Democratic race has come down to deciding what is more important and comfortable: a woman or a Black man.

I’m not saying experience and change. That is just polispeak, and is in fact nothing. Change is inevitable. President Bush is not running, and every candidate has views that differ from the President. The next President will change the direction of America, that’s just a fact and obvious. The only part of the change that will occur that is important is the fact that the decisions made by the next President will affect how the world, and terrorists, will view America. That the choices made will lock America into a direction that will be unchangeable for at least a decade or likely more.

And experience is probably the biggest joke and polispeak. Neither of the Democratic candidates have significant experience. If you listen to the various speeches of Senator Clinton, she has somewhere between 35 and 14 years of experience. That is just a lie.

Depending on which speech you are comparing she is including her time as wife of the Governor of Arkansas, where she has no responsibility or power and was not elected by the populace. It includes her time as First Lady, which is not an elected position with any power and minimal influence at best. She in fact did not gain experience until she failed to get her healthcare initiative passed and nothing else until she became a Senator. Mind you that as a Senator I am unaware of a single Bill that she has created or passed.

And as for Obama, he has the experience of being a junior Senator for a very short period of time, and more as an elected official in the Illinois State government.

So the choice of experience is really not a factor, nor is change. The real question left is can Democrats live with the thought of a potential woman or African American as President. Coupled with that thought is which of those 2 choices can the country accept as a possibility as opposed to a Republican White male candidate (likely in my opinion to be Senator John McCain).

It will be quite telling to see what Democrats choose in Super Tuesday. It will be interesting to hear what former-President Bill Clinton will be saying now as well.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, 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

So Fred Thompson is out of the Presidential race for the 2008 election. No shock at all. Considering the poor 3rd place results in South Carolina, and the speech made by Thompson that same day, this is not a surprise. Though it is a bit of a shame as the ex-Presidential hopeful did finally start to show a bit of a spark in recent debates and speeches. But his late entry into the race and the poor decisions early in his campaign too their toll on his overall chances.

Rudy Giuliani should take heed.

Just yesterday I was discussing with a friend the fact that so far the entirety of Giuliani’s campaign seems to be New York centric. The biggest draw for this Republican Presidential candidate started with the fact of his actions on 9/11. This has been something that Rudy has not let anyone forget. It’s a constant comment in every speech and debate I have heard him have.

But on top of reminding us that he did perform amazingly on that troubled day, and those that followed it, he has given us little else. And when I say us I mean New Yorkers. Rudy has focused on those from the City, and the state, to carry him to this stage. His near-exclusive attention to Florida is testament to that. For those that are unfamiliar, many older and retired residents of NYC tend to move to Florida. So his focus is basically preaching to the choir to some extent.

If the loss of Fred Thompson is any example, then Rudy’s plan will fail horribly. In addition the fact that he has consistently under-performed Ron Paul in virtually every Primary to-date is no positive for the one-time presumed front-runner.

I won’t even begin to go into my multiple questions on Rudy Giuliani. Suffice to say that his actions as Mayor involved far more than just 9/11. Many have concerns about his social policies, especially in regards to crime prevention, law enforcement, individual rights, and minorities. Little has been spoken on this, and Rudy has dance around the issues, but if he stays in past Florida I virtually guarantee that they will come up. Some of my own questions can be seen from a letter I wrote to his campaign back in April 2007.

Now the questions of when Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards will drop out are beginning to be asked. Ron Paul I expect to see stay in the race until he completely loses all hope on Super Tuesday. Kucinich has consistently gotten about 5% at ever Primary and Caucus, and is the ONLY candidate to answer (or even willing to speak about) the question of an official apology to African Americans for slavery, and reparations. But even that is not enough to gain attention in the major news media. [Sadly I think that may have contributed to his virtual media blackout.]

John Edwards is out. There is no real question that he has the claim for 3rd place, and will be give an offer of the Vice-Presidency again. I will say that if he is given that offer, and he accepts, the Democrats will be odds on favorites to lose. His prior loss, and his less than stellar performance in this election cycle bode badly for anyone he might be matched with.

And I might believe his desire to help out the poor a bit more if I were to see his voluntary contributions to the IRS for the past decade. By that I mean that if he paid MORE than his required taxes of his own volition in past years. Just for the good of the nation. But of course non e of the candidates have done that, though Democrats insist that the top earners in the nation (like themselves) must pay more money on taxes. Yet they won’t do it themselves.

Sorry, I got sidetracked by the obvious 2 faced and diametrically opposed actions of some candidates in the face of what they are calling for on behalf of the nation.

So, in short time we will be finding out that the race will be quite smaller before Super Tuesday. Besides the candidates in both parties that have no real chance but are struggling to fight the good fight, I expect a couple of the big names to fall by the wayside shortly.

Labels: 9/11, Dennis Kucinich, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Super Tuesday

Well the announcements are out. With the vote counted Senator McCain has been declared the winner having garnered 37% of the New Hampshire vote vs. the 32% for second place Mitt Romney. It’s a solid win and recovery for Senator McCain, who was considered all but lifeless back in the summer of 2007.

On the other side of the political map I must mention my disappointment that Senator Obama took second place with 36% of the votes in New Hampshire. It was not the crushing win that was expected by the polls and pundits. And it was my own fault to have paid attention to them.

The earliest indications seemed to reflect the votes made at midnight. And for the Republican race it did indeed stay accurate. Not nearly so much for the Democrats.

What made the difference? That is a question that every baffled pundit and talking head is asking. It’s a question that the Clinton campaign is trying to figure out as I write this. Earlier in the day they had all but given up New Hampshire, and were preparing for a complete loss. They even had planned to pull out the big guns, the campaign staff of President Bill Clinton, and let the former President attack Senator Obama at will. And they even threw in a bit of sour grapes whining inbetween.

But the most common answer has been that when Senator Clinton nearly broke down in tears she motivated the public. In other words, a woman crying won the vote. Wow. That is really impressive for a candidate. A real reason to believe that as a President we can feel secure with this individual.

I might have a different opinion if there was substance behind this win in the Clinton camp. But there wasn’t. There was no change in positions. No change in policy. No sudden declaration. Just emotions.

Not that the win was impressive at 3%. But it does bring back the calls of inevitability that pundits had claimed since 2007. Now comes the real Clinton machine, full throttle.

If you think you have heard the last on questions of being Black and President, the references of ties to radical Islam, that he was some kind of drug pusher, then you have never witnessed a Clinton campaign in action. And I expect there to be leaks of even more, especially the question of whether an African American can win an election vs a White man.

Such is the nature of politics these days. Such is the nature of the Clinton campaign. Not because I’m making this up, but because that is what they did all 2007. And that’s when Senator Clinton though she had the election locked up.

But Michigan is another day. Romney may finally get his first place win. Mike Huckabee may get another boost. Rudy Giuliani and Fred Thompson may appear from the ether. Or Senator McCain will extend his comeback win.

For Democrats, the question is will Senator Hillary Clinton gain favor? Will actual tears turn the tide? Will she be able to explain when she actually did spend 35 years in public office? I mean she stated she found her voice now, after her own self-proclaimed aforementioned experience. I just would like to see when that was since she was working in a law firm when President Bill Clinton was Governor. And she was First Lady for 8 years.

Perhaps I will be more interested in her ability in Michigan and South Carolina if between now and then she can answer those tiny little details, among a few others.

But John Edwards seems to have done his swan song. And the only real competition appears to be Senator Obama. Only time will tell.

Labels: Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Michigan primary, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

The pressure in the Democratic Presidential race is definitely moving up. And it’s hitting Senator Clinton right between the eyes.

Over the weekend, Senator Clinton seemed to get quite upset when, while discussing healthcare, John Edwards mentioned that he and Senator Obama are agents of change and that Senator Clinton was not. Her response was that

“there are 7,000 kids in New Hampshire that have healthcare because I helped to create the children’s health insurance program.”

Now I’m not sure how many people watched Fox News on Sunday when Dick Morris, who used to work for President Bill Clinton, refuted her comment. According to his live comments, Senator Clinton had nothing to do with what she claimed. He stated that it was in fact his efforts and discussions with President Bill Clinton that helped the kids in New Hampshire. Mr. Morris further stated that at the time, First Lady Clinton was overseas and had no involvement in the matter.

It’s a strong accusation, and I have seen nothing that refutes or even acknowledges his comments. If it is accurate, then it is another case of Senator Clinton taking credit for the work of her husband as her own experience. It would be an example of desperation, as is her anger, as her hopes for the Presidency crumbles.

And then on Monday we see this



I believe this is a bad sign. Given that the Presidential race is stressful, and that losing in Iowa was a huge blow to her campaign. But the reality is what happens when U.S. military forces are killed overseas, while the economy is crashing, diplomatic efforts with North Korea are failing, oil prices are through the roof, and a tornado has just decimated a big city in the mid-west? Which sounds more stressful?

And if this emotional moment is not real, which I am not assuming, it is a blatant attempt to cash in on being a woman in the worst way.

Looking at it in several different ways, the outlook is not good for the “presumed nominee” (as claimed in polispeak by multiple pundits for most of 2007) of the Democratic party.

Labels: Democratic Party, Dick Morris, election 2008, John Edwards, New Hampshire, Polispeak, Presidential race, Senator Clinton

Well the Iowa caucus is here, and the Presidential candidates are in a flurry of action. Whether it is accusations of dirty tricks, readjustment of expectations or candidates running from town to town, there is no loss of activity in these first few days of 2008.

So far there have been quite a few dirty tricks ongoing. It seems that some caucus goers are being told the wrong addresses to go to. This underhanded act is being blamed on the Romney campaign, and they are denying any involvement in such acts. So the question is if some will get to the right places, if Romney supporters are doing this, or if another party is doing this blaming it on Romney and benefiting from all the confusion generated.

Don’t think that it’s just Republicans with issues. On the Democratic side we already are hearing that the Clinton camp is ratcheting down expectations. A win seems further away as the hours tick down than ever before. Now calls for a second place win being a victory are being announced. According to some sources Iowa is a race between Senator Obama and John Edwards.

Then there are the candidates that are trying something different. There is Senator Dennis Kucinich who has said that his supporters should make Senator Obama their second choice. Effectively I see this as a direct endorsement of Senator Obama, and a realization by Kucinich that he has no chance of winning the nomination. Perhaps this is one down and a stronger momentum for another Democratic Presidential hopeful.

For those unfamiliar with the Iowa caucus, here is a very quick summary of what happens. Essentially a group of Iowans gather at a specific location. There are separate tables that represent various candidates. The caucus-goers gather at the various tables that represent the candidates they support or would like to know about. Debate and questions occur, and people either stay or go. A tally is taken and any candidate that has less than 15% of the Iowan there is out. Those supporters then have a choice, leave or go to a candidate of their second choice. The process goes on until there is a winner.

While I have seen reports that state 2/3 of Iowans are registered to vote, only a mere 100,000 are expected to be involved in picking the winning candidate. Often the fact that a particular candidates table having better food or coffee can help sway the vote, it has been suggested. Imagine that. The better cappuccino maker will get the win. And you thought the kid working the machine in Starbucks has no power.

Seriously though.

With cold weather, voter apathy, barely any leads in polling, and no clear direction for the various political parties I’m not surprised that pundits are confused. In the past few months lesser known candidates have surged ahead from what pundits had projected in early 2007.

Last year at this same time Senator Obama was considered a joke by pundits, today he stands even odds to win Iowa. Senator McCain, who had been considered an early favorite, has fallen in polls and now resurging. Ron Paul has claimed more attention from the internet, and wildly off-of-center views, than anyone could have guessed. Mike Huckabee has appeared from nowhere, battling Mitt Romney more on who is more religious than anything else. Oh, and Rudy Giuliani has completely avoided the fray. He has gone to New Hampshire and will let Iowans do what they do.

I have long said I will be neutral, and I tell you it’s never been a harder choice than now to live up to that decision. I have preferences in which I would like to see win each race. And once it’s all said and done I will let you know my thoughts and why.

Until then, remember that your vote counts immensely. You will choose the direction of America, and your vote is worth more than hot coffee on a cold night or the similarity of race, gender and/or religion of a candidate.

Iowa has the reins today, but America picks a President this year. Let’s make the best choice we can.

Labels: Dennis Kucinich, Iowa Caucus, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

The more I read the results of polls and surveys discussing the Presidential candidates, the more I think that you could prove the sky is purple, or that 9/11 was an inside job. Oh wait; there are some that actually think the former. There goes my point.

There are daily, weekly and I don’t doubt hourly polls and surveys for every candidate, newspaper and major media outlet. Each and every one of them has something different to say. Which I find remarkable, if they are all asking the same question.

Of course that is the problem. They aren’t asking the same question. They are asking all kinds of things, and then presenting the results as candidate X is leading the race. When stated in that manner you might think that popular support in America, or a particular region, was incredibly high for one candidate of another. That isn’t the case though.

How often have you heard results that said, ‘X% of undecided voters favor candidate Y.’ Sounds simple and straightforward. Except it’s crap. If a voter is undecided it means they are not favoring anyone. They are up for grabs, and at any moment they might change their mind. Better to ask them how many grains of sand you can hold in your hand.

Or how about when you hear

“Overall, 83% of those surveyed said Hillary Clinton was well prepared enough for the job of president. For John Edwards, 29% said he had been spending his time attacking his opponents. For Barack Obama 60% said he has been spending his time explaining what he would do as president and 80% said that Oprah Winfrey’s help made no difference to them.”

This is just a cluster of misleading information.

First note that it starts with the question of who is prepared for being President. The next sentence goes off track to state how John Edwards and Senator Obama spend their time. It then goes further off the original thought by comparing Oprah’s impact. What in the world does that have to do with if John Edwards or Senator Obama are prepared to be Preisent?

You have just been given a subtle and purposeful guide to positively view Senator Clinton. It’s a falicy of logic. It’s a neat trick, comparing apples and oranges.

You are given the positive of the subject they want you to like, a negative about everyone else, and a negative distraction to keep your mind busy about the lack of cohesiveness. At least they are being consistent about how Senator Obama and John Edwards are spending their time. Though I have to wonder how these same people felt Senator Clinton was spending her time?

Here is another question on those results. It’s stated that Senator Obama spent 60% of his time explaining what he would do as President. It’s phrased as a negative in context of the wording. Why is that bad? Would you want to elect a President that you have no idea of what their goals and objectives were? Think about it. Do you want a President that will suddenly take a conservative or liberal stance on say illegal aliens, taxes, the economy, or the war in Iraq?

Of course not. So why is that a negative? I think the better question is what’s the percentage of the other candidates spending their time doing the same thing.

Why is this important? Because if you don’t pay attention it’s the same thing as being lied to. It’s trying to promote an agenda that is hidden. It’s trying to present bias in a platable manner. It’s on par with a scam.

The next Presidential election is vital to this nation. Far too many issues will be decided between 2009- 2013 that will have ramifications for the lives of our children and perhaps grand-children. Some of those consequences will be irreversible. And there are some that are trying to take advantage of the inattentiveness the general populace has for elections and primaries.

I am not saying that the writer of the above quoted post is trying to do this. I would say that the New York Times and many other pundits and major media are. And if you don’t watch the details, you probably won’t like what you get.

Kind of like when the Democrats campaigned on change in 2006. They never stated what would change. People assumed it would be the war in Iraq. It turned out to be giving up on governing the affairs of the nation and seeking near endless meetings and investigations to blame Republicans and the President. Essentially they changed the limited effectiveness of Congress to being a complete waste of taxpayer funds.

When you don’t pay attention to the details, the wool gets pulled over the eyes with ease. But the Presidential election in November 2008 is too valuable. Look for the details and then make a choice. Because once you vote, there are no do-overs.

Labels: Congress, election 2008, Iraq War, John Edwards, presidential election, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

The first candidate was John Edwards. The first quetion delved into the fact that special interest has a huge hold over D.C. and politicians. That these groups promote an America Divided.

The response was not too hard to guess. Edwards mentioned how average Americans, and the poor need to regain power in America. That 35 million go hungry last year and that we need to change this. It was an answer we all can agree with and consistent with what he has always said.

Mr. Edwards goes on to say in the next question to attack corporations, mentioning he spent 20 years taking on corporation. He did not mention the fact that his last job as an attorney made money opposite to how he did for his first 20 years, as I recall.

He plans to enforce the clean air act, and create new anti-trust laws. He wants to take power from corporations and give it to the people. What exactly does that mean? How will that be done? How will he limit that to only major corporations as he implies.

Going on, he was asked about racial profiling and unequal sentances experience by African Americans and minorities. He says he will end racial profiling, remove manditory minimums, provide national healthcare, and raise the minimum wage to 9.5 dollars an hour. He will empower unions remove the disparity insentances for crack and coke.

Labels: Heartland Presidential Forum, John Edwards, TV One

Concluded from Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic Presidential Candidates Part 2...

These are a few Pros and Cons of the various candidates that will be appearing on at the Heartland Presidential Forum that will be webcast live by TV One on Saturday.

John Edwards

Pros


• Previously ran for Vice President
  
• Former Senator
  
• Advocate of the poor
  
• Not the psychic of the same name
  
• Native Southerner
  
• Has good looks
  
• Wife has cancer
  Anti-Iraq war (sort of – voted in favor of war)
  
• Pro-abortion
  
  Cons
  
  
• Lost the election as Vice-President
  
• Long-time politician
  
• $400 haircuts
  
• Lawyer (firm made money on questionable circumstances)
  
• Wife has cancer
  
• Not know for a particular strong stance on any issue (except the poor)
  
• Pro-immediate withdrawal from Iraq
  
• Pro-abortion
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  
• A bit of a sensationalist
  

Hopefully this information will be helpful. By no means is this the definitive Pro and Con list. There are several issues I have excluded, and many of the items I have mentioned deserve greater scrutiny. But this is accurate and my opinion. I look forward to hearing yours.

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Iraq War, John Edwards, political debate, TV One

Continued from The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it Part 2...

“There are 300,000 babies born deformed every year in this country because of women who are alcoholics while they're carrying those children to term.”

In fact the number is nowhere near that. I mean not even by a factor of 10. According to the Surgeon General the number of birth defects is 8,300 in total. Even is you take all births with complications from alcohol you can only get 40,000. But it doesn’t sound as important as 300,000 now does it?

But I will end this with a few Pant-on-Fire lies. There is nothing even with a glimmer in truth in the following statements. I can only imagine they were said to fool the American public into supporting the candidates, and nothing else. Thank goodness some check on these things.

“Edwards says if Congress won't pass universal health care, he'll tell Congress: "I'm going to use my power as president to take your health care away from you." – John Edwards

A complete fabrication. Can’t happen. How many donated money and will voter for him because of that lie?

“I'm probably one of the four or five best-known Americans in the world.” – Rudy Giuliani

Rudy may be popular, and New York City is well known but get serious. That’s just self-aggrandizement. Seriously.

“In 1972, we had a 179,000 human beings in jail in this country. Today, it's 2.3-million, and 70 percent of them are black, African-American.” – Mike Gravel

What is this supposed to mean? Besides being a huge lie, it seems to fall into stereotypes that are base at best. The fact is that 60% of those in jail today are White or non-African American. I don’t know who Gravel is trying to impress here, maybe the KKK. But is suppose they might just be the only ones that are interested in a lie of such grand and ridiculous proportions.

You want to know more? Want to see where candidates are just saying anything to get your vote? Want to see how far some are willing to push, or outright hide, the truth to become the most powerful elected official in America? Want to know how to protect yourself from the worst of the bunch. Check out PolitiFact. I will be.

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

Labels: John Edwards, Mike Gravel, PolitiFact, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

Continued from The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it Part 1...

Take for example Senator Obama. In taking on the illegal immigration issue, the senator needed to have a strong sounding soundbite. The facts must have not been juicy enough because his quote is just wrong.

“Right now, an employer has more of a chance of getting hit by lightning than be prosecuted for hiring an undocumented worker. That has to change.”

But that’s just one item. How about playing on the feeling of African Americans that they are not being taken serious in politics?

“If African-Americans vote their percentage of the population in 2008, “Mississippi is suddenly a Democratic state.”

Sounds impressive right? Except its absolutely wrong. Even doing highly generous math, applied to every southern state, it just won’t create the outcome zealously stated By Senator Obama. But I bet it swayed a few voters.

Don’t think that I’m just picking on Democrats. Republicans are just as bad. Take for example Rudy Giuliani.

“The crime decline in the United States would be fairly small if it wasn’t for the crime decline in New York City.”

Sounds impressive doesn’t it. I mean it makes you think that Rudy made an impact on the whole nation. That he is obviously a strong leader that can handle the whole nation. But it’s completely false. As big as NYC is, it’s not that big. And crime dropped in the entire nation. That had nothing to do with Rudy. But what a soundbite.

How about Senator McCain? His credibility is unquestioned right? He has been out there telling the truth constantly, or has he? Well, not really. Like in his assertion that

“We spent $223-million on a bridge in Alaska to an island with 50 people on it.”

Senator McCain implies he is a fiscally responsible man. While that is true, and the Congress has been comatose when it hasn’t been screwing up, he knows this one is a lie. While the soundbite sounds great, Senator McCain should know that the pork earmark for this bridge was removed. The bridge has never been made, nor will it. And the money for Alaska went elsewhere.

And just for a bit of fun, and obvious dislike, I want to include a lie of immense proportions. I don’t Like Joe Biden, and I won’t hide that fact. Yet that does nothing to take away the epic lie about birth defects caused by alcoholism in this nation.

Concluded in Part 3...

Labels: John Edwards, Mike Gravel, PolitiFact, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

So everybody knows that politicians lie. Whether it’s a local assemblyman or a Presidential candidate, we all know that at least some of the time they all tell untruths. But when are they lying, and how much of what they say is a shade of grey?

I recently found a site that can help decipher the truth and facts in the midst of a popular or catchy soundbite. PolitiFact covers everything from true statements, to pants-on-fire outright lies. Here are a few of my favorites (from Barely True to Pans-on-Fire with no particular emphasis on political party).

A popular soundbite from Mitt Romney accuses Senator Clinton of having no experience

“She hasn't run a corner store. She hasn't run a state. She hasn't run a city. She has never run anything.”

Of course it fails to account for her work while First Lady or as a lawyer. This is a barely true statement, but we don’t really know exactly what she did in the law firm or while First Lady. Which leads me to a favorite quote by Senator Clinton.

“All of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available.”

Well yes they are sort of available. Except that President Clinton has the right to question anything being presented to the public, like all Presidents do. That means he reviews items first. Thus he has not ‘stopped’ anything from being published, he just isn’t moving things along with any need for speed. It’s all how you word it.

Speaking of wording things to get a positive response from particular groups, how about the green/global warming crowd. Here is a group that has gotten a lot of attention since the Al Gore film. But Mike Gravel has no qualms about mixing fact with the feasibly impossible.

“If we manufactured 5-million of these 2.5-meg windmills across the country, we could electrify the entire nation — the entire nation.”

While that could handle the load, it is not realistic that all the mills would capture consistent wind, and creating a electricity grid to handle, store, and distribute the electricity is unrealistic. But doesn’t it sound great?

But how about straight out lies? Comments made just to get a quick vote or shift polls even thought anyone who checks the facts will find out that this is just smoke being blown up our collective… well you know.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: John Edwards, Mike Gravel, PolitiFact, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

**This and other posts can be found at Presidential Race Blog, where I am a contributing author.**

Sometime short and simple is the best answer to a question. That is unless you are a Presidential candidate at a debate. There is nothing that highlights the nature of almost every candidate at this time more than this video.

Note that this is not an endorsement of John Edwards. This is also not meant to take away from Senator Hillary Clinton. This is just a comment on the nature of soundbite politics that pervade the debates and public addresses of ALL candidates at this time. Sen. Clinton just makes it more obvous in the most recent debate.

Labels: election 2008, John Edwards, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton

I was writing about Stephen Colbert recently at Presidential Race Blog, and I wanted to say a bit more about him. The fact he is running for President is a statement. And that statement is making an impact.

Already in a poll of potential voters Mr. Colbert has gained better numbers (he received 2.3 percent of the vote with a 5 percent margin of error) than Gov. Bill Richardson (2.1 percent), Rep. Dennis Kucinich (2.1 percent) and former Sen. Mike Gravel (less than 1 percent). Considering the margin of error that potentially places him just behind former Sen. John Edwards (12 percent) and easily the closely ranked Sen. Joe Biden (2.7 percent).

On the Republican side, Mr. Colbert is running on both ballots, he had less than 1% of the potential voters, but again Ron Paul is hardly a frontrunner either. Even Senator John McCain has only 10 percent of potential votes.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties in South Carolina say that Mr. Colbert could run. In fact,

“Mr. Werner said, “our executive council would have a hard time not putting him on the ballot.’’

And it gets more serious when you consider Colbert’s viewers tend to be young, white, educated, and male. Their median age is 37 and there’s a 60/40 male-female split. So far this year, he’s drawn a nightly audience that averages 1.3 million viewers nationwide, 874,000 of them in the 18-49 year-old demographic. The U.S. Census bureau says South Carolina has about 1.4 percent of the nation’s population, which would suggest that Colbert has about 12,200 viewers there.

Greater minds than my own have found that Bill Richardson, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, and Mike Huckabee, and yes Ron Paul too, are all potentially doomed by Mr. Colbert making any attempt to further his chances in South Carolina. Isn’t that interesting?

So what do we take from this?

The current political landscape is a horrible mess with as much truthiness coming from pundits and satirists as from the candidates themselves. There is reason for concern. Because this highlights how little many believe in the ability of our politicians in providing a cohesive and functional answer to the problems of the nation.

I want Mr. Colbert to get a delegate in either or both parties. I want him to be able to shake the stolid and grave foundations that both political parties are firmly entrenched in. I want there to be a question of ‘Who the hell did that happen’ in the media.

The point is that what we see politics today is little better than 30 seconds of showmanship. At least Stephen Colbert provides the honesty of absolute incredulity. That makes him more consistent and honest than any politician in decades perhaps.
If Mr. Colbert is able to get a delegate, or even a better than 10% vote total, the message will be clear. Politics has devolved as badly as major news media. This will be confirmation of how substance has been thrown to the wayside, with showmanship the guide to future elections. And with that, the degradation of the American quality of life will be apparent.

Sometimes it takes a slap in the face, or a joke in the worst of taste to wake people up about what is before them. I don’t think that is the intention, nor the fact, of what Mr. Stephen Colbert has done. But it’s close enough to both, that perhaps it will make a difference.

Maybe.

Labels: Chris Dodd, Dennis Kucinich, Gov. Bill Richardson, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Presidential candidates, Presidential Race Blog, Ron Paul, Stephan Colbert

**also found at Presidential race blog**

When you think of the President of the United States, you think of the leader of the nation. The key here is leader of the nation, not a political party or a portion of the population but everyone. That is what the highest elected position in America demands.

Given that thought, one would expect that all the political parties would address all the people in the nation. That means debates, interviews and so forth with representatives of all the major demographics. It would mean answering tough questions on issues that face America today and going into the future.

What is expected is not the case though.



What is going on with the Republican Party? As stated by Mark Radulich of 411mania.com,

“There is room in this country for blacks to migrate over to the GOP if only they would actually try and make some overtures. The problem is, while the GOP does not stand in opposition to black Republicans, it also does not go out of the way to earn more black votes either. In other words, if blacks just suddenly appear out of the ether, that's fine, but the GOP doesn't seem interested in putting any work into garnering black votes or grooming black power leaders for the benefit of winning future elections.”

Amazing. All this while top Democratic candidates are out sensationalizing the condition of Blacks. John Edwards has stated

“We cannot build enough prisons to solve this problem. And the idea that we can keep incarcerating and keep incarcerating — pretty soon we're not going to have a young African-American male population in America. They're all going to be in prison or dead. One of the two.”

Sounds bleak doesn’t it. On one side you have people with blinders on. On the other we have those that either presumes loyalty due to their promises (regardless of their actual records upon being elected) or sensationalism created for the sole reason of driving votes to them out of fear.

Without someone pointing out real facts – like the fact that there are more Black men age 18-24 in college than jail (according to 2005 Justice Department statistics) – there is only one voice out there. What that voice says does not mean it is to the benefit of African Americans.

So the question is, are Republicans going to lose the Presidential election race of 2008 because they ignore over 12% of the population, or will Democrats win because they will inspire fear in that same population? Does either option seem even remotely in the benefit of the nation?

Labels: 411mania.com, John Edwards, Justice Department, Mark Radulich, President of the United States, Presidential election race 2008, Republican Party

Continued from What can solve illegal immigration? Part 1...

Senator Clinton on the other hand is very accountable. In Clinton said in a 1997 speech to the Corporate Council on Africa.

"Look around the globe: Those nations which have lowered trade barriers are prospering more than those that have not."

In 1998 Senator Clinton spoke in favor of NAFTA

"a very effective business effort in the U.S. on behalf of NAFTA...It is certainly clear that we have not by any means finished the job that has begun,"

Yet in 2006 Senator Clinton blames NAFTA on former-President George Bush

"continuing to drive hundreds of thousands, even millions, of people from Mexico into our country...We just can't keep doing what we did in the 20th century."

More confusing is a vote in 2003 for US-Chile FTA, and a 2005 vote against CAFTA. Add to that the criticism that Senator Clinton gives to the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) which is supported by her husband former-President Clinton.

This flip-flopping and lack of cohesiveness in both parties is unacceptable. Building a wall is a waste of time. People will go over, under or thru a wall if their desire and need is great enough. Even smarter will be the ones that will go around the wall and enter from the wide-open North. Troops are costly, and will lead to confrontation and thus loss of lives. Even with added troops many will enter the nation. And having troops on one border is ignorant when a simple entry option to the North exists.

The best answer to immigration is dealing with its root cause. It’s the same as good medicine. Don’t deal with the symptoms, cure the disease. Improving trade and thus the economy of nations feeding illegal, undocumented, immigrants reduces the problem we face in America. Perhaps the Presidential candidates will realize this, or at least their numerous staff will. At least this is something I would hope as I find it hard to believe only the Latin Business Chronicle and I am smart enough to come to this conclusion.

Labels: democrat, John Edwards, Latin Business Chronicle, NAFTA, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Trade Area of the Americas

Well the big news among the Presidential candidates today is all the buzz about Mr. Scooter Libby getting a commutation of part of his sentence. I have not seen comments from the Republican candidates, but I will comment and provide what I found on the Democratic candidates.

First of all, what is commutation of a sentence? It is part of the powers of the President. It is similar to a pardon, but it is not that. Pardons nullify a sentence, effectively removing a juries decision. A commutation lessens the punishment for the conviction, effectively modifying a Judges decision. I want that to be clear as many pundits, besides the candidates, are wording their responses as if this were a pardon. Another example of soundbite politics, trying to confuse or obfuscate an issue in order to sound better to voters.

Let me also clarify why there is a mention of this case in the first place. Mr. Libby was convicted of lying to the FBI. After tens of thousands of dollars were spent looking for a conspiracy in the leak that might have revealed a covert agent, this was the only charge made. Depending on your political leaning Mr. Libby was either lying on purpose or lied as a consequence of a bad memory on events several months prior. The conviction was 30 months in jail, $250,000 fine, and a loss of his ability to act as a lawyer – forever.

President Bush removed the jail sentence. That’s it. Mr. Libby still has a conviction on record, still cannot practice law, and still must pay the fine.

Now as for the comments, Senator Biden said

“…I call for all Americans to flood the White House with phone calls tomorrow expressing their outrage over this blatant disregard for the rule of law.”

The rule of law says that the President can commute or pardon any federal prisoner. Where is the law disregarded?

Senator Dodd said,

“…The only ones paying the price for this Administration's actions are the American people.”

It was the Democrats in the Congress that claimed and pursued a conspiracy, that was never found, which happened to cause this event. If there was no pursuit of a conspiracy that no news media in the nation could find, Mr. Libby would be working today.

Mr. Edwards stated,

“Only a president clinically incapable of understanding that mistakes have consequences could take the action he did today…”

Continued in part 2...

Labels: John Edwards, President Bush, presidential candidate, Scooter Libby

Here is an interesting bit in defense of Senator Clinton and denouncing the Republican Party. It seems quite interesting that this piece focuses on the election in France, cable news and a newspaper in London. Obviously the election of the next President of the United States affects the entire world, but the way this one blogger puts it you would think the world is hoping for a Democrat in the position.

To say that a Democratic President in 2008 would be a bad thing is a bit early to call. We don’t even know who will be the candidate of that party. The same must be said of the Republican candidates. But there are a few things we can definitely say.

The election of the President of France did have a large voter turnout. They do have a different style of politics, but one of the factors in their election was a pro-America (and that means President Bush) candidate. The anti-American candidate lost by an overwhelming number.

Add to this the fact that the candidates debate issues and you get a very different kind of race than what we have here. Liquor ads are banned on American TV, and we do discuss the past of our candidates. That’s not necessarily a bad thing.

“Conservative groups and political figures are planning a film, books and a concerted media campaign to demonise Clinton, who is already one of the most polarising figures in American politics.”

I don’t know if demonize is the correct word here. There have been several books discussing Senator Clinton. They are bringing up her actions in Whitewater and motivations for getting elected in NY State. These are real concerns, and as a long-time political figure she knew they would be raised. There is even added interest as one of her former aides, Mr. Dick Morris, has raised concerns about her. I for one have to wonder why would someone who was instrumental to helping her husband get elected is one of those leading the charge to prevent her from getting elected President. That’s not negative.

As for the internet, to say that Republicans are using it against any Democratic candidate implies that the Democrats are not doing the same thing. I can point to at least a dozen unsolicited emails from Mr. John Edwards to prove that. [I mentioned previously that rather than answering a letter with question, Mr. Edwards has added me to his mass mailing list and has not made any other response.] Many of his mass mailings directly attack the position of the President and the Republican Party. I’m sure other candidates have done the same thing, including Senator Clinton. That sounds like a similar and equal use of the Internet to me.

One of the most interesting media campaigns against Senator Clinton was made by a fellow Democrat. While Senator Obama’s campaign denied involvement, it was found that they were responsible for the very popular remake of the old television commercial that spread on YouTube. They implied that Senator Clinton was the Orwellian equivalent of Big Brother. Republicans can’t be blamed for that.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: Dick Morris, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Recently the Carpetbagger Report decided to take on the Republican candidates, speculating which was the ’scariest’. While this rundown of the candidates is scant on fact, and very much directed from a point of view that is opposed to the Republican Party, it does highlight some weaknesses of some Presidential candidates.

Lopsided as it is, I have to wonder what are the weaknesses of the various Democratic candidates? If the Carpet Bagger is to be taken seriously then why haven’t they made the same kind of critique against a Party they support? An honest look at all the Presidential candidates reveals flaws in all hoping to run now, anything other than discussing both sides rings hollow to me.

As an example of what I mean:

Senator Clinton has flipped her position on the Iraq war as recently as February of this year. It is only recently that the demand to leave Iraq at all costs has come to fore. That qualifies as a flip-flop I think.

Senator Obama has the least experience of the front-runners of the Democratic Party. A junior Senator, with few years and no real connections on an international basis.

Mr. John Edwards has made a lot of money from sources that questionably profited on the poor. His cries of standing up for the less successful in America seems to contradict his lavish home and $400 haircuts.

Anyone can pick on the flaws of the candidates, they are human so they have them. But to just pick one side and demonize them is unfair. The above is meant only to give a little balance to what is found on the Carpetbagger Report.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

This is an exact copy of a letter sent to Mr. John Edwards, via his website. Any response received will be posted, unaltered.

January 5, 2007
Mr. John Edwards,

I recently heard of your decision to run for President of the United States. I am owner and author of multiple blogs, one of which deals primarily with political issues and individuals. This letter is both based on my personal interest and that of my readers. [My sites include www.mvass.com and www.blackentertainmentblog.com]

I am a native American citizen, with my heritage coming from African Americans and Latino Americans. I was born and raised in the Northeast, though I have traveled and lived across the country and am a former Marine. The focus of the blogs are presenting news and events from the perspective of an African Latino American view; which I feel is under-represented in the media.

Given these facts, and that I am largely unfamiliar with your past, I have several questions for you. I have already asked several questions of Senator Clinton and am awaiting her response. I intend to ask similar questions of all (or at least most) individuals that intend to run for the office of the President. I look forward to your responses.

I understand that you have pursued initiatives in healthcare, education, social security and medicare throughout your time in the Senate, and previous to that to a degree in your work as a lawyer. In regard to your work in the Senate, what laws did you initiate, that were passed, that directly improved these issues for Americans in general, and Black and/or Latino Americans specifically? What exactly do you propose to improve the education system in America, specifically for those students in the inner city?

In regard to your desire to create a universal healthcare system in the United States, how do you expect that system to be paid for? In addition what do you believe will be a motivation for professionals and medical industries to work to current standards or to create new advances without the benefit of profit?

What exact plan do you have that will allow Social Security to continue to exist or to be modified for future generations as the baby boomer generation continue to age and existing funds continue to fail to meet the need?

In the 2006 mid-term elections, the democratic party won several seats in both the House and Senate with the cry of changing the current policy in Iraq. What is your exact position on Iraq? I feel that it is not possible to support the troops and question the mission that we have sent them on. I further feel that to remove the funding of the troops, while still engaged in the mission, is neither a show of support nor a plan to win. Do you agree or disagree with this? If you were to be Commander and Chief of our troops what would you have them do to complete our mission in Iraq? Do you feel that the fact that you have never served in the military is a benefit or detriment to the country?

Your party, as I have understood, has no stated plan to change the events and status for the war in Iraq or against terrorism, beyond the statement that change is needed. What exact plan do you wish to implement if you were to be elected that could prevent future attacks by terrorists against this nation?

In terms of the economy, what exactly do you propose that will help those below the middle class to improve their standard of living? It is often held that the democratic party believes that taxes, particularly for the upper incomes, should be increased to provide funds for programs that benefit those of lower income, do you agree with this position? As a business owner and member of the middle class I would like to know what are your economic plans for the country?

Considering events such as the shooting of Mr. Sean Bell, the Duke rape case, the Rodney King riots and other similar events have highlighted the racial tensions that continue to exist in the nation, what would you do to help improve race relations.

Perhaps one of my biggest questions is that America has apologized and made reparations to Native American Indians and Japanese Americans for atrocities and crimes made in the past. Given this fact, how do you justify that America has never made an apology or considered reparations for slavery, jim crow, and segregation. Would you as the President finally provide an apology for these acts? Would you make reparations, and if so what might those reparations entail?

I must mention that I intend to post this to the abovementioned blog. In addition to posting this I will post your response, unaltered, on the blog as well.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
Author – Black Entertainment USA and Vass

Labels: African American, John Edwards, presidential candidate, Reparations for Slavery, universal healthcare

Score one for democracy and sensible thought. I’m referring directly to the swearing in of Rep. Keith Ellison. The informal and unofficial ceremony, like every swearing in that has ever been photographed of individual Congressmen, went forward with Rep. Ellison using the Quran. Not just any Quran though, this was a copy owned by President Thomas Jefferson published in 1764. In your eye Rep. Virgil Goode.

I have received multiple responses on the letter of Rep. Goode and my post about it. Some fell off the mark, skewing to other items I touched upon, but most were in defense of Rep. Goode’s position. That still terrifies me.

Even so, those readers and everyone should be relieved to see that the nation still stands after the abovementioned swearing in. Much like when Mormons, Lutherans and other Congressmen and women have sworn in using religious text that reflect their personal religious views, this nation born with the thought of religious freedom continues. So if nothing else the real historic statement that was made was that this basic principle continues to flourish.

In other thoughts, I will be soon sending a letter to recent Presidential hopeful Mr. John Edwards. Prior to this I will be investigating more information about Mr. Edwards and his policies. While I’m sure there is plenty of information that conveys the soundbite he has said, but I want more than platitudes. Kind of like what was reported from a recent “town meeting” from New Hampshire.

When Mr. Edwards was asked about his position on gay marriage, the answer was, “Civil unions? Yes. Partnership benefits? Yes. But it's a jump for me to get to gay marriage. I haven't yet got across that bridge.” Mr. Edwards further stated, “I wish I knew the right answer.”

So does that statement mean he is for or against? At first glance it would seem that he is against gay marriage, and willing to support other efforts for gay couples. But it can also be seen that the answer is more contemplative. That Mr. Edwards is still seeking an answer and that he is just waiting for a convincing argument to be in favor of such unions.

While he may be undecided, as many are, a Presidential hopeful should be more direct. Having had prior experience in the government and Presidential races this is an issue that he should already have an answer on. It’s not the first time he has been asked this before I’m sure. I don’t expect him to know the answer to every question, but I do expect a position he stands behind.

In a similar vein is Mr. Edwards’ response to an elderly woman that reportedly asked for more help for senior citizens. Rather than giving her an answer of what he will do, he instead asked if she would vote for him so he could make changes. The woman said yes, but what did she say yes too? If the reporting is accurate, Mr. Edwards never said what he would do or what he might even try to do. He never said if he supported her position or offered his own. All he did was make a soundbite that the media passed on.

I feel that more is needed from a Presidential candidate. More needs to be said. MTV may have changed the way Americans watch movies and television shows, the world attention span may be decreasing, but the right to become the most powerful leader in the world demands more than cursory attention. It’s the details that make the difference, and I hope to hear of some of them.

So look forward to hearing more on this soon. I also want to mention that I have no preference, at this time, for or against any Presidential candidate. It is the responses of each individual, and their own words at various public addresses that will form my opinion. I especially will value if, and how completely they respond to any questions that I pose to them. And both the questions and any responses, if any, will be placed here for you to see. I will not alter any comment that a candidate may make, just as I never alter any response. You can make your own conclusions, as I will.

One thing is for sure. I will hold each candidate, especially any that respond to my queries, to their words. I will highlight any backtracking or duplicitous actions. And I hold myself accountable to you, my readers, to make me aware if I do the same. I think it’s only fair.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: John Edwards, Quran, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Virgil Goode