It would seem that for some in the American ultra-liberal far left wing, otherwise defined as fanatics, it is not enough that Senator Obama stands a solid chance at winning the American Presidency. It is not enough that the major news media are fawning over Senator Obama – treating his recent trip overseas as if he were a sitting President, and refusing his opponent the opportunities they give him (ie. New York Times editorial). Even the fact that a movie highlighting the very liberal Democratic Presidential candidate is in post-production is not enough (and the film will be out just before the election – nice timing).

No for those like Oliver Stone something more must be done. Something over the top. Something insulting. Something that has never happened to a sitting President in any medium. Oliver Stone feels that now is the time to make up a movie about President Bush, while he is in office.

Why can’t Oliver Stone give up his citizenship, move to France (or Russia, or Iran), and make whatever slanted version of history he wants. I’m sure the Taliban, Al Quida and a few other “see an American, kill an American” hate groups will be more than happy to pack theaters for his biased derogatory slime on film.

Obviously I have a problem with the upcoming film W. My problem is not so much political as it is decency. I don’t care that Oliver Stone has a political agenda the size of the Empire State Building. I don’t care, as much, that he is seeking to portray historical fact in a manner more akin to a scifi movie about they year 300,000 A.D. I don’t care that he is going to get about as many people in the audience (stateside) as there are members of Moveon.org – I’m sure they will all go see it 2x.

What I care about is the power and prestige of the American Presidency and thus America. America is the President on an international level, whether we love or hate any particular President. And Oliver Stone is so obsessed with his personal hate that he doesn’t seem to care what damage he does. He seems willing to do anything to place a(nother) blemish on President Bush, even if it means hurting every American and every American President to come.

This film, a supposed biography of President Bush – that seems to be focused squarely on the past according to the trailer - looks dumb. What may be even more dumb is that it was greenlighted by a Hollywood studio, and that actors of ability have taken several prominent roles.

Josh Brolin, Elizabeth Banks, Ioann Gruffudd, Ellen, Burstyn, should all be embarrassed that they would do this to an American President. I really thing that James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, and Scott Glenn should have known better. I mean they couldn’t wait until President Bush finished his term of office?

And as for Jeffery Wright and Thandie Newton I am at a loss. Do they believe that a movie built upon diminishing the office of the President of the United States is going to help their careers or in any way highlight African Americans (who are routinely seen and expected to be Democrats only) in a positive light? Colin Powell and Condelezza Rice have succeeded in becoming exceptional political figures, a fact that did not exist in any other Presidency before President Bush. And Wright and Newton believe that a film that insults America is the best way to immortalize these 2 accomplished, educated, Black figures? I think they deserve far better.

I will show this movie trailer clip. Because I do believe in Freedom of Speech and artistic expression. But I in no way suggest that anyone should see this film. I in no way support any actor’s portrayal in this film. I denounce what Oliver Stone has done, and am angry at Thandie Newton and Jeffery Wright.



Could I be wrong about the film? Until it is released sure, and it is mathematically probable that I can fly, piss on the sun and put it out, and/or suddenly have a stroke and thus believe that Code Pink and San Francisco know what they are doing. But back in the real world, Oliver Stone is doing a wretched thing.

Imagine if someone did a hatchet job on President Clinton and Hillary back when he was in office while doing Ms. Lewinsky with a cigar; the Democrats and Hollywood would be raging and the nation embarrassed. How is this different?

Labels: al quida, Code Pink, Democratic Party, Freedom of Speech, moveon.org, movie preview, New York Times, Oliver Stone, Polispeak, President Clinton, San Francisco, Senator Barack Obama

This has been quite the remarkable night. You may not have heard this, but the Iowa caucus is over. More importantly is the advent of history that has occurred.

I realize it’s 2007, so many may not notice but an African American has taken the forefront in the Democratic race for the Presidency of the United States. Others will likely focus on the more decisive win by Mike Huckabee in the Republican race, which is a surprise, but it’s not historic. Yes, historic and a massive statement about America.

Never before has an African American done so well in an election bid. Never before has a state with an approximately mere 2% of the population being African American stated that the Black candidate is their first choice for President. Thank god we have come so far from the days of segregation, Jim Crow and random lynchings without any pursuit of criminals involved.

Seriously, America is taking a step forward and it is needed. I was just commenting in a separate post, found at Black and White Blog, about the fledgling trend in states stepping up and making half-hearted attempts at apologizing for their role in slavery. I spent a good part of the night discussing the issue with friends. I felt that this was something that is the first step in America finally healing the festering wound that is racism in this nation. But this is far more in that direction.

Just one year ago pundits were laughing, almost literally, at the prospect of Senator Obama running. Just 2 months ago, the pundits guaranteed the sweeping victory and absolute nomination of Senator Clinton as Democratic candidate for the Presidency. For the entire year there were constant cries of if Senator Obama was too Black or not Black enough. And today he stands in position to realistically win the nomination.

Is America ready for a Black President? Not the crap assigned to President Clinton by pundits that obviously have ocular issues, but a real Black President. That question is more viable than ever before. I must admit a personal rush at the thought. That isn’t an endorsement, just an observation.

Is he the best candidate for the Presidency? That’s a question I will answer only after all the primaries are done, and the candidates are announced. But he is an indication that the ‘old boys club’ of America is coming to an end. That’s something I never expected in my lifetime.

The fact is that America must deal with the inequalities that minorities face everyday, and the closer Senator Obama gets the closer that day of reckoning comes. This is not a radical or bad thing. It’s a day that is 143 years overdue. Whether he wins the nomination or not, the closer he gets the closer America comes to being truly unified and approaching a better future for all Americans at the same time.

There are many questions facing Senator Obama. There are many issues that America faces and he has not presented any plans or platforms that address these issues. As we go forward we will see if this was just a signal of what will come, or a real challenge to the glass ceiling that most minorities know. That ceiling has long been referred to as

“If you’re White the sky is the ceiling, but if you’re Black the ceiling is the sky.”

This is not the most political analysis I have ever made. I am excited about thoughts that have little to nothing to do with the actual potential of the Presidential race. I’m honest enough to admit that. But is America willing to admit that perhaps, after this adrenaline rush passes and the real questions get answered, a Black man may be the best choice for America? Would America still elect him?

Well that my more emotional thoughts based on the Iowa results. Tomorrow I’ll get back to seriously evaluating the results, and the potential nominees.

Labels: African American, Democratic Party, election 2008, historic moment, Iowa Caucus, Mike Huckabee, President Clinton, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama

I want to remind everyone that on Saturday @ 2:30, TV One will have a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum, featuring several leading Democratic Presidential candidates, and Republican candidates as well. This forum will feature candidates answering questions from the audience (and I don’t expect that any candidate will be planting questions for this).

I will be covering this Forum on Saturday, and you can expect a few posts from me, for TV One and everyone.

Considering the nature of the forum, and the fact that most Americans have not been following the candidates over the past year as much pundits and political bloggers, I thought that a short Pros and Cons of the leading Democratic candidates would be helpful. I intend to have a similar list for Republicans shortly.

I am only focusing on the leading candidates because of the short time until the primaries. I want to note one candidate that will be at the forum that I will not be doing a Pros and Cons for. Dennis Kucinich was the only candidate of either party to-date that answered any questions on Reparations for African Americans. His answer was for reparations. Every other candidate has refused to even speak on the subject.

With that noteworthy positions stated here is my list of Pros and Cons. I hope it helps those at the forum that get to ask questions, and everyone that will be voting. Please let me know your thoughts as well. [I am trying to be neutral, but of course that is not always possible in all issues. You may disagree with some of the items I list under either category. Let me know your reasons why you disagree, or agree, in the comments.]

Senator Hillary Clinton:

Pros


• Wife of President Bill Clinton
  
• Long-time Healthcare advocate
  
• Determined
  
• A lawyer
  
• A current 2nd term Senator
  
• Well known internationally
  
• First female Presidential candidate with a chance
  
• Forgave the infidelity of President Clinton
  
• Various polls state ~1/2 country favors her
  
• Very liberal in most all policies
  
• Pro Abortion


Cons


• Pro-abortion
  
• Has never directly run or owned any business
  
• Entered elected office after career of President Clinton
  
• Initial attempt to pass Healthcare reforms failed horribly
  
• Consistently appears to hold no actual position on most policies
  
• Speaks like a lawyer
  
• A female candidate
  
• Various polls state roughly ½ the nation strongly dislikes her
  
• Staff has at least 2x planted questions in her public appearances
  
• Had committee member attack Republican candidates by surprise at CNN/YouTube debate
  
• Very liberal (supported MoveOn.org in Gen. Patreaus ad)
  
• Has received the most money from lobbyists and institutions of any candidate of any party
  
• Took $1 million from wanted fugitive
  
• Involved in multiple scandals
  
• Pro-Illegal Immigration
  
• Anti-death penalty
  
• Anti-school vouchers
  

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Heartland Presidential Forum, moveon.org, political debate, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, TV One

A simple question I’ve asked before, does religion affect your choice of President of the United States?

As others have noted

Article VI of the Constitution of the United States of America states that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”

Yet the question of religion has long been connected to elected office, and in recent years directly so. As religious fanaticism has caused some to become terrorists, the question of religion in American politics takes a stronger position. I for one do not find this to be a good position.

In a recent Democratic debate (there have been 27 so far if you lost count) George Stephanopoulos asked:

“My question is to understand each candidates’ view of a personal God. Do they believe that, through the power of prayer, disasters like Hurricane Katrina or the Minnesota bridge collapse could have been prevented or lessened?”

Can you imagine this question being asked of the oft quoted Theodore Roosevelt? Or perhaps Lincoln? How about if President Clinton had been asked if prayer would heal all the people without healthcare, or if President Carter were asked if prayer would get the hostages back from Iran?

Religion is a powerful thing, for an individual. Faith is something that cannot be quantified nor should it be worn like a merit badge. It is a facet of a person that is intrinsic like leadership. To pander to any group on this basis cheapens the people pandered to and the faith they have, in my opinion. Perhaps that is one reason that the Constitution precludes its use in gaining public office.

If we cannot separate religion for the debates of Presidential candidates, how do we believe the separation of Church and State will be maintained? Thus what other tenants of the Constitution are also subject to being bent or broken? How can we be idle as we see the slippery slope taking us to a place the Founding Fathers of this nation warned us never to tread?

Labels: American Constitution, political debate, President Carter, President Clinton, President Lincoln, presidential candidate, religious tolerance, Theodore Roosevelt

Just say no. It’s not a take on a Nike commercial; it was the United States attempt to keep the youth of the nation away from drugs. First Lady Nancy Reagan was the spokeswoman of this campaign, and with due respect to the First Lady, the results were indicative of how the government deals with drugs and drug crime. In my opinion they haven’t a clue, and screw things up.

You might wonder what any of the Presidential candidates’ think of this. Well if you have, keep wondering as none of them have any information on the issue. You can find comments on whether the government should or should not bail-out sub-prime mortgage loans, because it’s a topical question in the news today; but you can’t find anything on the struggle to keep kids away from drugs or how to resolve the enormous numbers of drug-related crimes. It seems to be a bit of an oversight don’t you think?

Then again, other than an occasional showcase speech whenever funding is needed, The President and the Presidential candidates rarely discuss efforts against drugs. I suppose discussing abject failure and the lack of vision to resolve this problem is too much to speak about. Worse yet, this is a truly non-partisan failure of both political parties, so neither side will get support blaming the other about this.

“According to the U.S. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, more than 22 million Americans suffer from drug or alcohol abuse. Department of Justice statistics demonstrate that 55 percent of all federal prison inmates are there because of drugs.”

That seems to be an issue worth speaking about. You would think that at a time when each Presidential candidate, whether Republican or Democrat, is trying to stand out among their peers with soundbites over plans (as I understand it) at least one would have something to say about it. But alas ther is just a vaccum as large as space.

Perhaps Republicans don’t want to be reminded that each time First Lady Nancy Reagan implored the nation to say NO, kids laughed and said definitely yes. Perhaps Democrats find it difficult to speak on a subject where one of their most liked representatives, President Clinton, provided the laughable excuse that “I didn’t inhale.” Neither party has past or current Presidents that have done well on this issue.

Still considering the billions spent each year, the ever larger drug busts made by the DEA, and the ludicrous public safety announcements, someone should bite the bullet and say ‘I think drugs are wrong, and here is an idea that might help improve the situation.’

That’s not too much to ask for, don’t you think?

Labels: DEA, democrat, Department of Justice, First Lady Nancy Reagan, President Clinton, presidential candidate, republican

Continued from What are Democratic Presidential candidates saying about Scooter Libby? Part 1...

Mr. Edwards stated,

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

If this was a mistake, then the crime was incidental. Therefore the punishment should not be as severe. Even so, there are consequences that are being enacted on Mr. Libby. Unless losing the career that was the basis of one’s life is inconsequential.

Senator Obama stated,

“This decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an Administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division, one that has consistently placed itself and its ideology above the law…”

Mr. Libby did not commit treason. He was convicted of saying he spoke to people he told the FBI he did not speak to. National security was never an issue or question and was never considered in the charge against him.

Gov. Richardson is quoted,

“There is a reason we have laws and why we expect our Presidents to obey them. Institutions have a collective wisdom greater than that of any one individual. The arrogance of this administration's disdain for the law and its belief it operates with impunity are breathtaking….”

President Bush followed the law, commutation is one of his priviledges. The President did not reverse the collective wisdom of the jury, there was no pardon. The one individual he did modify was the judge who imposed the punishment. I do not see how this is disdain.

Senator Clinton said,

“Today's decision is yet another example that this Administration simply considers itself above the law. This case arose from the Administration's politicization of national security intelligence and its efforts to punish those who spoke out against its policies. Four years into the Iraq war, Americans are still living with the consequences of this White House's efforts to quell dissent….”

This is an interesting person to be speaking about a commutation after the well publicized pardon of Mr. Mark Rich that President Clinton made. Even so, again the President (Bush) was well within the law in commuting PART of the sentence. Again, there has been no connection to a cover-up or politicizing of national security in over a year plus of this case. What one man lying to the FBI about who he spoke to months prior has to do with the Iraq war is beyond me.

I have not written this as a pro-Republican view, nor is it against the Democratic candidates. I seek to work through the soundbites and rhetoric to reach the actual fact and comments being made. Politicians love to evoke emotion to obscure the facts of an issue, or to divert the conversation to a subject they prefer to speak about. That is not good enough for ANY candidate that wishes to be President of the United States in my opinion.

Perhaps I am alone in this thought, but this seems to have been a waste of the governments funds. The use of our taxes has a better use than a multi-year snipe hunt, the capture of one individual in a lie that affects nothing, and rhetoric from candidates that is meant to whip up emotions for the exclusive benefit of the politicians themselves.

I felt it was a waste when President Clinton was being persecuted for lying to the nation, on live television, about getting oral sex, I think no different now. There are far more important issues that need to be discussed, in depth, and far better uses of our money.

Just something to keep in mind as you hear the Republicans and Democrats waste our time and your donations speaking (or making ads) about this issue.

Labels: Gov. Bill Richardson, President Bush, President Clinton, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama