My initial impressions of the Democratic Presidential debate in Ohio are that this is turning out to be quite a match. So far Senator Clinton has been quite forceful in trying to make a stand on universal healthcare, and to a lesser extent Iraq. NAFTA was a sore point.

I found her whining about getting the first question on issues she has made comments on and obviously wanted to answer, and suggesting that Obama should be offered a pillow – like on Saturday Night Live – less than Presidential and weak. And for the record she has only gotten the first question 6 out of 10 times including this debate where she chose to answer the open question to both candidates.

Her seeming demand that her plan was better and that professionals thought so fell flat. She did not answer the question of what is affordable, and if she would cause penalties to come out of the paychecks of those that do not accept her plan. Obama made a good case why children need to be covered and parents will chose to be covered if given an affordable option.

I think it looked bad that Clinton would not let the issue end and had to try to get the last word in on that issue, as well as several others. I’m upset that 16 minutes were spent on universal healthcare because Senator Clinton did not agree with Senator Obama. Especially since this is not a program that exists right now, and other questions on issues that do exist were not able to be asked of either candidate.

In terms of NAFTA, her answers were weak. She had the worst answer possible about her promise to Upstate New York. In her bid to gain the Senatorship, she promised to create 200,000 jobs. What has actually happened is that 30,000 jobs left since she has been elected. That is a fact. The reason why was,

“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”

A leader should not promise things they cannot deliver. A leader should make clear that a plan that requires unknown probabilities is not a promise. Because I can tell you many in Binghamton NY, where I now reside, remember the promise that was made and the numerous jobs that have been lost since that time; and how the area in Central New York is suffering.

Iraq is a big issue for both candidates. I personally do not agree with either of their positions. Thus rather than addressing how they debated this point, I will simply state that they both claim plans towards leaving Iraq.

I will say that on the issue of experience, which Senator Clinton claims Obama does not have, Senator Obama made a very good stand. He clearly outlined that his comments about acting against Al Quida in Pakistan back in the summer of 2007 is exactly what America recently did in killing the number 3 man in that organization.

I found the comments by Senator Clinton, butting in on the denouncement of Senator Obama to Minister Farrakhan because of his anti-Semitic comments, rude and unnecessary. It was an obvious try to try to corner Senator Obama as somehow being connected to Islam and the Nation of Islam. She attempted to embarrass Obama, asking him to reject on top of renounce Minister Farrakhan. To her annoyance, I imagine, he reiterated that he did both, renounce and reject. But what that had to do with her trying to get in that she supports Israel and Jewish people is beyond me.

In the closing statements based on the question what does your opponent need to do to win the nomination the answers were very telling. Senator Obama stated that Clinton was qualified and more worthy than Senator McCain, and took about 2 minutes in lauding her before he mentioned why he is after the nomination and why he felt he was better. Senator Clinton, by contrast opened with what made them both good candidates. She spent a minute discussing how “we are qualified” and “they both wanted the best for America” before continuing on her self-promotion.

Oh her not so subtle inclusion of gender seemed a pandering move towards women. As if she was the only one to be a history making candidate. That playing to women, almost as a fear tactic, was her battlecry. This contrasts the fact that Senator Obama never felt the need to emphasize that he is African American and that he would be making history and that this was the chance for Blacks to “change the playing field” as Senator Clinton implored.

Overall I felt Obama won the debate. He did not feel the need to press Clinton into a corner. He showed a very Presidential stance in that he took her attacks and rather than attack back he just answered the question. Unlike Clinton, Obama does not seem to need to hammer a fight to finality.

Perhaps the most telling thing is that Clinton felt the need to be unequivocal and final in her position about how Obama dealt with Farrakhan – a point that she was not involved with at all. She closed all options and demanded a response that met her standard. Obama worked as a facilitator, having a position and willing to take the extra step to get to a conclusion that he already agreed with.

That is the potential Presidents that we see. In Senator Clinton, a President that will demand and fight to get only and exactly what she wants, at whatever cost. In Senator Obama, a President that is level headed and willing to bend as long as he is in the direction he believes is right. Considering the differences between the Democratic and Republican political parties, which do you, think will be most likely to pass laws that the candidates are basing their nominations on?

Labels: Al Gore, al quida, Binghamton NY, Democratic candidates, Iraq War, Minister Farrakhan, NAFTA, Pakistan, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, That's why I vote

For those that thought Senator Hillary Clinton was going to just give up in her bid to become the Democratic nominee, stop celebrating. In moves that are ranging from complete racial ignorance, to actual issues she is trying to reverse her position on, Clinton is holding on with claws firmly dug in. But this is not a surprise considering the extent of her total campaign.

Let me deal with the actual issue that Clinton believes is unfair. When former-President Bill Clinton was in office he pushed to create and pass NAFTA. That is fact. While he was fighting for this, the then First Lady Clinton, advocated the plan and supported it. That too is fact. Today, now Senator Clinton says

“I am fighting to change NAFTA," she insisted. "Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other."

While that is true, one would believe that based on the actions of Senator Clinton at the time, were that she was in the Senate she would have voted for it. Plus, this is another item that targets the flimsy actual experience that Senator Clinton tends to co-opt from her former-President husband. She just doesn’t like it when people point at facts and say that her opinion flips along with poll numbers and her objective at the time, in my opinion.

Another example of the inability of Senator Clinton to take criticism appears when she has her healthcare plan criticized. The Clinton health plan does require everyone to be covered. To do so, if you are not covered you will be penalized. And the penalty planned by Clinton is to go after the paychecks of offenders. Note in the quote below that “more affordable” is not completely affordable. This is all fact.

“Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable.”

So if you cannot afford healthcare under the Clinton plan, and I mean when you get your paycheck, you will lose money from your check because of it. Now to be fair when you file taxes, once a year, you will get a tax credit and subsidies will exist. So I would imagine that the tax credit will cover the cost of healthcare for a year, hopefully since that is not clear. That still leaves you with a loss from the penalty you accrued up until you filed the taxes. If you received a rebate in the first place, as taxes will be going up and there has never been a tax increase in the 40 years I have been alive for that did not affect every American.

When Obama points to this negative impact of the Clinton healthcare plan, he is accused of being unfair. Oh, did the Clinton campaign leave out the fact that the ads Senator Obama used to criticize this plan have been out for over a week, BEFORE anything was ever said by them.

But never let it be said that fact has anything to do with the Clinton campaign. Or rather I would say the lack of a factual and known stand on the positions. Much like the new stance on NAFTA, or the inability of Senator Clinton to be able to answer a yes or no question about illegal aliens receiving driver’s licenses, many viewpoints of the Clinton campaign remain obscure at best.

Labels: healthcare, NAFTA, President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Senator Obama has swept even more states and continued his streak of victories with 58% - 41% crushing win in Wisconsin and an embarrassing 76% - 24% clobbering in Hawaii. While the final tally has yet to be finalized Washington State stands at 50 - 47 with 57% of the vote counted. This makes the number of states won by Senator Obama 24 to Hillary Clinton’s 11, and increases his popular vote margin and the delegate count.

As it becomes more apparent that Senator Clinton cannot gain the Democratic nomination, something that far less than a year ago pundits expected to be a given fact, the internet is beginning to rally to Senator Obama. Consistently the internet, along with the predominance of major newspapers and television/cable news, has been quite liberal and Democratic in their political preference. That preference has long held that Senator Clinton must be the choice of the nation. But with the continued inspirational performances of Senator Obama, the tide has changed.

I for one am amazed that it took so long to happen.

Without regard to personal political affiliation or beliefs, Senator Clinton never had a chance of winning a Presidential election. The reasons are tumultuous and towering. Beyond the baggage that is the Clinton Presidency legacy, there are the numerous scandals that Senator Clinton has had individually. Add to this her outright lies (like my favorite – that she has 35 years of experience which is only possible if you co-opt all the years of public service that her husband was elected to) and derisive attacks and you get the reason why Rasmussen predicts an 80%+ chance of Senator Obama winning the nomination. And all of this does not take into account the 47% dislike that the nation holds for Senator Clinton.

At this point only elderly (65 years of age and up) white voters stuck with Clinton in the Wisconsin Primary in any significant numbers. And I expect that even this group will erode from her shortly, because

“Hillary began positively, but the minute she felt the slightest challenge from Obama, she went negative and dirty and then went into denial about doing it and then claimed SHE was the victim of attacks. Worst of all, she used Bill as part of the strategy. Even a hard-core lefty like me is repulsed when hearing Bill Clinton attack people and then act slickly sweet and innocent and paint himself and his wife as the victim.”

Yet this has not prevented Senator Clinton from stating

“I’m not going to just talk about what’s wrong with NAFTA, I’m going to fix it,” she vowed. “My opponent has taken to attacking me on NAFTA. The fact is, neither of us were in the Senate at the time (it passed) and I’ve long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA.”

[In fact neither were in the Senate at the time, but when President Bill Clinton was passing NAFTA then First Lady Hillary Clinton was a huge supporter of the bill and the President. And if we are to go and accept that her time as First Lady is part of her “35 years of experience” then NAFTA must be part of that as well.]

Nor has it prevented the win at all costs strategy that the Clinton campaign is known for.

“On Monday, an aide even suggested going after pledged Obama delegates at the Convention – in other words, directly thwarting the will of the voters.

After a disastrous PR flap, the Clinton camp denied that statement. But it’s fair to draw a basic conclusion: they are getting desperate, and are grasping for any method to win the nomination – whether it is ethical or not.”

This is on top of the fact that the Clinton campaign agreed, with all other Democratic candidates at the time, on the penalties placed against Florida and Michigan in September 2007. But today they are trying to engineer the removal of those penalties to bolster their own flailing hopes.

Given all this, with 2 debates to come and the March 4th Primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, I have to question why any continue to support Senator Hillary Clinton. Looking at all the comments and facts, without emotion or preference, I am at a loss. Perhaps one reason those 65 and older are voting for Senator Clinton is the fact that she is White and they are part of the generations that lived in a United States that supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. It’s an aspect that I have not heard discussed, for obvious reasons, but it has been a failed tool (race) used since the South Carolina Primary, so it’s worth asking.

For those that still are unsure of whom to vote for in Texas and Ohio (the major delegate states in the next set of Primaries) the question to ask may be one that Senator Clinton asked of Senator Obama

“What has he done? What is his experience?” – as presented in a Fox News clip of Senator Clinton making a speech on February 20, 2008

The same should be asked of Senator Clinton. And when that answer comes up with an equal nothing consider this. She has been in the Senate longer, supposedly with 35 years of experience and has nothing to show for it. Add that to her attempts to break rules she has agreed to, personal racial attacks, her flips on issues important to Democrats (like her vote and support for the war in Iraq), scandals and 47% national disapproval rating.

So I ask, why would a Democrat vote for her over Senator Obama? I’d like to know.

Labels: Democratic Party, Fox News, Hawaii, March 4th Primaries, NAFTA, news media, Ohio, President Bill Clinton, Rasmussen, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

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