Well the second Presidential debate has ended and the results will no doubt be the second most important issue in the news. I say second because I have every belief that Wednesday will be another large loss on the Dow Jones Index, as it approaches my target of 9200.

The overall impression of the debate was that it was long, and boring. There were just no moments where I thought it got lively or passionate. I took from this that the debate was calculated and overly-well prepared for by both candidates.

I believe that Senator Obama took the night, not because he was more impassioned or knowledgeable, but because he was smoother. And that includes the fact that Senator McCain offered to spend almost as much money as Senator Obama continues to plead he can justifiably spend.

Senator McCain did himself no favors in this debate. While the structure was closer to town hall meetings that he tends to dominate in, he seemed to be faltering. His missteps throughout the debate did little to quell fears based on his age. Why he was so subdued and off-pace is a mystery to me.

Senator Obama won few friends in his attempts to isolate higher taxes on corporations from the effect it will have on workers and the middle class. While he did provide some clues to the cost of his dream economy, there is no question he wants an even bigger government that McCain, even with the extra $300 billion for homeowners.

And I was not satisfied with Obama’s plans on foreign policy. As he stated, McCain painted him as a novice and his own thoughts have proven that to be true.

One thing I did notice is that Senator Obama spent a lot of time looking backwards. He isolated several events and subjects where he looked back at what had been done before he was in the Senate or in recent past. Yet he failed to look at the full causes of the issues he was troubled by. And that is a problem when the nation needs to be looking solely forward, as there are no time machines for the nation or an individual.

And McCain did himself no favors in the jibes he took at Obama. The format did not allow for that easily and the attacks fell somewhat flat.

Overall I found the debate less than helpful. Part of that is due to the moderator, who seemed more concerned about the time limits than getting full and informative answers. Perhaps it’s just me but I rather have fewer questions with complete answers and rebuttals than constantly watching the clock and trying to oversimplify and thus omitting pertain facts.

The entire debate was little more than stump speeches and television commercials put together for one night. You might better equate it with an infomercial for the Presidency. And that is sad.

Thus I say Senator Obama was able to maintain the boost he has gotten from the fears that many in the nation feel about the economy, and wrongly attribute it to the policies of just the Republicans. If nothing else this has been the biggest factor in the recent swing in poll results. Yet Senator Obama has done the least to fix the problem of all the candidates.

We live in scary times. Unless Senator McCain is able to do something amazing in the last debate, or the economy improves (it won’t), or Senator Obama makes a major mistake the result will likely be momentum that will lead Obama to the White House. And I would warn you to prepare for an economy and downturn that only President Carter might recall well in recent history.

Labels: political debate, Presidential election race 2008, Senator Barack Obama, Senator McCain, Senator Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With the nominees of the political parties winding down, pundits and talking heads are starting to look around and question who will be Vice-Presidential matches. While many citizens may not consider the Vice-Presidency as overly important, in political circles it’s a big deal. Considering the fact that the Democratic nominee will eventually end up being either a Black man or a woman, the Vice-Presidential candidate becomes very important in drawing voters that might otherwise avoid the name on the Presidential ticket of either party.

While rumors are beginning to build, and some older ones are resurging, there is no real clear answer on who might get the nod. So when in doubt, one of the best places to look is where the betting is going. Yes, gambling. Very often where people are willing to put their money, and the payoffs odds makers are willing provide, are early indicators of what may happen.

So looking at PaddyPower.com I’ve found the following:

On the Republican side –

Mike Huckabee leads with 6-4 odds (which I’d call 3-2 but the quote is what it is)
Charlie Christ has 5-2
Tim Pawlenty at 4-1
Mitt Romney is at 11-2
Joe Lieberman at 8-1
Condoleezza Rice at 10-1
Rudolph Giuliani at 14-1
Chuck Hagel at 16-1
Dick Cheney at 20-1

While some of the more religious conservatives may want Mike Huckabee, I feel he is too religious to be electable. Mitt Romney is more concerned with gaining the big ticket and thus I’d expect him to wait til 2012 for his shot at the prize. 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.

On the Democratic side it’s a bit sketchier –

Hillary Clinton leads the odds at 11-10
Barack Obama follows with 5-2
John Edwards comes in at 5-1
Ted Strickland is at 7-1
Bill Richardson follows closely at 8-1
Dennis Kucinich is a ways back at 20-1 (though I like his position on Reparations and an apology)
Ted Kennedy is unlikely at 25-1
Bill Clinton is an extreme improbability at 66-1

As can be seen the Democratic ticket is very murky. While an Obama-Clinton ticket may sound good to some, I find it highly unlikely and very probably a losing ticket. The baggage and extreme dislike that Clinton brings is not worth the trouble, and virtually guarantees a Condoleezza Rice VP nod. This combination also says nothing of the dislike the candidates have for each other, nor the ego of Clinton. And if Senator Obama loses the nomination, he is better off waiting for 2012 and seeking the nomination directly.

John Edwards is a dumb choice as he is already a loser in this position, and could not draw significant support running for President 2x now.
Ted Kennedy is just not going to happen. He’s always talked about in this role, but it doesn’t happen. His name and association are not enough. As well as his appeal on a national basis is not nearly strong enough.

Former-President Bill Clinton may be some ultra-liberal Democrats wet dream of a ticket, but that’s all it is. Add him, and it’s an instant loss.

I expect odds on Richardson to improve as he is a Governor, Hispanic, and experienced with the Executive Branch. His odds go up significantly if Hillary wins as he is an old member of former-President Bill Clinton’s administration. Hillary loves to lean on Bill and his previous actions.

So my bets, if I made them, are on Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for a match to Senator McCain; and Bill Richardson to go with Senator Obama, and a lock with Senator Clinton.

Considering the above, which do I think will win? Well that will be a different post.

Labels: Bill Richardson, Charlie Christ, Mike Huckabee, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Ted Strickland, Tim Pawlenty, Vice-Presidential candidates

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

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

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

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

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

As for her 4 common themes used against Senator Clinton:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

---

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

Get ready because Senator McCain only got it partially right.

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

---

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

Sounds vital and horrendous. But the facts are

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

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

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

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

---

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

Careful where you point that finger.

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

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

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

---

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

Are they really?

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

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

---

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

Backwards?

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

---

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

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

Perhaps a bit overzealous

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

---

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

Wasteful spending yes. Just Democrats or the correct amount?

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

---

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

True but the numbers aren’t what you think

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

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

---

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

Pretty accurate there

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

---

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

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

Not true, even looking at the past

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

---

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

Close but it’s not accurate

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

So Mike Huckabee is definitely looking to prove me and many pundits wrong. His continued run for the Republican nomination gained some strength Saturday with a win versus Senator John McCain. Now the question that comes to mind is does this win mean he has a chance? Not really.

Mike Huckabee needs to win roughly 80% or the remaining Primaries to gain the Reepublican nomination, versus the 40% needed by absolute frontrunner McCain. The chances of such a resounding win seem small and nearly improbable to me, though this election cycle has already proven that many givens are incorrect. Still I cannot see a Presidential candidate that is weak on the economy and so overtly involved with his singular religious perspective winning the nomination. I don’t believe that it’s the will of the nation or the Republican nomination.

Just like Republican wildcard Ron Paul, Huckabee has had a substantial rise in his primary numbers. Ron Paul moved from his normal 4% to 11% and huckabee won. Considering the lack of Mitt Romney I think this has less to do with their actual interest in these unlikely candidates or their platforms, which most I have asked do not know, but the amorphous dislike of McCain.

Overall this will amount to little of nothing. Senator McCain will win the nomination, and while both Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee will gain greater votes than in previous Primaries, they will still not get close to a true challenge.

But when you look at the Democrats we see a bit of difference. Senator Obama sweeped each of the 3 Primaries in contention on Saturday. More important than the win in Louisianna, which was considered a probable win for Sentor Clinton, is the margin of win. Obama came in with 60+% of the votes. While some, like former-President Bill Clinton, may wish to try to minimize the appeal of Obama to being Black, the fact is that few African Americans make up the populations of Nebraska and Washington State.

The most troubling potential is that if the polling data is correct, which it has often not been so far, the entire decision of who will be nominated on the Democratic ticket will not be decided by the voters or their delegates. Super Delegates, like Senator Ted Kennedy and former-President Bill Clinton will make the ultimate decision.

Considering that the popular vote seems to be leaning to Senator Obama, and the very close call of the delegates, such a decision by Super Delegates would potentially go against the express opinion of the public. That is a troubling thought. That the public could be overridden by political inside machinations is against the concept of Primaries and voting in general.

The only answer to such a situation is more voters getting out and voicing their opinion via their Constitutional Right. With an over whelming decision being expressed there is no question as to who is the choice of the people.

February 12th is the next step in the Primary process, and March 4th is the next major delegate provider. With continued 60% wins Senator Obama will take the lead, without it Super Delegate may rule. Isn’t that reason enough to vote?

Oh, here is a closing though. What if, in a truly selfless act for the betterment of America, there was a combination of Senator McCain and Senator Obama (in whatever order you prefer) as a Presidential and Vice-Presidential ticket? Would you vote for that over any of the current frontrunners alone?

Labels: election 2008, Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, Senator McCain, Senator Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy, Super Delegates

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote!

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Keyes – Deserves even less comment than Ron Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That whittles the field down to 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who is left?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluded in Part 3...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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