Ah the joy of politics. There is nothing like it. Only in politics can a person give a promise to millions of people, publicly, and then get a promotion when they fail miserably to follow thru. Only in politics can promises on the campaign trail be reversed 180 degrees once elected. Only in politics can a politician accept money that most would call influencing and still become one of the most powerful people in the free world.

It's called polispeak, at least by me. The act of saying and doing anything necessary to bolster a politicians power base and rise in the ranks while deluding the public. And there are plenty of politicians in office right now that are masters of this.

Barney Frank is one such politician. He adeptly changed his position on the mortgage crisis several times, matching the prevailing wind of public sentiment well enough to be untouched politically. How else could a politician say on tape that real problems don't exist and that he is on top of all the factors involved, then have all those problems explode in his face, and yet still maintain his elected position. Polispeak. Just blame everyone else and ignore what you have said before.

And another favorite is Senator Clinton. She has now become Secretary of State. Which is a joke. She has fought and won the ability to receive, via the William J. Clinton Foundation, tens of millions in donations from foreign Governments while she holds this post. She previously failed on promises to her Upstate New York constituents, promising to bring in 200,000 jobs and losing over 30,000 instead. She has reversed her position on illegal immigration so fast that only video of her conversation makes it possible to see how fast she polispoke (3 positions in 2 minutes at the same Primary debate, and in the same question). And she negotiated herself out of millions in debt (from her presidency run) and into a promotion while maintaining her bid for a future run at the Presidency and ignoring the racial comments she made in the campaign.

But let us not forget the polispeak of President Obama. He successful convinced the nation that he is not a far-left liberal, though his voting record is explicit in making that clear. He reversed his position on gay marriage. He avoided the weight of his political past, particularly his direct and close association with an admitted unrepentant terrorist, with a mere sentence. He has altered his positions somewhat on Iraq, the economy, and several other issues - even before getting sworn in. And his initial approval rating looks to be through the roof.

Politics is a unique field. And for those adept at polispeak it is the only place to be. It's even better than being a lawyer. Amazing.

Labels: Barney Frank, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Secretary of State, Senator Clinton

Perhaps one of the most telling things about why Senator Hillary Clinton should not be Secretary of State, or any other position in the Executive Office, has been raised by Senator Lugar during the confimation hearings the other day. It is simple and direct.

Senator Lugar clearly expressed the problem. Senator Clinton is directly tied to the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation is known for having recieved tens of millions of dollars in donations from overseas Governments and individuals that have lead to questionable (at the least) deals. It can be said that influence was bought via these donations. And as Secretary of State such a conflict of interest weakens and corrupts the Obama Administration.

So Senator lugar made a simple and easy request. He asked Senator Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation not receive foriegn donations while she holds the position in the Cabinet. This is not being focused on in the news media. Then again the media has been overwhelmingly propagandist for every Democrat that ran for President in 2008.

The response by Senator Clinton was terse and unconvincing. She says there is no conflict, which many disagree on. And past action/reactions from donations made to the Foundation show that. She wants to boast how this information about the Foundation was submitted to Congress, but does not mention that it took over 1 year for the Clintons to allow any information to be revealed, and it is still not fully disclosed even now. Which gives the impression that there is something to be hidden.

And her biggest point is that neither she nor Bill Clinton receive a salary from the Foundation. While true, they do have the power to direct where the funds in the Foundation is spent. Which to me is the same as a salary. Even better because it is a tax sheild (which they have used to protect at least $10 million).

She goes on to express why foreign governments gave donations, excluding every single Middle Eastern nation which gave more money than several of the nations she did mention combined. And if you listen carefully she states that she has worked to maintain the Foundation exactly as it is. Thus she is inflexible on a Foundation she claims to have no financial interest in, that can operate without the donations of foreign Governments, especially those nations questionable.

But the question not asked of her is why this Foundation cannot be treated like the brokerage accounts of many elected officials. A blind trust, or appointed trustees that would have sole control over the Foundation. Why can't Bill and Hillary Clinton forgo any control over the Foundation while she holds a position of influence in out Government??

Perhaps there is a portion of the "overhead" and "transparency" that is not quite as clear cut as she claims. And it seems that this is something that the Clintons will not give up. Even with the good and integrity of the nation on the line. Yet the Democrat-led Congress has no issue with this.

It's this simple. Would this same Congress have allowed a similarly qualified Republican with a similar foundation to be confirmed making the same statements? I believe not. Thus this is all polispeak to the detriment of the nation.

Secretary of State Clinton was a bad idea. It's a political backdoor deal that weakens the nation. She is a manipulative power hungry viper - in my opinion - who will damage the reputation and influence of the nation for no reason beyond her own ambitions.

Labels: confirmation hearings, Congress, Secretary of State, Senator Clinton, Senator Lugar, William J. Clinton Foundation

I've waited for a while now, just waiting for something from Caroline Kennedy to justify or remove her from consideration in replacing Senator Hillary Clinton. Mind you that I am not sorry to see Senator Clinton gone from office, as I am tired of her excuses on the broken promises that mark her time in New York. Though I am greatly saddened to see her working anywhere near the Executive Branch. But long-term readers know that, and this is about Kennedy.

Up til now there can be no question that Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for the Senate. She is a lawyer, like much of Congress. She is a Democrat, which at the moment gives her a boost. And she is the daughter of a revered dead President. Because if we are honest, that is the only reason any of us know her name.

Since she has never been politically active, which is a problem for me with anyone that would be Senator, we need to look at other aspects of this woman. She is part of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which I personally like but is not enough. She has worked for 2 years, 2002-4, and rose $65 million in private funds for schools in New York which is great. The job was only 3 days a week though and one must wonder how much money she could have raised if she worked a full 5 days, the schools in NY could have used the extra effort.

Still none of this is a qualification. Yes she helps people, and is a committed Democrat. But what can she do? And what does she plan to do to help the state in this very critical time? The New York Times and other news media had the same question and asked her just that on several issues. The answers reveal quite a bit.

Mrs. Schlossberg is shrewd, having given a total of $7300 to Clinton before she switched to Obama in September of that year and gave him $2300. At the same time she has not voted in numerous Primaries since 1988. So we can understand she is willing to let her money vote for her.

In addition we now know that she supports same-sex marriage, which 68% of the nation opposes - even in California and New York. Something that neither Clinton nor Obama support. Which makes me believe she is even more liberal than the former most liberal member of Congress - President Obama.

It also seems that she opposes any restriction on abortion. This is another far-left Democrat policy stance. It includes, and Kennedy defered to not answer about, partial birth abortions. Even those in favor of abortion have issues with that. But seemingly not Kennedy, though she prefers to avoid having to make polispeak about such a position.

And in a hat tip to the Pelosi led Congress, she supports the mandating of public vote at unions. Thus taking away the normal right of secret ballots, and forcing workers to deal with peer pressure and criticism for co-workers and management. How kind.

And of course she is in favor of the auto bailout. Something that all Democrats are pushing to advance, though none have answered a simple question. When the auto industry came back to Congress after using up $25 billion in bailout money in one month, they stated that they HAD to have $50 billion or they would fail. Congress is trying to provide $15-35 billion instead, with a "car czar" (otherwise known as more government interference resulting in another Barney Frank). Since this is not $50 billion, and thus means the auto industry will fail and/or come back for more money, why does she support the lesser amount? No Democrat has a good answer for that, though they have been very good at avoiding the question.

And we know that Kennedy is anti-gun, which places her at odds with most of the state - except New York City. And it is the City that NY politicians proffer to.

Speaking of which, surprisingly she backs her uncles plan to make illegal immigrants (otherwise known as undocumented workers - the missing document is a greencard and reason to be in the U.S.) citizens. Pay a fine and swear in. We might as well make citizenship available on eBay.

But in a question that hits the pockets of the people in the state Kennedy is mum about capping property taxes. Or on taxing the higher income brackets more (which still would not make up the shortfall that the new spending creates).

So all in all what can we surmise? Kennedy is a liberal the likes of which we have not had in this state as far back as I can remember. She is more liberal than Clinton, and Obama. And if you wonder why might that be a bad thing recall this. Senator Clinton PROMISED to bring 200,000 jobs to New York State if upstate New York voted her in. We have lost over 30,000 jobs as of 2007, long before the current crisis hit.

Do you believe a more liberal, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-second ammendment, spend and tax, lawyer with no experience in politics would be a good Senator? Without the last name, the answer can only be no. But what Gov. Patterson decides will happen. Sadly.

Labels: 2nd Amendment, Abortion, auto industry, Caroline Kennedy, Congress, Democratic Party, Gov. Patterson, illegal immigration, mortgage bailout, New York State, Senator Clinton, Senator Edward Kennedy

Well the political campaign ads for the Obama – Biden ticket are already coming out.



I notice that this ad finally notices that Darfur exists. Too bad Senator Obama did not have the balls to comment on it during the Primaries. Then again he had nothing to say about reparations either, just the same as Senator Joe Biden.

Of course the McCain campaign has already come up with a response.



I am glad that Senator Clinton is nowhere on the ticket. My thoughts on her are unchanged. She is too dangerous for America.

That said, she is right that Senator Obama has been scant in details on his plans. His definition of rich is ambiguous, his promise to lower taxes completely ignores small business owners. I disagree that Senator Obama’s friendship with Rezco is a definite problem. If it was some Chicago reporter would have found it by now.

But this Vice-President choice had me checking back to see what inconsistencies might be in the Obama campaign.

There is of course the fact that Biden disagrees with Obama on the experience needed for the Presidency, ‘old’ vs ‘new’ politics, healthcare, and of course Iraq. But that lead me to find the crazy polispeak of Senator Obama on Iraq.



Of course Senator Joe Biden disagrees with Senator Obama on Pakistan too. And has been to Iraq more.

Imagine the message this sends to the rest of the world when we know that the VP thinks the President uses “shorthand“ to discuss international policy, and the “wrong policy” at that.



If Democrats are happy with this match up, I can only imagine it’s because Senator Obama is the most liberal senator and Biden is in 3rd place. Other than that it will have to be political ads, because nothing else will work – without massive flip flops and polispeak to spin your head.

Labels: Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Clinton

So the primary race is now in West Virginia. And while it’s very early, indications are that Senator Clinton will win her 3rd state with a margin of over 20 points. That compares to Senator Obama in that he has won over a dozen states with that same margin. Thus a question comes to mind of why Senator Clinton winning with such a margin, especially when she has rarely been able to muster such a rally and of late has barely been able to accomplish a win at all.

One answer stands up among many others, and it’s an answer few have been willing to comment on though it has been a factor in this Democratic nomination process since Senator Obama announced he would run in 2007. Race. The other factor, to a far lesser degree is gender.

Let’s be honest. That is the motivating factor today, and in several of the states so far. Several commentators have mentioned that voters in West Virginia are noting that Senator Obama’s perceived religion is a factor. Perceived because they claim he is a Muslim. And Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, which can be boiled down to ‘elect the White woman not the Black man’, is also showing influence. So we see bias based on religion, gender, lies and racism hold sway with more than just a few voters in America.

And the pundits act as if they are shocked. Like the Clinton campaign never promoted images of Senator Obama as a drug dealer, or emails claiming he is a fanatical Muslim spy, or just directly insulting him because he is African American and running for the Presidency. Obviously they seem to have forgotten all the news events I have been writing about since 2006 here.

What does it take to look at the factual evidence and see what has been done for what it is? Or is the prospect of dealing with the reality of racial prejudice, even in the most liberal party, too unsavory for White Americans to deal with?

The fact is that both Senator Clinton and Obama are virtually the same on their political views. Their proposed platforms are near mirror images of each other. Differences are slightly more than cosmetic, more points of contention for pundits and news junkies like myself than actual preferences for most Americans. Thus the 2 things that are different have been emphasized and manipulated.

The Clinton campaign has not been shy in trying to use race and gender to their advantage. Calls seeking to minimize the damage to the Democratic Party have been unheeded since back in February. And in West Virginia, a state not known for its tolerance of religion or race, the lines cannot be crossed.

Remember, this is the same state where Megan Williams was kidnapped, raped, tortured and abused for over a week. It’s the same state that avoided national attention on this case. It’s a state that has virtually eliminated coverage of protests over the handling of the case – where the 6 White criminals still have not been charged with hate crimes though race has been seen as a big factor in this case.

Am I angry over this case? Hell yes! And I have made that clear in at least a dozen posts on multiple blogs. But when a Presidential candidate that has overtly used her race as a campaign tool is winning in a landslide in West Virginia, I can’t say I am shocked or even remotely surprised.

This leads me to another question. What factor will race play in the general election?

Senator John McCain seems to be above such petty actions as using race as a tool. I believe that as a soldier that has seen combat alongside soldiers of every race in America he is not so blind. I could be wrong. But I don’t feel he will use race. And Senator Obama has clearly tried to avoid this issue as much as possible, notwithstanding the attacks and comments of former-President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, and her campaign (and the media driven insanity over the five 10 second polispeak clips of Rev. Wright from over an unknown number of years).

But race is going to be as big a factor in this election as what America will do in Iraq. It may not be spoken directly, but it will be there. And I have no doubt that many of those less bold than some in West Virginia will bring it to the fore, even if the media tried to turn a blind eye to the racial storm they have helped to build.

So can America look at 2 men for the same position and not see their race but just their qualifications? If we take our cue form the business world, the answer is no. Just count on one hand the CEO’s of major corporations in the stock market. If we go by law enforcement the answer is no. Just listen to the changes in testimony of the Sean Bell case, or the actions of the police in Philadelphia. If we look at the media in general we get an adamant no. With barely 2% of the population shown in media being non-White, and the propensity of news organizations to demonize African Americans (see my comments on the full coverage of Wesley Snipes, or Bobbie Cutts, or OJ Simpson, or Sean Taylor, or the Jena 6, or Megan Williams, or the ‘Barbie’ bank robbers of Atlanta, or Sean Bell, and I can keep going on), the position is undeniably clear.

Given all that, this election will be a landmark for many reasons. The degree and manner in which race is used. The vocalizations of citizens over race. The perceptions promoted about race in various formats. The number of people that will vote based on color, and the number that will vote based on color to make a point of one extreme or another. And of course there is the question of the issues facing America.

Now I do notice and comment on how race affects me and the nation as I see it. Of course that comes to fore in covering the Presidential election. But I am not motivated by, nor condone or agree with the use of race as a factor on who should win. I believe that America needs the best person possible to lead this nation on a path that we will not be able to alter for at least a decade or more.

While I will not shy away from race being used in the race for the Presidency, I will not advance it as a reason. As I have noted at the beginning of covering this election, my goal is getting the best President elected. That is still my focus. With Senator Clinton all but out of the election my focus is now on the 2 remaining candidates. Both have been individuals that I favor. I will soon make my own decision on which I feel is best. I will make that decision known. But I will not let that color my coverage, as best as I am able.

Remember, we as citizens have an obligation to our nation. That obligation is to vote and pick the best person possible for our future. We only get one vote, so make it count. Because one it’s done we can’t go back.

Labels: Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain, west virginia

Well the first part of 4 videos on Bill O’Reilly and Senator Hillary Clinton is now done. It’s taking forever to get all the videos downloaded to YouTube.

Here is the first part of their conversation



Now here are my thoughts:

One of my biggest problems with what bill O’Reilly didn’t ask, in any point of the interview, is why Senator Clinton lied to the American public. I am directly referring to her lies about being under sniper fire in Bosnia, and her lie about being a key figure in the Ireland Peace talks. In both cases her every utterance was a fabrication intended to puff up her abilities, create an impression of experience, and gain voters that do not follow the political news as much as someone like myself. And in each case her lies were refuted by first-hand witnesses of high regard.

Another point that I thought should have been brought up was the fact that Senator Clinton has been more than happy to take advantage of the Rev. Wright media barrage leveled against Senator Obama. Yet she was given a pass on a far more serious issue. That being her association with a known criminal, Norman Hsu, and her campaign’s acceptance of $1 million that was stolen – which her campaign tried very hard to not give back. If an association with a pastor that has no political power, and is not up for election, is significant how is it not important that she received stolen monies and harbored a fugitive?

I know that these 2 items are constants in my conversations about Senator Clinton’s nomination run. But I find them critical indicators of what kind of President we can expect her to be. And in both cases we do not see an equivalent, relevant action or situation among any of the other Presidential candidates.

But directly pertaining to the video are the following:

First is the “sudden” decision to appear on The O’Reilly Factor. There has been an open invitation to all the Democratic candidates to appear on the program since November 2007 as I recall. They all denied to appear, with the exception of Dennis Kucinich (which might have been on Hannity & Colmes I’m not sure).

But with Senator Obama currently reeling from the major news media motivated (led by Fox News) Rev. Wright debacle, and Clinton emphasizing the racial aspects of the Democratic nomination since November, she decides to make the move. Remember that she contacted O’Reilly. If this is not an example of counting polls and being calculating I don’t know what is. And it’s completely in line with her past actions (ie the Hot Coffee bruhha) of jumping into headlines for the sake of self-promotion.

But since Rev. Wright is a personally important issue for Bill O’Reilly, which I continue to feel has minimal importance to the actual issues a President should be voted for, this was the first question. And Senator Clinton was allowed to not be asked why some of her prior pastors made similar comments to some of those that Rev. Wright has made. Or why she has not had a pastor or church since Bill Clinton left the Presidency. That kind of makes her opinion on being in a church (the same one for 20 years) moot.

She also mentions that she does not believe the US could be behind AIDS. While I do agree, I am not 100% on this. And no reasoning American should be. Why? Because America has done a similar thing in the past. Tuskegee Experiments. 2 words that no White pundit or politician wants to utter.

The fact is that America harmed African American men, and the Black community, for 4 decades. That’s the equivalent of my lifetime. The end of this human experimentation, something that is universally denounced among nations across the globe, was a mere 30ish years ago. And if America could do this in my lifetime once, potentially affecting the fathers and grandfathers, uncles and/or brothers of you my readers, why would they not do it again? Some of those involved in running this ‘experiment’ are still alive and could influence policy. Were it not for the whistle-blowing on this, America would never have known. What prevents the Government form doing this secretly again, and this time keeping quiet because of the devastation? America dropped the 2nd H-bomb on Nagasaki after seeing the horror of Hiroshima, partly because the Japanese were ‘nips’. Thus how can anyone say that AIDS was 100% not possible in a nation that has shown what it can do to those not exactly like the majority?

For Senator Clinton, this is 100% impossible. And you know it must be true because she loves to make speeches in front of African Americans on Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday. Though she does nothing to denounce the racially motivated and incendiary comments of her husband. I wonder what influence he has on her views of Black Americans and why she hasn’t distanced herself from him?

[By the way, the latest Rasmussen poll shows that ‘surprise’ Senator Obama is seen as sharing the views of Rev. Wright – at least in part. But pundits are amazed as everyone, regardless of political party, agrees that there is no evidence in his voting record, actions, or conversations. Yet it is the major news media that has plastered nothing but Rev. Wright for 3 weeks now. That wouldn’t influence voters, could it?]

Moving on we come to oil and energy. In particular the fact that Senator Clinton has jumped on the bandwagon created by Senator McCain. Shocking that she would approve of a plan someone else made that has polled well. Suspending the 18 cents federal gas tax is popular, and hypocritical.

Senator Clinton has shot down drilling in ANWAR, which would have at least lessened the current problem had we done this years ago. In addition Senator Clinton is anti-nuclear power (voting against it 7 times). Considering that she is against these alternatives, and promoting ethanol - which is less effective than gasoline, increases the cost of food globally, and potentially is polluting the Gulf of Mexico not to mention unavailable in about 45 states in the nation – one has to wonder how committed she is to fixing the energy crisis.

Of course this was a wonderful time for her to jump on the “oil companies are bad” stump polispeak. One of the mantras of ultra-liberals all big business is bad. They make too much money and need to be penalized. So much for the American dream.

Senator Clinton does not mention the fact that the profits of oil companies fuels this economy. From jobs, retirement funds, mutual funds, the stock market, and the value of the dollar oil companies are a big part of a stable economy. Take away their money and you hurt America directly. But that’s something anyone who has run a business might understand – Clinton has never run anything.

That say nothing of her thinly-veiled intent to socialize business in America. If she were to take money from, or cap profit of, oil companies what industry is next? And what level is the limit? It’s a slippery slope that ends with businesses essentially being employees of the government – that’s called socialism and in its most extreme communism.

Lastly in this segment we go to healthcare. Universal Healthcare is again her big issue. Senator Clinton failed to get this passed the last time she was around the Oval Office and this is her mulligan try. In her explanation to Bill O’Reilly Senator Clinton has left out a key component of her plan. Everyone pays for Universal Healthcare, it’s free to no one. And if you don’t pay you will be penalized. Thus it is very realistic that those who need the most help will not only still be unable to afford it, but that they will owe money because of the penalty for not having healthcare insurance. Nice plan, huh.

Another question that was not addressed well is her response about running this program. She avoided the fact that already California and New York States are in debt some $20 billion mostly due to healthcare costs (minus a hefty 20% discount for fraud which is more than believed actual). This is inefficiency of the Government as much as increased costs. And Senator Clinton had no answer.

The Government cannot run the Post Office efficiently – and it’s cost goes up routinely without an increase in performance. The Veterans Administration is so bad it would be laughable were it not so sad. Name a DMV that you think is either efficient or inexpensive. And let us not forget that the Government routinely buys hammers and nails for in excess of $500 each (and I do mean each nail) and has not run a profit in decades. [By the way, the profit that was claimed by the Clinton Administration was a lie of fuzzy math the Government employs. What was done was that the Clinton Administration valued the growth in the stock market, averaged it, and projected it forward 5 years. Based on that math the Government was in a surplus by the end of the 5 year figures, and they spent money based on being even at the end of 5 years. Of course the bursting of the bubble led to the “sudden” deficit that happened instantly as Gore lost the election. Try to run your business like that.]

So given these everyday facts, and that Senator Clinton promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs yet provided a net loss of 30,000 since being elected Senator, do you think she can manage costs? Do you think a(nother) Government run program will be cost effective?

Yes Senator Clinton spoke well. Yes she kept composed under the pressure that Bill O’Reilly provided. But if you listen to what she said, understand the environment in which she said them, and facts she avoided mentioning you might come up with a loss. American needs a President that is cool under pressure. But we also need a President that has a plan that IMPROVES the nation in more areas than not. This first part of the interview does not encourage me to believe Senator Clinton has that plan.

Do you agree?

Labels: AIDS, American economy, Bill O’Reilly, Dr. Martin Luther King, Polispeak, President Bill Clinton, presidential election, Rev. Wright, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Tuskegee Experiment, universal healthcare

So after the ABC Democratic Presidential debate we are left with less useful information on the candidates and their plans for the nation. Many have made comments about the fact that it took 63 minutes before the first question of substance occurred. I believe George Stephanopolis stated

‘Perhaps the most important question on the minds of voters is the economy…’

The most important question on our minds, yet asked 16th for the debate. Obviously ABC felt that style is more important in this Presidential election, and I would say most of the media agrees.

Since the first presentation by Fox News of the highly edited controversial comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there has been little in the way of issues covered on the Democratic race. Discussion of hot topics about huge Liberal and Democrat issues like the war in Iraq, unions, illegal aliens, and the aforementioned economy were all essentially avoided. The Democratic race has devolved into a mud-slinging, name calling match of who is more likable or a pissing match over what minority is more in need of being the first to run for President.

Now I do agree that if it can be shown that the actions of Senator Obama have been, or are being, affected by Rev. Wright it is a problem. I agree that pittances of the comments by Rev. Wright are objectionable. I have no problem with Rev. Wright, now in retirement, moving into a $1 million home, that home being on a golf course, or that the location is predominantly White as some, notably Bill O’Reilly, seem to have issue with. Rev. Wright spent 30+ years building a successful and strong church. His retirement reflects that, and I don’t know why some feel that a Black man loses their credibility, or the weight of prejudice, because they become successful leave the cities and enjoy the fruit of their labor. But that is a subject for another post. Essentially there has been nothing that connects the voting or comments of Senator Obama to Rev. Wright so it is a non-issue for the election.

I also agree that Senator Clinton’s lies about her political influence and experience are important. Lying to the American public is more than a character issue; it is a vital indication of the potential actions of the Commander-and-Chief in 2009. Bosnia is not a misspoken comment, but a blatant lie made to buy votes – proven a fraud by 1st hand witnesses and video tape of the event. The actual negotiators of the Ireland peace process debunked any attempt to grab headlines due to her serving tea outside of the actual talks. This is a real issue because of the lengths used to obfuscate the truth and gain political advantage.

But these are not issues that demand 2 weeks of attention. How many U.S. Presidents never wore a lapel pin during wars, and yet served America with honor and pride? How many Presidents grew up with, and/or knew less than immaculately impeccable people? How many Presidents made more or less money, gave more or less to charity, were older or younger than competitors, or had religious figures and/or friends that made comments some portion of this nation objected to?

Now consider this. How many Presidents have raised taxes during difficult economic times, and how often has that plan worked? How many Presidents allowed America to run from a battle, and what has been the long-term effect on America from that decision? How many Presidents have failed to act on illegal drugs entering the nation, failing to fund education, allowed divisions based on race or religion; and what has been the popularity, effect on the nation, and response from the world?

Those are questions we need to hear answers to. Listening to politicians’ polispeak their way out of media generated snafus could be fun, if it were not for the fact that in avoiding real issues we endanger America. That doesn’t matter if you are Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. The lack of choice and facts limits the options for voters and therefore America.

If I want to be entertained, there are a boggling number of venues on the idiot box that will gladly sap away my brain cells as fat deposits melt me into a chair. Even if I want to get political parodic commentary and polispeak spin I need only reach for my remote, or type up youtube.



Pennsylvania voters have an obligation to the nation, one that but be paid in full on the 22nd. They must ignore the people not in the race. They must avoid the ratings oriented media. They need to look at the actual issues the nation faces and vote for whomever they believe has the best answer for America. Anything less, anything altered because of a personal bias based on race, gender, or regional preferences is un-American and a disservice to the nation.

The news media is a media outlet first. They want to get ratings, and every news organization on television regularly edits, modifies, and ignores newsworthy stories solely with the goal of ratings in mind. That can be easily proven by numerous stories I have covered that they have ignored or glossed over in the past 3 years. If you don’t believe it just look at the cover of TIME magazine.



I have spent over a year covering various aspects of the Democrats, Republicans, and issues in this Presidential election. I am not alone in that. But unlike the major news media, I am not doing this because I expect to get a greater share of the internet audience, it’s because I believe we all deserve a better America. And if anyone in Pennsylvania votes without that in their mind, they are wasting a right that untold numbers of Americans over centuries have died for.

Freedom is not free; making a vote based on the issues is the least one can do as payment.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Bosnia, Democratic Presidential candidate, education, illegal aliens, news media, Pennsylvania, Polispeak, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Time magazine

How rich do you feel if you are making $31,850 or more?

If you are like most families and individuals in America, I imagine that you don’t. In fact I would say most would feel relatively poor. Not because of a lack of luxury items or failing in a competition with the Jones’ but because of a scarcity of essentials and a knowledge that loss of everything is possible.

Americans in the middle class don’t feel rich because they are the ones losing their homes to the mortgage crisis. They are the ones incapable of affording better colleges (or sometimes any college) for their children. They are the families most often without healthcare coverage and unable to afford medical costs.

And they are the ones that are going to feel even worse if Democrats, and the Presidential candidates Senator Clinton and Senator Obama, get their way. I don’t say this because of some ideal, or dedication to the Republican Party. I say this because that is exactly what they are voting for.

“Senators voted 52-47 to reject a move to extend tax cuts for middle- and higher-income taxpayers, investors and people inheriting businesses and big estates.”

and

“Obama and Clinton both promise to reverse Bush's tax cuts for wealthier taxpayers, but the Democratic budget they'll be voting for would allow income tax rates to go up on individuals making as little as $31,850 and couples earning $63,700 or more.”

So, if you make $31,850 or more you may not feel like Bill Gates and Warren Buffett but you are going to get taxed like them.

This is not a surprise because for all the statements by Democrats that running scared from Iraq will turn the economy around, and their implication that universal healthcare is the same thing as free health care the facts are that more money will come out of our pockets to pay for it all. Your pocket, whether or not any of the things you will be paying for will provide a single benefit for you or those you know.

This is what a Democratic President will provide. Some may believe that this is a small price to pay. Some may believe that all businesses should pay more in taxes. And some may believe that terrorists and those hostile to the existence of America will give up their fights just because we turn our backs.

But I believe that increasing the taxes that the middle-class and businesses pay will not improve the economy. I believe that giving money TO problems rather than spending money to FIX the problems is foolish. I believe that turning your back on a bar fight will get your head cracked open from a chair smashed upon it. I believe that nothing is free, and some things are too expensive to be worthwhile.

The Democratic candidates have marched across America saying they will only tax the rich. They have said that they will only affect big business. They have said that they will make America safer. All are great things. But the facts of their actions indicate they are lying if not confused.

“Under both Democratic plans, tax rates would increase by 3 percentage points for each of the 25 percent, 28 percent and 33 percent brackets. At present, the 25 percent bracket begins at $31,850 for individuals and $63,700 for married couples. The 35 percent bracket on incomes over $349,700 would jump to 39.6 percent.”

So here is the big question for the up-coming election. If you aren’t rich at $31,850 and the Democrats are going to increase your taxes, what other plan proposed by them is equally skewed to your disadvantage?

Labels: American economy, Bill Gates, college tuition, Democratic Party, Iraq War, mortgage crisis, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, tax increase, tax rates, universal healthcare, Warren Buffett

America is a nation of rules. Rules and the ways that we break them. If we look at baseball, particularly the MLB, we have steroids and the homeruns that fans love. If we look at football we have videotaping and the Super Bowl that is the number one event year after year. In the most important event that happens once every 4 years, not the World Cup – which is phenomenal – nor the Olympic Games, we now have a similar situation.

By that I mean we have Michigan and Florida. The event is the Presidential election. The leader of the free world and unarguably the strongest nation in the world is an event everyone should pay attention to. It’s an event that affects everyone. And it is the one event where the rules have consequences that are irrevocable.

Yet Michigan and Florida, and by extension the Democratic Party, feel that the rules established are not applicable to them. There is no advocate of throwing out the rules greater than Senator Hillary Clinton.

Long before there was a nomination race, before there was chaos in the Democratic Party, and before the Clinton campaign decided to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Senator Obama all the potential candidates agreed with the Democratic Party in penalizing Michigan and Florida.

Those 2 states were told not to move their Primary dates. They were told that to do so would cost them their delegates. Everyone understood the outcome if they violated this. And they did it anyway.

But today, they want to be in the game. They are demanding to have their delegates re-instated. They are devising plans to re-do their votes and alter the current nomination race. And in doing so they are laughing at the votes of every Democrat that has voted in a primary so far, in my opinion.

If these states are allowed to ignore their penalty, why can’t any other state? Why can’t all the Democrats get to re-vote, and why can’t all the candidates that were involved earlier allowed to jump back into the race? If one rule is to be ignored, then what rule is valid?

Where is the leadership that should stand up and say we are a nation of rules and laws. That none are above this, and that all are held equally to these rules. Because to do otherwise is to favor one candidate over another and to invalidate the votes of the public.

Sour grapes, and a desire to feel important is not a reason to alter the outcome of what has happened. Political ambition and a desire for power is not a reason to manipulate the public. And in doing so once, a presidence is set to do it always. Thus we move from a Democracy to another form of government, paving a path to hell with supposed good intentions and the so called best interest of the people at heart.

Some Democrats are claiming that keeping the penalty in place is disenfranchising the public. A year ago there was no worry about that. Before the Primaries there was no problem with ignoring portions of the party in those states. No cries of unfairness rang out. Because there are rules and penalties.

But political favor and gain motivate the call for changing the playing field now. Any politician that says otherwise is a liar. This is a game for control, and the public is being used as pawns.

No matter the outcome of any action that includes the delegates of Michigan and Flotrida, you the public and voters will be used and manipulated.

That does not mean that you should not vote. It does mean that members of the Democratic Party should hold their representatives accountable. That you should make them aware that their power comes from you. That your vote is their ultimate power and anything that dilutes your power destroys them.

Mark my words, if the changes being proposed for Florida and Michigan come to pass America will be damaged. Whether that is felt immediately in this election, or in a future election I do not know. But it will happen.

Senator Clinton may need this kind of stunt, and may use her power to alter the situation, but that just makes me sure that she is unfit for the Presidency. If she, as a leader of the Democratic Party, cannot abide by rules she was involved in creating and agreed to then what in the world makes anyone think she will be willing to abide by any other law, rule, or decision of the nation? And how can a person without regard for anything but what they want, be trusted with the power of the most powerful and influential nation in the world?

Florida and Michigan may not like the penalties, and Senator Clinton may prefer a change for her benefit, but America is a nation of rules and laws. That is something that must be remembered, because unlike a game for entertainment the Presidency is about our lives and there is no instant replay to correct a bad call.

Labels: Democratic Party, DNC, election 2008, Florida, Michigan, Senator Clinton

For those in Pennsylvania that will be voting soon, think on this. Hillary did not go to Arkansas, where the Clintons had a long history in politics to be elected to Senate – she went to NY State. She won in part because she promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs – in fact the area has lost 30,000 during her tenure.

Then ask yourself, what law has Senator Clinton passed? What cause has she championed and made change for? Not what has she made a speech about, but a real change or law. [Yes Senator Obama has done nothing as well, but he just got into the Senate, Hillary is in her 2nd term.]

Then ask yourself one last thing. Character is a major part of any American President. It factors into everything they do, and how they are perceived at home and internationally. Part of a persons character is judged by the company around and supporting that individual.

Around Senator Clinton we find:

• Mayors that refuse to allow our soldiers returning from Iraq to enter their airport
  
• A husband that lied to the entire nation and committed adultery
  
• Support from an organization that insults our soldiers and their commitment to America
  
• A 15 year fugitive from the law that provided her campaign $1 million of stolen money that they didn’t want to return
  
• A Governor that violated his oath to the court and the people of his state, broke the law, embarrassed is family, created on his wife, and imperiled the smooth operations of his state
  
• A business man that made his money on the back of promoting stereotypes about Blacks, objectified women, and stooped to making racial attacks about her opponent.
  

If you don’t know their names they are (in order) – Mayor Gavin Newsom, former-President Bill Clinton, Moveon.org, Norman Hsu, Eliot Spitzer, and Bob Johnson.

Do you really want to elect that type of person?

If so then vote for her. But if not, go out and make your voice heard clear. Vote whatever you believe, but be involved. If not you may be sorry for what you will have forced on you.

Labels: Bob Johnson, Eliot Spitzer, Mayor Gavin Newsom, moveon.org, New York, Norman Hsu, Pennsylvania Primary, President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton

In the past day events have unfolded to fuel the fire for those that question the supposed ‘experience’ of Senator Hillary Clinton. With these events, the probable loss in Mississippi, and the growing complaints of the public against the Clinton campaigns plans to assume the votes in Michigan and Florida, not to mention the potential of Super Delegates voting against the popular leader Senator Obama the Democratic Party is approaching chaos.

It started with the comments of David Trimble. He may not be a name many in the U.S. know, but in Ireland there is no question of who he is. He was a key figure in creating peace in Ireland, ending the terrorist attacks of the I.R.A.

Senator Hillary Clinton made a claim on national television that she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”. It was seen around the world, and those involved in the process were quick to correct the record.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.

The 3 am call doesn’t seem as sure in the hands of Senator Clinton does it? Worse yet, she blatantly lied to the American public for your vote. She lied about what she did, and took credit for what her husband did. In writing that’s called plagarism.

If you think that was just an enthusiastic overstating of her actions accompanying the former-President Bill Clinton you may be thinking about her work in Bosnia. As was stated by Senator Clinton, it described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call.

That sounds impressive if you didn’t know that there were 2 other people with the Senator. And in the words of Sinbad, a comedian and one of those people with her in 1996,

“the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'”

In fact he goes on to mention a very logical thought about how dangerous any of the places then-First Lady Clinton went to were,

“What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'”

That tends to make sense. How pleased would the American people be if then-President Bill Clinton sent his wife into an active warzone and she died? How politically stupid would that be? At what point would the Secret Service be willing to allow her to be in that kind of danger?

So again it would seem that Senator Clinton has lied to the American public, and presented less reasons why we should believe that she has “35 years of experience” when she has never served more than 8 years (her current amount of time as NY Senator) in public office.

So I will ask this, do you want an inexperienced liar as the Democratic nominee and potentially President? Women, do you really want this woman to represent the best interests for you? African Americans, do you believe that she is looking out for our interests? Hispanic/Latinos, do you think she will live up to any of the claims she has made?

If you don’t believe me, just check the site and you will find the posts and links. Or search the net. These are all facts of what she has done, and my opinion. Remember, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And Senator Clinton seems to be pretty far from innocent or clean to start.

If that doesn’t matter then get out there and vote for her. If it does, then definitely go out and make your vote count. Because the alternative appears to be a woman that will say anything to get a vote and become the most powerful person in America and I believe the world.

Labels: Bosnia, David Trimble, Ireland, New York, NY, President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, Sinbad

Previously I mentioned the top reasons why the combined Clinton – Obama Democratic Presidential ticket would not work. So now I will look at the counter-points. Again, the top person on the ticket is interchangeable.

• 1) Save the Democratic Party. Unity can be created by the combination if handled optimally. The division in the campaigns so far can be ameliorated by the candidates that created the friction. Solidifying the African American base, the influx of the youth vote, a surge in Hispanic/Latino and women voters can provide a huge base for the Presidency, each of these groups having specific needs that each candidate represents.
  
• 2) Leaving Iraq. A major focal point for many in America, without regard for their political preference. This is one of the top issues in the nation, with few in favor of how the war has been run overall. Some even believe that our leaving Iraq will provide stability in the region and lessen our chances of being attacked by terrorists.
  
• 3) The combined ticket is expected to draw massive minority votes. African Americans have never had an elected official attain such a high level, Women have a chance to have a symbolic leveling of the political and cultural playing field, Hispanic/Latinos have a chance to be recognized. Each group has reason to feel disenfranchised and these candidates could be the answer to that.
  
• 4) The youth vote as mentioned before is unprecedented. The numbers of younger voters has long been considered a pivotal factor in the last several elections. The actual presence of the youth vote, and their tendency to vote Democratic, could increase voter turnout by 20% and easily turn the tide in an even less than close race.
  
• 5) There is a Democratic Congress in place now. If the Democrats are able to maintain control then having a Democratic President would embolden the attempts to live up to the campaign promises made to date. A Democratic President would be far more powerful under this Congress; and we would assume that far less time would be wasted on meetings to review non-law breaking acts in the government.
  
• 6) The media is seen in the nation as liberal. So one could expect that as programs and entitlements are proposed the media will laud them in a positive manner with little argument. This will help rally public support for the programs. And it will help raise the political power of the party and Administration.
  
• 7) There is a strong religious backlash in the nation. Because of the obvious and preferential regard President Bush has had towards his faith, many that dislike him dislike the emphasis. In addition many in the nation fear a highly Christian push in politics and law as they do not share this faith. Those that have felt excluded, or even persecuted (like Muslims), would prefer a less fanatical religious President.
  
• 8) Hollywood would love this. From television Presidents to the movies, Hollywood has been reinforcing the image of a liberal President in office. Money has poured out in droves so far, and the combined ticket ensures that even more will be spent to make fiction a potential reality.
  
• 9) Change. It’s the buzzword of this election cycle and everyone wants it. The fact that President Bush cannot be re-elected is not enough. A palpable and immediate difference must be in place for some people. What is more visible than an African American and/or a woman?
  
• 10) This proposed Democratic Presidential ticket makes a statement against bias, racism, and outright prejudice. It makes many Americans feel better about their lives with a minority as President. The argument is that the world must be better than 40 years ago, even though nooses, the legal system, and city education programs all state otherwise.
  
• 11) Free healthcare. No one has promised that, but that is what many are hearing. If everyone must be covered in the universal healthcare plans, then those in low incomes presume it will not have a cost to them. Others miss understand the source of the income to pay for coverage for every person in America. Who doesn’t want something that is free? Who doesn’t want to be able to go to the doctor when they are sick?
  
• 12) Isolationism. Current promises by the Democratic candidates imply America retreating from the police of the world stance we have maintained for almost 2 decades now. A wall to the South, exiting Iraq, throwing out NAFTA. America would step back from the world and just deal with itself. That comforts many, even though it is obvious that this kind of retreat is impossible.
  

While these may not be the only reasons one could have to want a combination of Senator Obama and Senator Clinton, I feel they are the reading reasons. You may not agree, with me or the reasons.

Whether you agree or not, only your vote will make the difference. Only your involvement in the process will make the best possible choice for America a reality. Be involved. If you like these ideals vote for them. If you don’t vote against them.

What ever you do, just get out and vote.

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Vice President

**I want to say hello to all my new readers coming from TV One's website and it's Presidential election page.**

Here is a quick list of a few reasons why I feel the “dream Presidential ticket” means sure doom for Democrats come November. And by the way, the reasons don’t change regardless of which Presidential candidate is the lead.

• 1) Racial and religious slurs. Obviously there have been multiple attacks and rumors that have been coming from one political campaign against another. No names need to be said, but the effect has been fractioning of the party, disenfranchisement of voters, and a potential explosion at the Party convention.
  
• 2) The massive scandals that come with the Clinton’s. Do not kid yourself if you are a fan of theirs, everything they were accused of is going to come back. Whitewater to Monica Lewinsky and the rest. And add in new events like whatever is hidden in the current tax return and the records blocked by Bill.
  
• 3) Absolute lack of experience. Both candidates are novices in the political sphere, especially when compared to the long record of McCain and his military record. Which of the three really has the experience to answer the 3am call? Expect to see that commercial before the election.
  
• 4) Taxes will go higher. Pick your choice, but either way you will pay more to the government. How else will all those entitlements get paid for, like universal healthcare?
  
• 5) For those that came up with the answer, “Leave Iraq and it will pay for it all”, sorry that’s not exactly right. You are correct that with either at the helm America will lose in Iraq and possibly Afghanistan. Guaranteed the terrorists will be empowered. An immediate retreat from Iraq means that those left in the wake to suffer will join the propaganda that blames it all on America and attack us when old enough. Troops will need to be in Iraq to prevent total chaos (which is the real meaning of being IN Iraq for 100 years – like being in Germany for 50 now). So the money saved will go to setting up a permanent base and protecting/rebuilding from terrorist attacks.
  
• 6) Any person that is against the idea of a Black and/or woman being in charge will vote against this ticket. For all the hopes and belief that America has grown, the fact is that many in America (of both sexes and many races) still harbor bias. Proof is in the wage differences, executive placements, legal system, movies, television shows, and on and on.
  
• 7) Illegal aliens (or non-documented immigrants if you prefer – lack of a passport or green card is illegal) will gain citizenship and/or multiple rights of citizens. Possibly good for unions and Democratic voting blocks, I don’t see a benefit anywhere else.
  
• 8) The stock market classically drops at the beginning of a Democratic Presidency. Depending on the ability of the Democrat, the entire term can be bad for the stock market, business, ultimately the economy and investors.
  
• 9) Both supported (or refused to refute) Moveon.org and its insulting attack against General Petraeus and the Armed Forces. Obviously not good for relations with the Pentagon.
  
• 10) The Party division created by the fight for the nomination, will not be resolved so simply. The real issues, and taking for granted of core sections of the Democratic Party, will not just go away. With either candidate at the top of the ticket some will feel they were robbed and betrayed.
  
• 11) And lastly the egos of both candidates visibly and directly clash.
  

Now these are all real and valid reasons that the Democrats will lose with this combination. That is not to say that either candidate, with a different Vice-President, is unable to win. I think that the odds of winning go up dramatically for Senator Obama without the burden of Senator Clinton. I feel Senator Clinton just can’t win.

If either candidate does win, hopefully some of the issues may be resolved. Stereotypes and prejudice need to be removed. Barriers and small-mindedness needs to be broken. Others may be improved with time.

If you favor the Democratic candidates, good. I’m not decreeing the outcome. But realize that this potential ticket has baggage and problems. If you want this to win, or any candidate, get out there and vote. Only your vote will ensure that the candidate you want will win. Only with your vote, and all those of citizens, will the best choice for America be determined.

Labels: Democratic candidates, Democratic Party, illegal aliens, Iraq, moveon.org, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

So Hillary Clinton won 3 states on March 4th. Senator Obama won the caucuses and 1 state. The net result? No real change, no answers, no nominee in the Democratic Party.

For all the hoopla that the Clinton campaign has made recently, they really have accomplished nothing. Except for furthering the divide among Democrats, and showing the nation the extent she is willing to go to. And if the Republican Party is paying attention they are amassing a huge list of questions and points to attack whoever is the nominee.

I’ve stated previously the multiple racial attacks, rumors, and outright lies in the Democratic race. Not one has come from the Republican Party. Almost all of them have come from the Clinton campaign. And as the nomination battle stretches on, things only look like they will get worse.

Plans are already being made to have the agreed upon rules thrown out where they relate to Michigan and Florida. A favorite tactic of Democratic candidates, lawyers and court battles, are being spoken about on the horizon. Whispers of re-doing Primaries in those 2 states are whirling about.

Of course this says nothing about the lesson that is teaching the young voters in this cycle. When a penalty is given for breaking rules, it really isn’t a penalty if candidates don’t like the rules outcome. It doesn’t matter what voters choose because the Democratic Party can use Super Delegates to potentially ignore their votes. And everything is considered fair game in getting elected, if race and religion is involved.

I am left pondering a thought. Do Democrats actually think they will win the Presidential election? The current candidates are trading barbs about experience. Neither has any really. Definitely not when compared to Senator McCain. Expect to see the 3am phone call commercial again, and expect that the question will be if America wants a renown war hero and dedicated elected official to pick up that phone, or a candidate that might have watched her husband answer that call before or a candidate that has never had to make such a serious decision before.

Democrats are making their party split along lines of race and gender. Race is a weapon in this election, used so far as a means to diminish and insult. Gender is an excuse to avoid answering questions, engender favor, and to claim bias when momentum is lost. So depending on which candidate is picked, a large portion of voters may lose interest in the election and not show up.

And scandals are being created or re-surfacing. The failure of the Clinton campaign to reveal their taxes implies that they are afraid to let Democratic voters see where their money has come from. The failure of the Clinton campaign to release records from President Bill Clinton’s administration hints of other negatives. And questions of an association from the past, which has been investigated and researched for years in Chicago without a single claim of wrong-doing, are surfacing now as if they were a lightning bolt of wrong. But don’t forget that the Clinton campaign has taken stolen money from a fugitive of the law that was strongly involved with the campaign.

Again what has been the net result of the wins by Senator Clinton on March 4th? Greater fuel for the Republican Party and Senator McCain. Greater exposure of the American public to the issue of race as a factor. Greater emphasis on the lack of experience of the Democratic Party. More division in the Democratic Party. And a lot more bickering on how and when to break rules.

The longer this goes, the more I have to believe this will not be good for anyone but Republicans.

Labels: Democratic Party, Republican Party, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain

There is no question that Senator Clinton desperately needs a win in Texas and Ohio. It’s a fact that has been admitted by all sides of the Democratic race. Nor is there a question that Senator Clinton has decided to do everything possible to get those wins. But even I would never have expected a move that is as racist and underhanded as what I have just learned about.

Senator Obama is Black. Unless you are blind, and America is everything but that, it’s not a big surprise. But is he Black enough?

I’m not speaking about the cultural question that was debated when he initially began to run, asked generally by less educated African Americans. The question in this case applied to how black he actually is. Pigmentation and skin tone. Not a tan but how dark is he.

It would seem that the Clinton campaign, as has been reported so far but not confirmed thinks that Senator Obama needs to be darker. So that’s exactly what they did to his image. Darken it.

Why does that matter? Well if it’s an attempt to emphasize in the minds of White voters that Obama is just an African American, and to play on stereotypes, it’s a big deal. If it’s an attempt to make him seem more dangerous and framed in a racist visage, it matters.

None ever question how pale white a Caucasian is, but throughout American history it has been a big deal. Going back to the original Constitution and the 5/8th’s line. It’s a wedge in the Black community and a way to be hands distance from other Americans. It’s a memory of America that everyone wants to deny and avoid speaking about. And it needs only a subtle push, like the photo re-imaging, to bring it to the forefront.

America has gone no where if such a racist and vile tactic can be used and even worse if it works. And any candidate that would stoop to this level to win is despicable in my mind.

If an ad … actually there is no similar scenario for this. There is no way to correlate the racial prejudice this action implies and relies upon to being pink or ‘moon tan’ white. There just is no comparison in the daily evidence of the magnitude of the action.

I know some Whites will say, ‘I don’t get it.’ Of course not. They have never lived or observed it. They have not noticed when they do it. It’s so common as to be sub-conscious. But I think every Black American knows.

This is repugnant. I can’t express that enough. After the multiple racial attacks from 2007, when Senator Obama announced he would run, to today there has been no end of the emails that alleged untruths. And the Clinton camp helped spread them. And the attempts to stereotype Senator Obama as a drug dealer, by the Clinton campaign. And the minimalization of Dr. Martin Luther King and every Black politician by former-President Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, and the Clinton campaign. After all that, still there is a need to be even more racist with this act.

Will this divide the Democratic Party? It should. What can you think of a party that condones the use of racism by its top leadership, while it talks out the other side of its face about preventing gender bias? How can any Hispanic believe that our bronze skin is seen any differently by those that would highlight that darker than white must be magnified and wrong. How much trust can you give a potential President that would throw huge portions of its own party membership under a bus, just to attain power? And what woman would feel safe with the thought that this woman would stab her partners in the back just to try to run for office.

All the warm and fuzzy tears, and appearances on television shows, like the Daily Show, will never excuse or cover this kind of racism. And if color can matter, what would make you think gender, religion, ethnicity, or economic status won’t?

As I said, this has not been confirmed. But you can see the videos as reported by Wired, and you can draw your own conclusion. Then ask this question…

Do you want a President that is willing to use race, gender, outright lies, political differences and who knows what else looking out for what your children will learn and be able to do? Would you trust that kind of person enough to invite them in your home? Or work? And would a smile, a tear, or a joke make all that change?

Vote what you think, but be sure to vote!

Labels: Black community, Daily Show, Democratic Party, election 2008, Presidential race, racism, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

So I was working on a couple of projects for clients and I was listening to a couple of pundits talk about the Democratic candidates. The specifics were that they were contrasting the positions of Senator Clinton and Senator Obama.

I wasn’t paying deep attention to the conversation, but after a bit I wondered why I didn’t notice hearing any real difference. Nothing really came to mind besides experience. And honestly neither has much experience. Unless you count Senator Clinton’s time as the wife of the President, which last I heard was not an elected position. I don’t count that, but I do count the time that Senator Obama spent as an elected Illinois State official.

So a while after the talking heads were off, I suddenly realized that I heard no substantive differences. And I thought about it for a few seconds, and realized that there are no differences. They are the same political position, the only difference being who you might believe can actually pull off the many promises each has made over the nomination process.

But my realization is not enough. I follow politics everyday, up to 20 hours a day. I don’t get distracted by mind melting crap like American Idol, so I actually recall and hear all the conversations the Presidential candidates have had. Most people neither have the time nor desire to do this.

To that end I decided to provide research on the subject. Looking at the voting records of both candidates I checked 16 categories (including Health, Abortion, Campaign Finance, Education, Gun Issues, Civil rights, Civil Liberties, Crime and more). Out of 152 votes over almost 3 years (2005 up to February 2008) there is a difference of only 9.9%. That’s 15 different votes in total. That’s 5 votes a year.

To me, that means they are exactly the same type of candidate, neither being more qualified nor providing a greater benefit than the other. No matter how the polispeak is spun, or what 30 second soundbites are used they both are planning to do the same exact thing to America.

Both Senators voted exactly the same on Abortion, Agriculture, Campaign Finance, Congressional Affairs, Crime, Environment, and Civil Liberties.

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

• Future Military Funding for Iraq Amendment (Vote to adopt a non-binding, amendment that expresses the Senate's will that future military operation funds be included in the regular budget proposal and not in an emergency supplemental appropriation bill.) – Obama voted NV (not voting), Clinton was Yea
  
  
  
  Civil Rights:
  
• Expressing Support for General Petraeus and All Members of the Armed Forces (Vote to pass an amendment to reaffirm support for all men and women of the United States Armed Forces, to strongly condemn any attacks on General David Petraeus and all members of the US Armed Forces and to specifically condemn Moveon.org’s advertisement about General David Petraeus.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV. NEITHER would condemn the personal attack made by Moveon.org against our military! To me it’s the same vote.
  
  
• Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act (Vote to pass a bill that amends the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to implement certain recommendations of the 9/11 Commission.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• REAL ID Funding (To make $300,000,000 available for grants to States to carry out the REAL ID Act of 2005.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
• Sense of the Senate on Guantanamo Bay Detainees (Vote to pass an amendment that expresses the sense of the Senate that the detainees at Guantanamo Bay should not be released into American society or transferred into detention facilities on American soil.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Education:
  
• Student Loan Lender Subsidy Cuts and Student Grants (Vote to pass a bill that makes changes to regulations and funding of federal student financial aid.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Energy:
  
• Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act of 2006 (Vote to pass a bill that allows offshore oil and gas leasing in the 181 and 181 South areas within a year and plans to expand into the Eastern Planning, Central Planning and Western Planning areas at some future date.) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted No
  
  
• Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Vote to adopt a conference report that develops an energy policy that addresses tax incentives, conservation strategies, regulatory standards, research and development programs, energy efficiency, and alternative sources of energy.) – Obama voted Yea, Clinton voted No
  
  
  
  Executive Branch:
  
• Attorney General No Confidence Vote (Vote to invoke cloture on a joint resolution that that expresses a loss of confidence in Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
• Thomas B. Griffith, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Assistant to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young University Thomas B. Griffith to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the District of Columbia Circuit.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
• Richard A Griffin, US Circuit Judge (Vote to confirm President George W. Bush's nomination of current Michigan Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Griffin to be the new United States Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit.) – Obama voted NV, Clinton voted Yea
  
  
  
  Family and Children:
  
• State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) Reauthorization (Vote to pass a bill that reauthorizes and expands the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP).) – Clinton voted Yea, Obama voted NV
  
  
  
  Guns:
  
• Firearm Confiscation Prohibition Amendment (Vote to pass an amendment prohibiting the use of any funds appropriated in the FY2007 Department of Homeland Security Act from being used to confiscate legal firearms during states of emergency or major disasters. (Sec. 540)) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted Yea
  
  
  
  Health:
  
• FDA Drug Import Certification Amendment (Vote to adopt an amendment that requires the Secretary of Health and Human Services to certify the safety of imported prescription drugs.) – Clinton voted No, Obama voted NV
  

Now this is not to say there are no other differences between the 2. Nor am I saying this is good or bad. But I am giving you the chance to see what are the real differences between the candidates.

Polispeak is one thing, but actual performance of their elected positions is another. Check out the laws and their records. You decide if they match what they claim and what is important to you. You have the knowledge now. Use it.

Let me know what you think.

Labels: Abortion, Campaign Finance, Civil Liberties, Civil Rights, education, Gun Issues, moveon.org, Polispeak, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, voting records

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

I love this line,

"Let's have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign." - Senator Hillary Clinton to Senator Barack Obama in a speech.

It’s only in politics where one candidate can complain about the actions of another while using racial attacks, smears, and religion (all indirectly) to attack their opponent. It’s only in politics where a candidate could possibly count on the public completely forgetting pervasive and continuous attacks and claim that they in fact are the victim.

To date the Clinton campaign has been directly linked to multiple dirty tactics against Senator Obama. No matter what you may feel politically you have to notice these facts:

• The Clinton campaign forwarded emails claiming that Senator Obama is a Muslim – which is false.
  
  
• The Clinton campaign alleged that Senator Obama was a drug dealer in his youth – which there is no proof of, nor ever alleged prior. Obama has long ago admitted that he used drugs in his youth, and that such action was a low point in his life and not something that youth should do.
  
  
• The Clinton campaign has focused on the full name of Senator Obama – his name is Barack Hussein Obama. And what does that mean? If his name was Buck Rogers would that imply he has knowledge of the future? Does a name his parents gave him mean anything about his life? Does yours?
  
  
• Former-President Bill Clinton directly injected the factor of race prior to the South Carolina Primary – Through various speeches and after the loss the dismissal to Senator Obama’s win, President Bill Clinton minimized not only Obama, but Jesse Jackson and Dr. Martin Luther King (along with Hillary – though in a much more quiet manner).
  
  
• The Clinton campaign highlighted the connection of Senator Obama to a slumlord – A past association to a client of the law firm Senator Obama worked at. His prior association (including receiving donations to his State Senate election) all occurred without Rezco ever being accused of violating any law. This is confirmed by all the Chicago newspapers looking for any wrongdoing over months of research. (By the way, Clinton did associate with and accept $1 million in stolen money from known fugitive from the law Norman Hsu).
  
  
• And the latest item (not that the above are the only examples, I just picked the most popular ones)? The Clinton campaign will neither confirm nor deny that it has published a photo of Senator Obama, dressed in the garb of a tribal elder while in Kenya. The implication is obvious. It’s an attempt to feed into the religious prejudice of this nation, specifically focused on Muslims since the 9/11 attacks.
  

It does not matter that Senator Clinton, and President George Bush have both worn similar garb as a matter of respect and honor when visiting nations in Africa and the world?. Does that mean that President George Bush is a Muslim? Obviously that is a laughable concept, but why does it change context when applied to Senator Obama? Because some small-minded, bigoted, racist, uneducated, potentially inbred, blights to humanity can’t get past color of skin and a faith they likely know nothing about. And Senator Clinton is counting on those votes to get her the nomination.

…..Plouffe said in a statement: “On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election. This is part of a disturbing pattern that led her county chairs to resign in Iowa, her campaign chairman to resign in New Hampshire, and it’s exactly the kind of divisive politics that turns away Americans of all parties and diminishes respect for America in the world,” said Plouffe.

Of course Senator Clinton has not directly made any of these statements. She has consultants that compare Senator Obama to Nazis, minor aides sending out the emails alleging a false connection to Islam, a senior aide implying drug dealing, and of course Bill in South Carolina and beyond.

Funny how none of these things are her fault. That for a candidate known for micromanaging every aspect of her campaign she is so out of control when they consistently (for over 6 months) smear, lie, and prejudicially and personally attack Senator Obama.

So when I hear Senator Clinton cry out that she wants to “debate about your tactics and your behavior” I have to ask, does her mirror somehow obscure her own actions when she looks at it? I wonder that if her moral compass shows these kinds of tactics as the high road, what is the low? And if there is no line to cross in just attempting to get the Democratic nomination, what line would she also cross if elected President?

I would suggest that those in Vermont, Rhode Island, Ohio, and Texas all consider this before voting in their Primaries on March 4th. I hope everyone votes, but know what you are voting for.

Labels: Democratic nomination, Norman Hsu, Ohio, President Bill Clinton, President George Bush, Rhode Island, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, South Carolina, Texas, Vermont

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

Michelle Obama is currently the focus of media attention. Considering that Senator Hillary Clinton is a woman, the comparisons to her seems inevitable to become harsh. And I find it interesting what is being said.

Michelle Obama is not a politician. She has never tried to be one. She is a hospital executive, well educated, and a mother. She is 44. She also happens to be Black.

Given those facts I have to wonder a few things. First is the thought that what does her thoughts have to do with American politics? If we assume, as the Clinton campaign claims, that being the wife of a politician is the same as having experience, then I expect her views on healthcare reform are very important (especially since she works in the industry). If sleeping with a politician is not enough, then her impact on the politics of her husband is virtually non-existent (and the claims of Senator Clinton go down the drain).

But it seems the media, the McCain campaign, and the Clinton campaign are giving her words significant weight. That is why her comments is being dissected. [This is the full comment and not the polispeak soundbite used by the major news media]



Now there are those that find her comments to be unpatriotic. That it was an insult to the nation. That is one way to view the words, and it is valid. But I think it does not take the meaning of the words into account.

I do feel that Michelle Obama is proud of America, but that she means that she has not had a reason to be overly and beyond the general pride we all feel every day. That there has not been any moments in her adult life that brought her special or specific feelings of pride. To be honest I think all people are proud of America in general, but not overly elated in expressing that pride every day. I mean when was the last time that you heard a politician, or anyone, just say “I feel proud of America today” without context to some event or action?

And as I discussed this with a friend, the thought came up that the fact Mrs. Obama is Black is also a factor in the comment. Specifically because

“As a Black person having to deal with the way people treat you in America, you have a very different take on America. So her statements reflect her experiences. She could have walked into places, like a store, and been treated like crap while her White friends could go in an be treated well in the same place.

It makes me think of Janet Jackson’s last film. In one scene they went skiing, and the wives went into town to shop. They were wearing furs, and well dressed. The clerk walks up to them and says that there is no cash in the store. The first thought was they were there to rob the store. So in reference to Mrs. McCain, they don’t have the same life experiences. The treatment is always going to be different.

American daily life, and politics, have not given her reason to be overly proud. It’s a Black and White issue. Which is why this makes a big difference from Mrs. McCain saying the same thing. It falls under the “walk a mile in my shoes” quote.”

Obviously there is a huge source of pride in the fact that while African Americans continue to not be able to catch a cab in New York City, even if they are Denzel Washington or Danny Glover, Senator Obama is winning states across the nation that have virtually no Black voters by enormous margins. Because they think he is the best candidate for President. And that is a source of pride that has not existed in the lifetime for African Americans before.

And what other moments since the 1980’s have Blacks had to be especially proud of America for? What has changed that made a dramatic difference in the average Black Americans life? Gaining Mayors in cities that never had Blacks in positions of power before? Learning that there are many trying to end Affirmative Action, without implementing something better and more fair, even though racial bias continues to exist in the nation? What event equals the momentum and potential of Senator Obama being able to gain the highest office in the nation?

Context makes a difference. Point of view makes a difference. And being the spouse of a political figure minimizes those points to a degree while amplifying the spotlight they receive. Is Mrs. Obama especially proud of America prior to the current election cycle, maybe not.

But then again what has happened that she should be? That’s the real thought that the media and America should be focused on.

Labels: Denzel Washington, Janet Jackson, Michelle Obama, New York City, Polispeak, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

I recently received a link that I found interesting. Since there is a bit of time before the March 4th Primaries I thought I’d delve into this a bit. But let me first state that I have nothing against a woman as President. Like any man that may wish to hold the highest office in the nation, my only concern is that it is the best person that receives the Presidency. I must also disclose that I have previously stated that I am locked between Senators McCain and Obama as my choices, which is based on their political profiles only.

This post will be addressing a column by N.O.W. President Kim Gandy. The full post can be found on the N.O.W. site.

To start with I have no doubt that there are women that face sexism in their fields of work. I don’t doubt this because I know that there is still massive and pervasive racial bias in the media, business, and politics with examples of this being displayed nationally everyday. So to say women still face similar difficulties is neither a surprise nor a reach.

But I will say that I think Kim Gandy protests too much on a couple of points, and seeks the election of Senator Clinton more to make a point than her actual qualifications. This is not a fault that is uncommon, as there are many African Americans that vote for Senator Obama for no reason other than the color of his skin. Neither is a reason for the candidates to receive the nomination nor Presidency.

Kim Gandy starts her column stating that Senator Clinton is the object of venom from media, in television and print, and receiving an unfair amount of negative coverage. In part I would say that is correct, as several pundits have made their comments personal and not relevant to Senator Clinton’s qualifications or they unfairly involve the Clinton family. But at the same time some of the coverage is fair and according to national polls taken from 2007 to now reflects the 47% of the nation that dislikes Senator Clinton. In politics, if polls say you are unliked the media will make their tone less favorable, no matter what your sex or color.

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

“First, Clinton is criticized using a gender-based grading system…His behavior shows compassion and warmth, but her similar behavior shows too much emotion and maybe weakness. He knows how to work the system; she is manipulative. He shows a mastery of the subject; she is nit-picky. He thinks through all the options before charting a course; she is calculating. Familiar?”

While I will agree that Senator Clinton has been criticized about her apparel and mannerisms there is more to this. I have mentioned in the past that I have seen posts and articles that have critiqued the colors and clothing that all the candidates wear. I feel that it is perhaps the least effective or useful reason to judge anyone for any position. I admit that several pundits have focused more on Senator Clinton for these reasons. But in a society where multiple organizations run and directly focused on women consistently choose to evaluate and critique the apparel of famous women in all walks of life then that is to be expected. Were there less interest in the clothes worn during red carpet events, as an example, I would agree whole-heartedly. But when there are dozens of television programs and magazines that exists solely to critique women on this basis, to complain when the highest profile woman in America at the moment is placed under that same flimsy microscope is silly. I don’t think it has anything to do with Senator Clintons abilities, but it is a reality that many women (apparently) find important or at least of interest.

As for the emotional outbursts, this is unfair. Several of the Presidential candidates have been singled out for their emotional reactions. Notably there are the numerous comments on Senator McCain. Whether it is commentary on his attempts at joviality (Bomb Iran) or his well known temper, his outbursts are well covered, as are most of the candidates.

And there are none that I think do not believe that Senator Clinton knows how to use the political system. Consistently Senator Clinton has been shown to use the media and polls to gain attention and political clout without actually doing anything. In looking at Senator Clinton’s record as a Senator, votes on both sides of issues and correlating directly to changes in polling positions exists. Do you recall the “Hot Coffee” scandal? Senator Clinton was prominent in her denouncement of a truly overblown subject, yet she did nothing about it and walked away from the issue immediately after it stopped gaining press attention. It is this kind of use of the media to improve her image that is considered manipulative, and she is not the only Senator to do so. But to call her on that is not a gender based reasoning, it’s just honest.

“In other words, everything Clinton does to win the election -- strategizing, organizing, confronting, comparing and contrasting -- is interpreted as calculating, fake or just plain evil.”

Well that’s not exactly true either. All politicians are calculating to some degree. Whether is campaigning in areas more favorable to their voter base, or picking to campaign in this state over another is politics today. Rudy did it when he picked Florida as his main focus; Mitt Romney did it in Wyoming, and so on. All the candidates calculate what is in their best interest and strategize, organize, compare and contrast to that end. What might be considered fake or evil are actions like promoting a half-conceived idea, like the $5,000 bond for every child in America towards their college education, and dropping it after it has gained her press coverage and positive voter sentiment. Promoting ideas that are infeasible and not having the ability to answer reasonable questions on such a plan is pandering to gain votes, and any candidate that does such needs to be called on it.

“Third, Clinton is presumed to be where she is today because of her husband, Bill.”

To a degree that is a true statement. There is no question that the fame and recognition of President Bill Clinton elevated the political hopes of Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton had no official, and questionable unofficial, political experience prior to Bill Clinton gaining prominent political positions. There is no question that either Clinton has no ties or connection to New York State. Thus her initial claim to fame in that election was that she was the former-First Lady and the headlines in New York City at that time was the fact that Bill Clinton was considering taking an office in Harlem. Often in this election cycle, Bill Clinton has dominated the media coverage, beyond any other spouse of a candidate – and most of the other candidates, because of his former office. This drew media coverage to the Clinton campaign, for good or ill and thus benefited the Senator. While an argument can be made today that Bill Clinton’s status is not the sole reason for Hillary’s current Presidential race, it is undeniably a factor and significant in her ability to be elected initially in New York State. To deny these facts is to deny modern politics and the power of political clout and endorsements in electing any official to office.

“Finally, when all else fails, belittle the voters. Women voters are irrational and biased, and voting only on the basis of gender, the press are happy to intimate (at least about the women who are voting for Hillary), and they not so subtly imply that all voters are stupid and shallow.”

I am unaware of any pundit that has belittled voters. Nor have I heard that women voting for Senator Clinton are “irrational and biased”. That may be my own inability to follow every pundit and talking-head in the media. Any that might have made such a statement is wrong and I agree that such statements are unfair.

“Hillary Clinton and women in general, aren't the only ones subject to gender-based assessments. Barack Obama and John Edwards have also been degraded when the media detect in them "feminine" characteristics or behaviors (like paying attention to your appearance) that supposedly are unbecoming in men.”

It is true that John Edwards in particular was criticized by the media for his notorious $400 haircuts. But this criticism was not about priming himself in some feminine manner. It was the obvious disconnect from his stance about 2 Americas. It seems odd when someone states they care about the poor, and is then seen paying for haircuts that are equivalent to the weekly paycheck of some Americans. And any candidate that wishes to state they are “looking out for the common worker” is at a disadvantage if they lavishly spend money on common grooming. That seems hypocritical and deserving of comment.

“Regarding women and men and politics, we really ought to be past the tree house-years. It's not just those in the public eye who are hurt when the media promote sex stereotypes. Daughters everywhere are hearing the message that a woman can't be as competent and effective a leader as a man.”

Obviously America is not beyond many things. Racism and gender bias are just a few of those things. Since both exist and are promoted on the media daily, it’s no surprise when they appear in politics. African Americans should not be presumed to be poor, violent, drug-addicted felons yet most Black men are. If we cannot get past color, is it s surprise we cannot get past gender on some issues?

Again I will ask, who has said women can’t be effective leaders? There are many women in political office. Nancy Pelosi leads the House. There are many women that lead major corporations, or own them. Oprah Winfrey is perhaps the best known, but she is not singular. Could there be more? Definitely, just as there should be more African American, Hispanics/Latinos and people of color. But to depict the political landscape or the general one at that, as devoid of women in leadership positions across the world is to be blind and instilling gloom and downtrodden view that is inaccurate in my opinion.

The column goes on to then quote several pundits and talking heads that have made various statements. Some are bad, and others depend entirely on the way you wish to perceive them. (I do find it interesting that they are virtually all from organizations that are considered highly liberal and pro-Democrat) One in particular I think is accurate.

“Tucker Carlson, MSNBC's Tucker, Jan. 22, 2008
"It takes a lot of guts for a rich, privileged white lady who is one of the most powerful people in the world to claim that she is a victim of gender discrimination. . . . She hasn't driven her own car in almost 20 years and she's a victim of discrimination? I mean can't we both agree that's just BS?"

There is no question that Senator Clinton is rich. There is equally no question of her political prominence. And from what I have read about her, she has not had to endure the difficulties 90% of Americans combat daily in over 3 decades at least. I’m not sure how much pity I am supposed to feel for Senator Clinton when she has sat on the board of Wal-Mart, a partner of a law firm, indulged in commodities trading, and had the ability to, questionably, influence public policy. My mother and sisters on the other hand have strived against discrimination and they don’t ask for any special recognition for their achievements.

So while Kim Gandy has some points, the real issue boils down simply to is Senator Clinton deserving of being the first female President. Based on her abilities as expressed as her actions in political office (which is limited to her time as a Senator since she held no elected office or political position prior) I would say no.

I would say the same for why I would not support John Edwards, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani and others. It’s not a bias against women to say she is not the best option; it’s just honest in my opinion. That’s the same as saying Jesse Jackson was not the best option for a potential Black President. Nor does it preclude a future candidate that is more worthy attaining the office.

Labels: Bill Clinton, John Edwards, Kim Gandy, Mitt Romney, NOW, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Wal-Mart

Voters have spoken. Mike Huckabee and Senator Hillary Clinton sadly weren’t the voices being called out by the najorities. In sweeping victories Senators Barack Obama and John McCain continued their momentum towards the nomination for their various political parties.

Most decisive was the victory by Senator Obama. In victories that were between 60% to 75%, there was no question that voters of every race in the Democratic Party are being drawn by the message of hope and change over the message of experience touted by Senator Clinton. So definitive was the victory that long before the outcome was reported, Senator Clinton had already left the area to travel to Texas. There she is making what may be a last line in the sand stand to claim the Democratic nomination.

On March 4th Texas and Ohio will have huge Primaries that could likely seal the delegate battle, potentially removing the need of Super Delegates to decide the Presidential nominee. Potentially because there is still the question of the Michigan and Florida Primaries.

Both Michigan and Florida were penalized for moving up their primary dates by the Democratic Party. Michigan had it’s delegates decreased and Florida received none. But now that the battle is so close the Clinton campaign is making a huge push to get those delegates validated. And a major debate is ensuing. There is a more than probable chance that legal action will wind up being involved.

There are 2 opinions on these penalized delegates. The first, which I agree with, is that both states were warned and fully aware of the cost if they chose to hold their primaries when they did. Decisions were made and the consequences were metted out. Such is the essence of life. A choice is made and we live with the results.

On the other side is the Clinton campaign, and it’s proponents, that believe the voice of the people in the respective states must be heard. They want to ignore the known consequences and take advantage of the results. It should be remembered that while all the other Presidential candidates respected the rules in place, the Clinton campaign pushed forward to try to seek an advantage.

While Democrats in Mifchigan and Florida may be upset, they were fully aware of what would happen. To claim sour grapes now is without merit and does not warrant reward.

Looking at the Republican results, Senator John McCain has finally received tallies that place him above 50%. He has also further pressured Mike Huckabee towards what is most probably a withdrawl. Given the math, it is virtually impossible, and would be unpresidented, if Huckabee were to garner enough support to overturn Senator McCain’s lead. Unless there were to be a major gaffe by McCain, and Huckabee were to win the Texas and Ohio primaries in massive landslides, there is no chance for huckabee to win the nomination.

But I do believe that his continued efforts are more politically motivated. While his chance of gaining the Vice-Presidential nod is impractical, his ability to gain other political office and generate favor is large. It has been said that Washington, DC is a zero-sum game. Meaning that all political power and influence is a finite and the only way one politician moves up is at the cost of another moving down.

By continuing his unlikely quest for the Presidential nomination Huckabee more likely seeks to improve his political standing, thus enabling him to influence and enact some of the goals his candidacy has heralded. I would strongly believe that if he is able to stay in the race, with support, long enough to gain more delegates than Mitt Romney he may well succeed in this attempt.

A similar case may be made for the continued campaigning of Ron Paul. Though in his case I believe it is the more fringe elements of the Republican and independants that are supporting him.

So as the March 4th Primaries approach the 2 sides of the objectives become clear. Democrats seek to establish dominance and a clear claim to the nomination. Whether that claim is justified by the votes of the public and existing delegate counts, or via legal machinations is yet to be see. And in the Republican side, the question is not so much who is the nominee, but what political favor can be gained.

Labels: election 2008, Florida, Michigan, Mike Huckabee, Ohio Primary, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama, Super Delegates, Texas Primary

**This is part of the I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign. It's long but worth it.**

Back in November 2007, amid the huge number of Presidential candidates and the multiple debates I found the need to decipher all the polispeak and misinformation that was being bandied about. In the process I found a site PolitiFact that verified many of the issues that I was questioning.

I presented many of the outright lies that candidates of both parties had made. [In the post The lies Presidential candidates say, and the facts that prove it] Now with far fewer candidates, and more critical decisions being made by the remaining Primaries and Caucuses I feel it’s time to revisit and identify the current back of outright untruths, misstatements and polispeak intended to obscure the best candidates for America.

In alphabetical order I present the 3 remaining candidates of significance:

Senator Hillary Clinton - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/hillary-clinton/statements/

“I was fighting against those (Republican) ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago.”

Besides the fact that the Clinton’s may have accepted contributions from this same individual, and definitely had taken photographs with him (as found after this statement) there is this…

“Clinton’s claim is Barely True. Obama, by his own admission, did some, albeit very little, legal work that helped Rezko’s company obtain properties that would later be neglected. But the allegations that Rezko was a slumlord did not arise, at least not publicly, until years after Obama performed that work.”

“

---

"In her short time in the United States Senate, the senator from New York, Senator Clinton, got $500-million worth of pork barrel projects. My friends, that kind of thing is going to stop," McCain said.

Get ready because Senator McCain only got it partially right.

“Taxpayers for Common Sense, a group that tracks congressional spending, has identified about $2.2-billion in Clinton projects in her seven years in the Senate.”

---

“The Bush administration sends mixed messages,” Clinton said during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. “They want to recruit and retain these young people to serve our country and then they have the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that I’m working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again.”

Sounds vital and horrendous. But the facts are

Defense Department policy is clear: Bonuses already paid should not be recouped if “injury or illness of the service member was not the result of the service member’s misconduct.”

The Army contends Fox’s was an isolated case. In fact, when it set up a hotline for pay problems, it received just two calls on that issue.

So are we talking about legislation to fix a problem that may have affected just three people? As it relates to wounded soldiers having to return portions of paid bonuses, perhaps. And certainly a lot of politicians made a lot of political hay about that…
So while Clinton highlights a legitimate issue — paying future installments of enlistment bonuses even after wounded veterans have been discharged — her wording is somewhat misleading, suggesting wounded veterans are being forced to return bonus money. There is little evidence to suggest that happened to more than a couple veterans, and the Army admitted its mistake.

Also misleading is her suggestion that there was some kind of Bush administration effort to deny future bonus payments promised to wounded vets…”

---

“You’ve changed positions within three years on ... a range of issues that you put forth when you ran for the Senate,” Clinton said. “You said you would vote against the Patriot Act, then you came to the Senate, you voted for it.”

Careful where you point that finger.

“A closer examination reveals that while Clinton’s charge is technically correct, Obama went further than she did in trying to expand civil rights guarantees and give Democrats more chances to change the law…

Clinton, in contrast, joined 14 fellow Democrats and all of the Senate’s 55 Republicans in voting to shut off debate and proceed to a final vote on the compromise…

Once Obama’s faction lost the bid to keep the debate going, he voted for the compromise. The final tally was 95-4. Clinton was also among those senators voting yes…”

---

“Well, actually, Tim, the (National) Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20-million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that. Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available.”

Are they really?

“Clinton must be misinformed. It’s true that many of the documents from the unsuccessful health care effort that Sen. Clinton helmed are available, but there are several gaps in the record, such as her calendar and internal memos….

Also missing from the records are any correspondence on health care between her and former President Clinton.”

---

“So that 2005 energy bill was a big step backwards on the path to clean, renewable energy,” said Clinton. “That’s why I voted against it. That’s why I’m standing for the proposition — let’s take away the giveaways that were given to gas and oil, put them to work on solar and wind and geothermal and biofuels and all of the rest that we need for a new energy future.”

Backwards?

“While the Energy Policy Act of 2005 did give the oil and gas industry tax breaks and incentives to boost production, the law also mandated 7.5-billion gallons of ethanol and other biofuels to be blended into gasoline by 2012 — the largest such mandate ever enacted and one widely credited with sparking an ethanol plant construction boom across the Midwest. The law also funneled hundreds of millions of dollars toward biomass research and the production of biofuels derived from the leaves, stems and stalks of a plant rather than corn kernels used to make ethanol.”

---

Senator John McCain - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/john-mccain/

“John McCain has attacked Hillary Clinton, saying she wants to “wave the white flag of surrender” in Iraq. He said it again in response to a question about Iraq at the Jan. 24, 2008, Republican debate in Boca Raton.”

Perhaps a bit overzealous

“McCain is right that Clinton is setting a time frame to start withdrawing troops, and that does imply giving up and waving a metaphorical white flag. Saying there is no military solution as she does could be seen as a form of surrender. But technically, there is no ruling army to surrender to, which is really what a white flag means. Clinton just wants the troops to come home.”

---

“Congress just passed another huge, pork-filled spending bill. The Democrats allowed less than a day to read all 3,400 pages and stuffed it with nearly 10,000 earmarks costing about $10-billion dollars,” McCain said in remarks delivered to the Americans for Prosperity Michigan summit in a Detroit suburb.”

Wasteful spending yes. Just Democrats or the correct amount?

“The gist of his charge is true about spending, but his numbers are off and it's misleading to suggest all the parochial spending is being done by Democrats. When we add it up, we get Half-True.”

---

"Our tax code is so complicated it extracts $140 billion in extra tax preparation costs every year - one thousand dollars for every American family. It’s offensive that six out of every ten taxpayers have to pay someone else just to figure out how to pay the government."

True but the numbers aren’t what you think

“A 2005 study by the Tax Foundation puts the value at closer to $111-billion. That would put the per-family cost at about $822.

But this is worth noting: The dollar figure for spending on tax preparation is a calculation of the value of the time people spend working on their taxes, which the Tax Foundation put at about $39 an hour, not how much they pay to tax pros. That’s not clear in McCain’s statement.”

---

"The failings in our civil service are encouraged by a system that makes it very difficult to fire someone even for gross misconduct."

Pretty accurate there

“…McCain wisely faults not an individual but a "system." That puts him on pretty solid ground, where even a study by the federal government had difficulty finding supervisors who had attempted to take action against poorly performing employees.”

---

Senator Barack Obama - http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/personalities/barack-obama/

“They've never paid more for gas at the pump."

Not true, even looking at the past

“We might have been inclined to cut Obama some slack for speaking in general terms about the price of gas, but he is still wrong when you look at historical levels. If you adjust for inflation, the current national price is still 41 cents below the peak of $3.39 per gallon, set in March 1981.”

---

“They don’t want political talk. I’ll just give you one example. Sen. Clinton and I were debating and she was asked about the bankruptcy law that she voted for in 2001. . . . During the debate she said, you know, ‘I voted for it, but I hoped it wouldn’t pass.’ That was a quote on live TV. That kind of talk, I think it makes people not trust government.”

Close but it’s not accurate

“Here’s what Clinton said: “Sure I do, but it never became law, as you know. It got tied up. It was a bill that had some things I agreed with and other things I didn’t agree with, and I was happy that it never became law. I opposed the 2005 bill as well.”

---

"If we went back to the obesity rates that existed in 1980, that would save the Medicare system a trillion dollars."

Health nuts must have loved this. Too bad it’s a made up number.

“We tracked down one of the authors of the study the CDC cited: Eric Finkelstein, a health economist with the research group RTI International who has studied the issue extensively and written several papers on the topic. Finkelstein said obesity accounts for excess health spending of about $90-billion a year. About half of that — about $45-billion — is billed to Medicare and Medicaid together.

Medicare's share of obesity spending therefore is between $20-billion and $25-billion. If obesity rates rolled back to 1980s levels, Medicare spending would be about half that, or about $12-billion a year.”

---

I would list more items, but in general the candidates have, of late, been accurate in many of the comments they have made. Or at least accurate to some degree.

As noted via PolitiFact (check it out for yourself), the 3 candidates have a total of 15 outright lies and 31 barely or half true statements between them. The actual breakdown is as follows:

• Clinton – 3 outright lies, 13 barely or half true statements
  


• McCain – 5 outright lies, 10 barely or half true statements
  


• Obama – 7 outright lies, 8 barely or half true statements
  

Not too bad as politicians go, and perhaps as good as we can expect. Sad as that sounds. But now you know. Keep it in mind as you go to the Primaries. Think about it as you decide who you wish to have as President of the United States.

But no matter which you choose, make a choice. Decide who the best choice for America is and use your Constitutional Right to get that person elected. Your vote matters. Use it.

Labels: Polispeak, PolitiFact, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

“My armour is like tenfold shields, my teeth are swords, my claws spears, the shock of my tail a thunderbolt, my wings a hurricane, and my breath death!”

Such a statement might have been the claims of the Clinton campaign in 2007, right up until November. Politically, the powerhouse of the Democratic Party was presumed the frontrunner. It was assumed by most pundits that Senator Clinton’s appeal among Democrats, and women in particular, was unassailable. And the African American vote was assumed to be locked up without much thought towards it.

But as Bilbo would say

“Every worm has his weak spot”.

That turned out to be Senator Obama. He has endured smears and personal/racial attacks. He had battled the chuckles of pundits, and gained recognition on a national basis. His triumph is not complete yet, but so far 20 of 28 states have been won by Senator Obama. No matter the delegate math, that’s a landslide. Expectations are that the 3 primaries to be held February 12, 2008 will be another set of 60%+ wins for the Obama campaign. In fact they were 60%, 64%, and 75%.

Yet delegates show a virtual tie among these 2 Democratic Presidential hopefuls. So what should the voters of the remaining Primaries be focused on?

Well Hispanic/Latinos may want to consider why the Clinton campaign is so attractive. Based on my observations I would believe the most attractive thought is that the Clinton campaign will bend to whatever will is popular when it comes to illegal aliens. From her ‘every answer in the book’ response about illegal aliens and driver’s licenses, it seems obvious that there is no clear position. Thus a Presidential candidate that was supported by Hispanic/Latinos will owe major favors to this growing group of Americans.

But considering that Senator Clinton has shown a decisive ability to do anything but maintain a real position about virtually every political subject since taking public office, I would not count on that. Because Clinton has been unwilling to take a stand in favor of illegal aliens, I believe that she will court them for the vote and abandon them in the face of national pressure if elected. It’s not like she has stated clearly that she backs anything, so she has no campaign promises to back out of. And considering that early assumptions of support from, and later minimalization of, African Americans has worked out horrendously, the Clinton campaign realizes that it needs a minority group to help shore up its weakening hold on Whites and the vital women vote.

I believe that if these observations are correct, then Hispanics/Latinos will realize the lack of commitment by the March 4th Texas Primary. They will back Senator Obama, and it will be more than obvious that the popular vote and delegate count will be for Obama. Super Delegates (a silly idea in my opinion) will have no choice but to join the Obama camp lest the Democratic Party becomes more fractured and divided than has already happened in this election cycle (thanks in large part to former-President Bill Clinton).

If the Democratic Party does settle down and accept what the current momentum and predominance of state results show, then I think they will have a great chance of winning the Presidential election. If not, then a loss for the Democrats is a virtual guarantee.

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Texas Primary

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The results are coming in and the news is troubling. Troubling because deception is taking the lead, that polispeak is gaining strength, that Senator Hillary Clinton has the delegate lead in the Democratic Presidential nomination race. As I stated earlier, I oppose Senator Clinton, and think that only Mestophilese might be a slightly worse choice for America.

What we have seen is that Senator Obama has taken the heart of Democrats. He has won 13 states; most with wins virtually double that of Senator Clinton. There has been landslide voting where Whites, Blacks, women and men have all chosen Obama. Former-President Bill Clinton may have minimized Senator Obama by trying to compare the win in South Carolina to Rev. Jesse Jackson, but the results of Super Tuesday prove that many in America are ready for the true first Black President, and the only honest voice left in the Democratic Party. In my opinion.

But delegates rule in the nomination process. While the popular vote in state after state may be in favor of Senator Obama, the delegate count (and the even more vague Super Delegate count) is in the Clinton camp. Such is the shame.

Utah 56 to 38%, Alabama 56 - 42%, Alaska 72 - 27%, Colorado 67 - 27%, Georgia 68 - 31%, Idaho 80 -17%, and the list goes on. If Senator Hillary Clinton wins it’s not because virtually half the nation thinks she is worth while.

Looking at the Republican race, Senator McCain has prevailed. He has solidified his position and severely beaten Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney. While the wins are not as lopsided, not as many states he has been dominant. Already calls for Mitt Romney to drop out of the race are being made and pundits are spinning the polispeak about why.

Will immigration, the southern border, and the economy be more important than religious fervor and a desire to make the Constitution a doctrine more in line with a Huckabee religious point of view? I for one hope not. I am also saddened that the issue of religion was so prominent in holding back the potential of Mitt Romney. While I would not vote for him anyway, the religious beliefs of any candidate should not be a factor for anything. Much like gender and race it is another hurdle that we as Americans must come to terms with for the betterment of the nation.

I ask you this, did your candidate perform as you would have liked? If not is it because you did not vote? If you have not exercised your right to vote, you are not too late. The general election in November is still open to you. You can help make a difference for America. There are still many primaries to go, and then the political conventions. In each and every step your Constitutional Right can be voiced. You can help change America, and thus the world.

Have you not chosen a candidate? There is still time for Primaries, and more importantly the general election. In the last several elections a mere pittance of the American public could have changed the nation. You can be part of that. You don’t have to agree with me, and if you are registered you can make more of an impact than the words I have been writing for over a year. There are few things as powerful as your vote.

Be patriotic. Support the troops, show your love of the nation, and be involved in how your life will be affected over the next 4 years and far beyond. Be a part of providing a future for your children and grand children that is better than today.

Vote!

Labels: Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Super Tuesday results

**While this post includes personal thoughts of my political views, M V Consulting, Inc and it's I Love America That's Why I Vote! campaign is not partisan. Your vote is your Constitutional Right and it matters. No matter who you chose, make a choice. Register to vote and make a difference.**

It has been over a year in the making, and while there may not be fanfare I imagine some may have been waiting for this list. It is not an endorsement yet but it is one step away.

The following candidates are all people I would not vote for and reasons why. In almost no particular order.

Ron Paul – Extremist and I do not agree with his retreat oriented, isolationist plans dealing with Iraq. I do respect his desire to get his message out and his ability to gather some 4% of vote made in Primaries so far.

Alan Keyes – Deserves even less comment than Ron Paul.

Rudy Giuliani – While he may have been America’s Mayor on 9/11 and there after, I am among many New Yorkers that recall his tenure as Mayor before that horrendous day. He was not well liked among many. His social policies were massive steps backwards, especially his encouragement and protection of police action that resulted in death and torture of African Americans. Suffice to say his one word Presidential campaign failed and I’m glad.

Fred Thompson – I actually liked his direct manner. His concerns for the nation are real. He had decent fiscal plans, and a focus on protecting America from abroad and at the borders. Sadly he didn’t get seriously involved in campaigning until far too late in the game.

Mike Huckabee – I do not agree with his mix of religion and politics. I respect his belief, but it has no place in government; least of all a refashioning of the Constitution based on his religious ideals. He has raised taxes, and under his governorship there were several bad decisions made like the pardon of a killer. It may not have been his sole decision, but as the head of that state it’s his responsibility and he needed to stand up and take the hit rather than try to deflect it. Leaders accept responsibility for all the actions that happen, good and bad.

Dennis Kucinich – I respect that he, like Ron Paul, was able to stay in the race as long as he did. I really respected that he is the only candidate to speak at a public debate and talk about an apology for slavery, and reparations. None have had the balls to even open their mouths or raise their hands on the subject. But he had no real strength of message beyond this. More importantly, since virtually all the Democrats believe the same things, he did not have the charisma t get farther than he did.

John Edwards – Where do I start. I feel that he is a hypocrite. He talks of how bad the rich are, yet he is one of them. He worked at a firm that made money taking advantage of the poor and minorities. His haircuts cost $400. His regular income neighbors hate him. He already was part of a losing equation for the Presidency. He has never once donated money to the government, yet he feels that taxes should be higher than they are for the rich. He has flipped on several issues. He is an advocate of retreat. And it just goes on and on. And his wife’s illness is a distraction were he to somehow win the election.

Most of the Democratic and Republican field not mentioned – Never had a chance, and never had any real plans worthy of considering. Their weaknesses are multiple and would take far too long to discuss.

That whittles the field down to 4.

Mitt Romney – Because he also raised taxes. He has made the most flips of virtually all the candidates. Because while he barely discusses his faith (that few understand and many negative are rumored about) he has mentioned that it would be part of his decision making process. Because he has pandered to the ultra-religious. Because he is a Mormon and that makes him unelectable in a nation that is almost as obsessed about religion as it is race. Because he has been so negative in so many ads. He is no Ronald Regan, though he tries to portray himself as such.

Hilary Clinton – The worst for last. She is the worst candidate of all the choices. I would gladly vote for and elect anyone except for her. It has nothing to do with her gender, which she has used as a weapon and shield. There are several women I would be happy to vote for, they just haven’t run. But Hillary has massive issues.

I have followed her tenure as a Senator, and found no action that has improved the lives of New Yorkers – her adopted state – though she made many campaign promises that have not been completed. I have looked at her votes and seen a pattern of her flipping her votes, both in favor and against virtually the same issue. I have listened to her speak for years, speaking polispeak on the most popular buzz issues and then moving on to the next. Remember her anger over the Grand Theft Auto “Hot Coffee” issue? What about the negative portrayal of Blacks, and degradation of women in that game and the series? Not a word. And ultimately what did she do about it? Nothing except grab headlines and let it go.

Hillary Clinton has actively avoided providing the public with her real thoughts. She polispoke her was through the issue of illegal aliens on national television resulting in her saying yes, no and maybe in all of 2 minutes. Then she proceeded to take multiple sides on the issue for 2 weeks until it no longer was an issue. That’s an example of hiding from the public.

She has lied in saying she has 35 years of political experience. She does not having first served the public as a Senator for New York. She has little if any business experience. She shares a position with John Edwards in that she thinks the rich should pay more taxes, and has never voluntarily paid a dime more than what was required.

She has actively engaged in smear campaigns, using fear and racism in place of serious political debate. And she wasn’t honest enough to say this herself, using staff and virtual staff members to make the comments for her. And do not forget that she was among a handful of those in Congress to vote in favor of MoveOn.org when it viciously attacked our military.

She cannot campaign on her own, using former President Bill Clinton as a shield and weapon. He is no mere spouse; he is a former President and can generate attention beyond anything any of the spouses of other candidates could ever do. And many believe that his policies are hers, which is unknown. They assume that he will be involved in running the nation, which is not possible depending on the degree. And they forget that it was President Bill Clinton that allowed Osama Bin Laden to become the instigator of the worst attack of American citizens, on or off American soil, ever.

She has offered bribes, in the form of potential campaign promises, to buy votes. Do you recall the ill formed and ineffective plan to give every child in America $5,000 for college? I do and I recall that all the questions about this ‘plan’ went unanswered before she dropped the idea and moved onto the next attention grabbing comment.

As I mentioned her gender is a shield. When it’s useful she had ‘nearly’ cried to engender the women’s vote. She has calculated when a laugh may make her seem more humane, and avoid actual answers. She has claimed that the men in the race are unfair due to her gender, and then turned around and campaigned on the fact she is a woman. She has made false claims of her record at Wal-Mart.

She has taken money from active fugitives of the law, and actively tried not to return that money. She has denied money from Wal-Mart, who she now decries as a terrible business, but she takes 4x as much money from its executives and related personnel quietly.

She has multiple scandals and rumors of improprieties that follow her and her former-President husband. She self-aggrandizes her importance during her husband’s tenure, and assumes some of his few achievements as her own. She has refused to allow proof of her political activities to be released to the public until 2013.

There is no candidate neither less Presidential, nor more power hungry than Senator Hillary Clinton. Anyone who so wishes to rise to the highest office in the nation, but refuses to reveal their motivations and intentions is dangerous to the nation. Every candidate is more worthy of the office than her. Every candidate will benefit women, African Americans, minorities, illegal aliens, homeland defense, and the war on terror more than Senator Hillary Clinton. Anything I can do to prevent her from winning is worthwhile.

I have documented many of the actions that I mention above in multiple posts [at www.mvass.com and www.presidentialraceblog.com] since 2005. I’ve not made up anything; these are facts of what she has done. My interpretation of the reasons why could be debated, but I cannot see how anyone looking at the facts could claim she deserves to serve in any public office.

But who is left?

Senators Obama and McCain. I believe this will also be the choice in the election in November. Honestly both are good choices and may be very good for the nation. At this moment I endorse neither. But I will endorse one of them soon.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Dennis Kucinich, election 2008, Fred Thompson, John Edwards, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Presidential race, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

This is a real new low. Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign, again of course, has now compared the actions of Senator Obama to the Nazi Party. Is there anything that the Clinton campaign will not say, or perhaps do, to try to ensure that Senator Clinton wins the Democratic nomination?

{correction - after further research it is found that the Clinton campaign did not make the comparison. Len Nichols who did make the comarison to Nazi's is 'unaffiliated' with the Clinton campaign, though he has consulted them.}

So far the Clinton campaign has called Senator Obama a terrorist, a drug addict, a drug dealer, a proponent of slum lords, a minor figure in the Democratic party, living in a fantasy land, a candidate of African Americans and thus biased and ineffectual, and now a Nazi. The only things left to say is that he’s taken candy from children, and is the long lost twin of President George Bush.

That is not to mention that along the way the Clinton political machine insulted African Americans, created a racial divide in their own party (though currently attacking Senator Ted Kennedy), and insulted the memory of Dr. Martin Luther King just days before his birthday holiday. That says nothing of past scandals, or the lies over her experience. She has claimed 35 years of experience, 16, and so on. In fact she has only been a Senator (the only elected office she has ever held) for 7 years to date.

The ‘rogue’ supporters are not the fault of Hillary of course. She has no control over these people. Even though she is known for her micromanagement of her campaign.

And of course the multiple scandals during this Presidential nomination process are secondary issues. The money from criminals at large, the donations from Wal-Mart that she publicly decries, the need to stand on her gender crutch, her inability to provide simple yes or no answers to questions, and her absolute need to have former-President Bill Clinton deflect negative attention away from her and give her a pause to regroup.

Again I am forced to question her. I have tried to be neutral until Feb 5th. But I must ask Democrats, do you want someone that will bend rules and use every smear they can come up with as President? What kind of President do you think someone that does all the above, plus so much more in the past, will really be?

Labels: President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Oh how the facts just get in the way. There have been released tapes that reveal Democratic Presidential candidate and NY Senator Hillary Clinton’s position on labor unions while she was a board member of Wal-Mart. As a Democrat, Senator Clinton has been outspoken about her support of unions, and has several that have endorsed her campaign.

But back in the late 1980’s through early 1990’s it seems that Senator Hillary Clinton had other views. It has been proven that in several meetings of the board members, of which she was a member for 6 years, she NEVER took a stance to help unionize or support unions in the company. Board members have been quoted as stating that beyond the recordings, they have zero memory of a single confrontation or commitment by Senator Clinton on behalf of Unions.

Now in general I’m not a big fan of unions. In general I don’t care what board members do or do not think of, if they are not stocks that I own. But I am interested in who will be the next President of the United States. And I do note hypocrisy in the Presidential candidates.

As a proponent of unions Senator Clinton has attacked Wal-mart and its policies. That’s fine, as it’s the big enemy of ultra-liberal Democrats these days, and that’s an opinion some have. But considering that she was a member of this same company and did nothing to improve their corporate actions, it’s too faced.

Add to this fact, that she has publicly refused campaign donations from this company, and then quietly taken 4x as much money ($20,000) from executives and lobbyists of that same company privately.

Last year Senator Clinton stated

“Now I know that Wal-Mart's policies do not reflect the best way of doing business and the values that I think are important in America.”

So in over a decade, on top of 6 years as a board member of the company Senator Clinton had no knowledge of the anti-union policies of Wal-Mart. And as she has stated she was an advocate of women in the company.

“I don't doubt the sincerity of her efforts, but we don't see much evidence that conditions for women at Wal-Mart changed much during the late 1980s and early 1990s," said Joe Sellers, one of the lawyers suing Wal-Mart on behalf of the women.”

So a question that might show her sincerity would be if Senator Clinton would return the $20,000. But she has stated through her campaign that “no basis to return the money.”

That sounds incredibly like when it was found that Senator Clinton’s campaign took $1 million from legal fugitive Norman Hsu or the questionable Abdul Rehman Jinna.

“To summarize Mr. Hsu was wanted with a warrant for his arrest from California for over a decade. Mr. Hsu recently started to bundle funds for donation to Sen. Clinton. Initially, when his identity and warrant came to public attention, the Clinton campaign first stated their surprise, and then as pressure mounted offered to give back roughly $32,000. Then as the media checked into the story and it was found that the actual donations made totaled 1 million dollars which was possibly gotten from funds scammed from 3rd parties. The Clinton campaign offered to give the money to charity. The answer was they had not known he made the donations.”

All of this seems to go back to a thought I had back in November 2005. I would suggest that members of unions, and Democrats consider the following, and the apparent election year flip mentioned above, as well as the questionable acceptance of funding from active criminals evading prosecution.

“There are more votes, my point is Sen. Clinton seems very confused on several issues. Sen. Clinton promotes the idea that she is for families and individuals (ie raise wages, leaving SS alone, improving bicycle safety) yet she also has voted to do the opposite (no motorcycle safety, repeal '93 tax, ethanol, AIDS funding). My thoughts are not about the outcome of the actual votes, but how Sen. Clinton has voted. That is far more important. It seems to project an image of someone looking to say anything to get elected, but not caring what the constiuents want as much once elected.”

I hope everyone that can will vote on Super Tuesday. I hope even more vote in the Presidential election in November. I just hope that the candidates of both political parties are worthy choices for the American public.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, New York, Norman Hsu, Presidential primaries, Senator Clinton, Super Tuesday, Wal-Mart

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

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

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

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

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well the Clinton political machine seems to have finally got in a pissing match they could not win. Polispeak aside, the endorsement by Senator Ted Kennedy and the Kennedy clan is a massive action. The entire Democratic nomination race may have taken a new direction that no one expected.

The power of the Kennedy family is without question in American politics. They stretch from New England to California. They include Congressmen, Senators, and the Guvernator. Their supporters range in age from the pre-baby boomers to the first time voters that are a force in this election. The name of the family alone has more political clout than most candidates have had.

According to some sources the Clinton machine had been looking to court the Kennedy endorsement. But they assumed too much. With the constant attacks on Senator Barack Obama based on the divisive issue of race, the insult to Dr. Martin Luther King and the slighting of JFK’s role in the Civil Rights movement, and the potential of driving a wedge in the Democratic party separated by race I think the Kennedy’s got fed up.

I have no doubt that all of the above played a part in the decision of JFK’s daughter in endorsing Senator Obama. Then came what may have been the final straw if it’s true. President Clinton supposedly called Senator Ted Kennedy and asked him not to say anything. Which led to 3 Kennedy’s endorsing Senator Obama today.

Arrogance can only take you so far. Manipulation and derogatory comments are only so effective. Especially when the Kennedy political machine spans the nation and decades in public office.

The Northeast is now probably Obama country. California may be a new stronghold. Older Democrats, liberals, poor and all the other categories that the Kennedy name affects, that Hillary Clinton has previously had an edge on, are all in question. The Clintons must be as angered by these events as they are unsure of the win a mere year ago they presumed.

Ted Kennedy’s speech was powerful and clear. He is a Democrat. He will support the nominee of the Party. And he is dedicated to do everything he can to make sure Senator Obama is that nominee.

I’ve said before that I felt Senator Obama might not win. I’ve mentioned that the use of race as a tool to divide the Democratic Party and provide Hillary the win is an effective strategy. I know that the comments by Bill and all the various staffers have angered many. I know the attempts by Bill to minimize the wins of Senator Obama, and a great leader that was Dr, Martin Luther King polarized the Democratic Party. But this was unexpected. This is a wildcard that could be the beginning of a landslide that is enormous.

Will this be close? Of course. Is momentum changing sides? I don’t think it’s stopped since the nominations process started on January 1st. But this is the first time I seriously think that the math and support behind Senator Obama is enough to give him the win.

Regardless of political affiliation or guidelines you may hold, this must be impressive. And you have to say that now, more than ever before, that Rev. Jesse Jackson is not Senator Obama. That 2008 is not 1984. That we may see a Black President and that first Black President will actually be African American.

It’s not exciting because I may or may not agree with Senator Obama, or that I may or may not want/need him to win. Rather it’s exciting because it means that in the highest office, and in the most visceral manner, America is becoming a land of the free and equal. And that is something that I think every American can appreciate and look forward to.

Labels: Civil Rights, Democratic Party, Dr. Martin Luther King, election 2008, Polispeak, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Ted Kennedy

Astounding. Senator Barack Obama has been called the winner of the South Carolina Primary. He has resoundingly beaten all the other Democratic candidates. The numbers are roughly 58% of those identified as Democrats, 25% of Whites, and 50% of those under 30 years old. I’m sure those numbers will change at time passes.

So what does this mean? Well there is good and bad in these numbers. 78% of African Americans voted for Senator Obama, 17% for Senator Clinton. But Senator Clinton has been targeting the poor, uneducated, White and Hispanic/Latino vote. South Carolina has been used as a stepping stone for the Super Tuesday national votes.

There is no question that former-President Bill Clinton has introduced race in a manner that was obvious and calculated more than anything in 2007. That is not so much a surprise but a signal. The Clinton campaign has consistently been seeding the racial divide in the nation, with subordinates making comments and passing emails that attack Senator Obama, for months. But it was Bill Clinton that brought this to a new level.

As Senator Clinton disappeared from the major news coverage, Bill to front stage. Being a former President, there is no competition anyone can give him for media coverage of anything he chooses to say. And he said exactly the things that would emphasize to White voters that Obama is Black.

Now why does that matter? Besides the fact that the majority of voters are White, it’s the fact that race still does matter in America. It affects our perceptions and is evident in our daily lives. Look at virtually any television show, cable or broadcast, and count the number of minorities on that program. You will virtually always see 1 supporting cast member that is Black, 1 will be Hispanic/Latino, 1 or 2 women, and maybe 1 in 5 shows have an Asian. Race matters.

In addition is the fact that the attacks against Senator Obama, by a former-President minimize the importance of Senator Obama. Not because of his qualifications, but because he is JUST a Black candidate. It presumes that he is just a flash in the pan and not a serious option.

And lastly because Bill Clinton is so revered by Democrats, his disapproval implies that there is something wrong with Senator Obama. In a nation that was built upon the thought that A White male is always right versus a Black slave, it makes an impact. And for those that say we have grown beyond that, just look at the numbers of African Americans that are still being proven innocent of crimes they have spent decades in prison for, solely on the basis that a witness said that they thought this was the perpetrator of a crime. Often that misidentification, by a White witness, is more than enough to convict a Black defendant.

So now Senator Obama has been officially labeled the Black candidate. He is perhaps finally Black enough. Or too Black if you go by some small minds and the suggestions of people like BET founder Bob Johnson.

So what will be the outcome? Obviously Senator Obama will continue forward, as will Senator Clinton and John Edwards. Edwards has no real chance of winning the nomination. So I expect he will drop out after the Super Tuesday primaries on February 4th. Without question I expect he will shift his support to Hillary.

Major emphasis will be made that Senator Obama only is getting 25% of the White vote, ignoring his Iowa dominance and cross the racial lines popularity. And for those that thing Obama will get the Vice-President nod, I don’t think so. It’s not even an option.

Obama is too popular, and a ticket that has 2 ‘minorities’ [White women are not a minority to me] is too likely to be beaten by a Republican ticket. Especially if Senator John McCain is the Presidential candidate.

Overall I am upset by the numbers we are seeing. Because there is such a racial divide, caused by the calculations of the Clinton campaign, the Democratic nomination is now virtually assured of going to Clinton. And it means that it was won not because of qualifications, or the belief of the nation of who is the best candidate for the Presidency, but because of the lingering racism that is the backbone of this nation.

I had hoped America was better than that. But the Clinton campaign has bet big on this, and I expect they have won that bet.

At least Senator Obama will have made credible and real in-roads for the next qualified candidate. Perhaps then America will be ready. Though I would love to see that I am wrong, and race drops out of this nomination process. But like Pandora’s Box, once it’s been opened it’s too late.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic Party, election 2008, John Edwards, presidential election, Presidential race, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton

It’s Saturday, and you are planning to go out. But the primaries in Nevada and South Carolina are ongoing. What do you do?

Many forgo the Nevada Caucus, and weather plays a part in the South Carolina Republican Primary. Such is the nature of Commitments and polling for a Presidential Race.

So what have we seen today? In Nevada there was a big win for Mitt Romney, who needed the boost though it is suspect. I say that because of the proximity and number of Mormons that propped up his Caucus numbers. Still it’s a win. For the Democrats, Senator Clinton took the prize. Not that this win was without controversy. Cries of manipulation, from both the Obama and Clinton camps were claimed. And yet another dirty tactic of calls emphasizing the Muslim nature of Senator Barack Hussein Obama’s name.

Did the brouhaha over the place of the Nevada Caucuses for the Democrats play a factor? Can Senator Clinton continue to win on the heels of single women voters? Why has Oprah Winfrey become so silent of late in her support of Obama, and does that play into the response of women voters?

They are all big questions. To some degree they are all factors. And it is clear that the Democratic race will likely hinge on South Carolina, and the ability of Americans to either look past the tan of Senator Obama or focus directly on it as some supporters of Senator Clinton would wish.

What about South Carolina for the Republicans? Well I must be honest; I can’t see Rudy Giuliani or Fred Thomson staying in the race. Neither has done well in any vote to date. Often both candidates have place behind massive longshot and internet favorite Ron Paul [at least I mentioned him].

Even as I write this, Fred Thompson is making a speech (while early polls show him with a 3rd or 4th place position – a win is not possible) that sounds ominously like a preparation to surrender and to shift his support to another candidate. I would expect that when he does give up he will back Senator McCain. They are most inline with each others policies.

I am surprised as Thompson was leading in South Carolina at one point. He spent a huge amount of time there. And his performance in the South Carolina Debate was the most vibrant of virtually any in this race that he has participated in. I imagine that had he shown that fire earlier, and entered the race sooner, things would probably be different. I think Mike Huckabee would be in his position under those circumstances.

The likely winner will be Senator McCain. Already it’s known that the Marines at Paris Island have voted strongly for McCain, as have several other districts. Will it be close? Yes, but a win all the same.

I do find it amazing that religion has been such a critical factor in the Republican race. And for the Democrats it’s race itself. The most emotional and least important aspects of the candidates are the ones deciding who is winning. It is only the basis of religion that continues to carry Mike Huckabee, and drag Mitt Romney (though he is leading in the delegate count). And it is only the single women voters that are maintaining the lead of Senator Clinton. That and the constant subtle and indirect attacks on the religion and race of Senator Obama.

I have even heard another troubling fact. That Black women won’t vote for Senator Obama because they fear that if he wins the nomination, and/or the Presidency, because they believe he will be killed. That reasoning reminds me of a famous, funny, skit by Eddie Murphy back in the 80’s. While it’s probably true, it still shouldn’t be a reason to not vote for him.

But voting for reasons that have no impact on America, or rather the functioning of America is apparent. The racial polarizing is no mistake. It’s an obvious and effective plan to ensure that Americans remember that Senator Obama is Black first, has a suspicious sounding name second, and is not White 3rd.

Mike Huckabee is nearly preaching the need to change the Constitution to a more Christian document. Mitt Romney is trying to avoid the question of what a Mormon is.

Honestly they are all pitiful events. They belittle the Presidential race, and the office they all wish to attain. Personally I don’t want a President that is a religious fanatic (of any religion) nor elected because the population is predominantly one gender over another. Neither reason ensures the greatest good for America. Fear of a darker skin color is just a repugnant reasoning to not elect anyone as well [in fact, it's just repugnant].

The more I follow this election, the more I am being insulted and repulsed by many of the choices before us. But I promised not to give away my choice for the nominations until after the Primaries. Guaranteed I’ll have my personal choice and reasons.

But even with that, what we each choose is as valid as what we do. Our votes speak loudly, and should be heard. Get out and vote. And hopefully we will be able to have a choice between 2 great directions that improve America, versus the choice of the lesser of evils that has plagued many elections over the last 2 decades.

Labels: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Mormon, Nevada Caucus, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Hussein Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator McCain, South Carolina

As for the other issues of the day, the Nevada Caucus has taken a new turn now that a judge has allowed the sites in casinos that was originally agreed to months ago without a word of protest. Obviously the main culprit in this 11th hour action seems to be the Clinton campaign. Much to the protests of former-President Bill Clinton.



While there is no question that the teacher’s union led the call for a change, there is no question that this only happened after Senator Obama gained the largest Union in the state as a supporter. That of course was not good for Senator Clinton. The timing is poor considering this was a given back in March of 2007.

Did you notice something else in the video? Did I hear President Clinton state that he thought Nevada Democrats were to stupid to understand a detailed plan they agreed to almost a year ago, and that they only just gained the understanding to question this in the last 2 days? That sounds like an insult to Nevada Democrats. A big one.

But it goes hand in hand with the whining, and dirty tricks that the Clinton campaign has been engaging in since late 2007.

So far there has been attacks on Senator Obama’s religion, admission of drug use and it’s negative impact on his life, race, Iraq war record, experience, and international policy plans. Of course most of the most damaging items have been stated by staffers and supporters, completely independent of Senator Clinton. When lightning strikes once it’s coincidence, but when you watch it hit 5 times you have to wonder.

Is this going to affect the Nevada and South Carolina results? Well so far we have seen that 40% of Michigan voters chose uncommitted over Senator Clinton. 70% of African Americans came out to vote against her even though it would provide no benefit to any other candidate.

While the race in Nevada seems to be close in polls so far, I have not seen any that are asking what minority voters are thinking. Hispanic/Latinos are about 24% of voters there, and Blacks are 7%. Recent negative attacks based on race seem to have had a critical backlash so far, but how it will play out with this new event is unknown.

And in South Carolina, there is a definitive effect showing. There is a roughly 11% lead for Senator Obama and it seems obvious why.

So President Bill Clinton is fustrated and upset. The Clinton campaign seems more ruthless and willing to do anything to win than ever before. And Senator Obama seems more like a real choice and competitor among Democrats.

I’m really not trying to pick a side in the Democratic nomination, but the Clinton campaign does make it difficult at times.

But you can say how you feel about it all here, and definitely when you vote. But unlike your vote you get to comment as often as you want. So let’s hear what you think.

Labels: African Americans, Democratic nomination, Hispanic/Latinos vote, Nevada Caucus, President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, South Carolina

And the political games go on. It’s a toss up between religion and money. Seriously, that’s what the Presidential candidates are selling, and your vote is the purchase price.

On the Democratic candidate side we hear so much on how to fight the impending recession. There have been stimulus plans offered by Senator Clinton and Senator Obama that are all about money. The plans are very similar, Obama offering $250 and Clinton $500. Sounds great right?

If you vote for either of those candidates on that basis, I am deeply offended. It’s one of the cheap tricks that politicians use to get a vote. In effect they offer nothing and hope to gain a lot.

What the offer amounts to is a rebate on your taxes, one time. Sounds nice right. An extra $500 in your pocket. Except that it won’t stay in your pocket long. The hope is that you will go out and spend the money on buying something, thus helping the economy. But I think most Americans would rather spend the money on paying down on the car, mortgage and/or credit cards. You want to clear your bills, especially when the economy looks shaky and your job is questionable.

So that won’t help the economy, your job won’t be more stable, and you end up with the same bills the next month. An example is say you own a home. You are behind on the heating bill, because of the huge increase in oil prices. You spend the money on the heating bill bringing you even, until next month when you have another high bill to pay. That rebate was a waste.

Now if the stimulus plan was really meant to help you, you would get an extra $50 a week from your paycheck. That would likely mean a tax cut. You never hear that term from Democrats because it means less money for social entitlement plans. But if they did you would get an extra roughly $200 a month or roughly $2,500 (taking out a 2 week vacation). Which would help you more? Getting an extra (assuming the average American income is $27,000) 1.9% once, or 9.3% over a year?

Mind you that this is simply a plan. Once elected there are innumerable reasons why the plan will not actually happen. So not only are you betting on the candidate winning, you are betting on them giving you a pat on the back versus actually helping you and the economy.

Oh and if you think this is a new idea look back on any election year with a possibly bad economy and you will hear it. Even as recently as 2007 Senator Clinton came up with a cheap vote plan that got her some quick television advertising and fell of the earth as soon as she didn’t need it. You do recall that she wanted to give every child in America a college bond of $5,000 right?

“Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for public school.”

Of course the Republican party is little better. We are watching as every candidate is trying to implore to us that they are more devout than the other. They want us all to believe that their religion is a cornerstone of their moral base, while at the same time denying it could have any impact on how they would run the nation.

Hogwash.

First of all since when is religion of a candidate a factor in the qualification of a Presidential candidate? Besides the huge question posed to President Kennedy when else has it been an issue? Where do they connect?

When you have a President you have a leader of a nation of dozens of religious faiths. He cannot favor one as that would alienate a swath of the nation. And it’s not his job. His job is to ensure the safety and prosperity of the nation. The spiritual health of any individual citizen is their own issue.

I mean seriously, if candidate X can quote a religious tome does that make them any smarter? Will they be able to avert a mortgage crisis any better? Will they prevent the loss of jobs overseas, or prevent illegal immigration any better? No.

The reality is that while we may be sure that candidate X may be more spiritually at ease with themselves it gives us no guarantee they are a good person or effective. To presume that a religious belief confers such is idiocy in my view. It just gives away a vote for nothing.

I mean how do we know that because candidate X was in a church on Sunday, or whatever holy day applies, that they were devout? That they truly believe. That they weren’t just hoping, and planning, on a bunch of television cameras to be outside the event waiting for them to exit. That they didn’t take a nap during the religious on-goings.

Cheap attempts to get your vote are popular, moreso now with 24 hour news and cable networks in the hundreds. There are so many opportunities to showcase an act that looks good but equates to nothing that deals with the actual function of the nation.

I don’t dispute the religious belief of any candidate. In fact I discount all of their beliefs as I an not capable of understanding what they believe in their core. In addition, with the seperation of church and state in this nation, their religious faith is without any importance to their actions if elected.

So when you think about it, there are many attempts to gain your vote on the cheap. Realize that and instead consider the actual plans, comments and history of each of the candidates. Race, gender, age, are all irrelevant factors. What they have done, and spent their lives doing is.

Labels: cable networks, cable news, Democratic Party, news media, Presidential candidates, Republican Party, Senator Clinton, social entitlement

So we continue to hear that Senator Obama is leading the Democratic candidates as the nomination for the Presidential election draws near. The further the day goes, the more we are hearing that the initial results from the midnight voting are proving more accurate.

Record turnouts, bolstered by unseasonably warm weather, are trending in favor of the candidate that 1 year ago was considered a joke, and a minor distraction to the inevitable nomination of Senator Clinton. Well the pundits were wrong, and 1 year later reports are surfacing that the Clinton campaign is grasping for the political advisors that were critical for the elections of President Bill Clinton.

On the Republican side, there is a less clear view. Senator John McCain entered New Hampshire with a strong lead, but Mitt Romney and his huge television ad spending are whitling away at that lead. Independants, the majority of New Hampshire voters, are the most critical factor. The beliefs are that independents will trend towards Obama, though many will also favor McCain.

Even with a solid win by Senator McCain, the final result is not nearly as clear as with the Democratic race. This is an odd election year indeed. Normally the fractioning seen in the Republican race has been something more akin to Democrats. It is very possible that the Republican candidate will be unknown well into, and possibly after the Super Tuesday vote in February. Effectively Mitt Romney, Senator McCain, Mike Huckabee, and Fred Thompson all have the ability to pull off first place wins, with 2nd or 3rd place finishes in multiple states before February.

All of this is causing turmoil in campaigns dubbed inevitable by media pundits in 2007. Senator Clinton has had a very public emotional breakdown, which many felt was a critical blow against her. In the campaign for Senator Clinton it is rumored that key individuals responsible for President Clinton are going to get involved, as I mentioned above. This is currently being denied, and if true seems to kill the concept of change promoted by the campaign. The addition of these figures indicates a return to the era of the 90’s, which in many ways has no place in the 21st century.

One thing that is beginning to creep into the pundits conversation is one thing that gives me pause though. Since the win by Senator Obama in Iowa, I have heard more about the racial breakdown of the various races than I have in all my life. Not just the racial make-up of South Carolina, where the African American vote is critical, but about New Hampshire where Blacks are easily outnumbered.

This is a negative, and it’s a subtle and backhanded way of bringing race forefront in the election. The real question being asked is will White Americans vote for a Black President? Had Senator Clinton been in the lead, I’m sure the question of women voters would be investigated, but the degree to which it would be questioned is unknown. But the big question after a solid and dramatic win by Senator Barack Obama will undoubtedly be the one I have asked.

Few will come out and say it. Most will hide the question in words like electability, or likeability. Polispeak for Black. Polispeak for is America still so racist as to refuse a popular, educated, qualified, and enigmatic candidate solely on the basis of the color of his skin? Polispeak for the question, Can America give up the stereotypes that have been built and relied upon for centuries?

If America can do that, and I believe that regardless of the eventual outcome we are moving to that day anyway, then what will happen? Because this would be more than just a Presidential candidate. It would signify a cultural change in America that has never occurred before. It would imply and justify an equality that any candidate, bereft of polispeak, would admit does not exist today.

No matter what, New Hampshire will have a demonstrative effect on the candidates of both parties. The implications are far reaching and only now being addressed by pundits across the media. Only now are some Americans realizing the implications. What will that result be?

However this continues to go, I must restate, your vote counts. Do not give it away cheaply. Don’t base it solely on the gender, religion, or color of the candidates. That is the least of all reasons to pick a candidate. Pick whomever you feel is best for America. Because that vote, and only that, will benefit the entire nation.

Labels: African American, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, New Hampshire, Polispeak, presidential election, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain, South Carolina, Super Tuesday

And the hits just keep rolling on. At midnight on the 8th the first New Hampshire votes have been cast. And the results have come in some 10 minutes later.

17 citizens in New Hampshire gathered among huge crowds of reporters to vote for their choice of candidates for the Presidency of the United States. That’s 100% of all those available to vote. And the overwhelming winners were Senator Obama with 7 votes and Senator McCain with 4. Also notably is the fact that Senator Clinton received no votes and Rudy Giuliani received 1.

Now does this mean that the race is between Senators Obama and McCain? No. Not necessarily. But it does indicate that the pundits are well off the mark.

1 year ago, Senator Obama was considered a joke by the various talking heads heralded by the major news media. They thought it was cute and wrote him off in the early days of 2007. In the middle of the summer of 2007 as Senator McCain failed to generate donations at a rate that the pundits thought was necessary, he too was written off. This says nothing of the lack of attention given to Mike Huckabee up until the very end of 07.

Yet we are seeing that the American citizens have opinions of their own. They are voicing their opinion without the benefit of major media, campaign contributions or outside influences. Were Americans merely the mindless puppets that some would indicate, Riudy Giuliani and Senator Hillary Clinton would be sweeping past all others on their way to national campaigns.

But it’s the fact that every vote counts. And that media and corporate interests don’t get to decide the next official in the highest office serving the people in the nation. For this I am proud.

Does this mean either winner tonight will win? No, there is no guarantee. But it means we are paying attention and making choices. There is no higher statement.

Will the rest of New Hampshire follow the lead of these early votes? I can’t say. But if 17 Americans in the relatively remote region of New Hampshire can gather at midnight in the middle of the week, I can only imagine the crowds that will gather in major cities in the middle of the day. This is a celebration of our freedom in action. It’s the very thing that other governments around the world fear and envy.

No matter what else happens, Americans are voicing their opinion. That opinion is powerful and honest. It is unpredictable by pundits and talking heads. It refutes polispeak that has dominated news coverage of the Presidential candidates. It refutes the polispeak that has been used in many debates and public speaking platforms that occurred in 2007.

Take this as your impetus America. Your voice matters, and every vote counts. You make a change with every vote cast, and all the political players pay attention.

Labels: election 2008, New Hampshire, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton, Senator John McCain

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

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

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

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

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

And then on Monday we see this



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As has been shown constantly since it happened, the most important part of the Iowa Debate has now hit YouTube. It’s very important for more reasons than just the joke that Senator Obama wittily made. Take a look at the video clip, and watch for the details. I’ll explain my points right after.



Now at the beginning we get the question. This is very important because of what it does not state. The fact is that many long-time supporters of the Clinton’s have abandoned them and joined Senator Obama. I have to wonder why these people, who personally know the Clinton’s, would end a decades long relationship. What do they know that would cause them to switch? And en masse at that.

The next thing we hear is the laugh. Or cackle if you prefer. [The 23rd second of the video] This is not a joyful laugh, but one that directly implies superiority and advantage. It’s clear that Senator Clinton felt this was an embarrassment to Senator Obama. That it proved his lack of experience and ability, in her mind. Her laughter was at him and not with him, it was mean-spirited and for once an honest reaction from a normally very well scripted and calculating politician. [I’ll address the experience issue in a moment]

Senator Obama responded in defense and with class. [The 28th second] Rather than snapping at Senator Clinton’s implied slap in the face, he retaliated with jest. He emphasized his growing support and the fact so many of her initial supporters have joined him. He mentioned and declared that like all great leaders, he too would seek advice from those around him and make the best decision.

If you notice the reaction from Senator Clinton, which is brief, is opposite everyone else. EVERYONE else laughed. Senator Clinton caught herself in the middle of a scowl. [The 32nd second of the video clip] She showed part of another real reaction. She is angry about her attempt to embarrass was used against her, well. That a moment she thought would stand for her benefit turned into a moment of her obvious weakness.

I am not saying that Senator Obama should be the choice of anyone. I am not endorsing any candidate, Republican or Democrat, at this moment. But I am highlighting facts that are going unspoken in this race of the primaries.

Oh, and as for experience. In the mid-80’s Senator Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. In the 1990’s Senator Obama ran a voter registration drive. From 93-96 he represented communities and voter rights as a lawyer and lectured on constitutional law from 1993 until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate. Oh, don’t let me forget to mention that Senator Barack Obama served in the Illinois State Senate from 1996 until 2004 when he was elected to the Senate.

Now that might not be executive political experience, but it is experience. It is serving the public. It is a commitment that spans roughly 20 years.

As for Senator Clinton. She campaigned for a year in 1973. She researched impeachment procedures in 1974. She taught something at Fayetteville School of Law, for 3 years until she got a job working on patent infringement. When President Bill Clinton was elected Governor she got to work on getting federal funds to expand medical facilities. After President Clinton lost re-election she joined Arkansas Educational Standards Committee and did eventually change school policies.

When President Clinton was elected First Lady Clinton took on healthcare, a familiar area for her. She failed miserably.

Essentially Senator Hillary Clinton has consistently had minor experience serving the public. She has done very well making money in dubious actions. But her roles helping the public have consistently come from her connection to President Clinton. That includes being elected in New York, where she is not from and has no connection to.

Senator Clinton has not lead a life of public service. President Bill Clinton has, Hillary has not. Consistently Senator Clinton has had the claim that she was around public service, and dabbled with it a bit, while being the wife of someone who did serve the public.

If sleeping with public figures qualifies as public service, executive experience, then expect Monica Lewinsky to win a Senate seat shortly. But if actually serving the public is the criteria, Senator Clinton is lacking all the candidates.

Oh, a last thought. From 1978 until roughly 1992 Senator Clinton made at least $100,000 a year. She was on multiple corporate boards. When was it that she, or Warren Buffett, or John Edwards and so on, wrote a check from their excess funds to the government just because. Not paying taxes but just paying more than their share, which she claims the rich, which she qualifies as for over 2 decades, don’t do.

Suffice to say, be cautious at the Iowa Caucus. 41 seconds in the past might have a lot to say about what 4 years in the future could be like.

Labels: democrats, Iowa Caucus, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Warren Buffett

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

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

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

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

Or how about when you hear

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

This is just a cluster of misleading information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Experience. It is defined as to have firsthand knowledge of states, situations, emotions, or sensations. In politics it is the difference between the records of one politician and another, allegedly. In the political world, having secondhand or peripheral knowledge is equal to firsthand. And that is enough to get elected on.

Amazing isn’t it. That is to say if you are married to a scientist that cures a disease, you too are qualified as an expert. The fact you know nothing about the subject besides knowing co-workers and colleagues only adds to your experience.

Imagine writing a resume and saying that

“My brother (or whomever) worked as a certified electrician and I went with him on jobs for several years. So I am applying for work as a certified electrician.”

Your application/resume would be thrown in a dumpster. That’s the real world that most Americans live in.

But if you are a politician, you live in a world that is separate of the real one. A world in which osmosis and standing next to important people is just as good as doing something. Want to get popular and you’re an unknown, stand next to a movie star. Want to seem important, get seen talking to a famous politician or dignitary (even if the actual conversation was about how they like their coffee).

For those that would scoff at this, or wonder how it applies to Presidential politics consider the current argument between Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. Both claim to have international experience. In fact neither does.

For Senator Obama, the fact is that 4 years lived overseas as a pre-adolescent is not political experience. I submit that it can and does broaden life experience and that it can help to widen views about different cultures. But that’s about it.

I mean I spent a year and a half in Moscow, witnessed the coup attempt on Michial Gorbechev and the start of the civil war in Soviet Georgia firsthand. That does not qualify me as an expert in coups, civil wars, Soviet politics, revolutions, or Russia. But if I were running for political office you can bet your ass that it would be a confirmation written in stone that I have international experience.

Looking at the facts of the matter, according to how politicians equate experience, I have more experience than Senator Obama (I was 23 while in Moscow) and arguably Senator Clinton.

For Senator Clinton, there is no question that as First Lady she visited several nations and met with several dignitaries. That is fact. Of course she never discussed the politics of America with these Heads of State. That was the job her husband, President Bill Clinton did.

Do the spouses of leaders of nations have influence? On fashion trends, absolutely. On whether there will be sanctions against terrorist nations, no. That’s just a fact. No one asked First Lady Clinton how America should deal with export taxes, or Qadafi, or the no-fly zone over Iraq. Because she had no influence, power, or experience in the matter. Whether President Clinton spoke to her about these matters or not, it’s not experience.

In the same manner that First Lady Bush (either), Carter, Reagan, Ford, or Nixon had any experience because of the office their husbands held. So of the 8 years of Executive Office experience Senator Clinton claims, none is really valid except a short period of time when she tried and failed miserably to reform healthcare. A miserable failure that arguably was because she had no influence or political power/experience. She doesn’t have 15 years of political experience, because if including the time that President Clinton served counts so should his time as Governor, which she does not include (rightly).

So for all the hogwash that’s being spun out there, the fact is I and many Americans have more real firsthand knowledge of international politics and events. Those Americans do not include the Presidential candidates. It may sound great for a soundbite, but it’s just polispeak and another cheap way to buy your vote.

Labels: Democratic candidates, election 2008, Michael Vass, Polispeak, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

While there is a huge amount of humor being derived in the major news media with the announcement of who recently contributed (questionably goaded by a media source) to Presidential candidate Ron Paul, I’m not laughing. It’s not that Ron Paul has gained massive donations via the internet, in possibly the shortest time ever for any candidate seeking elected office. It’s not the profession of those that gave him the donation. It’s where attention has been focused.

Not long ago, a fugitive from the law made donations to Senator Hilary Clinton that totaled roughly $1,000,000. His name was Norman Hsu. Do you recall the case?

To summarize Mr. Hsu was wanted with a warrant for his arrest from California for over a decade. Mr. Hsu recently started to bundle funds for donation to Sen. Clinton. Initially, when his identity and warrant came to public attention, the Clinton campaign first stated their surprise, and then as pressure mounted offered to give back roughly $32,000. Then as the media checked into the story and it was found that the actual donations made totaled 1 million dollars which was possibly gotten from funds scammed from 3rd parties. The Clinton campaign offered to give the money to charity. The answer was they had not known he made the donations.

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

There may be humor in the recent donation of a brothel to the Ron Paul campaign, but there is a bigger issue out there. Donations from bundlers are too far into the grey to be sure who is giving what. There needs to be more accountability.

“Mr. Abdul Rehman Jinnah is another example of a bundle donor that had troubles, and his donations were not given away, or even addressed by Senator Clinton or Sen. Barbara Boxer.”

I have no doubt that every campaign checks the bundlers out and learns all about them. When huge donations come in, and the candidates are in contact with these huge fundraisers, campaigns seek to take advantage where they can. As examples Mr. Hsu was a way into the Asian voter groups. Ms Oprah Winfrey is a connection to women.

But at the same time special interest groups make enormous donations. We are talking millions. So I have to ask, what do the candidates owe these institutions and bundlers?

It’s been long said that no one does anything for free. If that is true, and I think it is, what are candidates giving to say pharmaceutical companies? What effect does that have on the national healthcare debate and the programs being offered by the candidates? What would a known criminal receive?

I mean, what would the top bundling contributor expect after donating $225,000 to then-presidential candidate John Kerry or a $1000 a plate dinner for Representative Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island or Senator Ted Kennedy, or Senator Sherrod Brown.

These are questions we must ask. The issue of a Presidential candidate being beholden to groups they owe favors to is daunting. And the humor being placed on a minor donation by a legal and to date law abiding donor is a mere distraction.

The next President of the United States needs to be focused on the best course for the nation. Can we be sure that with the current state of rules on bundlers and corporate donations, any candidate is really seeking the best course or the one already paid for?

Labels: election donations, Norman Hsu, political donations, Ron Paul, Senator Boxer, Senator Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy

I find it interesting that when it comes to American Presidential elections, it’s possible to present part of plans that don’t work and score points in polls because your opponents plan is even less likely to work. Take the recent hot air being blown around by the 2 leading democratic candidates. Senators Obama and Clinton.

Both Senators are discussing nationalized healthcare. Both plans are massively flawed. Neither has worked out the details of the plan, not any serious estimate of the cost for the programs. Both claim that these programs will reduce cost and save Americans money. And they both think the other is just playing political games, seeking votes in Iowa.

I am no expert in national healthcare. I do know that there are many in national healthcare systems around the world that die while waiting for treatment or even examinations – for say breast cancer or other diseases – like in England and Canada. I know that some individuals like Michael Moore would have us believe that even the healthcare system in Cuba is better than in America. Yet Mr. Moore and people from around the world travel to America to get treatment and surgeries rather than stay in the nationalized systems in their own countries. And I know that as it exists today, America has the best healthcare in the world.

Knowing just those simple facts, and that millions of Americans don’t have health insurance, I pondered the accusations of Senators Clinton and Obama. Is there a difference? Can they make it better? Should this be a direction America should go in?

Well when you think about it, what does the government do well? Seriously. The one thing I have noticed in 40 years is that the government moves paperwork around better than anything out there. There is so much paper moving around (electronic or not) that we need other institutions just to manage the way we move the paperwork around.

There has never been a single issue that the government has been involved with that has simplified over the years. Take taxes as an example. Every election promises are made to simplify the tax code. Never happens. Can’t really. It takes perhaps thousands of workers in the government to process, check and re-check all the documents and write offs. It that committees to look for loopholes in the code and other committees to make changes so the loopholes close. Perhaps thousands are involved in making sure that there is no waste of taxpayer dollars.

Now imagine healthcare. One plan says that there will be 50 separate organizations, with paperwork that goes with that. In the other plan, if you don’t pay for coverage, you get fined. Both plans mean bigger government, with more workers, which inevitably means more taxes. And efficiency goes out the window.

So do you really want either plan? Is bigger government, less efficiency, and the likelihood of having the healthcare system become like Canada’s or England’s, or worse yet like the VA, worth it? In the end aren’t they both just puffing up their chests in the hope of getting elected?

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

Labels: Democratic candidates, Michael Moore, nationalized healthcare, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluded in Part 3...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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

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

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

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

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

**This can also be seen at Presidential Race Blog**

I want to be President of the United States. You hear that from Republicans and Democrats. The debates are filled with candidates that want to lead this nation. And all but one of them is a woman, or Black. So what.

Yesterday, the front-running Democratic candidate, Senator Clinton, came out in response to the Tuesday Democratic debate and lamented

“We need to shatter that highest glass ceiling.”

It was a plea for women to vote for her based solely on the fact she was a woman. It was an attempt to

“…compete in the all boys club of presidential politics.”

This commentary and the resulting backlash from Senator Obama come from the Democratic debate Tuesday. In that debate Sen. Clinton failed to answer direct questions posed to her. These questions were not asked because she was a woman, but because as the leading candidate for the Democratic ticket the public deserves to know the positions she holds. To date, Clinton has yet to answer the questions posed to her with a direct answer, and like any male counterpart she has been lambasted for it.

But unlike any other male counterpart Sen. Clinton has diverted the attention to her gender, whining for support from women based on the fact that she is being attacked because of her gender. That is the worst kind of pandering I’ve seen in decades.

"...the first time that people start challenging her point of view, that suddenly she backs off and says: 'Don't pick on me'. That is not, obviously, how we would expect her to operate if she were president." - Senator Obama

Looking at it from a different angle, if Senator Barack Obama were to go out and state, ‘all African Americans should vote for me because I am the only Democratic Presidential candidate among the all White club of presidential politics’, the outcry would be immediate and intense.

Does anyone doubt that Sen. Obama would instantly be charged with playing the race card? That he was pandering to Blacks, and that it was blatantly racist. He would be attacked by both parties and every political pundit in the nation. He would find no shore of safety, and his chances of being elected would be out the window.

But Senator Clinton does not face the same level of scrutiny or punditry. Because she is a woman she has gotten a pass. Few mention she is pandering. Few are reminding the public that she has evaded the issues she still has not answered. She has calculatedly and effectively changed the argument from her indecision and attempt to hide her views in the hope of gaining votes and support from all sides. And it’s embarrassing.

As a Black Puerto Rican man, I’m insulted by her actions. I am a citizen and as such I deserve to know where any candidate for the Presidency stands on critical issues that affect multiple aspects of the nation. I expect that any candidate for President should be able to handle difficult questions, giving answers that they believe are best for the nation, and standing up to the pressure that the answer provokes. Those that would seek to destroy America are hardly going to succumb to crocodile tears, or the fact of gender. In fact that may motivate them to take stronger actions.

I cannot accept the blatant pandering for cheap votes for no reason of substance. Is there a glass ceiling? Yes, for women and African Americans, and every minority in the nation. It also exists in terms of the Presidency for various religions as well. But the fact a glass ceiling exists is the least reason that ANYONE deserves to be elected. If that were the only reason to elect a candidate, they should not run. It cheapens and weakens the nation.

If Senator Clinton wants to prove her strength, answer the questions you were asked. Answer them without segues to other issues, or reliance on her gender. If it’s a yes or no question, don’t pick both and assume the American public is too addled to notice the difference. And make the answer public, not via subordinates and bloggers. They will not run the nation if she is elected, their answer does not matter.

If Senator Clinton cannot give a real answer, cannot avoid relying on her gender to support her campaign, cannot stand up to the pressure of having a commentator ask her questions in an American debate, then she does not deserve the Presidency.

Labels: Democratic Party, election 2008, gender issues, glass ceiling, political debate, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Clinton

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 1...

So the answer is NO. Senator Clinton would not make the pledge. Thus the possibility of Iran with a nuclear weapon just went up dramatically if she wins the Presidency. There is a window of action that Senator Clinton seems unwilling to take, which could give Iran a weapon that could kill millions of Americans. Add the fact they support the destruction of America and that is a scary thought, even if the percentage chance is only 5%.

“MR. RUSSERT: [Following up the above quote] Senator Clinton, I'd like to follow up because, in terms of your experience as first lady, in order to give the American people an opportunity to make a judgment about your experience, would you allow the National Archives to release the documents about your communications with the president, the advice you gave, because, as you well know, President Clinton has asked the National Archives not to do anything until 2012?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, actually, Tim, the Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves. There's about 20 million pieces of paper there and they are moving, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that.

Now, all of the records, as far as I know, about what we did with health care, those are already available. Others are becoming available. And I think that, you know, the Archives will continue to move as rapidly as the circumstances and processes demand.

MR. RUSSERT: But there was a letter written by President Clinton specifically asking that any communication between you and the president not be made available to the public until 2012. Would you lift that ban?

SEN. CLINTON: Well, that's not my decision to make. And I don't believe that any president or first lady has. But certainly we'll move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the National Archives permits.”

So while it is possible for Senator Clinton to release these records, she won’t do it. Rather she wants to wait until 2012, after the entire term of this election cycle. Even if there is nothing to be found, it creates an appearance of duplicity.

On top of that, if we recall the first quote you will recall that Sen. Clinton mentions 35 years of service to the public. Perhaps some of that work is in the records being withheld. If that is the case, and thus the Senator has more than just 5 years of service in public office, then why not let us know that? What is it she did with President Bill Clinton that both are ensuring we cannot know until after the 2008 Presidential term?

Are we to believe that Senator Clinton does not speak with her husband, and thus did not know he would request to hide the information? Has she so little influence with her devoted husband that she could not get him to lift the ban? According to her answers it would appear both are true. And if not then as I said it is a purposeful act.

Continued in part 3...

Labels: Democratic Party, National Archives, nuclear weapons, political debate, Senator Clinton, Tim Russert

Politics is better than drama when you pay attention to what is being said. I have not seen more double entendre's since I read Shakespeare. In fact the Grand Bard was short what we get in most political debates these days. This has been especially true of the Democratic Party in recent debates.

For those that missed the debate last Tuesday, I have pulled a couple of key points from the transcript so you can try to follow along. If you get lost in the answers, its ok we all are.

Case in point, Senator Hillary Clinton, the current frontrunner for the Democratic Presidential candidate. We get to bounce from one thought to another without actually getting an answer or finding out there are more levels to traverse to get an answer than ever imagined. And then we still don’t get an answer.

“SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that anyone who's looked at my record of 35 years fighting, for women and children and people who feel invisible and left out in this country, knows my record. I fought for expanded education and health care in Arkansas. I helped to bring health care to 6 million children while in the White House.”

Actually, the Senator has only recently taken public office. President Bill Clinton ran Arkansas, and then the nation. The actual healthcare plan proposed by First Lady Clinton went nowhere. And in the 5 years of Senator Hillary Clinton representing New York State she has not presented any issues that have passed that. In fact besides the “Hot Coffee” issue in video games, what else can the average New Yorker say she has been working on?

“MR. RUSSERT: I want to ask each of you the same question.

Senator Clinton, would you pledge to the American people that Iran will not develop a nuclear bomb while you are president?

SEN. CLINTON: I intend to do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But you won't pledge?

SEN. CLINTON: I am pledging I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.

MR. RUSSERT: But they may.

SEN. CLINTON: Well, you know, Tim, you asked me if I would pledge, and I have pledged that I will do everything I can -- (laughter) -- to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear bomb.”

Continued in part 2...

Labels: election 2008, political debate, presidential candidate, Senator Clinton, Tim Russert

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

As we approach of the primaries and then enter the Presidential race of 2008 in earnest, more Americans are beginning to pay real attention to who the candidates are. It’s given that there have been multiple debates on each political side, and many organizations have made standpoints on issues they believe are essential in their potential nominee. Yet, most Americans have yet to pay any attention.

That will soon change as we approach December and the early primaries of 2008 loom on the horizon. If you thought Christmas, Hanukah, or Kwanza were about religion, gifts and family cheer you will be sadly proven incorrect. This year that time will be about immigration, taxes, and the Iraq war.

This can be said with some authority when the advertising numbers are viewed.

“National cable networks sold 301 ad units between January and Sept. 2, 2007. That compares with a mere 19 units sold over a 15-month period during the last presidential cycle, January 2003 to March 2004.”

There is no end in sight. But what do these numbers really mean?

Estimates state that up to, or far more than, $2.7 billion will be spent on political advertising by Election Day in November 2008. That’s a huge number. That’s just swamping television, broadcast radio, and the internet with political ads. I would presume that at 30 seconds a piece the total number of ads, placed back to back, could equate to roughly a week or more of nothing but ads.

That’s a lot of time to say as little as possible and yet gain as many votes as possible. In all honesty, it’s an attempt to blur the facts and coerce the votes on the cheap. Because there is not a scholar on the planet that can summarize the Iraq war, and its ramifications into a 30 second sound bite. Hell, the debate by President Lincoln took hours and that was over 100 years ago, without a war, terrorism, nuclear weapons, illegal immigration, or taxes. If the Presidency was so complicated then that it took hours to justify the worthiness of who is to be elected, how long should it take now?

I realize that the immediacy of the world today does not lend itself to long debates fill with facts and details. I realize that superficial items like the clothing and colors the candidates wear are more easily digested. Still one has to ask, with so much time being devoted to pick candidate A, why is it being split up into multiple 30 second ads. My thought is that we the people are being misled to a degree and the candidates know it.

If any candidate was seriously interested in letting the nation know what they think, they would buy a half-hour block of time, and run that once a month on cable and broadcast television. They would send out transcripts of that discussion with the people, and post it on the internet. They would give definite answers and stand on a platform everyone can understand. And poll numbers would not sway their beliefs.

Think about it. I will use Senator Clinton as an example, but the same actions can be found with all the candidates. We have seen Senator Clinton strongly demand that the nation go to war with Iraq and Saddam Hussein, coincidentally while polls were favoring such action. Not all agreed with the information available for the war, but Sen. Clinton was a staunch advocate. As polls went against the war Senator Clinton came out against the war, at the same time plans were made that she would run for the Presidency. Now in the middle of her campaign, after defending organizations like MoveOn.org and questioning President Bush’s comments on Iran, Senator Clinton has begun to state that she may not take all the troops out of Iraq during her first term and that military strikes against Iran are feasible answers to their nuclear ambitions.

If you only follow the 30 second soundbites of the ads, you will miss these comments and turns in policy. They are minimized and drowned out by her regional and targeted messages. The Senator has distracted attention with ‘thoughts’ about college funds for all the children and denouncement of the plans of her peers. I am not saying her actions are correct or incorrect. I am highlighting the fact that the political ads obscure the actual platform that Senator Clinton, and to varying degrees the other candidates, hold.

We deserve better. We need to pay more attention. The 2008 election is not a MTV video. The lives of all Americans will be changed by the next President. I strongly believe that. So as the attention increases, and the ads fill the airwaves I suggest taking a bit of time to look back and learn the history of these candidates. Compare what they have said in the past with what they say today. Check how and when they changed their positions. It’s one thing to come to a better understanding on an idea, it’s another to just go with the popular opinion for the sake of gaining political power on the emotional cheap.

IF we don’t, you may not like what happens after the election when it’s too late.

Labels: election 2008, Iran, Iraq War, political ads, Presidential race, Senator Clinton

Do you remember old films and cartoons where you will see a politician (usually an empty suit) pick up a baby and kiss it? A recent take on that was done in the program Harvey Birdman: Attorney at Law. In that episode Phil wound up shaking babies and kissing hands. You have to see it to get the joke.

[If anyone has a video clip of that, let me know and I’ll add it]

But we are in the 21st century and modern day politicians can do the old trick in new ways. Take the ‘proposal’ by Senator Hillary Clinton for example.

"I like the idea of giving every baby born in America a $5,000 account that will grow over time, so when that young person turns 18, if they have finished high school, they will be able to access it to go to college”

Wow, that sounds great. What a human being, a caring mother. A load of crap. It’s just candy to get votes, and I’ll explain why.

First, who is going to come up with the 20 billion dollars such a program will cost? You will, say hello to new taxes.

Second, what if your child doesn’t want to go to college. Maybe they want to be an artist, truck driver or construction worker. Where does their money go to? Do they just lose it? Where does that extra money go?

Third, when we say every baby, that includes the babies born of illegal aliens (or the silly undocumented workers designation – here’s a clue the document missing is a U.S. birth certificate or green card hence illegal). If the parents are caught and deported, where does that child’s money go? What if the parents leave the country and take the child with them? Do we pay for college in another country? Do we send that cash to the child in another country?

Fourth, what kind of college qualifies? Community college (which is not really college but high school 2.0), vocational colleges?

Fifth, if the average college tuition is $22,218 (private) or $5,836 (public) and we assume 10% annual growth for just 18 years that means (forgive my math it’s been a while) $98,973 and $32,380 respectively. Taking $5,000 for 18 years at 10% (current rates are 4.75%) then Senator Clinton’s generous gift of your money generates $27,936. Now if my math is correct (which I’m sure I will be told if I am not) and interest rates go up to and stay at 10% (not going to happen) there is still a shortfall of $4,444 just for private school.

I know that the growing cost of college probably won’t be what I just stated, but I can equally be assured that interest rates will not be that high or consistent. It is reasonably accurate that under almost every scenario the money saved will still fall short of the average college.

So depending on the college wished for, loans, grants, and part-time work will still be needed. The wonderful cure all of Senator Clinton’s gift of your money will still not be enough. Of course you can imagine that this amount will then be lobbied for an increase to make up the difference. There will also be special interest groups that will want increases for their kids like Latinos, Native Indians, the overweight, anorexics, gays, kids who are colorblind, kids who can’t dance and so forth.

Millions will be spent to make sure the funds are not misspent. Millions more will abuse the system somehow, and yet millions more will go to studies to see if the system is failing or adequate. The amount will be increased, illegal immigrants will complain that they aren’t getting a fair chance and college tuitions will increase proportionate to the Clinton gift and students will complain about it.

Oh and the last reason why this plan will absolutely not work, and why Senator Clinton is using it as a modern day ‘kiss the baby’ is that if it was such a great plan she would have tried to get it passed on the state level and used it as an example of how wonderful a leader she is.

Since this ‘idea’ has more holes and long-term complications than Swiss cheese Senator Clinton never bothered to run with the idea and saved it for a time when she needed more attention in her quest to gain the Presidency. Funny how it came out now, just as every Democrat is looking for a way to avoid the MoveOn.org problem, especially since she wouldn’t want anyone to remember that she voted in favor of what MoveOn did.

Labels: college tuition, election 2008, Presidential candidates, Senator Clinton, soundbite politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

]

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

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