Sometimes you almost feel like Congress can get something right. Then you realize it’s Congress – the worst Congress ever, that has accomplished the least ever – and then you know how bad you’re screwed.

Case in point. Senator Hillary Clinton is about to become the Secretary of State. Such an abomination should never happen outside of a nightmare. But the reality is that the wicked witch of pure ambition has made it virtually through the confirmation process.

Then you notice that Senator Lugar has a problem with the conflict of interest Senator Clinton has with the Clinton Foundation. Hurray someone is paying attention. Until he says he won’t hold up her approval.

Then you get another burst of intelligence out of the collectively dim, this time from Sen. John Cornyn. He too has the inspiration to notice that the Clinton Foundation is a conflict if it continues to receive tens of millions from foreign governments while Hillary is Secretary of State.

“Transparency transcends partisan politics and the American people deserve to know more."

Then he goes on to say he won’t block the confirmation either. On top of which the true genius of the Senate, Harry Reid proclaims that he will push Clinton thru either with a voice vote or a roll call vote – which Democrats know can’t be defeated.

So all we have to provide the nation with the assurance that our Secretary of State is unquestionably looking out for the nation is her unyielding ambition for power (which got her this job in the first place) and her assurance that there will be no conflict. Because we all know that the word of a Clinton is unimpeachable.

Except when it comes to commodity trades, adultery, pardons, political backstabbing, talking to the media, establishing a position on illegal immigration, actual political influence, historical fact of work done, or promises to constituents. How could anyone doubt them?

Where are all the balls in Congress? Surely there is a Congressman or woman that is willing to say that based on the past history of the Clintons, and their campaigns, and their top aides, just taking their word is not enough to become Secretary of State. You would think someone would want to hold her up, or attempt to block her. Yet none of the Representatives and Senators of Congress has a backbone it seems. And they are the people that are strong enough to help President Obama lead the nation out of this near depression?

If this is the kind of response we can expect from the 111th Congress, I might wish for the time wasting, money spending, pork barrel loving, ineffective 110th Congress. The days of Congressional hearings seeking to find out known facts and investigate legal actions for months seems like a pleasure cruise to a Congress that is unwilling to question and halt the image of corruption.

What can we expect from them if we find that there actually becomes corruption in fact? Maybe Barney Frank looking dumb in the camera as he watches video of himself spout utter nonsense some more. This time maybe Pelosi and Reid will join him. What a tea party.

The question of the honesty of the Secretary of State, the incorruptibility of the office, is at stake here. This is massively serious. And it is being handled as if this were about parking tickets from the U.N.

If this is what an Obama Administration portends, it’s a dark 4 years coming.

Labels: Congress, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Secretary of State, Senator Cornyn, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Lugar, William J. Clinton Foundation

$492 million in 11 years. That is a heft sum of money, just under $45 million a year. Talk about an annual pay that dwarfs the imagination. And almost all of it comes from overseas. And some think that the world has stopped investing in America.

Of course this is not investments in America as in the stock market. This was not money put into real estate or any other investment. Unless you call the Presidency and top level American politics an investment. Which obviously more than a few do.

All of this has been revealed now that former President Bill Clinton has divulged the 205,000 names of those that donated to the William J. Clinton Foundation (it only took 10 years to be told). And when I say donated I mean a lot of money.The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia gave $10 million to $25 million, Amar Singh, Suzlon Energy Ltd. of Amsterdam, Nasser Al-Rashid, Lakshmi Mittal, Harold Snyder, Sheikh Mohammed H. Al-Amoudi, Mala Gaonkar Haarman, Lukas Lundin, Victor Pinchuk, all gave gave $1 million to $5 million. And of course there is also Denise Rich, who gave the foundation at least $450,000. She just happens to be the wife of Marc Rich - recipient of a President Clinton pardon.

Some other names that bring up questions include Frank Giustra who gave $31.3 million following a 2-day visit by Bill Clinton to Kazakhstan that resulted in his gaining control of uranium mining in a astounding move in the mining industry.

Amar Singh is an Indian politician that has spoken with Senator Hillary Clinton recently about nuclear arms on behalf of his nation.

Suzlon Energy makes it's money in creating wind turbines, the number one energy initiative of Democrats, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (who owns stock in that industry).

China Overseas Real Estate Development - which gave between $250,000 and $500,000 is interesting. Especially for those focused on how much China has bought into the U.S.

Perhaps one of the oddest donations to me is that of COPRESIDA-Secretariado Tecnico for some $10 to $25 million dollars. COPRESIDA was created by the Dominican Republic government to fight AIDS. Considering the relatively poor nation's funds, why would they donate so much of their budget to a foundation instead of to AIDS drugs, researchers, or promotions focused on awareness and prevention?

In a similar vein a question would be the $10 to $25 million from Children's Investment Fund Foundation - a group that is dedicated to helping children, primarily in Africa and India. Would that same money not be better spent in Africa and India on food, clothing, building secure homes, clean water and so on directly?

But looking at all the major donors, and looking back on the timing of many of the investments - excuse me, donations - the question quickly becomes if Hillary Clinton can be an objective Secretary of State. Her long term involvement in the gains of her husband, and the governments he has 'worked' with cause pause. Like how will Pakistan trust her neutrality when Indian interests provide her and Bill Clinton so much money. Or when thinking about Marc Rich the question of whether she can be bought arises.

The Secretary of State is supposed to be without agenda, beyond the message of the President. Somehow this does not appear to be within the capabilities of Senator Clinton. Something that was apparent to me throughout the Democratic Primaries.

But a Democrat-led Congress, with a President that is as liberal as the Party has, and a Democratic Party still looking to smooth the ruffled feathers of 18 million of their voters, is likely to overlook almost anything. Not that this in any way is to the benefit of the nation.

Labels: Amar Singh, Democratic Party, Frank Giustra, Marc Rich, Nasser Al-Rashid, Obama Administration, President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton, Suzlon Energy Ltd, William J. Clinton Foundation

Ok, so is it just me or has anyone else noticed the way the Democrats are rewarding each other? President-elect Obama took the Democratic Primaries, and to reward Senator Hillary Clinton for not fighting out the DNC he gave her the Secretary of State position.

In doing so he swallowed all of the comments of former President Bill Clinton - most regarding President Obama as secondary and racially questionable. He has effectively ignored all the attempts of the Clinton campaign to paint him as a Muslim, and drug dealer. And he has taken the most ambitious and willing -to-do-anything political viper into his cabinet.

All Senator Clinton had to do was make a complete political 180-degree turn around on what she had spent months and millions of dollars stating. Not that such actions are unusual for her.

And the public got a Secretary of State that derives part of her income from monies donated to charities she and her husband run, from countries what have dubious at best relations with the U.S. We received a Secretary of State that was willing to have a major fundraiser that was a known fugitive from the law, and tried to keep the money he provided, which was known to be stolen.

President-elect Obama has just rewarded Gov. Richardson with a Secretary of Commerce position. Gov. Richardson was the first to back Obama and run from the Clinton campaign. For such political shrewedness it was expected he would get the State position. But Latinos are not as important as donor money, 18 million supporters, and a backdoor deal (made just after Hillary conceded).

One of the things that has really gone unmentioned is Representative Charles Rangel. He was the key Democrat that push Senator Clinton into conceding the Democratic Primary. He is known as a staunch Clintonite, so his doing so made him a visible example.

Shortly after blasting Hillary (politically) it was found that Representative Rangel had homes in the Dominican Republic that he paid no tax on, that he had several rent-subsidized apartments in new York City though he claims Washington DC as his residence. Add to that the fact he is now also being investigated for receiving $1 million in donations to his Charles B. Rangel Center for Public Service from the CEO of Nabors Industries after he got them a tax break.

Most of his tax and residence issues all existed for years. And not a single person in Congress ever made not of this. The IRS never questioned it. Everyone in politics were completely fine with his actions, until he pissed of Hillary Clinton.

So what are we seeing in the Obama Administration?

Old politics in the embodiment of past figures from the Clinton Administration. Partisan politics in the number and degree of down-the-line Democrat political figures. People (Like Rahm Emanuel and Hillary Clinton) that are known for their spiteful actions to those that oppose their views. People that are willing to accept funds and favors from anyone that can advance their political goals. People that will seemingly say anything, and reverse their publicly stated opinions at the drop of a hat, for political favor.

And we have an Administration that is filled with crossed political agendas. Vice President-elect Biden opposed President-elect Obama on several foreign policy and economic views - which he reportedly believes in and wants to support. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton opposes President Obama on Iraq, the economy, healthcare, and a number of goals that she has sworn repeatedly to uphold for her 18 million voters. And Secretary of Commerce Richardson is not without his disputes and objectives.

This is an Administration that was primarily loyal to the Clinton's, hates any policy that is not left-wing liberal, blindly pro-Democrat, with little to no positive experience with economic issues. Several of the key figures all have opposing and partisan agendas - none of which match the stated goals of President Obama.

The in-fighting that will occur will be unmatched by any Administration I can recall in my lifetime. And we the people will get the rewarding opportunity to watch this all unfold via television and blogs. The only price of admission will be the economy at large and the national debt. Not too big a price some might say.

And for those that oppose any part of this, this Administration has enough venom to kill a African Black Mamba. Just ask Rep. Rangel. Too bad Iran, Al Quida, Indian extremists, Russian expansionists, OPEC, the stock market, NATO and many others could give a damn less about American internal political oneupmanship.

Labels: American politics, Congressman Charles Rangel, Democratic Party, Gov. Bill Richardson, Obama Administration, President Barack Obama, Rahm Emanuel, Senator Hillary Clinton, Vice President Biden

The Presidential election is now 14 days over, and President Obama has already violated several campaign promises. Can you imagine what things will be like in 2 years? I realize that a multitude of Obama fans are getting rabid over that statement so I will make it clear that this is not an opinion, but factual.

President Obama ran his election campaign on a couple of basic concepts. While most of his promises were very vague it was clear that he promised change, and exit from Iraq, and a new style of politics in Washington D.C. Of course the first item on the list, change, was both abut as vague as you can get, and at the same time the most blitheringly stupid thing to promise since President Bush was not up for re-election.

But when it comes to change it seems that President Obama really meant reliving the past. Like much of the Democratic rhetoric over the election the point was to go backwards in time. Anything that reflected or brought back memories of the Clinton Administration was a positive. Thus he has been very busy in filling positions in his new Administration with ‘old politics’ politicians from the Clinton Administration, plus a few friends from Chicago.

How this is a new way of doing politics is beyond me. Other than perhaps the fact that since Congress is Democrat-led, and thus capable of passing almost any liberal platform it wishes, he will push his agenda forward no matter what Conservative think. Of course that is also entirely partisan, blindly following Party dogma, and violates his pledge to work in a bi-partisan manner. But maybe he meant that bi-partisan as in the Executive and Legislative branches working together. It’s a stretch, which is the closest we can get so far.

President Obama was very clear that he was against fighting in Iraq. He made it absolutely clear that he will retreat from Iraq and bring America’s soldiers home. His plan was for an organized retreat, over several months. This would allow opposition forces plenty of time to gather their strength and bide their time. This plan took hold of the Iraqi government, and is currently being debated in that nation. The deal on the table will force American combat troops out of Iraq just in time for the nomination of the next election cycle.

But what is important there is the word combat. Because the deal in hand will do what President Obama wrongly misinformed the public Senator McCain wanted to do. It will provide America with base(s) for land, sea, and air troops in Iraq for 10 years.

That wouldn’t be a big deal, except that President Obama campaigned to remove all troops from Iraq and not staying in Iraq in any form (until he was embarrassed to admit that was a bad idea). But after correcting his initial plan he campaigned with careful wording to imply he was still going to remove all the troops. And if anyone thinks that President Obama did not help shape, and is currently involved with, this Iraqi proposal they don’t understand international politics – in my opinion.

So new politics are out, as is leaving Iraq. And change was just for anyone too blinded to notice the obvious. But wait, there more.

As a bonus there is the economy. President Obama was elected on this basis more than any other factor according to polls by just about everyone. Because the economy needs help, and President Obama was going to make a change. Even though he could not be bothered to be involved in the discussions of the single largest economic policy act in over 2 generations – the mortgage bailout – without having to be called to discussions like a truant schoolboy.

But this massive issue is one that President Obama promised to be on top of. It was issue number one, alongside a new stimulus plan (cost between $300 and $500 billion in money that doesn’t exist). And how has President Obama reacted for the first goal in his Presidency? He’s avoided it.

President Obama could help calm the markets with an announcement of who he is considering for Treasury Secretary. But he hasn’t. He’s worked on several other positions, none as vital to the nation as who is going to be in charge of some $350 billion from the mortgage bailout, plus at least $25 billion for the auto industry, and who knows what else. And people wonder why the stock market is jumpy.

I have to say that this does not bode well for President Obama. Especially since he is looking to compound his Presidency with multiple problems. That would be VP Biden, and now a potential Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. And it’s Mrs. Clinton that makes me really laugh.

The problem with Hillary Clinton is that the donors to the Clinton organizations are unknown and potentially a deal-breaker. Ties to foreign countries like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others look bad. Not to mention favors made to people like Mark Rich. But that is being dealt with as we speak, with a couple hundred of the donors being revealed – and it’s unlikely the major news media will check to connect the dots of donations made and favorable deals happening for the donors.

The funny part is that since Senator Clinton is having such problems getting cleared for Secretary of State, how in the hell was she ok to become President? Well more on the problems of having a viper in your backyard later.

Politicians use polispeak to get elected. It happens all the time. It’s old politics. And President Obama seems to be following that path to the tee. The only questions that remain are what other campaign promises will be broken, and how will it affect America.

Obama lovers can now begin their rants, all of them avoiding the fact that President Obama is breaking from his promises.

Labels: American politics, Iraq, Polispeak, President Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

I could not let this pass without comment.



The polispeak is just incredible. Senator Hillary Clinton blasted Senator Obama during the Democratic Primaries. She made claims that he was inexperienced, sexist, and merely getting votes because he is Black. Her 3am political ad highlighted how unsafe America would be in his hands.

Now she wants to flip the view and say that Obama is great. That he is perfect for our security and the economic crisis. Keep in mind that Senator Obama has done nothing to improve this crisis. He refused to work on the issue, preferring to campaign rather than secure a good deal for the public.

Senator Obama would have allowed the first version of the bailout that would have funneled the repayment to ACORN and not the citizenry. He was so uninvolved that the President had to call him to the White house to get a better deal. And all the while he defended Chris Dodd and Barney Frank – who both were asleep at the wheel on this crisis. And he was the 2nd highest paid Senator from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

And let’s not forget that she, along with Senator Biden, stated that Senator McCain would be a better President than Obama. Or did she forget that?

Why is Senator Clinton not the Vice Presidential candidate for Senator Obama? Could it be the racial attacks the Clinton campaign made against Obama. Could it be the consistent refusal of Bill Clinton to acknowledge Obama’s worth as President. Could it be that Senator Clinton tried up to the last minute to steal the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama.

As for Hillary Clinton as the Majority Leader, that’s about the only thing that could be worse than the current Democratic leaders. Imagine a Pelosi and Clinton team. Can Congress get negative approval ratings?

Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton? That would just be insanity. Considering her desire for power, just imagine the laws she would corrupt. Though it’s likely that Bill Clinton would never worry about another sexual harassment case again.

How likely is it that Senator Clinton will run again? 100%. She never completely ended her attempt to become President this time until the Democratic nomination. Actually she has been taped at meetings (supposedly to raise money for Obama) where she is talking up herself as a future President. Bill Clinton has continued to shoot down Obama. And it’s well known that they prefer him to lose so she can jump forward and say 'I told you so.'

As for

“Bloom where you are planted”

Where is Hillary from? Not New York State, and it reflects in her lies to the people of Upstate New York and the jobs she promised to bring if elected (in fact the number of jobs in Upstate have decreased by 30,000 since she has been elected).

Hillary isn’t from Arkansas either. Not that she did much for anyone there. In fact she held no political office until New York. So if she means bloom as in making astronomical returns from absurdly little money during a relatively quiet stock market or Whitewater, then I supposed she bloomed a lot.

Suffice to say, Senator Hillary Clinton is a horrendous choice for any political position. The only positive besides her not running for President now is the thought that she may be voted out of office before 2012 and never heard of politically again. Unlikely but we can hope.

Labels: New York State, President Bill Clinton, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Finally the question is over. Senator Hillary Clinton has spoken at the Democratic National Convention. And she has made her position clear.

As completely expected, Senator Clinton started her speech with her stated support of Senator Obama. Not a surprise, but it’s just so telling that she has said something that her husband – Bill Clinton – refuses to do. Not that she expressed any personal belief in Senator Obama, or mention his positives. That would have been a surprise, selfless and so anti-Clinton as to make you think you were in an alternate universe.

Now as I expected Senator Hillary Clinton did not refute any of her Primary attacks on Senator Obama. She did not refute Bill Clinton’s racist remarks. She didn’t even mention Barack Obama’s name until the 4th minute, and did not give a reason to support him til the middle of the speech (11:48). This speech was about her and how good she can make herself look.

So I went over her speech, line by line. And I looked for the honesty within the polispeak. And I pulled out the facts from the spin. And I exposed the raw ambition that will do anything to win, including selling out a fellow party member for a shot down the road.



Senator Clinton started with the same old campaign polispeak ‘misquotes’ she loves. She mentioned her “35 years in the trenches” – though she only got into elected office 8 years ago, and Bill did all the work in the past (except for a couple of months failed work on a nationalized healthcare plan). I would call that a lie, but I’m not a politician.

She mentions her “fight for women’s rights”, like her efforts while she was at Wal-Mart (never a single word while she was a Board member and had the power to change things in the company).

She mentioned how hard she and Bill have worked. Now while they are multi-millionaires, politics is hard. Not as hard as construction or retail but hard. Though I have to wonder how hard she has worked since I don’t recall the last Congressional Bill she passed into law, and I have yet to see the 200,000 jobs she promised Upstate New York to get elected as Senator (in fact there has been a net decrease in jobs of 30,000 during her time in elected office). Hard work indeed.

But she continued as we hit 6 minutes about the horrors of a guy in a Marine t-shirt. The assumption was that he was a Marine (but she failed to make that clear, or why he was in need of medical help) and wanted his buddies to be taken care of. Meaning leaving Iraq, I suppose, a war she voted for and urged others to vote for based on her extensive research of the facts (look it up, she’s on video saying it).

She then went for the heartstrings in discussing a mother that had her hours cut at a minimum wage job. Now was that after or before the Democrat-led Congress raised minimum wages forcing businesses to cut hours because they can’t afford the increase?

And Clinton correctly stated that in the last couple of years things have gotten tough. Though I have to wonder if things are better or worse than when I watched the internet bubble burst and take out businesses and retirement funds, and family savings because Bill Clinton was too busy looking good, and trying to define “is” – while Hillary was ducking invisible bullets, to stop the impending carnage. How tough was that.

How tough did it get after the Clinton’s allowed Bin Laden to live and escape the crosshairs of our military, thus giving him the chance to plan and execute the 9/11 attack? Somehow I think that was a tougher time for America.

She hinted on Iraq, the war she voted for, and Iran, a country that would like to see America wiped of the face of the Earth and where Senator Obama would talk without condition. She stated that China has bought into our banks. And it is true, and troubling. But the alternative of letting our banks fail sounds worse to me. Not that a single Democrat has a better option to present – unless it’s a secret and therefore they prefer America to be in a dangerous position financially rather than tell us.

She claims that Democrats will help Americans save for college and buy homes? Now is this like her quickly dropped campaign promise to give every child $5,000 for college – paid for by some unknown source (taxes). Does this savings happen before taxes are increased, not on the rich but everyone who makes over $31,850 as she voted for this year (along with Senator Obama and Senator Biden as well as I recall)? Or is it after taxes are raised to pay for her nationalized healthcare, causing businesses to close from the cost?

She discussed the various things she wants to promote next. Promoting clean energy – which she never advocated while Bill was in office, and only mentioned after polls showed it popular.

She wants to promote unions, who are in the pockets of Democrats. Though she skipped her time at the union-less Wal-Mart (where like women’s rights she said nothing during her time on the Board).

And her desire to promote equal rights and stop discrimination seem hollow from a woman that can’t even stop her husband from making racial remarks, at least, in front of cameras.

She desires a “nation of immigrants”, because only she can answer yes, no, and maybe when the issue of immigration is asked of her on national televised debate – all in 2 minutes too (Michael Phelps beware her polispeak speed).

And she desires to end “private plunder”, which I think means that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and her efforts to promote energy alternative that increase her personal stock investments - which she does not disclose to the public - is in trouble.

Senator Clinton wants to talk about America’s efforts to end genocide. And I believe her because she has said so much about Darfur during, or since, the Primaries. Or is it only genocides in White nations?

But this Democratic National Convention is not about Senator Clinton. It’s about Senator Barack Obama, and in the middle of her speech she finally speaks about him for a moment. She makes a great question when she asks what her supporter are for. But she forgets to ask if they were voting for her because she is White, or a woman. Both were reasons she campaigned for in the Primary and I would like to know if they were reasons they are so fanatical now?

And she mentions that ‘global warming’ (an unproven yet Democratically sound concept) is a problem that America must fix alone in the world. Never mind the growing industrialization of China and India. Nor the potential fact that some Democrats are using this subject to make money while denying any other alternative including domestic drilling.

But Hillary Clinton is correct that America should not “favor few”. Like Hollywood stars and executives, or eco-fanatics that would have you use on sheet of toilet paper, or alternative energy companies, or big money fund raisers that are criminals evading the law for 15 years (Norman Hsu).

And I want to pause here because Democrats say that Senator Obama is a good choice for America. She never said he would be great. She never mentioned a single quality for Obama.

But she did ask Americans to “imagine what America will be”. Now I do remember when she was in Bill Clinton’s White House (because he was elected and the political power not her) I recall that no major promised initiative ever was passed (correct me if I am wrong). But I do recall that Bill was busy with dictionaries, and teaching America to lip-read, and her serving tea to end the conflict in Ireland, and avoiding Whitewater.

But If I were to imagine the America she envisions (and liberal Democrats as well) I suppose it would involve being overtaxed, unemployed, under terrorist attacks, without power, on lines to get medical care, isolationist, with Spanish as the main national language and without the funds to allow Americans to retire. There is Hillary’s America as she has explained it to date, and that most liberal Democrats prefer (oh, and Senator Obama is the most liberal Senator in Congress, Joe Biden is 3rd).

But Hillary emphasizes that national healthcare, especially under her plan, is great for America. Though no Democrat can explain how it will be paid for. Or how it will be efficeint. Or run on budget.

But remember that under a Democrat-led Presidency, especially as Clinton envisions it, America may well be too busy running from Iraq, and Al Quida to worry about that. Watching anti-American groups gain power as we try to create new sources of power without oil, and sending even more money to the Middle East.

But not to worry because Senator Biden is a great guy, and by default she implies Obama is not. And don’t consider that a Democratic win means an Executive Office that will be split since Biden and Obama don’t agree on Iraq and other national issues. Heck, Biden – like both Clinton’s – does not even think Senator Obama is qualified or experienced enough to be President. You can imagine how smoothly that Administration would run.

But at this point Senator Clinton looked to the past. I don’t mean Senator John McCain’s age, or his 35 years of service to America. I don’t even mean the 30+ years of Congress (and thus solid stance in old politics) of Senator Biden. I mean the Carter Administration, where many of the current Democratic policies seem to have originated.

The Carter Administration stood out for its stagflation, something the Democrats definitely did before. Along with double digit inflation, and double digit unemployment, and having Americans taken hostage by Iran (hey, don’t they still have a beef with us? Aren’t they building weapons to kill us? Didn’t Carter talk with them – and not release a single hostage?) Don’t believe me, ask someone 40 or over.

President Carter didn’t like domestic drilling of oil either. Today oil costs 1000% more than when his Democratic Administration was in charge. President Carter and Democrats didn’t like nuclear energy, a new plant hasn’t been made in decades. And all the jobs that are involved in creating those industries, and the power they provide went up in the smoke from tankers importing oil to us from overseas.

But back in the world of today Senator Clinton misquoted the policies and ideals of Senator McCain. Her “friend and colleague”, a man she said would be a good President with experience – something she has not said about Obama – was now described as being a bad choice.

I’m confused. Is he better than Obama or not? Or is it that she just wants to look helpful without being helpful?

But the last part of the speech I want to address are the points on her mother and Harriet Tubman.

I understand that her mother could not vote and her daughter can. And I’m glad they can. But I’m reminded that my Great-grandfather’s generation could not vote. And my grandfather’s generation was blocked from voting by Jim Crow laws. My parent’s generation was beat up for voting, and sitting in the wrong spot, or asking for a good education. My generation now has a chance to see the first Black President, and Senator Clinton is trying hard to do nothing to allow it. In fact her husband has been active in trying to prevent it. So excuse me if I’m not impressed that Hillary is miffed.

Because of that reason I was upset she dared to mention Harriet Tubman. Was that supposed to make me feel better? To unify the Party with the name of a Black woman that made inroads for the rights of African Americans and inspired women of the time (if not now as well).

Taking Senator Hillary Clinton’s words a bit out of context,

If you heard dogs behind you Obama, it’s Hillary trying to chase you off track. If you see torches, it’s Bill Clinton lighting the path for your competition. Don’t stop, don’t slow down.

I may not agree with Senator Obama and his policies, but I’ll be damned if I won’t make sure Hillary is revealed for the snake in the grass viper that her speech proved her to be. She did what I expected in her speech. Strike 2 for the DNC. Next up is Bill Clinton, what do you think he will do?

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Looking forward to Senator Hillary Clinton’s speech tonight I am wondering what will be said, just like every other pundit out there. My interest is based on a simple set of facts. Senator Clinton went a long way to damage the chances of Senator Obama winning, from his inexperience to his race. And these attacks are now the fuel of political ads from the Republicans and the Mc Cain campaign.



Senator Clinton set up this attack. In fact it is almost verbatim what she said in the Primaries. The McCain campaign can’t be blamed for using the words of the Democrats to benefit himself, whether it was Hillary or Joe Biden’s words.

So what Senator Clinton says tonight will be very interesting.

Either Senator Clinton will come out with a major flip flop, essentially saying that the Clinton campaign was willing to say and do anything to win – including making comments she felt were untrue – or she will use the well known Clinton polispeak spin to obfuscate and ignore everything she has said in the past.

The speech tonight must address the comments she has made about the lack of experience of Senator Obama, and why that is now not important as opposed to just a couple of months ago. Her speech must refute if not denounce the words of her husband, former-President Bill Clinton – and explain why he has refused to say that Senator Obama is ready for the Presidency, which he has claimed for every other Democrat that ran in the Primaries. Senator Clinton must also find a way to gap the chasm created in dividing the Democratic Party along lines of race and gender. The Clinton campaign was very effective at using race and gender, and caused a lasting question of stereotypical and racist fear in the minds of many in the nation; this must be addressed.

If the speech by Senator Clinton fails to address each of these issues, if she fails to close all these doors she opened, she will leave the Democratic Party divided in a manner not seen in decades. And if I were in Las Vegas I’d bet that she won’t do it.

My instincts, and my read on the polispeak of the Clinton’s during the Primaries and after them has given me the belief that neither Clinton is really willing to help Senator Obama. They will stand by him, raise money and say the words that need to be said. But they will also leave just a bit of doubt, leave him just a bit weak on critical issues. Because then it will not be said that they weren’t team players when the next Presidential election comes up.

To this point everything the Clinton campaign has done has been part of a plan to prepare for the 2012 election, in my opinion. We have been watching the beginnings of a new campaign and Primary run since the day Senator Obama took the presumptive nomination and Hillary Clinton refused to acknowledge it.

So my ultimate thought is that Senator Hillary Clinton will leave the door open for her supporters to try to steal the nomination for her. She will leave ajar the thought that her supporters should vote for Senator McCain or just not vote at all. She will keep her option alive to say “I told you I would have won”.

Tonight Senator Hillary Clinton will rally women, and racially sensitive Democrats. That is a given. Now whether she will polispeak and spin them closer to Senator Obama or not is a question that won’t be clear until after her last words are said.

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

As the Democratic National Convention is about to start I want to step back and address a question I am often asked. Why am I not a supporter of Senator Obama?

I have been asked that by dozens of White Americans that presume I must be for Obama because he is Black. I have been asked that by almost as many African Americans for the same reasoning. And there are the far smaller group of Americans, of all color and ethnicity, that wonder because they presume I must agree with the Democratic Party policies.

So let me state this clearly, I do not support Senator Barrack Obama at this time. I doubt if I will ever support him. And I disagree with the Democratic policies he supports.

It’s not because I was a democrat and want to switch parties like the bitter Clinton Democrats. They are often White women, upset that a White woman was denied the chance to run for President. Their switch of support, like Debra Bartoshevich, seems like sour grapes more than anything else. And Democrats are responding in kind, splitting their party.



Which leads these Democrats to the right choice for the wrong reason.



Besides the fact that I think Democrats are a split party, created by the Clinton campaign, there are other issues.

Senator Obama has no experience. His own Vice Presidential pick has said he thinks Obama is unqualified. If Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton, agree with Senator John McCain how strong and qualified is Obama?

Senator Obama will be increasing taxes. He has already voted to do so for those making $31,850 or more. My belief he will limit himself to those making an unknown and ambiguous amount qualifying them as rich is shaky at best. His expressed view that businesses, of all sizes, need to pay more in taxes strikes me as harmful to a weak American economy.

Senator Obama has stated often that our dependence on foreign oil is bad. No surprise. Yet he still only considers the idea of domestic drilling. But how else will there be a stopgap to allow us to fund and create alternative energy sources? And his position on oil shale is directly Party line. How about cleaner coal? How about Nuclear energy?

Senator Obama is exclusive in his plans, targeting only the renewable energy plans that benefit stock positions held by Speaker Nancy Pelosi. How is that a grand benefit to America when only options that profit a few are considered? How is that different than the claims made by Democrats that Republicans are in the pocket of big oil, aren’t they in the pocket of Wind and corn ethanol (which has already increased the cost of food)?

Senator Obama has stated he would speak with any threat to America, no matter the provocation. He would speak with Iran, a nation that has sought the wholesale destruction of America and Israel for 30 years now. Like mere words would stop them from their declared God-given need to wipe us off of the earth. Obama is not God, especially to the

Senator Obama would run from Iraq as quickly as possible. There is no consideration for the outcome of such actions. There are no qualms about the probable increased threat to average Americans in their homes. Terrorism has not stopped since 9/11, it just hasn’t hit our homes stateside. But thousands of orphans given no choice and every reason to blame America will grow up looking to kill America. Just as they did at the end of the Gulf War, in 5 – 10 years they will strike American soil after a retreat that will be viewed in the Middle East as a defeat of America, and thus a vindication of Al Quida and other such groups.

Senator Obama wants to give millions the support of the Government. That in itself is not a bad thing, except that it is funded by Americans and perpetuates the ideal that America would rather feed the hungry rather than teach them to fish for themselves. It creates a culture that cannot support itself; and for those that think this means minorities remember that there are more Whites in prison, on welfare, and/or in Government care than all minority groups combined.

As I mentioned the Democratic Party is split. Not on substantive differences – as the voting records of Clinton and Obama are virtually the same. It is split on racial lines, due largely to the efforts of the Clinton campaign.

It is split with a Vice President that disagrees on key issues in a massive manner from the Democratic Presidential nominee he would work for. A VP that would not vote for a less experiences candidate, one that has done less bi-partisan work than he has in a decade. A VP that embodies the ‘old’ politics that Obama has railed against throughout the primaries.

So what makes Senator Obama the right man at this time?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, energy alternatives, Iraq War, Nancy Pelosi, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Biden, Senator Hillary Clinton, tax increase

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And here goes Strike 3 for the Democratic National Convention. The often discussed and well-rumored submission of Senator Hillary Clinton’s name for the nomination ballot has now been confirmed. The Democratic Party looks weaker and more dysfunctional by the day.

I’ve already noted the problems that will be created once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi takes the stage.

“But I think that having Nancy Pelosi speak is a mistake. She is the symbol of the ineffective Democrat-led Congress. She is a reminder that Democrats would prefer to allow millions of Americans to have to choose between food and/or work or paying their energy bills. She is the voice of the Democratic Party that refused to even consider having a vote on domestic drilling - effectively saying that Democrats have no intention of being bi-partisan if Senator Obama is elected.”

“Speaker Pelosi has walled-off any discussion of domestic drilling for oil. She has refused to allow any votes on the subject. And according to her most recent comments on Larry King she will only consider possibly allowing a vote on domestic drilling IF it also includes alternative energy incentives.

Effectively that means that Speaker Pelosi wants alternative energy to get more money to earn more money for herself. The higher the cost for oil, the better her alternative energy stocks will do. And the American public be damned.”

And in the recent past I noted the danger of the Clinton’s to any hopes of Senator Obama winning the Presidency:

“And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.”

But today a joint press release from Senator Obma and Senator Clinton stated that Hillary will have her name submitted for nomination consideration. Senator Clinton stated in that release

“With every voice heard and the Party strongly united, we will elect Senator Obama President of the United States and put our nation on the path to peace and prosperity once again.”

Right. This is the same woman that

“It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes.”

And whose husband, Former President Bill Clinton, has said on her behalf





And then there is





This all says nothing of the comments made during the actual Democratic Primaries.

So when you consider that Senator Hillary Clinton has never stopped her push to be the Democratic nominee, that former-President Bill Clinton refuses to acknowledge or support Senator Obama, that the Clintons have virtually blackmailed their ‘support’ to date to the repayment of the debt they incurred campaigning against Obama, and the fact that all of this is being used to weaken Senator Obama’s chance of winning the election the DNC looks to be a way to break Democratic unity as opposed to securing it.

All in all, between the Clinton’s and Nancy Pelosi the Democratic National Convention seems to be shaping up to be somewhat of a farce and a losing proposition for the chances of winning the election. But the Vice-Presidential candidate will be announced as well. Depending on who is picked it may be the base hit that Obama needs right now.

So is it 3 strikes and out or will the Democrats still be at bat?

Labels: Bill Clinton, Democratic National Convention, DNC, Nancy Pelosi, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Does anyone remember the old cartoons where a boomerang is thrown away and when it returns it hits the thrower? You may not recall the cartoon, but if you want to see it in reality all you will have to do is watch the Democratic National Convention.

The boomerang is Senator Hillary Clinton, and it looks like Senator Barack Obama is about to get hit in the head.



Senator Clinton it seems is not done with her attempt to wrest the Democratic nomination from Obama. She tried to keep fighting after Senator Obama closed the Primaries on her, failing to congratulate him on his win and requiring several prominent supporters and politicians to make her back down. She has only recently started to try to back-handedly support Senator Obama.

And former-President Bill Clinton is still finding ways to put down Senator Obama every time a microphone is put in front of him.



Note how he refuses to say that Senator Obama is ready to be President – something he has said about every Democrat that ran in the Primaries (especially his wife) except Obama. So much for healing wounds created during the Primaries.

And now we learn that both Clinton’s will be speaking at the DNC. Just as the full ballots of Florida and Michigan are included now (which was promised they would not) and the Clintons are quietly keeping their supporters hopes alive.

If this isn’t a boomerang coming back to hit you, then the only other thing I would call it is stabbing Obama in the back.

And the only real outcome of these actions by the Clinton’s is weakening of Senator Obama, possibly splitting the Democratic Party and causing Obama to lose. That would open the door to Senator Clinton claiming she could have won and paving the way for her run in 2012. That is unless she can’t get the nomination at the DNC. It’s so deceptive it can only be a Clinton plan.

But if Hillary gets the nomination expect riots. It would be the equivalent of Rosewood in a political sense. Every African American, and more than a few people of color, in this nation will call this the single greatest act of racism in perhaps our lives. And they will be right.

And if Hillary Clinton fails to get the nomination, and continues to back-handedly support Obama, while her husband plants seeds of doubt at every media opportunity he gets – there will be no difference than if she stole the nomination. And some people think the Clinton’s were a positive force for Blacks. How positive does their treatment of Obama feel?

Senator Hillary Clinton may be a woman, but she acts more like Iago (or Jabba the Hutt for those less familiar with the classics) to me.

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, President Bill Clinton, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

I write for a lot of blogs. Currently the number is up to about 45 blogs, besides those owned by my M V Consulting, Inc., where my posts can be found at. That says nothing of the blogs where others comment on my posts or quote some portion of what I have said. As such it’s sometimes very difficult to respond to each comment someone makes, though I do try.

It is also difficult for all my readers to see comments made at various blogs on some of the posts I have written. To that end I want to take the time to not only post some of the comments made but to also try to respond to them. And I invite everyone to comment as well, either here or on the blog the comment corresponds to.

Your thoughts are important to me and if you write a comment, I think it deserves to be seen in the least.

The following comments come from Presidential Race Blog, and African American Political Opinion though more comments can be found throughout the web.

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

with Obama as president candidate for the democrates, i have no confidence. Interestingly, I remember most of obama’s speech as rhetorical and superficial, taken from other speeches which he studied, and repititious of other people’s ideas. The first two instances I looked and listened to him via the television, I got goosebumps from inspiration; in retrospect, i can liken most of his speeches and line of arguments to those i heard in the past. his fever, i think he got from his hypocritic church which he attended the last 20 years. his racism, he also got from there, and the fact that he is half-black and has to depend heavily on the black american community for most of his votes. his elitism, is a reflection of where he came from and where he now is. These are the bumps i get when i listen to him now. i agree with hilary with her claim that she won the majority votes. she has indeed won almost the same amount of votes as obama, and a variety in her combination of voters, some blacks, white, hispanic, etc., etc., I only disappointed that the media did not cover obama with the same amount of scrutiny that they did to hilary, i think the results would have been different if they has done so. I do hope that the general elections will be covered fairly, and obama will not be given the easy path, sheltered for all slips, so that the outcome of the general elections be fair game.
thank you for your space

janet Felix

Janet,

While Senator Obama has used lines from other speeches of politicians (with permission and thus not plagiarism) it’s not a unique action. Most politicians have done this to some degree over the last 20 years or so.

You mention that his former church is hypocritical. How so? You also call them racist, where is the proof?
I’ve spoken a lot about Rev. Wright and the polispeak soundbites used against him. I think it’s an unfair portrayal. But most of his comments and sermons that I have been made aware of are not racist. They are racial, which is not the same, and they do point out issues that exist in America. While some will feel offended or embarrassed by truth it does not change the truth.

As for the church, which was in the forefront of trying to abolish Apartheid, has helped the homeless, has gay and White parishioners, what is wrong about them?

You also make a misstatement. While Senator Obama received a huge vote from Black Democrats, he also had huge numbers of college educated, young, male, and other Democratic voters. If he only received the African American vote, then he would not be the Democratic nominee. Nor would he have won the multiple states where the Black population was barely 10%. You do a disservice in making that claim.

Ultimately Senator Clinton did get a huge number of votes. Much of this came as Senator Obama reeled from the Rev. Wright media blitz. But I still find that Senator Clinton was a deceptive and horrible choice for Democrats (and I made that clear in multiple posts).

The coverage of the Presidential candidates by the media has been overwhelmingly for Democrats. Along with that it has been for Senator Obama. That may lie in the fact that the media is overwhelmingly liberal and he is the most liberal Senator in the Senate. So to hope for even handed coverage seems a waste of time to me.

But there has been enough coverage that your misperceptions should not exist as well. I invite you to read through my blogs and to see what I mean.


Leading Democratic candidates Pros and Cons

The VP choices are the most important ingrediant in this Election. Everyone knows that Obama has a Bulls Eye Target on his Back, and McCain is on Death’s Door. I cannot figure out why none of our TV, Radio, Newsprint, or Magazine Newsies have picked up on this Point?

Steve ONeill

Steve,

I have to say that I disagree with your conclusions. While Senator Obama is no favorite of the KKK or other narrow-minded racist groups, I believe that the Secret Service is far to aware to allow him to be killed. And while Senator McCain is older, he is more fit than most men half his age.

I doubt that either man would die in office, though it is possible. But that is the purpose of the VP and is no different than any other election cycle. The emphasis is not on who they pick but the overall policies they and their VP believe is best for America going forward.

To vote for or against a candidate based on imagined health issues or potential nutcase attacks does not help the nation gain the best President or future. Rather than obsess on the VP pick the best choice for President and the nation will go from there, I think.


What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

THE CLASSIFICATION OF AMERICANS BY RACE AND ETHNICITY MUST END
The Racial and Ethnic classification of Americans is nothing more than institutionalized racism and must be ended. The United States of America has been known as a country of rugged individualism based on individual freedom and liberty. Why has America become a country obsessed with classifying its citizens into different racial and ethnic sub-groups?

The only groups that actively support the continued collection of racial and ethnic data are big government bureaucrats and “racial and ethnic special interest groups” that also happen to receive significant funding from the federal government. These organizations argue that identifying people by race and ethnicity is necessary in order to redress some past injustice and that the federal government must continue to collect and use this information in order to set up special racial and ethnic programs, affirmative action quotas and other set-asides for these groups, some of whom consist of new immigrants, illegal aliens and non-citizens. Nothing can be further from the truth. In a country where we can no longer ask people what religion they are, what their party affiliation is or what their sexual orientation is, why are we still asking them about their racial and ethnic background?

Americans are beginning to realize that racial and ethnic identification is more a matter of personal choice than anything else. In the 2000 Census, seven million American citizens refused to place themselves into a single category by refusing to describe themselves as only white, black, Asian, Latino or any one of the other specific categories listed, because they were of mixed race. Attempts by the government to create a “mixed race” box for the 2000 Census was met with resistance by racial and ethnic special interest groups like the NAACP and the National Council of La Raza, because they feared that a mixed-race box could pose a danger to the justification for their existence. The fuzzier such racial and ethnic categories become, the harder it will be for these racial and ethnic special interest groups and the government to traffic in them. If a mixed-race category were to be added, every brown-skinned person of mixed race registered in this category would shrink the government’s official count of Blacks, Latinos, Asians or American Indians, eventually reducing their political influence and ultimately the amount of money these groups receive from the federal government, which amounts to approximately $185 billion a year.

Through the mandated collection and use of racial and ethnic specific information, more and more of American taxpayers’ hard earned money is being routinely distributed to these racial and ethnic special interest groups at the expense of all other Americans who may or may not be members of these groups. Through executive orders, congressional legislation, affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and other programs based solely on race and ethnicity, our federal government is playing the key role that pits one racial and ethnic group against another, which could eventually lead to our destruction as a country.

Rather than helping a diverse population become assimilated and united as one nation, the Federal government is doing what the Nazi government of Germany did in the 1930’s and 40’s; creating government supported institutionalized racism by the intentional classification of it’s citizens by race and ethnicity.

With the support of racial and ethnic special interest groups, our federal government seems to view our citizens not just as Americans, but rather as “pawns” in some social science experiment to be classified and separated into different racial or ethnic sub-groups for some unknown purpose. By mandating the classification of Americans into specific racial and ethnic sub-groups, the federal government and the advocates of “diversity” are actually perpetuating institutionalized racism and keeping Americans divided. Maybe the real purpose of collecting this data is to justify the continuing flow of government money to these racial and ethnic special interest groups.

If we want to help poor Americans escape poverty, get better health care, find a job or get a good education, why should it matter what their race or ethnic background is? The answer is: It should not! Americans need to come together as members of one country and remember that we are all individual Americans, regardless of race or ethnic background. Martin Luther King, Jr., inspired a nation when he voiced his dream for a color-blind nation, a nation in which people would be judged by the content of their characters, “not the color of their skin.” The answer to this government encouraged racism is the concept of Liberty with a limited, constitutional government that is devoted to the protection of individual rights rather than the claims of different racial and ethnic special interest groups. Where Liberty is present, individual achievement and competence are rewarded, not people’s skin color or ethnicity.

I will support legislation barring the federal government from the collection of racial and ethnic information about the American people and/or the classification of American citizens by race and ethnicity, including the collection of census information. Exceptions should be made for law enforcement, hospitals and medical research purposes.
I will also support legislation that bans affirmative action programs, racial set-asides, quotas and any other programs that give special preferences based on race and ethnicity.

By:
JOHN W. WALLACE
Candidate for Congress
New York’s 20th Congressional District
http://www.FreedomCandidate.com

John,

I will have to address this in a post of its own. Expect that shortly.


The real power of Senator Obama and Oprah Winfrey

I hope Oprah is prepared to deal with the false adoration she engendered by supporting Barack Obama. He has an agenda that has not yet surfaced,but I predict, if president, she will sorely regret what she put into action by supporting this man, who is all show and no integrity, political experience or skill. We can all canvas and do community organizing. or is she hoping that like most black women, Michelle will run Obama, not the people?

deb hart

DEB
False adoration? All show and no integrity? Black women run their men? You seem to have some major issues and they are poping out all over your comment.

First of all Oprah Winfrey is the major daytime celebrity, and has been for decades now. The adoration she has received is earned by the effort she has put forth. To assume less is to insult what she has accomplished.

While I agree that Senator is not very experienced the rest of your comment rings false. Please point out where he lacks integrity or skill? As a lawyer and community leader I have to believe skill and integrity come to the fore. Yet you dismiss this, why?

Are you sure you know as much as you believe you do about what either Senator Obama or Oprah Winfrey have done?

And as for the last part of your comment, I am offended. You don’t seem to have any clue or perspective there, but you do have what seems to be a racial agenda. You’re right on the edge of stereotyping. I would help you pull your foot out of your mouth except I’m fearful of what else you might say.

Simply put your comments make me believe you have an issue with any successful African American, and I have to wonder how you didn’t notice that I am a Black Puerto Rican. Do you think I am run by a woman, or without skill and integrity, or seeking false adoration? You really need to look at yourself and what you are saying, because it’s real close to bile.


Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

Some of your statements are just looking for technicalities.
I am not supporting any candidate, but am just giving one example to not take up time.

One example:
McCain said that Hillary wants to waive a white flag. You say this is a lie because there is no official army to surrender to. Are you seriously saying that because we aren’t fighting a government recognized army that we can’t “technically” surrender? And that makes one of our candidates a liar?

Some of the facts you pointed out are obviously correct, but looking for every technicality is a waste of time. You will find thousands more if you want. We should be look at flat out lies. Like when a candidate says that he/she is against free trade agreements yet vote for those same agreements and write about the value of free trade in his/her own books.

I hope I don’t sound like I’m going for a specific candidate, because I’m not, but just making a few examples.

Noway

Noway,
Nitpick all you want but the facts are what they are. And I did not claim these are lies, Polifact did (which I noted in the post). And yes a lie is still a lie even if the details are minor.

In fact you cannot surrender to someone that does not have someone to surrender to. If there is no army who do you declare a war against or lose to? And that does make McCain a bit of a liar, or if you prefer misguided in his statements.

I have posted blatant lies, and minor ones as well. This was not the first post I address the issue on. And Polifact has a huge list discussing the degree of truth or lies the candidates have made.

But the issue is this. If there are candidates that continuously lie, big or little, to the American public do you want them in office? Especially if they are making multiple lies that sound really close to the truth so no one notices?

But if you look through my blogs I do point out major lies candidates make in multiple posts. But I was just adding a few that Polifact had which I had not covered.


Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

It is easy for those unconnected with Northern Ireland to decry those who even played a small part in the peace process here but every building block played a part and Hillary Clinton’s input was just as key as any other vititors to these shores.David Trimble himself probably played less of a role than the Clintons if truth were known. One didn’t have to sit amongst the peacemakers in negotion in order to bring about the climate that led to peace. Hillary Clinton, through her good offices, played a major role in bringing vadidation to the various womens groups in Northern Ireland and it was pressure from Women that led to the first talks. More importantly the role Hillary played back home, although not mentioned much, was in making it much more difficult for Americans to contribute to the supply of guns to the IRA whether through pressure on the crime elements or on the funds collections. There is a lot more to Hillary Clintons involvement in the peace process than most Americans know about. Just because the first lady didn’t make a big deal of it does not mean that she was not instumental in her role in the process.

Jim

Jim,
I am unconnected to the actual events in Northern Ireland, as are the majority of Americans. But according to the reports I have read, Senator Clinton did nothing but have tea. That does not qualify for bragging rights in my book.

You state she was working with women’s groups in Ireland at the time, which ones? What did she do to help and/or motivate them? I’ve seen nothing documented stating this.

And as for the NRA, it was not Hillary but Bill Clinton, the President, that was taking action. To my knowledge and information the then-First Lady had only one political action during Bill Clinton’s presidency – national healthcare – and it failed miserably. If you can point to anything that helps validate her claims, and refutes the claims of someone that is internationally recognized as having influence, I would be happy to read it.

Until then I will again state that she was using the actions of others to fabricate experience and political clout she does not have.


Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

I do wish that there were other people who view things the way that you do. There seems to be a rush to find anything on anyone that is degreading. I do hope that Americans have grown to a level that is above the spind-doctors. Thanks for a refreshing thought provoking statment.

George O’Neal

Hannity and Colmes are replaying a March 1, 2007 interview with Rev. Wright. He was incredibly hostile. They have been a topic on talk radio for months while there has been a de facto MSM blackout of Barack’s church. It is interesting that Wright’s views were little discussed while Mitt’s church received intense scrutiny. To borrow a phrase, it has taken a while for the chickens to come home to roost.

John Austin TX


George,
Thank you. I do try.

John,
I will say it again, the religion of a candidate has nothing to do with their ability to be a President.

It was not Mitt Romney’s church that was questioned but the Mormon religion. That was unfair and wrong. It had no reflection on his ability to govern – which his time as Governor proved.

As for Senator Obama’s church, what is wrong with standing up against Apartheid, feeding the homeless and welcoming parishioners of all races and sexual orientation?

What you mean is the questions of his pastor. And I have fully covered my thoughts on that. I invite you to check them out.


Remember those before us

Eddie G. Griffin said...
Written history is always subject to re-write (revision), plus the fact it was never acurate to begin with, written from a bias perspective.

chocolate_matters said...
Hello, just blog hopping and wanted to just have some input into the discourse here. Nice blog by the way.
Exactly what the brother above stated. History is always written from the perspective of the victory and any and everything we read should be scrutinized for its accuracy. As a student of history I have learn to question, question, and question some more everything I read.

Eddie and Chocolate

I agree that history is written from the winners view. And that is why I wanted to remind my readers that there is more to our past as Americans than what is selectively taught. Our nation is a wonderful nation and I would prefer no other even with the problems we obviously have. Yet we must be honest about where we come from and have done.

I think we all agree that more needs to be learned and spoken about to ensure that EVERYONE in the nation benefits from a better future.


Senator Obama to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan

Francis L. Holland Blog said...
He can go anywhere he wants, as long as he doesn't fall for the okey-doke of going with John McCain.

I can't see why John McCain's people and the Republicans are so desperate to get Obama to go with McCain to Iraq, except to create the impression that they are both reasonable people trying to solve a problem together. When the premise of Obama's candidacy is that he is reasonable and McCain is not on Iraq.

I say to Obama, 'Go wherever you want, but leave McCain home.' Birds of a feather flock together.

Francis,

Perhaps Senator John McCain wants Senator Obama to see the places that he has been, and to hear first-hand the chances that have happened. I doubt that Obama had much of a chance to notice anything in the less than 48 hours he spent in Iraq.

The point is that the Democratic Party has consistently promoted the view that Iraq is a lost cause after they voted to go their. They have taken every opportunity to promote a doom and gloom view without paying any attention to changes or improvements. That narrow-visioned view of international events is unwise for a President.

To simply assume that Republicans want to point out that Senator Obama has no international experience belittles his need to be in Iraq. He has no international experience, and he took no time to learn about what is happening in Iraq. Wisdom is knowing your own failures and gaining knowledge from those with more experience than yourself. Then you can make a more educated decision.

Isn’t that what you want from a President? So doesn’t it make sense to go with Senator John McCain who has been to Iraq at least 6 times in as many years?


Senator Clinton Wins – Sorry I Misspoke

The Indypendent said...
Obama’s Race Against Race
By Nicolas Powers
From the April 25, 2008 issue
A black man runs from a howling crowd. If he’s caught he’ll be torn apart. If he reaches sanctuary he’ll be loved. This ritual is the Sacred Lynching. It’s a scene from Olaf Stapledon’s science fiction book, The First and Last Men. Set in the future, humanity has mixed and few people are “white” or “black,” and the ritual is a nostalgic celebration of racism in a post-racial world. It resembles our own supposed post-racial politics, and I see Senator Barack Obama as that last black man on earth trying to outrun our media mob.

TO READ FULL ARTICLE:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/04/25/obama%e2%80%99s-race-against-race/

Indypendent,
And what does this have to do with Senator Clinton lying about her experience, failure to make a big primary win, and attempting to by votes (again) with a silly promise of giving the public a paltry sum of money that cannot possibly pass Congress?


Is Rev. Wright a reason not to vote for Senator Obama?

Ghost said...
I would have to agree with the writer of this blog in most part since I have heard these types of prophetic sermons throughout my upbringing in a town 90 miles north of Chicago. Yet, I think the bigger issue here should not be about Rev. Wright. Since Obama announced his candidacy for the Presidency I have wondered how and when he would attempt to traverse the chasm that is race in this country. What concerns me is that he would be so careless as to allow himself to be forced to have this discussion under duress. Now he has allowed yet another distraction to pull attention away from his message of unity by not addressing the genesis of the symptoms that we manifest today, namely de-facto racism and reverse racism. As far as I am concerned he should have distanced himself from this man long ago, not because he didn't like him but simply because it did not fit with his plan. You cannot expect the general American public to fully support Obama, while he emits such an aura of irresponsibility. He is smarter that this and we all know it. He needs to be concerned about votes and it's time he learned that you cannot pick and choose what you want to be transparent about. I bet in the next 48hrs the Clinton camp will give up their taxes and the history of her time as 1st Lady while the nation is caught up in the racial fervor since it is a more interesting topic. C-ya next time.

RJM said...
No. But I know a many who would find at fault with the statements that were made. Seriously, one thing that gets me was when he talked about our terrorism caused 9/11. It is very true. It was our actions that caused it. The HiJackers didn't just get into a plane and said hey lets blow this up. They were angry. They'll never forget the removal of their land for Israel or the removal of a democratically elected government in Iran for one of Tyranny. How many people know that though? The Clinton's Campaign is riding on the famous American action of inaction. Of thoughtlessness instead of thought. To the Clinton Campaign,her best shot at winning is this for all the voters:
Ignorance is Bliss.

msladydeborah said...
Pastor Wright is not a major factor in whether or not I will continue to support Obama.

I happen to feel very strongly about this whole issue because it is not reflective of his leadership as a minister.

I have been encouraging people to check out his background and to see what his leadership at Trinity UCC has produced.

He did not say anything that cannot be justified. We only need to look at the past to see why he and other people feel this way.

What bothers me the most is the attempt to make it seem as if something wrong is going on because he is the head of a black populated congregation.

This whole action is walking a fine line in terms of rights.

Pastor Wright can say whatever he wants to inside of his church. That is his right and if the members do not like what is being said, then they are the ones who needed to handle the business of that issue.

I also feel that Barack is going to have to deal with race up front now. There is no way around it.

But so are we. And I feel that we are going to have to be a lot more tough on the subject. We are going to have to learn how to deal with what is major and don't sweat what is not.

Labels: democrats, Iraq, Mitt Romney, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Rev. Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Well it's amazing but Senator Hillary Clinton finally realizes that Senator Obama has beaten her and is the Democratic nominee. It's only taken her a day to realize that 2143 is over 2118, and that she has lost. Only a day to recognize that using race and religion as negative attacks has not helped her, that every woman in America will not flock to her just because of her gender, that taking every position possible on issues (like illegal immigrants getting driver's liscences) or lying to the public (with Ireland and Bosnia to name a few) is not a means to gain votes. She has come to realize that far too many people remember her promise to bring jobs to NY state - which she has not only failed to do but there has been a net loss of jobs since she was elected - and understand she would do the same to the nation.

Now I hope she learns that her strongarm tactics to wrangle the Vice Presidency will fail as well. The Democrats that voted for her are not mere pawns in a bid for her to gain more power. She is not going to blackmail Senator Obama with less than 18 million votes (her math is way off) to guarantee that Senator Obama cannot win with her on the ticket.

In all I expect that there is just one thing to say... one song to sing...

Labels: Bosnia, Democratic Presidential candidate, illegal immigration, Ireland, New York State, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Vice President

With great joy I can now say that Senator Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee for President of the United States.

As of 5:37pm the total delegates and Super Delegates reached 2123 in a surge as many formerly supporting Senator Hillary Clinton abandoned her. There is no question that comments from Senator Clinton acknowledging her interest in the Vice-Presidency helped to sway at least some of the late breaking delegates.

At the start of this long nomination cycle I stated that I believed that Senator Clinton was the probably nominee, which I was abhorrent to. While I have followed the entire process as neutral as is possible for anyone who is an American citizen (anyone following this election and claiming to not have a position is generally lying as all citizens have a vested interest and therefore a preference of some degree), I have not hidden my dislike and distrust of Clinton and her campaign. More importantly, I have provided ample reasons and examples of why she was not the best candidate for the future of America.

I must admit my surprise that Senator Obama has won. Like many pundits and bloggers in 2006 and 2007 I did not feel America was ready to have a Black President or even candidate. It would seem that I was wrong, West Virginia not withstanding.

But now is when the real issues will appear. The real questions of what are the plans that will improve America. The plans that will unify the nation. The plans that will carry the nation to the future. And these plans will be compared to those of Senator John McCain, with the best becoming President.

Race is still the predominant issue going forward. I still see that as a factor that will secretly withhold votes from Senator Obama no matter what people say publicly. I hope to be proven wrong on that, again.

We will hear about Rev. Wright yet again. There will be calls of the Muslim conspiracy, and the hidden terrorist threat circling the internet among the least intelligent people in America. Information and facts will be misquoted or re-interpreted by those with agendas less about politics and more about prejudice.

That is not to say that any debate against Senator Obama is solely racially motivated. He does have problems. He has less experience, his foreign policy comments are questionable, and his economic plans are arguably impotent. Senator Obama is a huge liberal, and the nation is very much a more central moderate conservative.

But these are questions for the near future.

Today I am simply elated that an African American has risen to be competing fro the highest office in the land, and the most powerful political position in the world. We should not be fooled into believing that this will prevent issues like Megan Williams case, Sean Bell case, unequal legal action – like in Jena – and many others from happening. We cannot think that this obscures or fixes problems like the under funding and poor teaching of students in cities, or lack of representation in corporations of Blacks in the highest corporate levels.

This is one step, both symbolically and in reality, but it cannot be the last. Nor can we allow ourselves to make our decisions based solely on the basis of skin color.

I am pleased today. But tomorrow I will continue the process of covering this election, analyzing the plans of both candidates, and offering my opinion on who seems to bode best for the nations future potential.

Good bye Senator Clinton, Congratulations Democratic Presidential nominee Senator Obama.

(now if he can just make sure she doesn’t wrangle herself into the Vice-Presidency it will be a really good race indeed.)

Labels: 2008 election, African Americans, Democratic Presidential candidate, jena 6, Megan Williams, Rev. Wright, Sean Bell, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Does anyone find it interesting that Senator Hillary Clinton, via husband former-President Bill Clinton, now claim that they have the most votes any Democrat has ever received before? The timing is almost laughable.

First the Clinton machine claimed that they would win with little trouble. The pundits agreed. Then in November 2007 Senator Obama gathered some steam and Senator Clinton got caught playing all sides of an issue (whether she supposed giving illegal aliens driver’s liscences in New York State – she answered yes, no and maybe in less than 2 minutesin a national debate which I have posted on).

Then the issue became the fact that Senator Obama was just playing race and was a minor character because he won in South Carolina. Race was a major issue, and gender was a common back drop. Both were reasons the Clinton campaign believed they would prevail.

Then as Clinton lost states 2 to 1, the argument became that she was leading the Super Delegate vote. She pressed that Super Delegates would know that she was the better candidate and she would win.

Then when she lost the Super delegates she now claims she has the majority of vote. Of course to get that math right you have to give her every vote in Florida (ignoring the votes that Senator Obama received) and all the votes that were in Michigan (ignoring that she was the only name on the ballot and the fact that 40% of Michigan picked uncommitted rather than vote for her).

Is it interesting that she now claims that the voters in Florida and Michigan need to have their votes counted, when a year ago she agreed and pledged to penalize them – when she thought she didn’t need the votes? Does this sound desperate at all? Isn’t the ship sinking, and not only is the captain going down, she is trying to take the crew and passengers too.

The Democratic Presidential nomination has be filled with racism, gender bias, polispeak politics on vote rules, religious fear and hatred, and desperation all centered or initiated by Senator Clinton and her campaign. Can any Democrat truly say this is the kind of President they want? That you would ignore all the negatives and vote for her anyway?

The more this race has gone forward the more I have to wonder how the Democratic Party will survive, and if it should. When the best that the Party can offer is Clinton and her tactics (which currently seem like poisoning the well because if she can’t win no Democrat should), or Senator Obama who has no real plan stated, but has snippets of ideas that are protectionist/isolationist and failed policies of the past?

I really have to wonder is any Democrat now available really going to lead the nation to a better place considering the issues that face America. And I don’t care about the “Bush is bad”, “Bush has ruined America” crap that some toss about. President Bush is leaving office, thus that is the end of his policies. America is still free, and there has not been another attack on our soil. He may not be a great President, or overly smart, but he did what was needed at the time (and some of what wasn’t too). Instead of looking backwards, look ahead and tell me what can the Democrats do to improve the situation.

Labels: Democratic Party, President Bill Clinton, President Bush, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

So Senator Obama has lost Kentucky. Big deal. Yes I realize the numbers work out to a 35% or 250,000 vote defeat. And I still don’t find it as an important loss. Let me explain why.

First is the fact that Oregon has yet to be counted into today’s results. Indications at this time are that he will win there by 10 to 15%. Even not looking at that win, he took more than enough delegates at this point to have a majority that cannot be overtaken. And let us not forget that Senator Obama has won more states (by 2 – 1) overall. Thus the majority of Democrats across the nation find him to be the better candidate, even with the media fed Rev. Wright issue and his loopy position on direct Presidential-level discussions with nations like Iran, Cuba, and others that would kill every American as soon as speak with us.

Second are the questions about Kentucky itself. Let’s not forget that Kentucky is the most socially and culturally diverse state (if you happen to be White and Protestant, to a lesser degree if you are Christian). It’s not just that Kentucky is part of the South, with its long history of racial conflict, it’s that this state is a stronghold of the Clinton’s. And we have seen how really inclusive the Clinton’s want to be in this election. Not like they haven’t told everyone enough times since November 2007.

But I’m not angry with Kentucky. I’m not even surprised. But I would have hoped they would be able to pay attention to details just a bit more. It seems that most Democrats in Kentucky would prefer a White woman that has lied to the American public – multiple times just since January – and will do anything to win over an African American candidate that has none of the baggage or the need for playing on gender and racial division that the Clinton campaign has made their last stand on.

Senator Obama has won more states, gotten more votes, won more delegates, gained more Super Delegates, and told more truth. If that is not enough, if the fact he is not White is too ‘scary’, that most Democrats in Kentucky cannot accept him as the majority of Democrats in America have, I’m just happy I don’t live there.

It’s not that I believe Senator Obama is the best candidate. It’s not that I would vote for him – Black or White. But it is about what is the best choice for America, and anyone that would stand in front of the nation and lie, promote racial divisions, and jump on any bandwagon that polls well regardless of the actual benefits or negatives of that bandwagon – well I cannot understand how that person can be America’s best choice.

But then again I’m not from Kentucky.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Kentucky, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

Ok, I saw this in a clip on Fox News coverage of the West Virginia Primary. I knew I wanted to see it in full. Once I saw it I had to provide it for you my readers.

Enjoy, and may the force be with you.

Labels: Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Star Wars, YouTube

I almost feel bad for Hillary Clinton, almost but not quite. And I say this because in the Indiana primary Hillary holds a lead of 4 percentage points over Senator Obama with 88% of the votes counted at the time of this post. It’s sad because Hillary was expected to have a double digit win, no less than 10 points, over Senator Obama according to polls Monday.

The fact that Senator Obama has gone through 8 weeks of dealing with the media driven Reverend Wright issue, 2 press conferences by Reverend Wright and Senator Clinton’s preposterous patronizing call for the public to vote for her to save 18 cents on their gasoline cost have all culminated in one of the slimiest victories in this Democratic nomination process yet. It’s just embarrassing, but there is one fact in these numbers that no one has accounted for yet. In fact today was the first time I heard any suggestion of polls revealing this fact. Republicans voted for Hillary.

Rush Limbaugh, back in March as I recall, asked Republicans to vote for Hillary to exacerbate the nomination process. Tonight reports have stated that Republicans indeed did vote for Hillary and accounted for potentially 7% of the total. If that is correct then as of the writing of this post Hillary would in fact have lost by 3%. This takes the embarrassment of her projected 10-point win and makes it a landslide of disappointment.

I am happy that Senator Obama took the high road in reference to the gas tax 'holiday'. I’m even more greatly pleased to know that 16% of the voters in North Carolina realized the obvious polispeak trickery that Senator Clinton was trying to employ; given the Republicans voting for Senator Clinton its reassuring to know that the majority of voters in North Carolina and Indiana saw through the Clinton campaign's desperate plea to buy votes by any means necessary.

With all this said we can only hope that the Clinton campaign has used up all of its tools in its bag of tricks and its manipulitive power by now so that they can not coerse the Super Delegates into stealing the Democratic nomination from Senator Obama. Of course Senator Obama will not win the Presidency most likely because of the massive damage Hillary and Bill Clinton had inflicted on his reputation and experience. But at the very least there is something to be said for justice and equality in America with him winning the Democratic nomination.

For those states still waiting their turn to vote I suggest you listen carefully to the Clinton campaign, former President Bill Clinton and Hillary as they slash and burn their way to the convention.

I’m not saying that I guarantee there will be more “misspoken” statements (lies) but I wouldn’t go to Vegas and make a bet against it.

Labels: Las Vegas, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Rush Limbaugh, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Super Delegates, tax policy

The title of this post is not a joke, it’s a serious question. It’s a question that I’m not asking, Senators McCain and Clinton are asking it. It’s a cheap polispeak bid to buy your vote for as little as possible.

Now it’s being packaged really nicely. Lots of bluster, with claims of a summer long holiday or an attack on big business. It’s a cute claim that if you vote for X Congress will suddenly get shocked from their slumber and force the price of gasoline down. And I have a bridge to sell you too.

I will give Senator John McCain a bit of credit here. He came up with the idea and started to sell it before Clinton even noticed it was an issue. But there is no doubt that Senator Clinton noticed the positive polling McCain received and jumped on the bandwagon. I will give Senator Obama credit as well for not going along for the ride.

Now lets assume for a moment that this ‘gas holiday’ actually happened. Yeah! You get to save about .30 cents a day, or $27 over the summer. If you went to see Iron Man, plan to see The Incredible Hulk, WANTED, Indian Jones or any other summer movie you spent all the savings. That’s just seeing one of those films. Short holiday huh?

Of course when you add up all the people ‘saving’ money you can quickly get into the tens of millions of dollars or more. And every dime of that money will be sucked out of the roads in your particular state. Hope you like potholes and closed roads. How much more gas do you use to go through a detour? Still think McCain and Clinton are doing you a favor?

Now let’s get back to reality. This will never pass. I say that because this is not the first time this has been suggested. It never passed before, and it won’t now. Because the roads have to be driveable and open. And if the taxes are lost from the pump, you are guaranteed to pay for it elsewhere. So the real question is what do you want to be taxed on.

As for the idea of taking the profit from Oil companies, hurrah America is now a socialist nation. Because only socialists, and their economic cousins communists, believe that the government knows how much money you should make. And if you think that Democrats and Congress voting to increase the taxes of everyone making $31,850 or more is 2-faced, wait till they say that your business exceeded the profit for your industry and takes away all your money. You made a better mousetrap, made millions and employed thousands – but you went over the cap and so you made $100,000 while the government took your $10 million to spend on a study on whether or not the spotted owl is surviving. Doesn’t that feel good?

Of course we have left out the other part of stealing the money of companies, the economy. As the government takes money from all corporations, yes even your small business – just like they promised to raise the taxes of just the ‘rich’ – they have less money to invest into research (they fired half the R&D departments since the cash wasn’t there and they need reserves for a bad economy, loans from banks to buy new equipment, and bonds that are out), to put into retirement funds (kiss that 1-for-1 contribution to your 401K goodbye), mergers are too expensive (so much for your mutual funds and stocks). Since growth is low as are interest rates foreign investments pull out of the nation the dollar drops and things get really expensive.

And that’s just what I can foresee. Imagine what a real economist can tell you. And if you think I’m wrong just sit and think of all the things connected to corporate profits and/or the federal gas tax. It won’t take long to get numbers in the billions falling away, being spent by a government that hasn’t balanced it’s checkbook in my lifetime and runs every aspect of it’s operations about as well as your local DMV on a really good day.

And the Senators know all this. They know the arguments and have seen the projections. They know the Congressmen and women. They already counted the votes. So they know it will never happen, but it sounds great and makes people think they care, as long as no one stops to think it through.

Of course I don’t expect better from Senator Clinton. She tends to think the public is either dumb or forgetful. Because it was only early this year she promised to use the money from big oil to pay for healthcare. And she is used to making empty promises, like telling upstate New York she will create 200,000 jobs (after 7 years there still hasn’t been one made on her watch, but 30,000 have been lost – great management there). Or there is the wonderful campaign promise she made that would give every child in America $5,000 for college the day they were born. Amazing that she stopped talking about that once people (including me) asked where the money for that would come from, what happens to the money for those that don’t go to college, or does that include children that are illegal aliens. But that kind of polispeak got her headlines and votes, which was the real reason for the offer to buy your vote.

So considering this I ask voters in Indiana and North Carolina, is your vote worth 18 cents?

Labels: college tuition, illegal aliens, Indiana primary, North Carolina primary, Polispeak, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax policy

Before I continue to critique Senator Clinton, her lies and misconcieved half-formed plans I thought I might present her full conversation with Bill O'Reilly. This way I can just go over all the issues at once.

Indiana and North Carolina please keep in mind all my prior posts (which you can get from clicking the labels below) before you go to the polls.












Remember your vote counts.

Labels: Bill O'Reilly, Democratic nomination, Fox News, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Hillary Clinton

With less than a week to go before the next set of Democratic Primaries, the media driven effect of Rev. Wright continues to weigh upon Senator Obama. Even as I write this, he is denouncing the comments made yesterday by Rev. Wright to the National Press Club. Amazing how things change.

A year ago Senator Obama was considered a joke. Pundits and the media basically ignored him as the believed there was no real candidate for the Democratic Party beyond Senator Clinton. At the same time emails were circulating the internet (some at the promotion of members of the Clinton campaign) declaring that Senator Obama was a Muslim and/or secret terrorist.

Today there is a new fervor about Senator Obama being a Christian. The fact that his pastor has several unconventional views is now the focus. And the media and pundits are wondering if he can gain the Democratic nomination as they place the views of a religious leader not running for any political office on Senator Obama.

Today the major news media is upset that Senator Obama has not been fully vetted as has Senator Clinton and McCain. Of course Clinton and McCain have been in the ublic eye for decades, so obviously more is known about them. And the major news media completely fails to notice that it was their job to investigate Senator Obama when he announced his election hopes rather than to laugh him off. Thus we have the pot calling the kettle black.

Of course there are a few things that are being missed today as they were a year ago.

There has been no real discussion about the decades long anti-war proponent Hillary Clinton’s ascertion that she tried to join the military (either the Army or Marines depending on the version of the story being told).

There has been no real focus on the lies that have been told to the American public. Some may have felt that the Clinton’s were accomplished liars, but over the last month Hillary Clinton has been proven to be a liar. From invisible snipers and unseen terror in video tapes of Bosnia, and peace talk treaties during tea parties in Ireland Senator Clinton is a proven liar. How does that make her any more trustworthy or beneficial to the American public than what opponents decry about President Bush?

There has been no real discussion of the involvement of a known criminal in the Clinton campaign. Lest some forget, the Clinton campaign took and tried to hold onto $1 million stolen and donated to them from Norman Hsu. He was a criminal fugitive that was a high ranking donation bundler for Senator Clinton. Or is that not important? And if it isn’t why is Rezco?

Senator McCain, since winning the Republican nomination, has gone silent. He is amassing funds and peppering the middle of the nation with reminders of his military career and years of experience. But he is not being challenged on his plans about exiting the war in Iraq (minus the military bases like those we have left in other former warzones like South Viet Nam, Germany, Japan, and so on). Little is being said of his self-professed ignorance on the economy, at a time when oil prices are creating a new plateau at levels never before seen and more people fear for their jobs than in the past 25 years.

As the Presidential race devolves into a question of race and to a lesser extent gender the real issues that most Americans actually care about are being ignored by the media. What about national security, illegal immigrants, the legal system and such?

I doubt that so many Americans suddenly forgot about these issues. I doubt that the most important issue in America is the vetting of Rev. Wright – a figure that has been shown to have no influence on the political decisions of any of the candidates. And if this association is so important, why have we not heard of the investigation into Senator McCain’s pastor? (We can’t do this for Senator Clinton as she is not a member of any church since her husband left the Oval Office)

The issues following Senator Obama’s run has been consistently everything but politics. His appearing in native garb while on a trip overseas (which is a common political practice), his full name, the degree of Blackness he maintains (as if there is an official level or list to check off), his religious belief, people he has known in his life (with some searching back to his kindergarten days), the fact he has interracial parents.

Can anyone name another President that has had the same questions asked of them? Or even a candidate?

Seriously, the media has focused on the least important issues in this Presidential race so far. Questions that no White male candidate has ever been asked are important today. Name 3 President’s middle names, if you can or even 3 candidates from this year. Name 3 pastors of anyone who was running for the Presidency this year. Name the heritage of 3 of the candidates racial heritages form this year. Name any friends that any of the candidates had that were questionable or have been in trouble with the law – from over a decade ago.

I doubt anyone can answer those things. So if they aren’t important for any other candidate, why are they important for Senator Obama. And for those that would say they aren’t important because they haven’t been reported on – how do you know? No one has checked so are you sure?

So given all this what am I left with? That America is being disserved. We are not dealing with the issues that are important for the nation. Therefore we will not have the best choices for President and may get a President that will not benefit the nation.

Think about it. If we focus on the least important facts about a potential President, we will possibly elect a President that we have no idea will do in office. That means the critical choices facing America in this next Presidency, issues that will affect the nation and world for decades to come, issues that will affect your children, student loans, job, and ability to own a home will be in the hands of someone you never asked important questions of.

The major media may not care, but I do. Thus I have followed and written about all the candidates since 2005. Search and learn, because once you vote you can’t take it back.

Labels: Bosnia, gender issues, Norman Hsu, Presidential election race 2008, race in America, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

In yet another display of racial insensitivity and polarizing commentary we have former President Bill Clinton making statements yesterday and today. Now I want to make something clear up front, that every pundit I have read so far has avoided on this latest issue (and which could be applied to previous ones).

If the comments of Bill Clinton, husband of Senator Hillary Clinton, have no influence or connection to the actions and policies of Hillary how can the words and/or association of Rev. Wright – former pastor to Senator Obama – be relevant to Barack?

Former President Bill Clinton said in South Carolina



More recently he said



He goes on to say (which I have not been able to locate on Youtube) in the same comment

CLINTON: "… And, you know, do I regret saying it? No. Do I regret that it was used that way? I certainly do. But you really gotta go something to try to portray me as a racist."

INTERVIER: “OK. Well thank you very much, Mr. President.”

CLINTON: “Thank you. I hope everybody will go out to vote tomorrow. Buh-bye… I don’t think I can take any sh#& from anybody on that, do you?” [The bold is my emphasis]

And then covered it with



So who exactly is using race as a weapon and a tool of polispeak in this Democratic nomination race?

And Senator Hillary Clinton has yet to be asked the following questions:

• Do you renounce and reject the comments of your husband?
  
  
• Does your husband have influence on the way you make decisions?
  
  
• Do you think your spouse’s comments accurately reflect the way you see America?
  

These questions were certainly asked of Senator Obama about his wife and Rev. Wright. So why has no pundit or reporter asked her this?

The Democratic Presidential nomination race has long ago devolved into a question of character and associations. The actual issues important to liberals and Democrats haven’t been spoken about in a month or so. That being a given, I ask why is the polispeak game not being played equally when the weight and importance given to what a former President is normally covered extensively? Why is the former President making comments, on behalf of Senator Clinton, where he is looking to avoid “take any sh#&”? Does that not imply the statements are merely being made to get a certain spin, and not the truth?

This may have come out too late for the Pennsylvania Primary, but it is not too late for future primaries and the Democratic Convention. Be assured that if Superdelegates ignore these words and select Senator Clinton I will be mentioning this constantly up to the election. Because, former-President Clinton, I have reviewed the question and comments you made. And I’ve come to my own conclusion.

I suggest that you copy this and send it to you loacal superdelegate if you agree. Because I at least feel that all candidates should be held to the same standards, and I really want to hear how Senator Clinton would answer these questions.

Don’t you?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, Democratic Party, Pennsylvania Primary, Polispeak, President Bill Clinton, race in America, racial controversy, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

So now we have the major news media jumping all over the words of Senator Obama. This time it’s in reference to his elitist comments about how small town voters across America seem to feel and are acting. While the comments are harsh, there is some truth in them.

“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Barack Obama

Having lived some 5 years no in a small town (that residents of the area consider a city for some reason) I have noticed that many are clinging and bitter. There is no question that in this town with approximately 6% non-whites and a large community of college students, there are bitter feelings. The average income is about $28,000 and jobs are scarce. Most jobs pay minimum wage, the downtown district is littered with empty buildings, and more than just a few homes are in disrepair even in the best neighborhoods.

There is a huge hunting community though, and there are an abundance of churches and church groups. The main activity outside of these events is drinking. In a recent article in the local paper there was a story (during Black History month) describing that one of the local major companies recruited new workers and when asked what the recreational activities were in the area they stated ‘there are a lot of bars’. Such is this small town in central New York, and that is better than the surrounding smaller towns and villages.

That says nothing of the rampant racism and prejudice. I have heard numerous stories from non-whites over the years, and experienced several myself. From failure to be served for over 15 minutes only to be skipped over to serve a White patron that walked up, to being called the N-word for speaking to a White person of the opposite sex, to having a drunk guy picking a fight – using the N-word to provoke the situation – and being told at the end that it was due to dressing better than those around [which happened to me]. Binghamton is a city dying for lack of good jobs, lack of foresight from the city council, and the failure of Senator Clinton to live up to her promise to generate 200,000 new jobs for upstate New York [in fact upstate New York has lost 30,000 jobs since she has been elected].

So is Senator Obama wrong in what he said? From what I have seen here and in the area, no. The citizenry is quite bitter and angry. They want to see less jobs going overseas, fewer immigrants keeping job wages down, and virtually hate anyone – especially of color – that is living here and doing better. Mind you that is not everyone here, but it is more than enough to make things uncomfortable is you walk into the wrong place on the wrong day.

But let’s consider this. If Senator Obama is out of touch or as Senator Clinton states

“I do not think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you, and not looks down on you," said Hillary Clinton. "And after seven years of Americans feeling invisible to this president, President Bush, it is time that we leveled the playing field.”

Is Senator Clinton better?

Well we know as fact that she lied about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. Sinbad and videotaped footage of the event have proven that – thus it’s not a misspoken statement as the polispeak would have you believe. We know that she had no impact or input to the Ireland peace talks, those who did have told us about that lie as well.

We know that in the 7+ years that Senator Clinton has been representing New York State she has lied about new jobs, and her voting record reflects changing polls consistently. We know Senator Clinton is against guns, in speeches and votes. We know that the Clinton campaign has consistently and directly, in the form of Bill Clinton, used race as a factor in generating votes. The Clinton campaign has directly pandered gender as a solitary reason for votes. Is this “standing up” or “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”?

But perhaps most important is her connection to the people. Senator Clinton, along with former President Bill Clinton, made $109 million. They paid only $34 million in taxes. That may be a lot, but it is far less than the highest tax bracket so they took tax breaks available to them. They also donated $10 million to charity – the Clinton Library – in effect giving them a tax break and keeping the money. All from those that claim that the rich (which she obviously qualifies as) don’t pay enough in taxes and voted to increase the taxes paid of everyone making $31,850 or more (which I know none that would qualify this as rich).

Now both of the Democratic candidates have gone to good colleges and have law degrees. Senator Clinton spent her time after graduating on the board of Wal-Mart (which has fought unions – a big issue for Democrats) and being the wife of a rising political husband. Senator Obama spent his time working for the Chicago community and entering politics at the state level. Which sounds like it benefits the average guy more? Which sounds closer, since neither is similar, to the life average Joe lives?

Of course if we were to really be fair about this Senator McCain really stands out. While his wife does have wealth, he was a soldier. While he was an officer and a pilot, he did serve his nation at a time of war, and stood by his fellow soldiers while having years of torture. He has served the public for 25 years, longer than some of my readers have been alive. He has never lied about being shot at, nor has he made a donation to a charity he runs. He has not voted to raise taxes of those that are obviously in the middle class (though he did balk initially at giving them a tax cut). He is not known for looking down at anyone, though he is known for his temper. But he is also known for breaking party lines to make deals he feels benefit the American public – which the Democratic candidates have not done, ever.

So really, who sounds like they are looking down on the average American? Who is the least connected? Who has lied the least – or as the spin likes to say “misspoke”. Who has stood their ground and served the public the most, or in other word has experience?

Obviously for the Republicans that is Senator McCain. For the Democrats I leave the choice to you, based on the facts. And as for the election, well that is your choice. No matter what you believe, your vote makes a difference. If we all are involved, since we all will live with the results, then I believe we will get the best choice for America. But if not, there will be no way to explain the next 4 years in some polispeak spin of “misspoke” or “mistake”.

Labels: Binghamton NY, Chicago, Democratic Party, middle class, President Bill Clinton, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Wal-Mart

Looking forward to the April 22 primary in Pennsylvania I found some information that is troubling looking forward. There is no question that without a landslide of votes for Senator Hillary Clinton, in every Primary until the Democratic Convention, there is no way she can win the Democratic nomination without stealing super delegates. A super delegate decision is also sure to enrage Democrats backing either candidate.

And that’s where the rub comes in. Recently various news agencies and polling organizations have begun to ask voters how likely they are to back an opposing candidate that lost the nomination. And there is a massive difference, led by the fact of race.

For all the polispeak and posturing of Democrats and Liberals about supporting minority issues and representing African Americans in particular, the fact is that a significant portion of voters will vote for the White candidate or none at all. If that sounds bigoted, racist, prejudiced and anti-American I agree that it is.

Based on the primaries and caucuses that have occurred to date we can see certain trends and numbers.

Whites that find race important favor Clinton over Obama by 63% to 32%. Even those that said race was not a factor backed Clinton by 11%. Of this group of people 41% said they would only be satisfied if Clinton were the nominee.

Why is this critical? Because

“Pollsters have long expressed doubts about using polls to precisely gauge voters' feelings about the sensitive issue of race, concerned that some people give answers they think are socially acceptable.”

Or in my words, some of those polled are the quiet cowardly racists that try to stab Blacks in the back rather than being upfront and vocal about their small-minded nature.

Who are these people? What are they like?

“In the exit polls, whites saying they considered the candidate's race were likelier to be from the South and rural areas, less educated, lower earning and older. That's consistent with voting so far, in which Obama has done better among whites with more education and higher incomes, especially men.”

So in looking forward, assuming Senator Obama is the candidate the real question is how many Americans will be willing to vote for a Black candidate? It appears that there are more than enough White voters raised and believing in the Jim Crow, segregationist, prejudiced, stereotyped, illogical thoughts about race that was America’s norm until the mid-1980’s. And if you are younger than 40, yes before the mid-80’s there was a real and vastly different view of race. That view has not disappeared, nor changed significantly and the voting preferences abovementioned relate to that.

So while pundits will polispeak about the Iraq war – and how it was wrong that it started which is moot, the economy – where raising taxes is about as intelligent as suing the homeless, illegal aliens – which can’t even be referred to as such even though they have roken the law entering the nation, and many other real issues America must deal with; the real issue will be the one thing Senator Obama has avoided making a primary issue – race.

If Senator Obama is to win or lose the Presidential election due superior plans for the future of America then that is the will of America. But it seems impossible to say that while the question of voter prejudice is not only openly stated, but also hidden. Which leaves me with a thought.

No pundit or politician will address the fact that race relations remains the most critical, dividing, and divisive issue in America – 388 years after the first slave was sold and 143 years after their freedom was acknowledged and protected. There is no polispeak to spin this fact in a positive manner, and no one has the balls to stand up and be counted for really speaking on the issue.

So whether or not Senator Obama wins the Democratic nomination (which he should but could lose through super delegates) or the Presidential election, the problem and its effects will continue to prevent America from being as great as it can be. I have already stated my solutions in terms of reparations, an apology, and honest talk.

Given this, what do you propose? How do you feel? What is the answer?

Labels: Democratic nomination, illegal aliens, Iraq War, Jim Crow, Polispeak, Presidential election race 2008, Reparations for Slavery, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, U.S. economy

**Just a quick hello to all those visiting this site from TV One. I hope you enjoy the various posts and visit/comment often.**


So as we approach the next vote in the Democratic Primary process, little new events or information has been passed on to the public. With the Republican race over, Senator John McCain has begun to collect monies and release television commercials emphasizing his experience both as a Senator and military commander. On the Democratic side, substance has been replaced in part by hype obfuscating points that I find far more interesting.

Even today this malaise can be seen in the questions being posed to General Petraeus by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Democrats are pushing that the events in Iraq are not working, that there is no end in sight ever, that the war is unwinnable, and that the only solution is to run. Republicans are thanking the service and sacrifice given, acknowledgement of the benchmarks reached, understanding of the progress and stability that has been attained, and the outlook for a measured end of the conflict. Politics are clouding every fact, effectively using our soldiers as political tools in all the polispeak.

But the bigger issues that are not being discussed as much as they should include Senator McCain’s potential choice of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as Vice-President. Back in February I noted that she was at 10-1 odds for gaining the coveted position.

“I expect that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is the real favorite. She brings in some of the Black and women vote. And she is easily qualified for the position. I see the Democrats seriously troubled in trying to attack her on anything. My dream pick would be Colin Powell though.”

The implications of Secretary of State Rice as V-P are far reaching especially in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, foreign relations, and the economy. Considering the emphasis on race relations lately, there is also the potential of improving the laws affecting African Americans. Women’s issues are also potentially on the forefront of change.

Glancing at the Democrats, Senator Hillary Clinton dominates the landscape. Not that this is a good thing.

Besides the fact that Senator Clinton is trying to duck the fact that 3 senior campaign members are connected to pro-Columbia efforts (of which only Mark Penn has been fired for) which she publicly denounces, there are less emphasized issues as well. One big fact I have a problem with is the Clinton taxes.

The Clintons made $109 million, paid $34 million in taxes, and $10 million to charity.

Sounds nice until you pay attention to the details. The first is the fact that 34% is not the top tax bracket, meaning that the Clinton’s took many deductions. That is not important, except it is a major campaign point for the Democrats. That is that the “rich” – which I think $109 million qualifies as – do not pay enough in taxes. Yet rather than paying the full taxes, or giving the I.R.S. extra money as a gift, the Clinton’s paid less. So either the Clinton campaign is lying about wanting to take more money from the rich – but since she voted to increase taxes of everyone from $31,850 and above I doubt that, her money is excluded, or she only thinks that the money should be taken by certain people for certain needs of the government. That last reason is hardly Democratic, fair, or in the benefit of the public.

Add to this the fact that former-President Bill Clinton collected $191,000 a year as part of his retirement package as President. That’s tax-payer money being given (wasted) to a millionaire. And rather than denying the money, of not cashing the check, they kept it (and that money is not taxable as I recall). How many people that money might help is unknown, but even if it were to help just one family who do you think needs the money more.

Oh and by the way, the 10% given to charity (which is a write-off) is important too. Because according to at least Dick Morris – a former top political aide of the Clinton’s – every dime of that was given to the Clinton Library. Which is controlled by guess who, and thus usable in any manner they desire.

Like Bosnia, Ireland, and many other issues, it’s a lie and slap in the face of the American citizenry.

And now I come to Senator Obama. There really isn’t much new with him, except his friends. One is Rev. Wright, who continues to be attacked unfairly by the major media. Weeks later the questions and opinions of the polispeak compilation of 10 second clips from less than a handful of the over 1000 sermons made by Rev. Wright are cascading forth having ebbed only slightly. Thus the single most difficult obstacle to the nomination is visibly what it was invisibly a year ago, skin color. And this will be re-visited at some point and some degree if Senator Obama is nominated.

The other friend of note is a real concern in my opinion. That is the former Weatherman and ultra liberal. A self-admitted bomber of American citizens and soil. A declared friend of Senator Obama. That troubles me.

But the real question for him is only the one issue that he can do nothing about. His race. He is not Black enough for small minds like Rev. Manning and other racist bigots – in my opinion. He is too Black for the Clinton campaign and those with ears too gentle to hear honest commentary about race relations in America.

Sadly the real question should be is a Presidential candidate without experience what America needs during a time of war.

But not to worry. CNN, Fox News and the rest have spent the day covering General Petreaus being questioned in a manner to benefit the polispeak political aspirations of the various parties, ultimately at a cost to our soldiers. No matter what view you may have, this PT Barnum extravaganza fails them first and everyone second.

Just remember in the remaining primaries and the general election in November 2008, that the questions being avoided are perhaps the best reasons to vote and whom for.

Labels: Condolezza Rice, Democratic, Iraq War, Polispeak, racial controversy, republican, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, tax increase, Vice President

So is it another lie coming out of the Hillary Clinton campaign, this one voiced by former-President Bill Clinton and virtually impossible to prove false. IF it is a lie, then it’s one of the better ones.

If you have not heard the comment it is

“I remember when we were young, right out of law school, she went down and tried to join the Army and they said 'Your eyes are so bad, nobody will take you,'" he said, after heralding her record on issues of concern to the military, such as body armor and access to health care.” – Bill Clinton in Columbus, Indiana

Opportunistic? Factual? Well let’s just check a few facts.

From what can be determined, Senator Clinton attempting to join the Armed Forces was mentioned once before, and only once before. That was back in 1994. And at that time she was purported to be trying to join the Marines. This was found dubious by Maureen Dowd of the New York Times.

“The First Lady's cascading, contradictory images have been the subject of much commentary. This month's Mirabella magazine runs a dizzying array of different looking Hillary Rodham Clintons, to match her blur of different roles, with a story that frets: "We sense that we aren't seeing the 'real' Hillary, and this makes us very nervous.”

…

And it did not seem to fit in with the First Lady's own persona. After all, Hillary Rodham was an up-and-coming legal star involved with an up-and-coming political star. She had made a celebrated appearance in Life magazine as an anti-establishment commencement speaker at Wellesley College, where, as president of the student government, she had organized teach-ins on her opposition to the Vietnam War.

She was a Yale law school graduate who had worked on the anti-war Presidential campaigns of Eugene J. McCarthy and George McGovern.”

In addition this move to join some branch of the military took place just before October 1975, when she married Bill Clinton. How many brides-to-be do you know that jaunt off to the local recruiter asking to join up?

So we are left to wonder how true these statements, that were never uttered beyond these 2 times, are. One would expect that if they were true we might have heard about it during the 2 elections for Senate that Hillary went through. In the preparations and debates of 2007 it was never mentioned or alluded to. In the primaries and caucuses it has been unmentioned.

And we know this of the Clinton’s, things are not always as they state them.

From the famous re-definition of IS, to invisible snipers firing air bullets, to Hillary’s seldom used power to invoke peace during talks in Ireland – from a separate room from the discussion while having tea, to her ability to agree, disagree, and be indecisive all at once on the same question. The Clinton’s are remarkable in their power to reword and remake themselves in every situation they face.

But unlike her “misspoken” comments about Bosnia (polispeak for blatant lie that was caught publicly), this recollection and the prior comment in 1994 are basically impossible to disprove.

So it’s up to you. Do you think that this lawyer and wife to be, who had vehemently been against the war and military 3 years earlier, was willing to give up all those things to suddenly join a military that had few women and wanted fewer?

If so I have a bridge to sell you, if not what reason would you give to vote for a person willing to lie to the American public solely to gain the most powerful office of America?

Labels: Bosnia, Columbus Indiana, Ireland, Marine Corps, Maureen Dowd, New York Times, President Bill Clinton, Senator Hillary Clinton

I recall stating in recent weeks,

“I have yet to hear any of the sermons of the religious leaders of the churches of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, President Bush, or anyone else.”

It was a comment that reflected the fact that the media focus on 30 second soundbites – compiled from 5 – 10 second clips of 5-6 speeches made by Rev. Wright – of polispeak are being used as a tool to deter voters from joining the Senator Obama camp. My conclusion was that the comments were not friendly to Whites and the American Government, but were taken almost completely out of context. The media molded an impression of the words of Rev. Wright, and then extrapolated that impression onto Senator Obama and the entirety of the impetus for this was based in race and prejudice.

But the real stark fact was that the media, that sought out the videos and slips of words of Rev. Wright, made no noticible effort to cover or learn of the comments of the pastors of any other Presidential candidate. There is the bias. If the views and comments of a religious leader is important for one candidate, then it must be important for all of them. Yet only the African American pastor and candidate have fallen into this skewed interrogation.

That is until I found this information recently.

It seems that Senator Hillary Clinton’s former pastors have had a few things to say. Now you may wonder why they have made comment and what they had to say – as well as the reason why the major media threw a wet blanket on these relevant and newsworthy comments.

By the way, Senator Hillary Clinton has not been a member of any church for 16 years. That matches the time that she has been out of the White House. Thus there is no current pastor to listen to for her, nor is there a church for her to leave as she stated in this quote

“He would not have been my pastor," Clinton told a gathering of the campaign press corps, repeating a line she used earlier in the day on a Pittsburgh radio program. "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend.” – Speaking about the video clips of Rev. Wright used by the media.

So for the religious that think Senator Clinton reflects their faith or is setting a morale stance, keep the facts in mind.

But of the pastors she did have while her husband was President and watched every Sunday have made comments.

Dean Snyder, senior minister at the Foundry United Methodist Church in Washington D.C. - which the Clintons attended while in the White House – stated,

“The Reverend Jeremiah Wright is an outstanding church leader whom I have heard speak a number of times. He has served for decades as a profound voice for justice and inclusion in our society. To evaluate his dynamic ministry on the basis of two or three sound bites does a grave injustice to Dr. Wright, the members of his congregation, and the African-American church which has been the spiritual refuge of a people that has suffered from discrimination, disadvantage, and violence. Dr. Wright, a member of an integrated denomination, has been an agent of racial reconciliation while proclaiming perceptions and truths uncomfortable for some white people to hear. Those of us who are white Americans would do well to listen carefully to Dr. Wright rather than to use a few of his quotes to polarize.”

Reverend Edward Matthews, who opposed both Iraq wars, supports same-sex marriage, opposes the death penalty, and has been a passionate critic of American foreign policy, served as pastor of First United Methodist from 1990 to 1998. The Clinton’s attended his church for the last 2 years prior to entering the White House. First United Methodist remains the only church of which Mrs. Clinton is a member.

He also attended prayer meetings at the White House while they were there. In addition to that he campaigned with Senator Clinton prior to the Iowa Caucus, and made a video testimonial for her. And he has said that at one time he even shared the views of Rev. Wright.

Rev. Matthews has actually heard a sermon of Rev. Wright. His comment on that was,

“If you are very close-minded, you would have gotten up and walked out of that. But I appreciated what he was saying." Rev. Matthews said. "I wouldn't have said it that way. I wouldn't have been so animated.”

As for whether she would leave his church because Senator Clinton disagreed with Rev. Matthew’s position on same-sex marriage, the death penalty, the Iraq War, or supporting Isreal he stated,

“She's disagreed with me on several things, but she remained a member of the church. We've remained close friends”

So it would seem that those preachers that can be identified as knowing Senator Clinton have made themselves clear. They support and defend Rev. Wright. To varying degrees they agree with him. They, in degrees, disagree with Senator Clinton’s political views. And she has not disavowed any of their comments in the past or present.

Thus I have to ask where is the major media coverage of this? Where is the controversy of the comments that Rev. Matthews made about America during the Viet Nam war? Comments that would have been viewed as strongly as those of Rev. Wright today. Where are the questions about how these pastors affected the politics of the Clinton’s?

Where is the investigation into the comments of Senator McCain’s pastor?

I am left with a single thought. This is all polispeak, meant to obfuscate the reasons to nominate Senator Obama, and assured to be brought up if he gets the nomination. It is racism under the guise of religion – 2 areas that are mostly taboo to question unless you are African American it seems.

There is nothing that justifies the manner and degree to which Rev. Wright has come under fire. Nor is there a reasoning, beyond that which I have mentioned, to attribute those misquoted, out of context, 2 – 3 word video snippets to the politics and character of Senator Obama. Thus anyone that would alter their voting due to all of this should also alter their voting for Senator Clinton, and perhaps Senator McCain. In effect none of the religious leaders for any of the candidates, as can be ascertained, are above reproach or question.

This is well disguised racism and prejudice. America should not have their votes determined by such paltry, disgusting, and meager reasons.

Vote for the nominee you believe in. Vote for the President you think is best for America. Vote because it is your Right, and far too many have died and bled for that Right. But don’t vote because someone, other than the candidates in question, spoke 3 words that by themselves sound uncomfortable to you.

Labels: Freedom of religion, news media, political bias, Presidential candidates, presidential election, religion in politics, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

So was it just me or did anyone else find humor in the comments of Senator Hillary Clinton yesterday? If you don’t recall the comment it was

“Let me tell you something, when it comes to finishing a fight, Rocky and I have a lot in common. I never quit. I never give up. And neither do the American people.”

Now as I recall, wasn’t the first Rocky movie that she references (about running up the stairs in center city Philadelphia) the first time that Rocky loses to Apollo Creed the champion that was Black? Are we to take it that she too is in a battle that she won’t win? [And in the real world Sylvester Stallone is a Republican that backs Senator John McCain]

In fact, Rocky lost multiple times to better stronger Black men. Actually Rocky was constantly losing and getting his head beat in. I recall a Rocky movie (just before the most recent, I think it was 5) where the pugilist lost everything and was back in the poverty he started from due to the fact he wasn’t smart enough to manage his finances and make a proper plan for the future.

So if Senator Clinton is just like Rocky, as she says, then she is a loser without the sense to know when to stop fighting, can’t manage money, and willing to risk the livelihood of family and friends just to prove a point. Not the inspiring image that she intended, perhaps a Freudian slip on her part?

But I won’t beat up on her about this. I’ll just highlight the similarities. Senator Clinton has lost the popular vote, trails virtually 2-1 on state victories (27 – 14) and is losing on the delegate count. There is almost no way that she can avoid a decision and the odds are decidedly against her as her own supporters are acknowledging Senator Obama will win the Democratic nomination.

And she has thrown more low blows than Gerry Cooney, hitting below the belt with a campaign staff that has either been following instructions or is so without supervision they have been caught repeatedly using race as a means of personal attack. Spreading emails that claim Senator Obama is a secret Muslim, highlighting his middle name to draw on the Muslim fears/prejudice of America, alleging that Senator Obama was a drug dealer, insulting African Americans that voted for him by dismissing his victory in South Carolina, attempting to circumvent every rule and plan that she agreed to back when she thought she would win easily in 2007, and the list goes on.

That says nothing of her Leon Spinks-esque brown bag equivalent of trying to ignore the fact that one of her larger fund raisers was known, wanted fugitive Norman Hsu, who happened to give her $1 million that he stole and she did not want to return.

If anything, I would equate Senator Clinton with James ‘Buster’ Douglas. Like the little boxer that could she won a Senate seat in New York State, and has gone up against a heavyweight she was not prepared for. She was under prepared and got knocked on her butt in the early rounds. But she made a comeback, and thought she was stronger than she in fact was. She’s been knocked back and down repeatedly and too many want her to throw in the towel. She’s even taking late hits (from herself) with the truth of her own actions hitting her as hard as the fact that she has no experience has. [Bosnia and Ireland if I was too obscure]

So let me ask this. If you had a choice, and you do, why would you want to back a fighter that loses repeatedly, trips over their own legs, is overconfident to the point of embarrassment, and seems more than a bit punch-drunk?

Labels: boxing, Buster Douglas, Polispeak, Rocky, Senator Hillary Clinton, Sylvester Stallone

Some things in life are just too wrong. It’s not enough that Rev. Wright has made wrong and questionable comments, creating a furor that can be encapsulated in the thought that ‘Obama is too black.’

Because of 10 second clips from a mere handful (5 or 6) sermons out of perhaps 1000 or more in 35 years, made by someone other than Senator Obama, the Senator is now considered radical. His actual voting record is ignored, as are the comments and speeches he has made. I don’t agree with many of his policies and I still think he is being railroaded. Because one pastor said that crack in the 80’s was fought by the government with a campaign slogan of the First Lady. Because he said Senator Clinton was never called the most ugly, denigrating, evil word in the English language that has no equivalent and that is exclusive to one race. Because he said some truthful comments that are not beneficial or conciliatory to Whites. [Let me note that not all comments are ones that I agree with or think are correct, but 90% of what I have found are.]

Because of that, Senator Obama is finally being seen in the manner that all the emails, rumors, allegations and direct slaps in the face that the Clinton campaign could muster. How proud Hillary must be. Having failed with the use of Barack Obama’s middle name and pictures of him in the native garb of African Elders while in Africa (which is common for traveling politicians).And with that pride must be the pride of the majority of Americans at seeing what it takes to win a nomination to become President. Imagine what would happen to become President.

But there are some that have opinions far too the other side. That Senator Obama is not Black enough. As if such a comment is possible or credible.

One such proponent is Rev. James David Manning. And in watching him live on Fox News, at 9:15pm on Hannity & Colmes, I must say he is a racist and bigot in the worst manner.

Rev. Manning stated that his objection to Senator Obama is because he is the union of an African and White parents. He admitted that he has never met the Senator, nor his parents. Yet that gave him no pause in calling the parents whores and trash. He cited Obama’s lie (or misspoken statement) about his parents meeting as the source of Obama’s first wrong doing. In total his only complaint were these to points.

It’s a harsh thing to see a man, especially one of a religious faith, so obsessed with false values. He was so bad as to cause Sean Hannity, a Republican and admitted non-Obama supporter, to directly and clearly defend Obama. He correctly stated that this was a personal attack and had nothing to do with politics. He questioned how any man of faith could blanket anyone as evil solely because of their birthright. And he was visibly disturbed by this message Rev. Manning is trying to spread.

But in checking around I see that Rev. Manning does not feel Obama is alone in being not Black enough. [And Manning believes that if you are not the result of 2 African American parents you are not Black, but some other thing which he implied is evil. Thus I and most African Americans would falter – I suspect that if he is the offspring of slaves he would not qualify either, but I’m sure that he has an excuse for that as do most bigots when faces with a schism in their warped logic.] The NAACP is not Black enough. Any African American that was able, through the efforts of their parents lives, to not be born poor does not understand being Black and implies they are not Black.

Rev. Manning believes there is an identity crisis in the Black community. Because many Blacks supported Bill Clinton. Because many African Americans support Obama. He feels that Blacks are being paid off to rig the Democratic nomination so that Hillary gets the nomination and Senator Obama gets the Vice-Presidential nomination, all arranged by Whites in Hollywood – as stated to John Gibson of Fox News Talk on March 20, 2008. In that same interview he proclaims how the Civil Rights Movement of the last 50 years was “terribly destructive since the death of Dr. King”. This can be found at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygWExq7g2F0&feature=related

But to really understand the anger and bile of Rev. Manning you need to see the following video.



Now perhaps it is me, a man that Manning would call a “good Negro”, but I think Manning is a racist ass. He fears any man with an education, that believe in things that he does not, that is not as dark as him, nor fits his view of the world. In fact he sounds an awful lot like various White supremacists and a certain Nazi leader.

But I am not a “good Negro”. I am proud to be an educated successful Black Puerto Rican. I have never been in jail [which I would like to know why Manning was - and Malcolm X was incarcerated because he was a criminal at the time. A fact he admitted and never tried to glorify] nor do I feel a need to be. I don’t kiss anyone’s ass, least of all his. And I don’t think that living beyond his limited view is the only way to be African American.

If not being Black enough means not living up to the stereotypes of BET, the music industry, and dim-witted fools fearful of any change since 1865, I’m ok with that and glad Obama doesn’t qualify either. If not being Black enough means not fitting into the Rev. Manning’s of the world view on parentage, need for poverty, lack of education, need for incarceration, and lack of a strong will I will do without.

Manning may have the right to say whatever he wishes, but thankfully we have the right not to listen now that we know what he thinks. We have the right to vote (which Manning may no longer have depending on his conviction) and if it is based in the actions, records and apparent capabilities of a candidate then we should vote for them. We should not let racist, mindless babbling wrapped in a cloak of religion dictate our choices for us.

I reject the vile comments of any person, especially those of religious leaders interjecting themselves as politicians. I dispute and reject the comments of Rev. Manning. I find him vile and reprehensible. I find nothing in his own words, found in my own research, that I agree with. I can only hope that his particular brand of poison does not lend itself to the problems in the Democratic nomination process.

Religious leaders may be essential for spiritual direction, but few have ever shown themselves to be effective leaders of anyone. In America we elect our leaders because of what we believe they will do. Don’t give up that right to anyone else. Learn the facts for yourself. Make a choice. Be involved because the result will involve and affect you regardless or age, race, religion or gender.

Labels: African Americans, Black community, Fox News, Hannity and Colmes, racism, Rev. Manning, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

So I’ve been quite busy in the past week creating 40 blogs and a few search engines for a client of mine. It would seem the timing was perfect as there has really been nothing new in the political news. Every candidate seems to be stuck in the mire of the problems from a week or 2 ago.

There is the problem of Senator Obama with Rev. Wright. This is not going to go away, and you can bet on it being an issue in the general election. I’ve already said that this is really not something I think that should be such an issue. In reviewing some of the video that Rev. Wright had used against him, much of what he said was not untrue or offensive. It was just not nice to White Americans or the Government.

Now I know that there is now news that Rev. Wright has written pro-Hamas comments. I have yet to read this. But, sight unseen, I would guess that like the highly selective 10 second clips used to attack the reverend there is a high probability that these comments may be few in number, and contain a high percentage of truth. That is not to say I agree with all of what he says, just that the 30 seconds of coverage the news media is giving to Rev. Wright is highly biased. As many who have read my Black Entertainment USA blog know, I believe that a medium that purposefully minimized the existence and representation of all non-whites to roughly 2% of their population – mostly in a negative exposure – is biased.

But again I ask the real question that the news media seems to avoid as they inject race into this Presidential election. Does the voting record of Senator Obama reflect the negatives that the news media is focusing on? In my research the answer is no. In fact, Senator Obama’s voting record is nearly identical to Senator Clinton’s. So there seems to be no reason to be any more or less for Senator Obama than before this publicly reviewed relation to a former Marine, clergyman, and activist for the poor, lesbian/gay, and African Americans.

As for Senator Clinton, well she is still a liar. And she is still caught in the fact that her trip to Bosnia was a direct lie. A person can misspeak about a date or time, a name or place, even how well someone reacts in a situation. But saying you are being shot at and that you and your child were essentially racing for your life is a life-altering event that no one would forget. Like being in the Northridge earthquake.

Here is an example. I liked in California and was in the Northridge quake. My home was roughly 5 miles away from the epicenter. I may be misspeaking the distance to the center. But when I tell you that the quake started like a jackhammer going off at your feet, and then grew to feel and sound like a freight train inches away from your face – that is a description of a life-altering event. I may misspeak how long the initial quake lasted, which felt like 5 minutes at the time, but I and describing a life-altering event that every 3 minutes on the minute the quake had an aftershock. And the fact that I and 2 other friends were so afraid that slamming a door shut caused us to jump for about 2 days after the fact is confirmable by at least 6 people, and in no way is exclusive. That is a life-altering event. Senator Clinton lied.

But I am not surprised. And it is important. Unlike the separation of Senator Obama and Rev. Wright – as seen in his actual voting record – Senator Clinton lied to the nation repeatedly (at least 3 xs). She has sought sympathy and endearment. She is trying to create courage and importance. And it is all just a false façade to gain votes.

Just as her lie about affecting the Ireland Peace Talks was proven false, so has video about Bosnia proven her a liar. And Sinbad broke the story, not the news media that would have let the story stand if he did not publicly challenge her.

Now there are many reasons to vote for or against any candidate. I’ve detailed many over the past 2 years on all the candidates. But there are a few things that I think everyone can agree are not qualities wanted in a potential President.

We do not want a President that is a criminal nor aids and abets a criminal. So far as has been proven only one candidate has done this. Senator Clinton. The criminal was Norman Hsu, whom she took $1 million from to aid her campaign and struggled to avoid giving back to his victim (the money was stolen – which were separate new charges for Hsu).

We do not want a President that lies to the American public. Senator McCain may make momentary mistakes between the name of Iran and Iraq – which every person discussing the 2 has done in conversation, Senator Obama may not have been at every one of the sermons that Rev. Wright made (3x a week for 20 years). Maybe hearing a rant against the nation (like the ones made by Jerry Falwell after 9/11) or against a group of people (like the claims about AIDS made by Pat Robertson) is not something someone would want to admit – like being caught cheating on a wife. But to stand in front of the American people and to repeatedly and directly lie is wrong.

When President Bush stated America needed to remove the weapons of mass destruction he lied (to some degree) and that has created huge resentment in America and at least some of the Democrats. When former-President Bill Clinton stated under oath and on television broadcasts to the nation that he did not have sexual relations with Monika Lewinsky he lied. And when Senator Hillary Clinton made up events in Ireland and Bosnia she has lied about her ability, courage, and experience. If a Republican, Democrat or Independent was upset and livid about the first 2 events and wished they could take back their vote from those 2 Presidents – why would any voter elect a potential candidate that has proven a willingness to repeatedly and unabashedly lie to America??

We do not want a President that will take our money and/or waste it. No one likes to pay taxes. Nor does anyone I know enjoy watching their money go to individuals that do nothing deserving of those tax dollars being spent on them. Yet in an economy that is obviously troubled (at the least) Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have voted to increase taxes for those making $31,850 or more. This increase does not account for creating a universal socialized healthcare system (which will cost taxpayers and individuals more), the wars in Iraq or Iran, or the mortgage crisis. So imagine that as jobs become harder to get, in an economic slowdown where fewer new jobs will be created, more taxes will be imposed on taxpayers and small businesses.

Imagine what will happen if all the social programs that Democrats wish to put in place become fact, and wages go up, while there is less income available to pay bills and smaller businesses that cannot afford the taxes or employee wages go out of business – firing even more people.

These are the issues that face the next President. And there are more issues, like education for our kids, the number of illegal aliens in the nation, and security of our homes. That is where the focus should be for this election. Instead we are hearing about the comments of a non-elected official, momentary misquotes in a live conversation, and ignoring the breadth and depth of lies.

Well I have at least another 40 blogs to create. So I will be a bit slow on posts, by no means am I forgetting to write. Maybe by my birthday, in a week and a half, the news media will focus on the important facts.

Labels: Bosnia, Ireland, Norman Hsu, President Bush, Presidential election race 2008, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Sinbad, tax increase

So there has been a large amount of controversy of Reverend Jeremiah Wright. There has been criticism of his comments, his travels and those he has associated with. And that has transferred itself to Senator Obama.

Not a lot is known about Rev. Wright. I’ve only recently heard of the man, and even more recently about the comments he has made in his sermons. For me that is because I don’t equate religion with politics. They have nothing to do with each other, though many confuse that and believe one must equate to the other.

Of course I have yet to hear any of the sermons of the religious leaders of the churches of Senator McCain, Senator Clinton and former President Bill Clinton, President Bush, or anyone else. In fact the only other religions and sermons that were questioned so far in this Presidential election race have been Mike Huckabee, who is a Minister and too religious (with a firm stance on only Christianity as the backbone of his political views) for the majority of America, and Mitt Romney was attacked for his Mormon beliefs. Thus one would conclude that any non-Protestant religious belief in American politics is considered bad, unless it’s taken to a fanatical level.

But moving that observation aside, what has Rev. Wright actually said? What is so racist and Anti-American? I really wanted to know.

Now the following is not the most in-depth coverage of Rev. Wright. I do not claim it covers all of his comments or beliefs. I have never spoken to the Reverend, so I have no way of evaluating these comments. But I will tell you what I think after you see the video clip.



Now when I as a Black Puerto Rican Republican business owner listen to this clip I have several thoughts. I am reminded of growing up in the Bronx, a place I love. I am reminded of growing up the oldest of 4 children (with another younger brother and sister via my father’s second marriage). I thought back to my time as an alter boy and upbringing as a Catholic. I considered my prior 4 businesses that failed and my time living homeless in California – sleeping on the steps of the church on Orange in Hollywood. And lastly I see this video clip via 40 year old eyes that have also successfully guided hundreds through the stock market as a broker.

So when I take all that into consideration, I have trouble finding fault with most of what the Rev. Wright says.

In the first 13 seconds there is no question of the truth. None. With 2% of all major characters on television and movies being non-White, with all the major music executives being White, with the emphasis of the media on promotion of negative stereotypes of African Americans (especially if we are Men) I cannot fault his assertion.

From seconds 21 – 42 there again is no question. Jesus was Black (hair of wool and skin of bronze are not White or European traits). The Romans were White and did rule the land.

From seconds 53 – 1:35 again there is no question. Politics in America have been exclusively run by rich, White men. Only one President has been Catholic. None have been different from the mold, and few politicians are exceptions of that. And every exception has only occurred in the past 40 years, most in the last 15.

Senator Hillary Clinton has never been poor to my knowledge of her life. I know she would get a cab in New York City, one of the most integrated cities in America, at least an hour before I could. I’ve had cabs pass me to pick up a shabbily dressed White person 15 feet past me. I’ve had police stop the car I was in because the driver was Asian, and 2 White men were sitting in the back; I’ve had police stop the car I was in because 2 Black men were in suits in a nice car as drivers passed us at 80 miles an hour. I’ve had police draw guns on me as I walked down a lit college town street in New Brunswick NJ while they were looking for a White male with blonde hair of my height and similar clothing (the description was being repeated over the police radio and I could hear it as the officers were asking for my I.D. with guns drawn).

Seconds 1:37 – 2:12 are true. Hillary never had to deal with that kind of life. She has never been called the N-word, and no other word in the English language is as offensive or powerful. There is no equivalent in its meaning or its insult. None.

There is no question that Blacks in America have had to be better than the average person in America to get to the same results. There is no question bias and prejudices have existed and continue to exist. The mere fact that laws have been created (and poorly enforced) to address this is proof enough of that.

There is proof that students of color get graded lower than Whites. There have been studies proving that students with non-traditional names (especially those associated to African Americans) receive lower grades for exactly the same work.

Seconds 2:36 – 2:41 are possibly troubling. Just because a person is White, rich and American does not make them the enemy of an African American. There were rich and poor Whites standing up in the Civil Rights Movement. There are Whites voting for Obama right now. I’ve encountered many Whites that have helped and befriended me throughout my life. I’ve had mentors since before I was in high school that have been White. Race and economic status are not reason enough to consider anyone positive or negative. That is racist and untrue.

Seconds 2:48 – 2:51 are true. Senator Clinton has never had to endure criticism because of how White she may be. There is no question of preference or envy or bias from Whites against Whites because they are White. It’s a hurdle that no White ever has to jump, at least in America or in my experience.

Now that is one full video clip of Reverend Wright. There is little I would disagree with. Yet I know that a portion of this clip, all of 10 seconds, has been used to question the views of Reverend Wright. I know that a portion of this video you have seen in full, 3 minutes of a sermon of unknown length and content, is not that reflective of the whole. In fact I would have to say that 90% of it is true and without question.

So to say that this is reason to question the views of Rev. Wright and thus to question whether Senator Obama is worthy and can be trusted with the Presidency, is really a question by some White Americans on how comfortable they are about race and the past of America. It’s not comfortable speech, it is not favorable of the way some want to envision America’s past and present. But, at least this video is honest and true.

I have heard that Rev. Wright has claimed that the Government lied about why America needed to be in Iraq. That is true. There was neither connection to 9/11 nor weapons of mass destruction.

I have heard that he claims that the Government introduced HIV/AIDS into the gay and minority community. I disagree with that. While the Government has experimented on Blacks in the past (i.e. the Tuskegee experiments) that was massively and rightly criticized and ruled illegal. We learned never to do such things again, and I have yet to be shown reason to believe otherwise.

At the same time, the Government made no rush to learn about AIDS or its prevention or cure until after it affected straight White Americans. The same can be said of drugs. Until the children of politicians wound up on drugs, it was ignored and not a national problem. Such are the failures of our Government, and the opportunity of current and future politicians to correct and prevent from happening.

So in total I have to say this. While there are things that Rev. Wright has said or done that may make some question him, there are also many things he is blatantly honest about. From what I have seen, which is not much admittedly, he is predominantly correct, honest and without cause for alarm. Many religious figures involved with politics today are far more troubling in comparison. Thus attacks on him appear to be an excuse to not vote for Senator Obama.

But what do you think?

Labels: 2008 election, racial controversy, religion in politics, Reverend Wright, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

M Hope is a contributing author, writing to Black Entertainment USA and Vass.

There is a question that is being asked during this political race. The question has been asked and answered and debated and even blown off as being ridiculous. It’s a question that has been asked on both sides of the political line. The question is:

“Will there be an Obama/Clinton ticket in 2008, regardless who wins?”

Many people say “No, there is too much bad blood between them”, others say “Hillary will never pick Obama to run with her”, still others say “Barak will not be comfortable with HER as a running mate, having to deal with her legacy with Bill”.

The sad truth is that all those answers are wrong.

Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton are THE 2 strongest running candidates in the Democratic Party. They also represent something much more than just popular candidates. They represent how far we as a diverse country have come to looking past things as trivial as race, gender, religion, and looking into the “content of character” so eloquently expressed by Martin Luther King, Jr. (not that I think Clinton has much content, but go with me on this).

If they do not team up on this election that will say to me 2 things:

• 1. Neither of the 2 candidates have this country in mind when running for the presidency. This is all just a quest for power and fame, plain and simple. The fact that both Clinton and Obama have some different views on how this country should be run is the perfect dynamic needed to bring about change in the government today, which is still doing business as usual. If you want things to be different, you have to do them differently.
  
  
• 2. Neither of the 2 is qualified for the Presidency. Pardon me for being out of line, but being the President requires that you make some decisions that will preclude trivial things like pride, self-worth, feelings, etc. If you can’t make a decision about what is best for your Party as opposed to your feelings, how can you begin to hope to lead this country which is now at a crossroads the like we have never seen before and will never see again?
  

I don’t claim to support either Democrat or Republican candidates, but I do know this. In order for the Democrats to win this election, I can’t see how Clinton and Obama (or Obama and Clinton, whichever way you prefer) can not partner up and focus on the business of bringing change to this country. That is, if that’s what they really want to do…

Labels: Demcratic Party, election 2008, presidential cantidates, Republican Party, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

**The I Love America That's Why I vote! campaign is not partisan. No matter who you choose, the important thing is to have your voice heard with your vote. Register today.**

The number of people that have come out to vote today has been remarkable among the Democrats. Not nearly so for Republicans, but the voice of America is being heard. And that voice is matching what my polls have long said, in one manner.

In my poll which has run from 2007 until today, there has been an overwhelming outcry for Senator Barack Obama [seen on Black Entertainment USA]. 51% of all votes have chosen Senator Obama, and the next closest choice lags far behind. Senator Clinton is the 2nd choice in my poll, but trails Senator Obama 2:1. In terms of the Republican candidates, Senator John McCain dominates all other challengers by more than 3:1. In comparing the top 3 no Presidential is more favored than Senator Obama.

And in Super Tuesday voting we saw that this is a trend in the nation. Out of the 21 states that voted today clear statements were made, though the issue of delegates is less so. 61% of the states voted in favor of Senator Obama, on the Democratic race. Looking at the voting percentages, 52% of the Democrats picked Senator Obama. If this were the actual Presidential Race, the news would now be that the popular vote was won by Obama. But that news would be singed by the fact that the delegate voting has gone to Clinton.

I think nothing would be more devastating to the nation than to have the public pick one candidate, and the electoral college deciding that someone else won. After the highly debated and problematic 2000 and 2004 elections clarity in the voice of America is needed. The only way I know that this can not be a factor is to have the voice of America, your voice, clearly stated. That means voting.

Register for the vote. Not because I am important, or you like my writing. Vote, not because I am successful or that I am asking you to. Vote because your life, and those of your loved ones will be directly affected by the outcome. Your vote could be the difference between how the war in Iraq is resolved, which direction taxes go, whether illegal aliens will gain or lose their position in America, and the quality of life of your children and grand-children. These are all things that only you will be able to affect, and you would do so via your Constitutional Right.

That Right is something that many in the world envy and die for. That Right is coveted by the candidates. And you hold that power. But it’s an impotent power if you don’t register and vote.

Here are the results, as of 2 am. If there is any result you disagree with, there is only one answer. Vote for someone and change the answers you see.

Alabama Democratic Vote Republican Vote
56% - Obama 41% - Huckabee
42% - Clinton 37% - McCain

Alaska 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Arizona 50 % - Clinton 47% - McCain
41% - Obama 34% - Romney

Arkansas 69% - Clinton 61% - Huckabee
27% - Obama 20% - McCain

California 54% - Clinton 44% - McCain
34% - Obama 26% - Romney

Colorado 67% - Obama 59% - Romney
32% - Clinton 19% - McCain

Connecticut 51% - Obama 52% - McCain
47% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Delaware 53% - Obama 45% - McCain
42% - Clinton 33% - Romney

Georgia 66% - Obama 34% - Huckabee
31% - Clinton 32% - McCain

Idaho 80% - Obama
17% - Clinton

Illinois 64% - Obama 47% - McCain
33% - Clinton 25% - Romney

Kansas 74% - Obama
26% - Clinton

Massachusetts 56% - Clinton 51% - Romney
41% - Obama 41% - McCain

Minnesota 67% - Obama 42% - Romney
32% - Clinton 22% - McCain

Missouri 49% - Obama
48% - Clinton

Montana 38% - Romney
25% - Paul

New Jersey 54% - Clinton 55% - McCain
44% - Obama 28% - Romney


New York 57% - Clinton 51% - McCain
40% - Obama 26% - Romney

North Dakota 61% - Obama 36% - Romeny
37% - Clinton 23% - McCain

Oklahoma 55% - Clinton
31% - Obama

Tennessee 54% - Clinton 34% - Huckabee
41% - Obama 31% - McCain

Utah 57% - Obama 90% - Romney
39% - Clinton 5% - McCain

West Virginia 52% - Huckabee
47% - Romney

Labels: democrat, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, republican, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain, Super Tuesday, That's why I vote, voter registration

So Hillary Clinton has done it again. For the second time since the start of the Democratic nomination process this year, she has won a race that no other Democratic candidate has tried to be in. Even more importantly, the crucial number of delegates that will decide who is the party’s nominee, has not changed as Florida had 0 delegates to give.

This was generally known beforehand. All the Democratic candidates had previously agreed with the DNC not to compete or advertise in Florida. That there would be no delegates up for grabs. And at this moment not one candidate has entered Florida under that agreement, except Hillary Clinton. Something that The Nation had a few words on.

“Clinton's move insults not just the voters in Iowa and New Hampshire who trusted her pledge but also the voters of all the states that respected the DNC's outline for the nominating process. Effectively, she is saying to Democrats in states that will participate in February 5th's "Super Tuesday" primaries and caucuses and in the two dozen states that have scheduled later votes: You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.”

But after the significant and embarrassing loss in South Carolina, the intense backlash against the Clinton’s for their continuous and race based attacks on Senator Obama, and the impressive and highly publicized endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Senator Ted Kennedy the Clinton campaign needs a win.

Does the Florida result mean anything?

It depends on how you want to look on it. There was nothing at risk for any of the candidates, except the ability to say I won. Everyone was following pledges that they made previously and thus saved money for the use on Super Tuesday, except Senator Clinton.

But the Clintons do have a reason. Like their veiled actions in Michigan, they are looking to use their results to their advantage.

“On the Democratic side there is less and more in the results. While Senator Clinton did win, the race was hardly in existence. 2 of the major candidates were not available as a choice, half the number of delegates are possible and everyone knew it.”

In that case and in Florida the Clinton campaign is gambling that eventually the full delegates available will be released, and as the winner she will claim those delegates. The other candidates have respected the decisions of the DNC and are working with what is available.

But this seems to be a bit of a trend for Hillary Clinton, and her seeming win-at-all-cost efforts.

There are her actions in Michigan, which resulted in a huge turnout and nearly 40% of the voters choosing uncommitted instead of Hillary. There are her appearances in Florida. And there is the legal action that suddenly “just happened” to occur right after Senator Obama received an endorsement from that states biggest union.

Some could call that desperation. Especially when that is coupled with attempts of her campaign to incite images of stereotyping, terrorism and marginalization based on Senator Obama’s name, book on his life, and color of skin. Others would call it smart politics. In Florida it was called a win by Hillary.

One thing I will say is that it does set the tone of the Democratic race and what may happen on Super Tuesday. And I must pause as I consider this thought.

Many Democrats are livid with President Bush. They claim he has broken the law and done whatever he wishes with the Presidency. Yet Senator Hillary Clinton has continuously broken or bent the rules in multiple Primaries to date, and engaged in arms distance morally corrupt racist, Islam phobic, gender baited attacks. As the opinion of The Nation said and I quoted above

“You may follow the rules if you please, but I write the rules as I please.”

If that statement is true, how is it different than what Democrats say about President Bush? How is it better?

Labels: Democratic National Convention, DNC, Florida Primary, President Bush, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Ted Kennedy

So we have another primary over and the results of Michigan are upon us. The Republican race is obviously split in multiple directions with no clear advantage to any one candidate.So far we have Mike Huckabee, Senatoir John McCain and now Mitt Romney each with a win (actually Wyoming was the equivalent of Michigan for the Democrats and Mitt Romney won that as well). In fact there are still 2 more candidates (not Ron Paul) that are looking to gain a win before the Super Tuesday finale. Potentially it could be a 5 way race, and that would be unprecidented as far as I know.

On the Democratic side there is less and more in the results. While Senator Clinton did win, the race was hardly in existance. 2 of the major candidates were not available as a choice, half the number of delagates are possible and everyone knew it. Making the win even less worthwhile is the fact of how big a win Senator Clinton received.

In a race against virtually no one and Dennis Kucinich, the number are roughly 56%, 39% and 4% respectively. That’s a big deal. 39% of democratic voters came out just so they could vote against Senator Clinton and no other reason. That says nothing about how many democrats just didn’t bother to vote in a one-sided pointless race.

Perhaps it’s me but I have to believe that when people come out just to be against you knowing they have no benefit in the action, there is a huge amount of distrust anger and dislike out there. The Clinton camp will spin this as they will, but they can’t avoid the facts of the numbers that with no challenge she still can’t get a sweep.

That says nothing of African Americans. With the recent racial attacks directed from the Clinton camp, and even more personal attacks, the results from Michigan show that nearly 70% are against Senator Hillary Clinton. But that polarization goes the other way too, giving Senator Clinton 43% of Whites vs 22% for Senator Obama.

In fact all the racial tensions have done one thing,

“We of the South have never recognized the right of the negro to govern white men, and we never will," he said. "We have never believed him to be equal to the white man…” - Sen. Benjamin Tillman in South Carolina, 1900.

That quote was in reference to justifying lynching, but I see it applying. Race is being brought to the forefront and the question being stated, somewhat subtly, is if America is willing to have a Black President. The reason why not is contained in the last part of the quote from Sen. Tillman, and a lingering belief that is held against African American men even today in my opinion.

“and we will not submit to his gratifying his lust on our wives and daughters without lynching him."

Gender has long been an issue in the race for the Democratic nomination, used to the advantage of Senator Clinton. Now the fact of race has been put out there, and in every instance it has been used as a weapon to attack Senator Obama.

What happens in Nevada is yet another question. The fact that where the primary is going to be held is an issue. It seems because Senator Obama got the largest union there, decisions made months ago are now at issue. Again it seems a Clinton attack on Senator Obama.

But what will happen in the Republican race? No idea. There is no consensus and no consensus on why. But there are a couple of probable outcomes. Ron Paul has no chance, no matter what his die hard legions on the internet believe. Rudy Giuliani has made a very risky gamble targeting Florida, the retirement haven of many New Yorkers, because he may well be flying in the face of a massive stampede of support for candidates other than himself. Add to that the fact that many natives of New York City did not like his tenure as Mayor, and now being in Florida has not improved their opinion.

Fred Thompson is equally in danger. While slightly better situated in South Carolina, and having made a few strong showings in recent debates, his chances are better than Rudy Giuliani and that has been proven in ever vote to date.

Ultimately, the vicious and brutal nature of the Democratic race is where I am really interested. I have stated I was fearful of the negative use of race against Senator Obama. I have noted that the attacks of Senator Clinton late in 2007 show a desire to inflict whatever damage necessary to win.

I just have to ask the Democrats out there, do you truly want a candidate and potential President that is willing to use whatever manipulation, gender bias, and smears necessary to win?

Labels: Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, Mitt Romney, Ron Paul, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After the solid wins by Senator Obama and Mike Huckabee in Iowa yesterday, the one thing that can be sure is that increased scrutiny of their past is about to begin. To that end I am no different than most.

I was looking around and I did find some interesting facts. I can’t say they are horrendous items, but they are reported facts that should be known by citizens as they go to the primaries, and if they were to go to the election as well. You can determine if these items are important to you, but at least you will know.

[These items were found at Judicial Watch and I make no claim to their motivations or credibility.]

Mike Huckabee –

“According to The Associated Press: “[Huckabee’s] career has also been colored by 14 ethics complaints and a volley of questions about his integrity, ranging from his management of campaign cash to his use of a nonprofit organization to subsidize his income to his destruction of state computer files on his way out of the governor’s office.” And what was Governor Huckabee’s response to these ethics allegations? Rather than cooperating with investigators, Huckabee sued the state ethics commission twice and attempted to shut the ethics process down.”

Senator Obama –

“In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin “Tony” Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company’s shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.”

In addition to the 2 winners of the Iowa caucus there are a few other items on 2 more Presidential candidates. One is on Senator Clinton, which I have covered previously in posts as the events unfolded or became known to the public. The other candidate is Rudy Giuliani who has discussed his actions with his then girlfriend and now current wife. He has stated that the costs, paid by the NYPD, were required as part of the normal protection provided to the Mayor of New York City. You can determine if that answer is good enough or not.

Senator Clinton –

“In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 – and rightly so – for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary’s top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.”

Rudy Giuliani –

“Giuliani came under fire in late 2007 after it was discovered the former New York mayor’s office “billed obscure city agencies for tens of thousands of dollars in security expenses amassed during the time when he was beginning an extramarital relationship with future wife Judith Nathan in the Hamptons…” ABC News also reported that Giuliani provided Nathan with a police vehicle and a city driver at taxpayer expense. All of this news came on the heels of the federal indictment on corruption charges of Giuliani’s former Police Chief and business partner Bernard Kerik, who pleaded guilty in 2006 to accepting a $165,000 bribe…”

Now there are some items for you to mull over. I am still very angry over the Norman Hsu issue. The fact that a potential head of the Executive Office associates with a known fugitive of the law is bad enough, but the fact that she took $1million dollars from him is much worse. Add to that the attempt by her campaign to ignore, then minimize the amount of money donated and I have serious complaints.

As for Guiliani’s buddy the former Police Chief, I had no love for him or his tactics while Rudy was in office. It was under his time that the murder and attacks on Patrick Dorismond, Abner Louima and others occurred. Say 9/11 as fast and as often as you can, but unjustified murder and torture are just as prominent in the minds of most New Yorkers.

Labels: Abner Louima, Bernard Kerik, Mike Huckabee, Norman Hsu, Patrick Dorismond, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton

So some may have noticed the news today on Reverend Al Sharpton. If you missed it, simply stated it was that the Feds have started an investigation on Rev. Sharpton. Now you may ask why? To check what he did with funds he received while running for President in 2004.

Yes, virtually 4 years after the fact, the Feds now believe there may have been something wrong going on. And they will not stop before they turn every stone, in an effort to find something out of place. I have little doubt that they will in fact find something too. With the amounts of money involved, and the nature of politics these days I’m sure some money was a bit fuzzy. But more on that in a second.

Rev. Sharpton is claiming that this is simply the Government penalizing him for highlighting the failures of the justice system, in particularly with his march last month for the benefit of the Jena 6. I am no great fan of the reverend but I will have to say that in this case, he is probably right. I mean if there was some question, does anyone think it would take this long to find? Considering the nature and background of Rev. Sharpton, does anyone doubt that officials checked every i and t for their dots and crosses throughout his failed campaign?

More importantly I have a bigger question to ask. Where is the Federal investigation into Senator Hilary Clinton?

Perhaps some have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the fact that Senator Clinton took a million dollars from criminal-at-large Norman Hsu. Hello, $1,000,000 that was donated to Senator Clinton from a known fugitive. Any bells going off?

How about the fact that initially the Clinton campaign denied they took money, then found out they took $25,000 which they planned to keep. As there was more news they offered to give back, to the fugitive Hsu, $32,000 he donated. When the media found out it was in fact $1 million, and only then, suddenly the Clinton campaign “found” that they were right and offered to give the entire amount to charity.

I for one have yet to hear the name of the charity the money was given to. Which is important as it was found that Norman Hsu scammed tens of millions from investors, which he gave to Senator Clinton and several other Democrats. Those investors that got bilked want their money back. So does anyone know what happened to the money? Is everyone sure that it’s all accounted for?

Can you really be sure that a candidate that is known for micromanaging every aspect of her campaign, who has been photographed and filmed at functions with Hsu, whose campaign continuously attacks every other Democratic candidate – especially Senator Obama as he has gained in polls – and then apologizes when that attack is received badly by the public. Do you really believe that kind of candidate has no issues in their financing? Especially when that same candidate leads EVERYONE in money from lobbyists and institutions?

So I ask again WHERE IS HER INVESTIGATION? Or are we to believe that the Feds are only capable of recognizing well documented facts and violations of campaign finance laws 4 years in hindsight? If at all.

I truly believe that the only reason more is not being made of the Rev. Al Sharpton investigation is because there would HAVE TO BE a demand that the same investigation be made of Senator Clinton.

You won’t hear of this from Rev. Sharpton. He is a Democrat, and supports Clinton (last I heard). The other Democrats will probably stay quiet as well, lest they draw the ire of ultra-liberal party die-hards. Expect to hear that question LOUDLY from the Republican primary winner, unless they too have a few Hsu’s in the closet.

Either way, the timing and nature of this investigation just tells me one thing. The justice system is corrupt, and it has friends in other parts of the Government that will punish those that bring any light to that corruption. It’s hard not to think that, regardless of the dubious nature and background of Rev. Sharpton.

Now the only question left is whether those who champion election finance reform will stand up and defend Rev. Sharpton, or denounce Senator Clinton. Anything else implies, if not proves, racism and Government supported corruption.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Democratic candidates, Norman Hsu, political finance, Senator Hillary Clinton

They just mentioned that we won't hear from Senator Hillary Clinton. This is because of the weather out of New Hampshire, and the bombing there yesterday. She is responding via phone though.

I could barely hear Senator Clinton, at the highest level. But I gathered that on the question of healthcare for those with pre-existing conditions, and/or without coverage the following was the essential answer.

That Americans can keep the coverage they have now if they wis, but if they have pre-existing conditions, too high a cost, or no coverage her plan will be there. I gathered that it modeled the healthcare plan that Congress uses. She mentioed that this could be paid for via subsidies so that it will limit the cost of healthcare plans coverage.

That sounds interesting, and I would love further details. But I think subsidizing can lead it its own problems. But as I did not understand her full response i will not fault this.

I do notice that there is alot of questions and comment refering to illegal aliens as immigrants. As I've mentioned before I disagree with that designation. They are illegal, and until the laws are changed (which I would be upset by) they do not deserve any benefit of being in this nation with out documentation - that being a visa, green card, or other authorize permission to be in America.

Labels: Heartland Presidential Forum, Michael Vass, Senator Hillary Clinton, TV One

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Hillary Clinton:

Pros


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


Cons


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

Continued in part 2...

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

In a little less than 6 weeks America will decide which candidates will be running for the Presidency of the United States. This next election will be perhaps the most critical for America in decades. Definitely for those Americans that have grown up with the internet, cell phones, and cable television this is the most definitive moment in American government they have ever witnessed.

Because of that TV One will be presenting a live webcast of the Heartland Presidential Forum from Iowa. This debate will likely be the last held prior to the primary voting that will follow shortly in January 2008. The debate will be taking place on December 1st 2007 at 2:30pm. Expectations are that 5000 citizens will be at the forum, and some will be able to directly ask the candidates questions about their plans and goals for America.

Also in conjunction with this Forum and webcast, TV One has gathered several bloggers that will discuss the various aspects of the political landscape leading up to the debate, and who will blog during the live debate as well. This will be a chance for you to be directly aware of what the candidates have to say about the issues you care about; and to be able to hear the thoughts of other average Americans about the answers given.

I am proud to say that I have been selected as one of the bloggers to be involved with TV One and the Heartland Presidential Forum webcast.

To that end I want to take a moment and review a bit about the many issues I have been blogging about since the beginning of the year in regard to the 2008 election. Long time readers to my site will be familiar with much of this, while newer visitors may find information that they may have missed.

I started the year by sending out letters to several of the Presidential candidates. Those candidates were in both the Democratic and Republican parties. In those letters I asked each candidate several questions that were prevalent in the minds of many people, and continue to be today.

Examples of some of the questions are

“Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been. – To Senator Hillary Clinton, Dec. 16, 2006”

“In recent weeks a great deal has been made of Representative Ellison’s informal swearing in using the Quran. As an individual of the Mormon faith, if you were to be elected President, would you use The Book Of Mormon to be sworn in on? (Please excuse my ignorance about your faith but I believe that is your religious text) Do you feel that your religious background would have any affect on your performance if elected President? Would it have any affect in dealing with dignitaries and governments that hold a different religion, and if so what? What place do you feel religion has for any elected official, if any? – To Mitt Romney, Jan. 10, 2007”

“As a fellow African American I'm sure you are aware that there are several issues that are of great impact to the Black community. One of the most important may be the issue of education. What have you done to improve the number of African Americans that finish high school and/or seek higher education? If you were to be elected President, what plan would you follow that will improve the education system in America? – To Senator Barack Obama, Jan. 22, 2007”

“Another matter that was received in a mixed manner was your choice of police commissioner and the law enforcement policies during your term of office. During your time as Mayor, Mr. Amidou Diallo and Mr. Patrick Dorismond were murdered by police officers in a disturbing manner and Mr. Abner Louima was tortured by police officers which was then attempted to be covered up. These policies and your defense of the police department created a significant atmosphere of anger and cries of racism among the African American, Hispanic/Latino and other minority groups in the city; that was not covered significantly across the nation. For those African American and minority voters in the nation, what are your views on law enforcement? Where do you stand on Affirmative Action and other reforms that address racial inequality? – To Rudy Giuliani, April 5, 2007”

Other questions and letters can be found at my corporate website in the Presidential candidates section, or via search at any of my blogs.

I have also been running a poll tracking the opinion of average Americans on who should be the next President of America. [The exact question is - If the election was held today who would you vote for? – The list of candidates does not include Fred Thompson who entered the race far later than any other candidate.] As of this post Senator Barack Obama leads with 52% of respondents. Senator Hillary Clinton trails behind in second with 22%, followed by Senator John McCain in a distant 3rd (9%). These can be found on the poll on the sidebar of all my sites. Feel free to place your vote as well, I will update this the day of the TV One Heartland Presidential Forum webcast and the following Monday.

So to sum up the introduction, I try to be neutral in my questions and views of the Presidential race at this time. While we as a nation are trying to decide which candidates of either party are the best choices for the nation to choose between, I feel it’s most important for me to raise questions about what we need to know from any candidate. This next election is far too important. And I’m glad to say that TV One agrees.

Expect more everyday, and if I can several times a day, until the debate. And check back during or after the debate. Hopefully together we will be able to find the best choices for America, because anything less diminishes us all.

Labels: election 2008, Heartland Presidential Forum, Iowa, Mitt Romney, political debate, presidential cantidates, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, TV One

**Michael Vass is also a writer for Presidential Race Blog**

So what might be more troubling, a politician that won’t answer questions they are asked or a politician that sets up the questions they do chose to answer? And what does it mean if both come from the same politician?

This is not a new type of question. For a long time politicians have been viewed in a suspect manner. Allegations of being 2-faced, or in the pocket of this or that special interest group is not a new thing. But they are important when a politician is running for office, and severely moreso when that politician is running for the Presidency of the United States.

I don’t think I need to mention any names of politicians that might be accused of the above actions. The media has done a decent job of bringing that to light. Instead I will ask the general question, what does this mean?

How many candidates have done this? In an era of soundbite politics, where 30 second answers to issues that have plagued the nation for years is common, is it wrong for a politician to seed the questions they receive? I would say it is. This is despicable. One major reason is that it stifles open questioning one issues that a particular voter actually has, phrased in a manner that they feel it. I mean to say where to you stand on say the war in Iraq is different than saying for and against the war in Iraq. Or perhaps having them say something like

“As a young person, I'm worried about the long-term effects of global warming. How does your plan combat climate change?”

Not only that, where are these questions coming from? Is some poll saying focus on this because it’s an area you are strong on, and avoid that where you are weak? Well when a President is in office, all issues must be dealt with. Hostilities from foreign nations (or groups of people), internal national issues, and international economic issues all must be dealt with, and regardless of polls must be dealt with in the best possible manner for the nation. You can’t duck an issue because you don’t poll well.

Do we even want a candidate to be elected that cannot deal with a citizen asking a question they don’t know in advance? If such a candidate is afraid of a potentially embarrassing or difficult question how might they react to hostility from the various individuals that hate America?

And if a candidate is willing to deceive the public, just to improve their chances of being elected to the highest office of the nation, what will they do once elected? Would they manipulate the press? Would they deceive the nation to their own personal end? Can anyone be sure that such a candidate would do anything that was actually in the best interest of the nation? How would you know?

There is too much that rides on the next President. Immigration, terrorism, the economy, and so much more. These are issues that will not end with a 4 year term of office. They will exist with ramifications for a decade or more. Given that, anyone that wishes to be President must be held to the highest standards. And they must answer all questions posed to them, without influence on where that question comes from or what is asked. Anything else is pandering and manipulation to engender cheap votes, and potentially against the best interest of the nation.

Labels: election 2008, political debate, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from Where are the answers from Senator Clinton Part 2...

Before the primary elections occur don’t you think you should know what experience was going on for 30 years that the Senator claims but did not hold any office for. Don’t you want a President that will do everything to protect America from a nation that has repeatedly stated they wish our destruction? A nation that is actively building a weapon who’s only purpose is mass death? A nation that felt a need to kidnap our citizens, unprovoked, and that actively denies the Holocaust?

Or what about a President who’s answers are direct enough that anyone can understand how they answer a yes or no answer.

“MR. RUSSERT: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure what I heard. Do you, the New York Senator Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor’s plan to give illegal immigrants a driver’s license? You told the Nashua, New Hampshire, paper it made a lot of sense.

SEN. CLINTON: It –

MR. RUSSERT: Do you support his plan?

SEN. CLINTON: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays gotcha. It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problem. We have failed, and George Bush has failed.

Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York we want to know who’s in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He’s making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform.”

Like I said, I’ve seen dramas with less twists and turns. And some though politics are boring. Well if you want excitement, vote for a President that you don’t know where they stand. If that isn’t enough adrenaline, don’t vote.

Just remember that once someone is elected, you have to live with that for 4 years.

Labels: election 2008, political debate, President Bush, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton

What a guy, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. He is such the authority on what insults the Armed Forces and troops in Iraq. I’m so pleased that he can stand up and let us know all those people that HE is the watchdog of America.

Actually, Sen. Reid has help in his pursuit of defending the image, respect and honor of the military. MoveOn.org and Media Matters are there to provide him the tools he needs. You know who both those groups are.

MoveOn.org, the supremely left group that so loves our military (the very people who enable such a group to exist and publicize their views without harm) they impuned the credibility and loyalty of the General in charge of Iraq, thus questioning the loyalty of everyone in that commanders chain of command. They publicly, on an international basis, attempted to humiliate the Armed Forces and all that they do for our nation, without question on a voluntary basis even at the cost of their lives.

Let’s not forget Media Matters. An organization that purports to identify failures in media to report accurately, and to identify acts that demean and insult the American people. Sadly none of this can be done without inaccuracy, misquotes and out of context statements. From their recent out-of-context accusation of racism, where every public African American “leader” including Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton found none, to stating Rush Limbaugh attacks the American military when Mr. Limbaugh correctly cited a soldier that was found to have made statements to the press that never happened.

What friends of Senate Majority Leader Reid. The constituents of his state must be quite proud when he says,

Rush Limbaugh owes the men and women of our armed forces an apology

But when it came down to a vote to condemn the aforementioned ad by MoveOn.org Sen. Reid voted against condemnation. That is an insult. That demands an apology.

The factual comparison is that Senator Harry Reid, on the basis of my understanding of his voting record and comments, stands behind extreme left groups that wish to demean and belittle the very people who defend their right to free speech. That he approves of tactics that seek to personally attack individuals that differ from those organizations views. That misinforming the public for the purpose of improving the political status and election chances of candidates they approve of is justifiable.

This is who Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid aligns himself with.

I don’t care what the personal political views of Sen. Reid are. He has his right to believe what he wishes. As a politician he has an obligation to follow the views of his constituents, not rich billionaires that fund political groups with an agenda (such as George Soros), or political groups that are directly seen as extreme even in their own party.

Politicians, specifically the 24 that chose to vote against condemning the MoveOn.org ad (includiung Presidential hopeful Senator Hillary Clinton) and the Senator Barack Obama’s non-vote, may wish to obscure or ignore these issues. I say keep them in mind.

When it comes time to vote, there will be many that may have forgotten what some have done. Sen. Reid is among those that hope that, as do organizations like MoveOn and Media Matters. I will not. My vote is worth a long memory that includes candidates and politicians so dedicated to extremist money that they chose them over our military.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: george soros, media matters, moveon.org, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator Reid

While most would agree that Jon Stewart is a liberal guy, and his Comedy Channel television program - The Daily Show - is equally of a liberal or left bent, he is not above pointing out humor in Democrats.

In this case the wooden and cold demeanor of Sen. Hillary Clinton is where she hoists her petard. Nothing is more obvious of trying to capture votes on the cheap than perhaps the exact same response 5x in one day, calculated by pollsters and advisors as the latest 'thing to do'.

Remember, this false emotion belies something. If it's not figured out what that is before the Democratic primaries, she will be one of the candidates for President. If she were to win, and her true emotions (and possibly motivations) are still only percieved as this same kind of response... who knows what could happen.

Well if nothing else it's worth a laugh.

Labels: Daily Show, Democratic Party, election 2008, Jon Stewart, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton

Here is something that is a nice diversion from the constant bickering otherwise known as the Presidential primary debates. As the nation is coming closer to the actual primaries, and the 2008 election, odds are being placed on who could potentially be the next President.

Some of the bets placed are obscure, others are downright stupid. A few just have to be a joke. You can see all the odds at Superbook.com. [I must give credit for finding this to Mialka Bonadonna] There are a couple of good ones on the Presidential race.

One of my favorites is Arnold Schwarzenegger at 250-1 as opposed to Rev. Al Sharpton at 500-1. Remarkably Rev. Jesse Jackson is at 200-1. Mind you none of them are actually in the race, so it makes their odds even more ridiculous. Could you imagine how messed up the nation would be with any of them?

On a more interesting, and slightly more realistic, realm are the odds for Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. Respectively they are 50 and 30-1. Not too bad considering they aren’t running either, they are both Black, and one being a woman. That makes them pretty popular, more than I had imagined.

Thankfully the odds for the actual frontrunners of each party are rather decent. Even Sen. McCain, John Edwards, and Mitt Romney show signs of being pretty decent.

Of course, the current favorites found at my informal poll [it does not include Fred Thompson who was not running at the beginning of the year] shows Sen. Barack Obama with a huge lead on everyone, including Sen. Clinton. Judge that as you will.

Still time to get your bets in if you are so inclined. Don’t forget to share your bet with us here. Nothing like being able to point out your predictive skills in black and white after the election.

Labels: Al Sharpton, Colin Powell, Condolezza Rice, election 2008, Mitt Romney, political debate, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The question of the day has to be the fact that Gen. David H. Petraeus will be addressing Congress today. That report, being given as I write, has massive political ramification as well the long term effects on our nation. From what I have heard at this time, neither party will be completely pleased with the report I am hearing. But that leads to a bigger problem.

Overall the Republicans want to hear that the war is going well and that the Iraqis are taking over for U.S. troops. Democrats want to hear that the war is as they have long claimed a failed effort. The public though wants to hear that there is a timeframe by which they can expect to have our loved ones home.

The summary has been stated that ‘the surge has been effective, Iraqi forces are slowly making inroads to taking control of their own country, and it may be possible to see the start of a withdrawal in the summer of next year.’ That is a near direct quote from Gen. Petraeus as he has spoken live. In addition troops will be removed from December up to July 2008, to reach pre-surge levels at that time.

So what does this mean? We can expect that several of the Democrats, especially the leading 3 Presidential candidates will not be satisfied. Already Senator Clinton has stated

“There is no military solution,” Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton said last night. “That is why I believe we should start bringing our troops home.”

And the other candidates have made similar comments.

On the other side will be the Republicans and their Presidential hopefuls. They have backed the President and the military from day one. Continuing to do so based on this report means that they will be identified for the continued fighting our soldiers will go through. Considering the large numbers of the public that is hoping for the end of this war in a relatively quick manner, this will not bode well for many during upcoming elections.

But why is this political at all? Did this nation learn anything from Korea and Viet Nam? Have we not realized that when politics override, or guide, decisions of an active war and the commanders waging it, that it inevitably leads to the wrong decisions and increased American deaths?

I was speaking with a philosopher (an actively teaching and writing philosopher) friend of mine over the weekend. She mentioned something that I thought was quite important. She seeks the ideal, the conceptual best path, and is upset that America does not try to attain more of that path. I can understand that and in part agree with it. I think much of the nation would also like to follow that path. But such a path is not completely feasible in real world actions.

Continued in part 2...

Labels: Demcratic Party, Gen. David H. Petraeus, Iraq War, presidential election, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton, Viet Nam

As we approach the coming report on the surge in Iraq, several candidates vying for their respective parties nod in the primaries are taking another tack in their recent speeches. While this is not a bad thing, a Commander-and–Chief should be able to evaluate changing conditions in any on-going military action and act accordingly; it does cause me to pause.

While some have remained steadfast in their opposition to the war and any actions we take there, others have begun to bend, and on the other side a few are prepared to take advantage of any positive results. It’s not that things have changed as much as it’s the political maneuvering that has opened or closed some doors. That troubles me.

Some feel that President Bush has been too single-minded in his approach to Iraq; others say he has not been strong enough. I think all would say that there have been mistakes made in the execution of every step of the war in Iraq. But do we want to have the next President to be equally as resolute in their opinion of what to do, or flexible in their actions merely for the benefit of polling results?

I don’t question anyone that takes a critical look at the situation and based on the facts changes their mind. Yet, considering that there has not been a report made and that it will not be for several weeks still any changes now are more political in motivation than fact based. Those kinds of changes in position are pandering, to me.

“Now, I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20 thousand people. Unfortunately, during the 1980's, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American government, because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran.
…
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
…
Now this much is undisputed. The open questions are: what should we do about it? How, when, and with whom?
…
So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our nation.” – Senator Clinton October 2002

“If I had been President in October of 2002, I would have never asked for authority to divert our attention from Afghanistan to Iraq, and I certainly would never have started this war.” - Senator Clinton February 2007

“It's working. We're just years too late in our tactics….

Clinton's positive assessment of the troop surge puts her in agreement with some high-ranking military officials and scholars, but in direct opposition to many fellow Democrats.” - Senator Clinton and article comments August 2007

I am singling out Senator Clinton because she may be the most easily tracked of many candidates, but by no means is she alone. As facts and political polls have changed over the years and months, so have the responses from many candidates. Often the current comments conflict with the emotion and strength behind words said previously.

Hollow comments based on political gain are not what is needed in a President, in my opinion. Strong opinions balanced with actual fact and viewed from the vantage of the good of the Nation, are what is needed.

Keep this in mind as we hear the responses from all the candidates about the surge in Iraq, and what we can do next. Keep that in mind when we wait for the plans proposed and what consequences are envisioned with Iraq. Keep it in mind as polls move back and forth and the primaries approach.

Emotion may be powerful, but a vote for the wrong person and the wrong reason has ramifications that lasts decades and affects millions. That will not fade even long after emotion have.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: election 2008, Iraq War, opinion poll, Presidential candidates, Senator Hillary Clinton

Well here is something original. You may be very surprised at the following chart; it details the political position of the various Presidential candidates here in the United States. One thing you should note about this chart is the fact that it is based on a wide spectrum, and not just the American political universe. Thus Senator Clinton is left here, but a conservative moderate on a worldwide basis. No doubt that alone makes this list interesting.


One of the things about this list is the chance it allows each of us to see where we land. You might just be a bit surprised. I for one found out that, according to this, Ron Paul and Hillary Clinton are my closest contemporaries out of all the candidates. (I'm 5.75 Right and 1.59 Authoritarian - somehow I always thought I'd rate more authoritarian.)

If you are wondering where you might lad on this chart, take the test at The Political Compass.

Labels: American politics, Political Comapss, Presidential candidates, Ron Paul, Senator Hillary Clinton

Given the attention, and strong feelings on immigration, there is no surprise that it is a hot topic among the various Presidential candidates. Each has staked out a position, usually running along political party lines. But there is an aspect of immigration that gets far less attention and is perhaps the answer to the issue.

Many of the illegal immigrants in America at this time are Hispanic/Latino. That is neither a negative nor an accusation. The fact is, as best as can be determined, that there are some 12 million illegal immigrants from Spanish-speaking nations. The main reasons they have come to America is because they are looking for work, a high standard of living, and the ability to provide families in their home countries with a better life funded by the American dollars they send to them. I cannot fault those reasons. That does not change the fact that they have broken U.S. law.

[I must state that I have very strict views on immigration. I have spoken before on these views. To simply state it, I do not believe any illegal alien, or undocumented immigrant if it makes some sleep better, deserves any rights or public aide in America.]

While many are suggesting that the answer to this issue is a wall along the Southern border (while completely ignoring the larger and virtually unwatched Northern border) or placing National Guard troops on patrol, few are looking at the other end of the issue. Improving the quality of life and income in the native countries of these illegal immigrants.

Improvements of the trade agreements and ability to conduct international business would reach the people of those nations and thus help stem the flow into the United States. It will not end the illegal immigration issue, but it could improve it far more than a wall or troops.

But the key leading presidential candidates seem to be questionable in their resolve on this issue. As noted in an article at the Latin Business Chronicle,

“Measured by their voting records and/or statements, Republicans John McCain and Mitt Romney are the best candidates, while Democrat John Edwards is the worst. Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton - the frontrunners in the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively - both have mixed records. The two have, however, been developing in different directions. While Clinton previously was seen as more favorable to free trade, she now is more critical, whereas Giuliani appears to have gone the opposite way.”

While Mr. Rudy Giuliani seems to be improving his position on free trade, which thus improves the chance to reduce illegal immigration at its source, Senator Clinton is traveling in the opposite manner. Mr. Giuliani is a bit trickier to decipher as he was merely a Mayor, albeit that the city was New York City. His choices and position is not nearly as strong as a political decision that impacts the entire nation.

Continued in Part 2...

Labels: illegal immigrant, immigration policies, presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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

Continued from Presidential Candidates and national healthcare Part 1...

I found a portion of a report on how much money ALL the Presidential candidates have received from healthcare industry contributions. While I’m glad I found the report via a blog post by Sister Joyous Whip of Enlightenment, I must also mention that this post does not contain the full news release. Shane on you for not getting the whole story out there. The full news release can be seen on Yahoo News. What both sites show is the following,

“…candidates have accepted more than $3.7 million in campaign contributions this year from healthcare industry sources, with more than 45% of it going to just two candidates, Sen. Hillary Clinton and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney…”

That might or might not sound like a lot of money, until you look back over time. Adding all 18 Presidential candidates together we find that

“Presidential candidates total an aggregate $12.8 million since 1989 -- with 29% of that total donated just in the first quarter of 2007 alone.”

So far this year alone

“Clinton topped the recipient list with $868,722, 23% of all the healthcare money donated to candidates this year. Romney was a close second at $833,385, 22% of the total dollars. The other frontrunners followed. Sen. Barack Obama, with $574,268, 15%; Sen. John McCain, $423,751, 11%; former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, $408,822, also 11%; and former Sen. John Edwards, $222,950, 6%.”

So the question must be asked, how impartial are the candidates when it comes to the question of national healthcare. It’s not a question of one party or another being more inclined to work on this issue. It’s not a question of if this is a good idea. Virtually anyone will concede that the likelihood is that some form of national healthcare will happen. But having an effective plan that is run better than the usual manner government agencies are run, is critical for it to work.

Do you think this is why so few sent representatives to the Accountability Coalition event? Is this why no Presidential candidate of either party will respond to my letters? Is this why we get soundbites and partial answers to a question that many in the nation want, and will affect everyone in the nation at some point?

The issues that are involved with the 2008 election are far too great and long-term in reach to be taken lightly. From terrorism, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the economy, and many other issues we deserve answers that go into depth. Then we can make a decision that is the best for the nation as a whole.

Copy the questions at M V Consulting, add your own, and send them to your favorite Presidential candidate. Let’s get the answers and get what the nation needs.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Accountability Coalition, Iraq War, M V Consulting, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, Senator John McCain

Continued from Some spin about the Presidential candidates Part 1...

But why is Senator Clinton so polarizing? What makes this one candidate so despised on one side and loved on the other? Is it the anger some have over the war in Iraq? Is it the actions of President Bush that is the real motivation, masking the actions of Senator Clinton?

Negative ads are bad. 30 second soundbite answers do no justice to the populace as we seek serious answers to serious questions affecting current and future generations. But to gloss over the failure in American politics as being a one-sided group of events is to be either naïve or ignorant of the truth.

Both parties have corporate backers spending millions on promoting one candidate or another. All the backers will obviously want some kind of consideration for the winning candidate. All the candidates have weaknesses. Several have serious character flaws, and many have flipped positions that bring their real political standpoints into question.

I don’t mind that everyone is interested in this Presidential race. It’s an important one. It will affect this country and the world at large for decades. But to look at it in a myopic view is ridiculous to me. I have yet to see a candidate that is not taking large funds from corporations and ultra-rich individuals that have a specific agenda. Not one of the candidates has been explicit in their positions on critical issues.

By that I mean, while several have stated in no uncertain terms that they will remove our troops from Iraq, they have not mentioned how this will be done nor what they will do to ensure that future aggressors will be prevented from creating a base once we are gone. While several candidates have said they will seek to create a national healthcare system, none have mentioned how this will be funded, how pharmaceutical companies will be motivated to create new drugs, nor what will prevent this system from being run like the Post Office, VA, or the DMV [the inefficiencies of each are too vast to go into detail about].

These are just a few of the issues that need to be discussed. Until there are clear answers, picking on either party or candidate is useless and worse distracting.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: Democratic Party, Iraq War, national healthcare, presidential candidate, Republican Party, Senator Hillary Clinton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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

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

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

As an example of what I mean:

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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

Concluded from Part 2...

An example is that of Senator Hillary Clinton, which I quote from my previous post, Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech, “when you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about.” Or in comments from Senator Obama mentioning that he is “home” in Selma. Or virtually any other politician during Black History Month, on Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday, to humble or humiliate their opponents, or other noted dates of importance to Black Americans. Such comments belittle what was done, marginalizing the acts, and in my mind prove that the connection is real in the minds of all Americans. So why won’t politicians move forward and apologuize at least [other than those already noted]?

I have asked several in the current group of Presidential candidate hopefuls their position on this question. Not one has answered me. I ask all the Pesidential candidates now, will you support an apology from the government to African Americans for slavery and segregation and the various civil rights denials for more than 346 years?

I ask Mr. Hargrove, and Speaker Richardson, to provide me a sound and evidence supported argument that disputes my position. I ask them to show me how America has not benefited from slavery, how that is not connected to today, how there are not Americans alive right now that denied rights to Black Americans, and how the effects of more than 3 centuries of abuse and disrespect do not exist today.

Please help me with this effort. Pass this on to the above mentioned individuals, and every politician in the nation. Post this on the blogs of the candidates for President. Let’s hear exactly why they will not pursue at least an apology, and at best provide some form of reparation for the $9.7 – 24 trillion earned by slaves. Let them explain why they cannot seek forgiveness for the wholesale slaughter of Rosewood, the destruction of Tulsa’s Black neighborhoods in 1921, the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, and segregation to name a few items.

I really look forward to their responses.

This is what I think, what do they think?

Labels: African American, Black History Month, Dr. Martin Luther King, presidential election, Reparations for Slavery, Rosewood, Senator Hillary Clinton, Tuskegee experiments

There have been several interesting things ongoing currently with the various candidates. As we see that Democrats are trying to push a defunding of the war in Iraq, which I feel would signal our defeat to our enemies and a lack of resolve, there is also comments from various figures on what might be forth-coming if they are elected.

Senator Clinton has made several statements recently that give me pause. Prior to January 2007 the senator was a staunch supporter of the war (while most of the popularity was still mostly divided I noticed) and is now against. Not only against the plan made by the President, but is seeking to limit the President’s plan. Yet Senator Clinton has no alternate plan to offer. In addition the senator has been speaking about holding conversations to understand our enemies. It is the senator’s opinion, as I understand it, that a dialogue is the key to stop Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, or nations supporting terrorists that wish to attack us for being rich, free and powerful. I would equate that conversation with speaking to the local school bully when he asks for your money. Anyone watching would not be surprised when the bully decides to pummel you for wasting his time.

But Senator Clinton has some thoughts [note that she has not declared any concrete plans or opinions – though to be fair nor has her opponents] on domestic issues as well. The senator has stated, and has been recorded publicly, that she would ‘take the revenues’ from oil companies to use for alternative energy research. I’m sure that will help the stock market, and make all socialists quite happy. Does that mean the next step would be taking the revenues or profits from pharmaceutical companies to pay for a national healthcare system? Then maybe nationalizing entertainment companies so that specific types of movies or television channels exist? Where might this process end?

Lastly Senator Clinton stated that if the war is continuing in January 2009, and she were elected President, she will end the war (“You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will.”). Well I’m sure Iran, Osama bin Laden, Al Quida, and any other group that opposes the U.S. will pray for her election. It guarantees their victory in Iraq and long-term. To make such a blanket statement without qualification only emboldens the enemy to continue to fight since they have an unequivocal timeframe that removes any opposition. Not quite the words from a Commander-and-Chief seeking the best result for the nation. But in this case at least I’m glad it isn’t a declared plan. [By the way, I note Senator Clinton has also insulted President Bush by saying he has no power over the war but Congress does, unless she is the President at the time. Quite rude.]

There will be more on other candidates shortly. I will also mention my thoughts of former New York City Mayor Mr. Ruddy Gulliani, especially while I lived in the city with him as Mayor.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: democrat, Iraq War, nuclear weapons, osama bin laden, presidential election, Senator Hillary Clinton

To see a complete list of all letters sent out to political figures seeking the Presidency to date, please go to Letters to and from Presidential Candidates. To date there has been no response from any candidate contacted since December 2006.

Has anyone noticed the tactic being used today by Senator Clinton? The Senator is asking for the public to tell her what they think to a question she has asked. The exact question is “Based on your own family's experience, what do you think we should do to improve health care in America?” Now perhaps it’s just me, but I find this odd.

It seems to me that Senator Clinton is conducting a poll, seeing what various demographics and regions of America is thinking. Once this poll is does I have no doubt that any comments on healthcare will be shaped by the responses in the given region. That is duplicitous. That is deceptive, if I am correct. I also see it as useless.

As a Senator, and former First Lady, there has been talk about healthcare for over a decade. The opinion of various Americans given in this poll is not going to shape the healthcare plan that she has. Her goals have been decided and recited with little variance through out the time since President Clinton was elected. Given that, why would she ask what we the people think, beyond using it to shape the manner in which she might campaign? Is it not the explicit obligation of a candidate to tell us what SHE thinks on the subject so that we can make a decision for ourselves?

I also find it interesting that Senator Clinton decided to have announced her run on a Saturday, via the internet. That seems to eliminate any potential question from the press that every other candidate so far has had to answer, live. And on a Saturday which is not a day most are paying attention to news. And the video recording seemed to be quite old, to me. I say that because there is no part of the Northeast that has leafy bushes or trees in the winter that I am aware of. If you notice in the background, outside the window the leaves are on the tree/bush.

It’s nice to know that Senator Clinton has enough time to arrange and create an opinion poll (which is what I feel it is), dedicate staff to review and correlate the answers, launch a Presidential Campaign, but not enough time to respond to her email from a constituent.

I refer to the letter I sent to Senator Clinton. It was sent December 16, 2006 – some 40ish days ago at this point. [The link at the top of this post will take you to an EXACT copy of the letter sent to the senator] Other than an automated letter acknowledging receipt of my letter. Considering the extended time off for Congress during the holidays, and the 4 day work week, and the fact that Senator Clinton is not in the Congress every day it is open - nor in New York State for that matter – I think responding to a constituent would be nice. Even a letter from a staffer saying that while there is a delay, an answer is coming.

While I did not ask for an answer on healthcare, I did ask for an answer on, “What are you doing to address the drop-out rate of African American males? And what are you doing for Latino/ Hispanic Americans on the above matters?” Also, “What legislation have you initiated, that has passed, that has benefited those living in NY state and/or this nation?” There are other questions I asked, and have gotten no hint of an answer. I don’t want Senator Clinton to waste my time (she is a public official for my state) on an opinion poll so I can hear a modified soundbite that won’t answer my questions. I want Senator Clinton to fulfill her obligation and state what her platform is, what her opinions are. Anyone who is elected President of the United States should do no less.

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: African American, opinion poll, Senator Hillary Clinton, universal healthcare

This is a copy of a letter sent to Senator Hilary Clinton. If and when I receive a response I will post it without edit.

December 16, 2006
Senator Clinton,

I am a citizen, former military, an entrepreneur, and resident of upstate New York. As we approach the 2008 presidential race, more and more of the talking heads on television are commenting that you are the leading hopefully for the Democratic Party. Based on that I would like to ask a few questions.

Before I go any further I must mention that I am the owner of 2 blog sites, and co-author of a third. The site that pertains to this subject the most is the www.mvass.com site. This letter, along with any response I receive, will appear in at least that blog.

If you review the site you will see that I have followed your progress and commented on several actions. While these reviews may be critical, that is due to my desire to promote the best government possible with disclosure to the public that consists of detailed relevant commentary. I invite you to review the site and respond to any comments I have made. My focus is not personal, as I do not know you, and has always centered on the actions or comments of your office and fame.

With the above said, I wonder why should anyone expect that you would run for the Presidency? While many believe that as a female candidate you could cause more women to vote than what is normally found in an election, but that is not a valid reason. To say that you are one of the few Democratic political figures that have name recognition and little negative exposure is also a good thing, but not a reason.

What legislation have you initiated, that has passed, that has benefited those living in NY state and/or this nation? When I say benefited I ask that you demonstrate the actual improvement and not the projected improvement that a study or poll has stated. Obviously any recent legislation (less than 6 months) can’t be expected to have necessarily had an immediate effect.

As a key Democrat I ask, what your party has done for African Americans in the last decade, and more importantly since you have taken office. What legislation has passed that benefits African Americans that was initiated by the Democratic Party since you have gained office? To be fair, what legislation has the Democratic party prevented that would have harmed African Americans (in NY state and/or the nation) and how did the party derive that this legislation was harmful?

What are your positions on the platforms? I have heard several soundbites for multiple politicians and none seem to really mean anything when thought about, at least to me. In the recent mid-term elections many Democrats seemed to have won, in my opinion, on the basis that they were for a change in policy. Yet none seemed to have an answer as to what that new and different policy was or could be. In a soundbite such an answer may work, but that is not a reason to be elected for, especially not presidential candidates if such a choice were up to me.

In addition I ask what are you doing to help small businesses? What are you doing about improving the public education available in New York State (especially city schools)? What are you doing to address the drop-out rate of African American males? And what are you doing for Latino/ Hispanic Americans on the above matters?

Lastly, what is your position on the various laws and actions that are in place or proposed to impede illegal aliens from entering this nation from our southern border only? Do you agree or disagree with the thought that more should be done to protect our largely unwatched northern borders, especially since there has been evidence of how dangerous this lack of attention has been.

Senator Clinton, I look forward to your responses on these questions. I also plan to ask these questions, or similar ones, of Senators Obama, McCain, and any other candidate for the presidency (actual or rumored) throughout 2007.

Thank you for your time and attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Michael Vass
info@blackentertainmentblog.com
President – M V Consulting, Inc.

** This is seperate of the above letter. Items of interest relating to Senator Clinton and or the Democratic Party found on this site:
what-about-afganistan
stem-cells-ect

vass-thoughts-on-senator-clinton
elections-for-06-and-08
patriot-act-and-politics
reparations-for-black-african
A few words on politics, war, and Dr. Martin Luther King
Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech
election-year-stories-for-2006
senators-obama-clinton-and-mccain
which-woman-for-president
no-votes-for-senator-hilary-clinton
Senator John Kerry 'jokes' about the military - 11.1.2006.1

Labels: African American, Democratic Party, presidential candidate, Senator Hillary Clinton, universal healthcare

So it’s election day. Politicians are running amuck trying to convince people how wonderful they are, or how deeply they believe in whatever gets the voters out and for them. I hope everyone has considered what the candidates really are standing for before they made their vote.

Here is an example. There has been a lot of legislation out lately about trans-fats and concern over energy drinks. Trans-fats are supposed to be so terrible that they cannot be used in restaurants in New York City. Of course there is no legislation preventing trans-fats from being made or sold. So politicians have put a lot of time into deciding what food you should eat. [Remarkably I didn’t notice any comment from Senator Hilary Clinton. This is rare for her considering it was in the news and dealing with NYC. Probably some pollster let her know that it would make her look like she was a Senator for New York and could separate her from voters in the mid-west.] I expect to hear about how the 500 energy drinks will be limited soon as well. The reason being that some choose to use them like a drug, trying to get a buzz. The reward for such actions are heart-palpitations or caffeine poisoning. I don’t doubt this will be another hot topic that will get resolved near term. Not like there was much else for local, state or federal government to do.

Some might say why didn’t I discuss any of this before the election. I simply have to mention this: Election year stories for 2006,Commenting on Sen. Hillary Clinton's Dr. Martin Luther King Day speech, Senators Obama, Clinton and McCain, War on terror poll - Part 1, Which woman for president?, Immigration and student aid for college.

And yes I know the archives are a bit off. I’m working on getting it fixed. Lots to do, little time. Bear with me please.

Labels: Democratic Party, mvass.com, New York City, Senator Hillary Clinton

Continued from Barbershop thoughts ...

Other than vague recollections of soundbites from television news broadcasts they had no knowledge on any of the subjects. They had not considered the ramifications of any of these events, nor any of the causes. They had not considered how often Hilary Clinton pops up in the national media on a popular subject, but makes no headway on those items or how far she has progressed on her healthcare initiatives she has often campaigned on. They were unaware that the Korean War ended in a ceasefire or that for 50 years North Korea has prepared to finish a war with the United States. They did not realize that North Korea is believed to export weapons to anyone who can pay for it, or that the nation is struggling to feed its people as well as provide basic resources.

Even in regard to the Duke rape case they were unaware of the full comments made by the second stripper. This was not an isolated thing. None of the men in the barbershop appeared to be aware of these facts, just the curiosity of the youngest men allowed them to ask questions where the others seemed to listen but refrained from asking. So why did a group of African American men that were under 30 have none that were aware of current facts, nor familiar with any background either.

I’m troubled by this lack of knowledge. The ramifications in terms of politics is horrendous. For all those that say the system is horrible which some in theis group inferred I have to say, how can you complain if you don’t even understand what is going on? How can the system improve if you aren’t involved?

I also have to ask what is going on with education. How can these men not be aware of recent history of this nation? The Korean War was not that long ago. Many veterans of this war are still living today. The repercussions of this war still resonate today.

The level of misconceptions that were accepted as fact was huge as well. Things like America is out of oil, that Hilary Clinton has voted consistently and advancing her campaign issues, that rich kids don’t join the military, that the victim in the Duke case had nothing more to say than a single soundbite (mis)quoted on the news and more.

Does this disturb anyone besides me? The youth of America, and in particular Black America, have no idea what is going on nor what has happened in the past. That doesn’t mean these men are unintelligent, but it does mean that they are ill-prepared to deal with the world. In 20 years they will have to help guide the nation and their own children, where might they lead them? How long will it take them to correct these false concepts, if ever? What prevents abuses in the system that will deter their advancement and that of their children?

Binghamton may be a small town (or city as those from this area call it) but it is also a college town. There are 2 colleges and a community college found here. Most of the men appeared to have jobs (half were working in the shop, most of the others dress seemed like office attire except the 2 youngest which were in thuggish attire – it was lunchtime). Given this what conclusion is there to be made? Do you think this represents the nation? If so do you feel the same discomfort I do?

This is what I think, what do you think?

Labels: community college, Korean War, Senator Hillary Clinton, television news broadcasts

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

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

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

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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