Well the Presidential candidates continue to bring up some of the most interesting items in blogs and news stories as we approach the primary votes. From comparisons to Hugo Chavez, to reports of web activity, to MoveOn.org. And we still see that most of the nation is very divided on what the future will bring. The issues for the next President of America are widespread and intense.

We are seeing that the internet is being used by more people to discuss more fringe opinions than were ever known to exist by the mainstream before. Probably one of the now best known fringe groups would be MoveOn.org. Not only has this organization come into the full light of public attention, they have made an impact. Perhaps not the intended on though. The vile attack against Gen. Petraeus offended every veteran, military members and family that I know of. Many have come to question the Democratic Party and the presidential candidates that have refused to denounce the ad.

Whether it’s connected or not, we now can see a sites that questions some of the social views of Sen. Hilary Clinton are being compared to Hugo Chavez.

Quick, take a shot as guessing who said this: “Society cannot allow the private sector to do whatever it wants…”
If you said Hillary Clinton, I can’t blame you. That was my first impulse, too, …

"Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."

Surprising comparison. One that you might expect MoveOn to make and defend. But they seem quite busy right now trying to claim yet another American figure is a betrayer. Having failed with the first target and ads with this phrasing, MoveOn has now targeted Rudy Giuliani as betraying Americans. The latest set of ads target is work with the 9/11 commission, and ignore his work on 9/11 and the weeks afterwards. But none have ever said MoveOn is good at making any point other than they represent a fringe of America, and due to the backing of billionaire George Soros they can get any ill-conceived message out to the masses.

Avoiding all this drama has been Fred Thompson. New to the race, officially, he has done quite well. The most recent results from Hitwise state that Thompson leads all candidates with views of his website din the last week. His lead is not shabby either, with more than double the second place candidate, Sen. Barack Obama. I will say that the site is very well designed.

So with all the activity on the internet, and still months to go, where do you fit in? Do you have a candidate you agree with? Do you understand the platforms the various candidates support?

If you don’t remember one thing. One of these candidates will be the next President. Know who you are voting for, and what they stand for. Understand who supports them. Otherwise you may be very surprised, at least, by what you get during their presidency.

Labels: 9/11, Fred Thompson, hitwise, hugo chavez, moveon.org, Presidential candidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

As the next election edges closer, I find it interesting all the commentary being made about the various Presidential candidates. Comments are coming out not only questioning the political positions of the candidates but also on various aspects of their person.

In this one site I found, there is a very subjective evaluation of IQ’s being stated. How the values were computed, even as a guesstimate, is very unclear. What you might notice immediately is that every Democrat is given a higher IQ than every Republican mentioned. That seems quite unbalanced and inaccurate.

For the Democrats out there, don’t get too happy. Senator Obama is described as a pushover, Senator Clinton is

Whatever Hillary is, she is a loner, likely very cold and power hungry. More than a liberal, she seems like a true power-hungry communist.

It’s slightly better for some of the Republican candidates. Mitt Romney is called a fiscal conservative (though it seems implied his religion and campaign lose the 2008 election). Rudy Giuliani is more Bush than President Bush

He would eventually expand federal powers beyond Bush and that very idea alone will pull all support from the right-wingers.

Perhaps most glaring is the IQ given to Fred Thompson, and the accusation that he is lazy (which I am unaware of). This one conclusion seems to be the most biased to me. It may be just my interpretation but Fred Thompson seems to be given the lowest IQ and called lazy due to his Southern roots and mannerisms. Conversely Senator Clinton is given the highest IQ and called cold due to her association with New York and the North. [Has everyone forgotten she is as Southern as Fred Thompson, and her roots are strongly tied to Arkansas, the same as her husband former-President Bill?]

Infer what you will but with this kind of insults flying through the net I have to wonder what the protests will be like in 3 years after the Presidential election?

Labels: election 2008, Fred Thompson, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Clinton

Continued from The Iraq report and politics Part 1...

When Generals state, as many have said from day one, that this will be a long term battle (some even stating it could take up to a decade) all politicians ignored the statements and left the troops ill-equipped for the challenges that have faced them. I believe all the politicians were afraid of telling such a truth to their constituents. To make such a statement would easily open them up to challengers and cost them elections. Rather they all stated, initially, that this could be resolved quickly and with little loss of American life. Obviously they were wrong and the Generals were correct.

This is an interesting question facing the next President and the nation as a whole. This may well be the single most important issue facing America in the next 10 years, definitely the next 5. If we run, we will lose respect as a nation among other nations and fanatical groups across the world. Without a strong resolution, enemies of our nation will simply conclude that the will of America is weak and if they can out-wait the initial onslaught against them the commitment against them will crumble and fade. That is a troubling image to present to the world.

On the other side is the fact that if we stand and fight until we succeed, we will suffer internally as political groups drive a wedge between various factions within the nation. As families lose loved ones, which is an inevitable outcome of warfare, the divisions will grow as will the anger of nations around the world.

The answer is a difficult one. Like most answers, the middle ground is best, but hard to maintain. Since we have not decided to make Iraq a commonwealth, which I feel is the only winning strategy, we must seek the most reasonable outcome. Emphasizing the political aspects may allow elections to go in one direction or another, but such posturing will cause greater damage, in my opinion. I see that right now, all the candidates are posturing for votes as opposed to having their own convictions. The only 2 frontrunners that are perhaps convincingly maintaining their positions without regard to politics are Senator McCain and Obama. Both are somewhat blindsided though, I believe.

So the questions we must ask ourselves, are the presidential candidates taking positions that are the best for the nation, or the best to gain politically? Do we want a President, or any political leader, that cannot adjust their position based on the facts as they are presented? Can we have political leaders that can tell us the truth, and act in the best manner for the nation regardless of the backlash that short-term emotions ultimately evoke?

If we fail in this matter, if we act impulsively and without long-term foresight, we will suffer for perhaps decades. There are many issues involved in the current war, Iran, terrorist groups (not the concept of terrorism) like Al Quida, Israel, America’s prominence in the world, and yes oil too. If we just focus on one item at the exclusion of the others, we will fail to do the best thing. Again I mention best, not right. While I wish we could follow a path that is ideal, the reality is that there is no such path to take in regard to the current situation.

But this is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: al quida, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Iraq War, Senator Barak Obama, Senator John McCain

I love the way politicians pick on a subject they know they can get attention with, all the while knowing that it’s complete hogwash. I’ll take the recent confrontation the Senator Clinton faced from John Edwards and Senator Obama. It was the near-famous refusal of Senator Clinton to give up lobbyist funding that did it. Didn’t the other candidates feel smug.

Of course, none of the others are getting nearly as much money from lobbyists so they might be a bit more willing since it levels the playing field a bit. Not that any of the Presidential candidates will give up the funds they have received unilaterally. Now that would make a statement and force others to follow their move. But bold groundbreaking political actions are not for this Presidential race.

Don’t be fooled. The question about lobbyist money is self-serving. If you are not getting the majority of it, you want to no one else to keep any. It makes it easier to be competitive. And don’t think that any of the candidates desire to let the public know where their money is coming from.

So far only Senator Obama provides an easy reference to where his bundled contributions are coming from. Bundled money would be, as an example, funds raised by Oprah Winfrey at her upcoming dinner party that is $2300 minimum to enter, if you were invited.

Let me correct myself, Senator Clinton did make it clear as well, 3 months ago on a blog by a lesser staffer, stuffed in the 4th paragraph, without other notice or fanfare. That is about as clear as pea soup.

Some may think this is the norm for Presidential candidates, but the fact is that President Bush, in 2004 made it somewhat easy (and far moreso than what is available today) on where his money was coming from and thus forced other candidates to be almost as clear. As maligned as President Bush may be these days, none of the current candidates match his actions. That seems to say a lot about how serious these candidates are, don’t you think?

And this does not even touch on the money received by candidates from special interest groups, which I spoke about before. Not surprisingly Senator Clinton and Mitt Romney lead in this arena, at least with healthcare.

So the Daily Kos may have cheered, the soundbites may sound great, but there is no substance behind any of it that I can find. Smoke and mirrors are not only for magicians, politicians use them well too. Sadly, I don’t find it entertaining.

Do you?

Labels: daily kos, Mitt Romney, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Some may recall that I recently raised the question of what is happening with HR 180 IH. You may not recall the name it has in the House of Representatives, but it’s also known as Darfur Accountability and Divestment Act of 2007. This is one item of several that are sitting in Congress waiting for some action to be taken by the nation. Not everyoe is aware of this but at least one person had his YouTube question presented to the Democratic candidtates in their recent debate.

Only 4 of the Democratic hopefuls were given the chance to respond. They were Governor Richardson, Sen. Biden, Senator Clinton, and Former Senator Gravel. In my opinion none were satifactory answers, though they were decent soundbites.

Former Senator Gravel only blamed the foreign policy of the nation. How that helps or resolves anything I have no idea.

Governor Richardson suggested economic sanctions and political pressure from European nations and China. Which is something, though that is exactly what HR 180 IH suggests, and it has been sitting in the House without any action since it was created. How can we ask ANY nation to do what we will not?

Senator Biden took a different tack. He compared the situation to Bosnia, and suggested a no-fly zone in addition to 2,500 American troops on the ground. I will get to the comparison in a moment, and the no-fly zone, but I cannot believe that in an area where over 200,000 people have been killed and 2.5 million are refugees a mere 2,500 American forces can stop the bloodshed. That is unrealistic and stupid in my opinion. It will take more than that, that’s obvious.

As for Senator Clinton, she got a bit of all the best answers and combined them, mostly. She agreed on the need for sanctions. She agreed on a no-fly zone. But she would not agree to place ANY troops on the ground.

Senators Dodd and Obama (as well as Biden and Clinton) co-sponsored Senate Resolution 559 (introduced on Sept. 7, 2006), which encouraged President Bush to work with NATO and the UN in establishing a no-fly zone.

Ok, first off a no-fly zone just does not work. Not in England (Germans during WWII), Viet-Nam, Bosnia, Iraq nor Darfur. It may add some difficulty but OBVIOUSLY things happening on the ground cannot be stopped by planes in the sky. Any suggestion that states this is the main involvement of the United States is doomed to kill innocent civilians. Let’s remember, overwhelmingly most of those that have died in the last several years are civilians. Stopping a plane flying overhead does not stop AK-47 and machete wielding troops from killing people.

Economic and political pressure is one option, but like a no-fly zone it does not stop anything. Cuba, North Korea, and Iraq have all had (or have) sanctions for years if not decades. Yet North Korea has nuclear weapons, Cuba still is a Communist dictatorship and we attacked Iraq. [Iraq may not be the best example, yet they still had a large army – one of the strongest in the region- and the abuse of Kurds and others was not abated by prior political pressure].

Face it, it takes troops. Just like it did in Bosnia.

Continued in Part 2...


**I want to thank Mary-Lea Cox for her writing on the YouTube question from the Presidential candidate debate**

Labels: Bosnia, Darfur, HR 180 IH, political debate, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Dodd, Senator Hillary Clinton, YouTube

I missed the Democratic Presidential debate last night, though I have heard a few comments about it. I’m wondering what were your favorite questions and answers?

I heard from one friend of mine that Senator Obama was asked what he would do for Blacks even though he was not “technically black”. Right, and I’m Casper the Ghost. What kind of a question is that? Since when are you technically any race? It sounds like the rules used during slavery to determine if you are white or black. It’s ridiculous to me. Senator Obama wakes up and looks in the mirror and sees a Black man just like I do. He’s like his life with reactions to him as a Black man, just like millions of us do. Do I need to say more?

The other question I heard that really perked up my ears was the fact that only one Presidential candidate backs reparations for African Americans. This is a big issue for me. I’ve spoken about it in-depth many times. While there are some in this nation that still refuse to acknowledge Slavery or it’s repercussions, none can debate the impact that slave made to building the infrastructure and economy of this nation.

Simply put, America would not exist without African Americans. All the labor that was done was not paid for. Everything we have today is a direct result of that work. It’s just that simple. Build a house without a foundation and watch what happens when a wind blows.

“Estimates of the value of the unpaid labor and/or the above mentioned land has been placed from $9.7trillion to $24trillion, with other estimates slightly lower and many higher. Such estimates only confirm the absolute value and impact slave labor had on the formation of this nation”.

And of course there are plenty of examples of America providing apologies and reparations to others we have wronged. Like the American Native Indians and the Japanese-Americans that were interned in camps during World War II.

So to hear that Kucinich stating that

“The Bible says we shall be and must be repairers of the breach. And a breach has occurred.
We have to acknowledge that. It's a breach that has resulted in inequality in opportunities for education, for health care, for housing, for employment. And so, we must be mindful of that.
But it's also a breach that has affected a lot of poor whites as well.
We need to have a country which recognizes that there is an inequality of opportunity and a president who's ready to challenge the interest groups -- be they insurance companies or mortgage companies or defense contractors who are taking the money away from the people who need it.
Yes, I am for repairing the breach. Yes, I am for reparations.”

It makes me want to know more about the man, and why everyone else avoided answering the question. As I understand it even Senator Obama failed to give a straight answer. Am I correct in understanding that?

So what parts did you like?

Labels: political debate, presidential candidate, Reparations for Slavery, Senator Barak Obama

Politics and Hollywood. These 2 go together like white on rice, and are separate like oil and water. It’s something that is a big deal if you have it and not a big issue if you don’t. At least among pundits.

For those that are more Democrat, and/or liberal, Hollywood and the entertainment industry it represents are flag bearers of causes such as the environment or retreating from Iraq. To a smaller extent the more centrist views are held there as well with few (though often powerful) conservative or Republican issues as well. Because of this, and the fact that Hollywood support means large money donations and lots of faces with access to the media touting your candidate, most would enjoy having the top of the Hollywood elite joining their side.

One of the most powerful, Ms. Oprah Winfrey, is making the most of this. Ms. Winfrey joined others in support of Senator Obama in April. Her public declaration carries a lot of weight in most subjects. A book or movie that can boast her thumbs up can often be assured of success. Now we will see if this translates into the political world as well.

Possibly the first example of that transition may be in an up-coming fund-raiser at Ms. Winfrey’s home. Already invitations have been sent out to various entertainment figures, and there is limited space. Each RSVP includes a $2300 donation to Senator Obama, with dinner and time to get personal for those that get combined donations of $50,000 or more.

It’s a lot of money potentially, and obviously a lot of media attention. It gives pause to the Senator Clinton political machine that had previously held the lead on Hollywood endorsements.

But is that really important? Besides the tons of money that ensures advertisements and fliers, and makes the candidates beholden to the interests of big donors, what else is there? Do people with less than extreme fervor really care if celebrity XYZ likes this politician or the other?

While Ms. Winfrey is a coup for Senator Obama, being the first she has endorsed and is pushing to support, does that really equate to voters? I can see her causing more books to be sold, or a movie to get higher ticket sales, but votes? Do people trust ANY entertainer to tell them who is the best politician, especially when it comes to the Presidency?

It’s an interesting question. One that will soon be found out. There is no doubt that a great deal of attention will be paid to who shows up for this fund-raising event. More than a few celebrities and entertainers will be questioned about their endorsement, both tacit and explicit. But what will it matter?

I wonder if Senator Obama, or Senator Clinton, or even Mr. Rudy Giuliani as examples were endorsed by Snoop Dogg if that would help them or hurt them. Does that change in any manner the quality of the candidate? If it does, why?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: celebrity endorsement, fund-raising, Oprah Winfrey, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Snoop Dogg

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

With half the over, and pundits as well as candidates crowing about how much money they raised, I have prepared to release the current results of my poll on who might win the 2008 Presidential election. Before I mention who is leading my informal poll I want to bring up something far more important. It’s not the question of how much money is coming to each of the candidates from the healthcare lobby (which is substantial – Senator Clinton leads on that) or other corporate donations. It’s not how the candidates have used the internet to gain funds from the general public (which even with the record breaking numbers raised by Senator Obama pale to the lobbyist and corporate donation). I’m not even looking at how pundits are so focused on the issue of money raised they discount anyone who has not raised enough money (like Mr. John Edwards and Senator McCain). No, the issue is that while every candidate has a website, roughly 42% of the public can’t find answers about the issues.

According to a iCrossing study, 42% is the number of people searching for information on issues and candidates only to find nothing is there. This includes websites for the candidates themselves. You might say well if those Americans that are say 45+ are looking they are not as familiar with the internet and computers, so it might be a mistake on their part. If you did say that yoou are wrong. The emphasis of those looking online for information are between thwe ages of 18 – 35.

Forty-seven percent of those who go online for information about candidates and issues use search engines to conduct their research, equal to the 46 percent who do not.

Of potential voters who are looking for election information online, 61 percent of 18 to 24 year olds and 55 percent of 25 to 34 year olds seek answers on user-driven content sites such as blogs, YouTube and Wikipedia.

Issue- oriented searches dominate over explorations of candidates' voting and personal histories by a margin of nearly two to one; yet nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility.

I want to emphasize that last part, nearly all candidates rank poorly for issue-based search visibility. Why is it so difficult to find answers about issues on a Presidential candidate’s website? They want to tell you how friendly, joe-average, just like you, they are, but they won’t speak clearly and definitively about say national healthcare. Or what is their exist strategy for Iraq, or what happens after we are gone. Information gets fuzzy about social security, or providing an education to ALL the children of the nation. Not even a straight answer on what they want to do about illegal immigration.

Let me be clear, I’m not saying that they have a soundbite; I’m talking about a plan. A beginning, middle and end. A structured outline that anyone who can read can understand or at least follow. You can easily learn why Mr. John Edwards paid $400 for a haircut, or that Senator Obama quit smoking, or how many times Mr. Rudy Giuliani has appeared in drag. But do you care? Is any of that more important to making sure that when you go to sleep at night, or your loved ones go to work, that you won’t have to fear a terrorist attack? How does the information they give compare to whether they can ensure that the American dream of your children living a better life than yours will be a reality?

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: immigration policies, Iraq War, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

At my M V Consulting website, many people have had the chance to review letters that I have sent to several of the Presidential candidates. Since December 2006 several of the leading candidates of both parties have received letters directly from me, and others that have copied and forwarded these letters. So far, there has been no response. Which makes me wonder why?

Part of that may be the questions that were asked. None are simple 30 second, soundbite generating questions. They are thought out, balanced, non-partisan, real questions that require a real serious answer. These questions are not just of interest to a particular party, a region of the nation, or any race found in the nation. Here is one example given to former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani,

“Considering the strong stance against organized crime and for law enforcement, as seen from your actions mentioned above and in your work as a U.S. Attorney, what stance do you believe America should take under your potential leadership towards countries such as Iran, and towards terrorist groups such as Al Quida?”

Another was posed to Senator Barak Obama,

“In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?”

The abovementioned question is an important one. I have asked many of our potential future Presidents this question in one form or another. And I have noticed the swelling of interest about a national healthcare program. In particular I have noticed a few things that have come out recently that I think should get more attention.

One item is the response by the various candidates to the Accountability Coalition. Now I realize that this article I read was written by the Democrat staff writer, Gretyl Macalaster, and the Accountability Coalition is based in New Hampshire. Bias may exist. Still the fact is that the Accountability Coalition is a group of Americans that want to understand what the candidate plan to do on national healthcare, and not just the 30 second soundbite that is provided on the news and at ‘debates’. Only 4 Republican candidate representatives and 7 Democratic showed up to a bipartisan event that invited all the candidates.

That is a pretty piss poor response if you ask me, and I mean that for both parties. But I also found out why the response may have been so lukewarm, as well as why I cannot get an answer to my questions on this subject.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Accountability Coalition, M V Consulting, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Rudy Guilliani, Senator Barak Obama

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

Would a Democrat win the White House as some pundits speculate? Could it be Senator Clinton? Why would Senator Obama settle for Vice-President? Why in the world would they say this?

All of these things ran through my mind recently. I have to say they could be right. The fact is that if this does happen it would be for all the wrong reasons. Let me explain.

The way the math is being done now, there are more women than men in the nation. This is not new, but they historically come out and vote less than men do. It is often stated that one of the reasons that President John Kennedy was elected is due to his appeal to women as opposed to his opponent. A similar motivation is being posed as a factor for Senator Clinton. As the first woman, she will bring more women to vote for her without regard to her political views.

Add to this that Senator Obama, as the first Presidential candidate perceived as having a chance to make a critical impact, will garner the African American vote for similar reasons. Given the fact that Senator Obama is very new on the political scene and started with far less recognition, he will not gain the nomination but is too vital with minority voters and thus gets the Vice-President nod.

On top of this is the fact that immigration reform is seen as a Republican initiative, which is something many Latino and Hispanic Americans are angered by. Because of the emotion involved it is seen as weakening any Republican candidate’s chance.

Have you noticed that not one of these reasons, whether or not valid, have nothing to do with political platforms, benefit to the nation or ability of any candidate. This line of reasoning seem better suited for picking a winner of American Idol, or some other brain cell depleting ‘reality’ program. Do we really want to pick a President because we emotionally think they feel better than another candidate?

If that is a reason to pick a candidate then we might as well say that X is the better choice because they have on blue as opposed to black on election day. Deciding who will run the most powerful nation of the world should NEVER be relegated to the equivalent of a coin toss. I just can’t believe the general citizenry of this nation are that dumb.

I don’t care who wins, IF they are the best choice for the nation. Male, female, White, Black, Latino or whatever they should be the most qualified of the choices at the time. Anything less damages the nation and has repercussions for DECADES.

Maybe the pundits are wrong. There is a lot of time between now and the election. Maybe I will get some answers to the questions I have asked the current Presidential candidates. Perhaps someone will stand out as actually having plans that are fully formed and coherent. Possibly we will get comments that are more than mere soundbites, and a full choice will appear.

But if the pundits are right, for the reasons they claim, this nation is screwed.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: american idol, presidential candidate, presidential election, Republican Party, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continuing from Talking about Cancer Part 2...

Nothing is worse than suddenly knowing you have a tumor, especially when it’s the size of an orange or more. Nothing affects your loved ones more than knowing that you have an affliction that could have been worked on years earlier if someone just checked and paid attention. It just shouldn’t happen. Yet the mortality rates prove that it does.

Politicians may want to talk about national healthcare and affordability, but no one seems willing to talk about quality of care and accuracy. No one mentions that there hasn’t been a cure to anything since Polio. No one mentions that many studies find that the care given to African Americans, Latinos/Hispanics and other minorities is not the same as to Whites. No one mentions that various medications do not affect men and women the same. Having healthcare is not the same as getting good healthcare. It’s not about money, at least not from what I have observed in those close to me.

I hope I am wrong. I hope these are exceptions and not the rule. But somehow I don’t think so. I’d love to hear someone ask this of the various Presidential candidates. Perhaps a question similar to one posed by myself to Senator Barak Obama (who has not to date responded in any manner):

What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

[To be fair, none of the Presidential candidates has formed any response to any of the questions I have sent to them. The reason for this lack of response is open to question, but the fact that they were sent these questions months ago is a fact. You can see all of the questions I have asked at Letters to Presidential candidates.]

This is a serious subject. I hope it has provided some thoughts. I will be discussing it more in the future.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Talking about Cancer Part 1

Talking about cancer Part 2

Labels: African American, Hispanic American, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Senator Barak Obama

As the half way mark approaches on the Robin Roberts book giveaway contest, I want to mention that there is still time to get in. There has been a lot of activity so far but there is always a chance of winning a copy. Winners will be selected on the 10th so tell your friends.

In other update news, the current status of the [found on Black Entertainment USA and M V Consulting, Inc.] online poll choosing which Presidential candidate should be the President in 2008 continues to be a close one. According to the poll on this site, 34% are looking for Senator Obama to win. Senator Obama is closely followed by Senator Clinton with 26%, and then Senator McCain with 16%, and Mr. Giuliani at 13%. There are your front runners. I may update the poll (which will require a restart) to include Mr. Fred Thompson, and other candidates of both parties. If you go by Rasmussen Reports the current leaders are Mr. Rudy Giuliani (60% for Republican) and Senator Obama (58% for Democrat). Keep voting until the real vote comes. Every vote counts!

More soon.

Labels: presidential candidate, rasmussen reports, Robin Roberts, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barak Obama

I noticed something recently while writing the previous post. We all know that the race of the Presidency in 2008 has already begun. We have heard candidates speak on how great they are, thus being deserving of our votes. Respective of their political parties they have all claimed to be exemplifying the core values that voters want. But they haven’t told us anything really.

Yes, as the previous post proves there are some subjects that the potential candidates cannot avoid, but beyond that one subject what have they really said? If you have taken a look at my various questions posed to several of the main Presidential candidates, I have asked question on a spectrum of subjects. Taking out specific questions concerning health, age, and religion they all have been asked essentially the same thoughts. These thoughts have not been addressed by any of the candidates (nor have any of them been bold enough to respond).

In terms of healthcare, what has been said? Who is for national healthcare, and how do they expect to pay for it? How do they plan to keep taxes affordable? Who will help small business creation or growth? What initiatives will they champion for better race relations in the nation, or how about providing better educations to our children?

Can you honestly say that the WHOLE nation has been told these thoughts? Or have there been a lot of selective comments targeted to specific areas and groups that may contradict comments made to other areas and groups? Has anything said to raise money been specific or has it just been superficially all encompassing and popular enough to get free advertising?

Before you send out $1 to any candidate, check out the questions I have sent and have not been responded to. Ask yourself if you know the answers to the questions I posed, and if the nation knows that answer as well. I mean a detailed answer, not a cursory redirection of the answer. Ask them why they won’t answer, or respond, to the questions I have sent out since December 2006. Ask why they believe that questions from individuals, especially those that interact with tens of thousands of voting citizens, are unimportant while they ask for your money. Even asking while contacting you via the same medium that you and I are using now.

These are important questions. You should know the answers. Because once they are running, or are elected to office, it’s too late to say ‘this isn’t the guy I wanted’ or ‘I didn’t know you were for that’.

By the way, in polls on my various sites, Senator Obama is leading with 31% of votes, and Senators Clinton and McCain are tied for second with 21%. This includes the votes of visitors 18-65+. Just so you know.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: national healthcare, presidential candidate, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, small business

So what has been going on politically? A lot. Senator Obama made interesting comments in his speech to announce his official run for the Presidency. Senator Obama touched upon Lincoln, bringing up thoughts of the end of Slavery and the unifying of the nation. I find that quite funny though, as President Lincoln was a Republican, and the issue of Slavery was 5th most important of all the issues that the Civil War dealt with. [You can see my comments on this at Reparations for Black African Americans]

But Senator Obama made a few mistakes as well, commenting how every life lost by the military in Iraq was wasted. Almost as bad as John Kerry, but at least he quickly recovered and apologized. Of course the legislation to withdraw from the war in Iraq by April has emboldened the enemy, in my opinion. That opinion happens to be shared by Australian Prime Minister John Howard. I’m sure many others as well. Senator Obama may have a fresh presence for the nation, he may be a draw for the Black community, he may be a symbol liberals can rally around, but he seems no more capable of understanding the long-term ramifications of withdrawing our troops with our tail between our legs. I’ve said it before, “Political agendas enacted while troops are fighting is always to the detriment of the nation.”

As for Senator Clinton, I saw an interesting video clip comparing comments from 2002 to today. It’s amazing to listen to Senator Clinton stand up and demand we fight Saddam Hussein, and to stand proudly when he was captured, and then to see her today unwilling to speak about those decisions while declaring a retreat. If that is not one of the most obvious declarations of 2-faced politics I’m not sure what is. If that isn’t chasing polls as opposed to standing by convictions, what is?

Of course Mr. Rudy Giulliani has also determined he will run for the Presidency. There isn’t much to be said about the former NYC mayor. The fact is that he was not a remarkable mayor, until 9/11/2001. Prior to that time he was not overly loved in New York City. He was not on par with say Mayor Koch, or other notable mayors. Mr. Giulliani sold off west 42nd street to Disney. While it was a good thing that the area was improved and crime reduced, the incorporation of that area irked many (including me). Yes I enjoy Dave & Buster’s and I like BB Kings. But I loved the 24 hour kung fu theater that used to exist there. Much of the character of the city disappeared in creating this ultra sanitized tourist trap.

We should not forget the actions of the police during his time as Mayor. Remember how Mr. Amadou Diallo died. 41 shots, at least one of which was thru the bottom of his foot after he was laying on the ground in a pool of his own blood. That was from a police force told to crack down by order of the Mayor. Or what about Mr. Abner Louima? Do you recall how he was brutalized by police officers? Again, based on the stronger presence of the police dictated by the Mayor of New York City. And do not forget his actions in regard to Mr. Patrick Dorismond.

My point is that while he was a strong force for the city after the attacks on the Twin Towers, there are other factors that need to be remembered. He is not perfect on civil rights, and has no problem with racial profiling. The nation may remember one aspect of the man. And it is impressive, but it’s not the whole picture those of us from the city may remember.

Mr. Rudy Giulliani did well with gun control, if you think the manufacturers are at fault for what people do with their products. [IF you agree with that you probably agree that putting hot coffee in your exposed lap while driving and thus burning yourself is the fault of McDonalds] He did exceptionally well in politically slapping the PLO in the face. His position on immigration is questionable though. Keep a balanced view. He is not just the September 11 candidate.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Hillary Clinton, Rudy Guilliani, Senator Barak Obama

I don’t think Senator Biden is a racist. I really don’t. I think his comments though betray a mindset that pervades America and is implicit of the double standard in American society. This mindset is deeply entrenched in the 45 and older age group in America. Sadly they are also the ones that do the most voting, helping to pass laws or failing to do so.

I think most have heard of what Senator Biden said. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man." These comments have started a flurry of comments. I have been waiting to hear more from Sen. Biden, and I have been unsurprised at his follow-up.

Some have readily accepted that Senator Biden misspoke. That the reactions to his words are extreme. Some feel that since he is a Democrat, the media and therefore the public are taking this in stride; and that if a Republican had said the same words an uproar would have occurred. To some extent all are correct. But I have no doubt that there was a clear secondary meaning that he did not even notice he made. It’s so subtle that he just blew past it.

To say Senator Obama is ‘articulate’, ‘clean’, and a ‘nice-looking guy’ is to belittle him. It’s a back-handed compliment at best. And not much of a compliment at that. Perhaps the Senator meant clean-cut, though that implies a description of looks and not quality of character. Senator Biden has said he intended, and should have used, the term fresh. Again that implies a description of look and not quality. The only positive part of the comment is that he called Senator Obama bright. Of course that was mitigated by his further stating that Senator Obama is a storybook, which implied that he is unreal or something that only little children would believe. Wow, what a nice compliment.

I am highly upset with the articulate comment. It implies that African Americans are generally incapable of being eloquent speakers. While rap and hip-hop may be popular, there are millions of African Americans that speak as well, if not better than Senator Biden. Several entertainers in fact speak better, when not in their on-stage personas (like Mr. Eddie Murphy, Mr. Marin Lawrence, Queen Latifah, Mr. Dave Chappelle and many others). This same kind of thinking was used to describe Former Secretary of State Colin Powell. It is this mentality that is used to insult African Americans while seeming to compliment us. It directly attacks the thought that intelligent African Americans are anything but a rare occurrence.

The use of the term clean, where many have focused, is very straight-forward. It implies, like all of his statement, the look of Senator Obama. This troubles me. From the mistaken thought that African Americans are dark because we are ‘dirty’ to bring the thought that the average Black American fails to have good hygiene. Both are false, shallow-witted thoughts.

The fact that Senator Obama is not ugly, detracts from his abilities. Most Senators, and Presidents, are anything but model quality in looks – to me. Yet I do not recall hearing that as part of their platforms which the public votes on. American Idol yes, politicians no. The looks of a politician have no bearing on their ability, but when a person seeks something nice to say – and they have no real positive comment – statements about superficial, transitory, subjective fluff fill in nicely for real substance. If done right it can even be used as a positive soundbite to gain attention.

So while Senator Biden, Democrats and some bloggers (like the one at Main and Central by Lurch who is mostly neutral but supporting the misspoken view) wish to try to turn this into a one term gaff, the totality of the comment do not reflect that in my view. The fact that there are no other politicians that are referred to in such belittling and cursory terms further supports my thought. That is unless the figure is an African American – such as Ms. Condolezza Rice, Mr. Colin Powell and so forth.

The belittling is further compounded in that Senator Biden relegates all other Black Americans that have run for President as insignificant or non-existent. Sen. Biden may wish to compliment and acknowledge Rev. Jesse Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton, and former Representative Shirley Chisholm now, but his thought at the time as conveyed by his words and full context of the statement is clear to me.

This was not a misstatement. This was not a miscommunication. The theme is clear and supported by the totality of the statement. Words are very powerful, and when taken as a whole make a visceral comment that can go beyond the actual words. Sadly many in America don’t fully understand the words being used, as opposed to college English majors, teachers, salesmen, or a politician as examples. Those that rely on words to convey their thoughts to achieve a goal do understand completely what they say.

Senator Biden needs to apologize to more than just Senator Obama. Every Black American deserves an apology. These comments are reminiscent of the mentality that necessitated the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960’s. These comments belittle every success and successful Black American in the nation. Hiding behind one term in a statement whose total purpose is too subtly insult will not fool us. The mainstream media may not wish to address this but I will.

For me, Senator Biden will never get my vote. He will not receive a letter to investigate his views, as I have done of other Presidential candidates. Perhaps this is rash, or an over-reaction. I accept that it may be. But the underlying thought of his statement cannot be warmed-over by platitudes or a plea of a single term misstatement. The meaning of the full comment does not change. That meaning places me and 14% of America in a second-class, less than meaningful position. I will not accept that of an American President of politician if possible.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, democrat, republican, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Biden

This is an exact copy of a letter sent to Senator Obama. Any response will be posted unaltered.

January 22, 2007
Dear Senator Obama,

I am contacting you today as part of an ongoing series of letters that I am sending to many of those that are planning to run for President of the United States. To date I have written letters to Senator Clinton, Mr. John Edwards, and Mr. Mitt Romney.

I am the author/writer of several blog sites including Black Entertainment USA (www.blackentertainmentblog.com). My letter to you, as well as any response from you will be posted on these sites without alteration.

Senator Obama I am aware that you are a junior Senator, having served 2 years at this time, representing Illinois. As I am from New York I am not familiar with the platforms you were elected for. What was the main issue that you campaigned on, and what progress have you made in attaining that? What laws have you helped to pass, or prevented from passing, that have directly benefited your constituents and African Americans in general?

As a fellow African American I’m sure you are aware that there are several issues that are of great impact to the Black community. One of the most important may be the issue of education. What have you done to improve the number of African Americans that finish high school and/or seek higher education? If you were to be elected President, what plan would you follow that will improve the education system in America?

In terms of your own education I ask a question that has recently been in the news. It has been stated that during the 4 years in Jakarta you had attended a Madrasa. I wonder if you feel this has any influence on the education you received, or more importantly do you believe that having lived and studied overseas provided you any benefit that your peers may not have had?

It has also been stated that you are a smoker. If this is true do you believe that has any effect on your views on healthcare? In addition how do you feel about the current trend to leave businesses without a choice and disallow smoking? Do you believe that the smoking ban is fair to businesses, and does it make sense to have a ban while also allowing adult citizens to purchase cigarettes?

As a lawyer that worked on civil rights issues, what do you believe you can do, or are doing currently, to improve the rights of African Americans and Latino/Hispanic Americans or any other people of color in this nation? What do you feel is the largest obstacle and what plan do you have to remove it?

In terms of national healthcare, do you agree with the push for a national healthcare system? If you do how would you have this program funded? What would you do to motivate institutions and individuals to seek out new innovations with the profit motive removed? How would you ensure that a national program would not function in the same manner most feel other government institutions do, such as the education system (which most feel is a failure)?

What role, if any, do you feel religion plays in the government? Do you believe that the fact you have never served in the Armed Forces would have any effect on your ability to perform as Commander-and-Chief?

Speaking of the Armed Forces, at this time there is a general feeling that the war in Iraq is going badly. President Bush has just announced a plan that would elevate the number of troops serving in Iraq. The democratic party is generally opposed to this plan. What exact alternative would you implement in place of this current plan, and what plan would you establish to ensure the safety of Americans if Iraq becomes more unstable (thus promoting terrorist attacks on America)?

Do you feel that the fact you have little experience in the Senate, or with dealing with international politics, is a hindrance to your ability to act as President and if not why?

Recently there has been a growing apprehension among some in the nation about the number of immigrant that are allowed into the nation for non-European nations (as per Rep. Goode). How do you feel about this? Also there is a strong debate on what to do about the large numbers of illegal immigrants. What plan do you have to deal with this issue?

I thank you for taking the time to read and to respond to this letter. As I stated earlier this will be posted on several sites, particularly Black Entertainment USA (at the address noted above).

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
President – M V Consulting, Inc.
Author – Black Entertainment USA and Vass
info@blackentertainmentblog.com

Labels: African American, Armed Forces, black entertainment blog, Civil Rights, Iraq War, presidential election, Senator Barak Obama

Recently there was something that I ran across that may be of interest. Well for Democrats anyway. Senator Barack Obama was recently joking on the Conan O’BRIEN show about running for president. I don’t see this as such a joke as it is testing the waters out there to see how people feel about him. And the thought of a potentially Black African American president. I must say that there a few things that appeal to me about Senator Obama. I like that he has worked hard to get where he is. That he is educated. That he has strong values and sticks by them. And he is a Black African American. In that order.

I’m sure many of the democratic pollsters and politicos are valuing his appeal with minority voters more than I do. I can only hope that I don’t start hearing people refer to how well Senator Obama speaks. It’s insulting and ignorant. And for those that have forgotten, it’s what was often said when Mr. Colin Powell was rumored to be considering a run at the presidency. It was so prevalent that comedians (notably Mr. Chris Rock) made many jokes about it.

But ignorant statements or not, I’d rather see the relatively inexperienced Senator Obama run for president as opposed to Senator Clinton. My reasons to oppose her are numerous and can be found throughout my posts here.

Actually my thoughts can be seen right here. In another example of backpedaling on a statement she has made, Senator Clinton tried to retract her rebuke of the youth of today. She was directly apologizing to her daughter though, and not the students at Long Island University. It’s not that I disagree that many of the youth today are grasped by either an attitude of entitlement, or apathy. All too often it can be seen in the Black African American and Hispanic youth of today in the inner city, and in the White youth at many colleges (ie. Duke lacrosse team - though I admit its not entirely accurate). But rather than stand by the statement, even to say that perhaps her child might be able to work harder - because there are others who are - Senator Clinton instead let’s it be know that her intent was just to raise the bar. I see fear of offending some young voters. Why can’t she seem to make a stand rather than bouncing around trying to get the best option for votes by saying anything and then backing away from it. At least that’s how I see her actions.

On the other end is Senator John McCain, who I respect and like. While Senator McCain hurt his position with the religious right, calling then “agents of intolerance,” he did stand by his statements. That means a lot with me. I would suspect that it means a lot with most voters, that is a politician that stands by his words. Of course politics being what they are, even those that make a stand do bend. And Senator McCain did bend when he was at Liberty University with Rev. Jerry Falwell. But Senator McCain is correct that, “Americans deserve more than tolerance from one another.” It’s not to much to ask for I think. And I think it should be expected. And it should be expected that America does something about the loss of life in Dafur. I agree in that, if for no other reason beyond the large loss of life in a non-eastern european nation, is the fact that Osama bin Laden drew a line in the sand and told us not to. Liberals may not like Senator McCain’s views, but I think everyone has to respect that he stands by them. Even if sometimes he may lean a bit, it’s still better than flipping the position entirely.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Chris Rock, Colin Powell, Long Island University, Rev. Jerry Falwell, Senator Barak Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain