I find it interesting as we come upon the 2008 election to reflect on what has occurred in this year. From the surprising Democratic Primaries up til now there has been a shift in politics that will never be undone. I never thought I would see this in my lifetime, and now I look forward to the fact that it will happen again and again.

Obviously I am speaking about Senator Obama, his rise in prominence, and the potential of his becoming the First Black President.

It’s a proud moment for every African American. Especially for those of us that have lived decades without the chance even being a glimmer in possibility. This in many ways is the culmination of the struggles of the 1960’s.

To bad that I won’t vote for him.

And that is the big thing. I have been slammed by associates, readers, and too many others on this one point. The non-acceptance of my decision to not vote for Obama has been a sledgehammer in my blogs and my personal life. You would think I was stabbing someone.

This has been a very personal election, unlike any other in my life. I’ve been questioned, insulted, disputed, and more often than not cursed. Were it not happening to me I’d even say it was sort of funny.

I can’t count the number of times I’ve been told I’m not Black. That I’ve done something wrong. That writing about the issues, and noting the problems I have with Obama’s policies is somehow a disservice to my race. I’ve even been told I’m un-American. And of course there have been more than a few racists that have misused my words and thoughts for their own twisted ends.

But tonight I was just sitting back writing and listening to my MP3 (I bought my first one just this year) and James Brown’s Say It Loud came up. I listened to the lyrics several times and then read them.

Uh! With your bad self!

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!

Some people say we've got a lot of malice
Some say it’s a lot of nerve
But I say we won't quit moving until we get what we deserve
We have been bucked and we have been scorned
We have been treated bad, talked about as just bones
But just as it takes two eyes to make a pair, ha
Brother we can’t quit until we get our share

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!
One more time!
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud!

I worked on jobs with my feet and my hand
But all the work I did was for the other man
Now we demand a chance to do things for ourselves
We're tired of beatin' our head against the wall
And workin' for someone else

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud

We're people, we're just like the birds and the bees
We'd rather die on our feet
Than be livin' on our knees

Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud
Say it loud: I'm black and I'm proud

I’m Black Puerto Rican and I’m Proud. I’m also insulted that I have to make such a statement because of my political beliefs.

I have worked hard, lived through fights, slurs, been denied jobs, and been homeless twice. I’ve gained an education, never been hooked on drugs, lived overseas, been part of the military, and helped more than a few on my path to where I am today. And every day I’ve lived I woke up as Black Puerto Rican as the day before. I have no illusions, and no problems with that.

But to try to discredit my lineage and birthright because of a political position is just absurd. It pisses me off.

This election is not about righting the wrongs of racism, segregation or any other race based issue past or present. Obama is not Malcolm X, Martin Luther King or any other civil rights activist. Electing Obama will not suddenly make police forces in L.A., New York, Philadelphia or anywhere in the nation treat Black, or any other racial and ethnic group, any better than the day before. And racists won’t wake up with larger minds or a better understanding of humanity.

I respect and admire Senator Obama. He’s accomplished things I wouldn’t try to do. The fear of being murdered, especially before I could enact positive change on some issues is too strong in me. He is going for it anyway and that takes balls.

But that does not mean I must follow blindly and accept his every word and policy as best because he said so. His path was no less difficult or extraordinary than my own, and that of millions of other non- and White Americans. As such he is subject to the same critique as anyone. In fact I would consider myself much less of a man, and less of a Black Puerto Rican, if I did not judge him in the same way I would anyone else.

Listen to that song. James Brown didn’t ask for any corners cut. He didn’t demand obedience to a color, in fact he demands the opposite. He demands that we empower ourselves and live by the standards we create. That everyone that meets us shows the same respect and dignity that we exemplify individually and as a group.

And when I have lived a life of just that, how dare anyone try to denigrate me for that.

Obviously I am speaking about a few people. Many have sound reasons for believing in Obama. Many never considered race and they came to a separate decision than mine. And I respect that.

But that’s not who I am talking about.

I’m talking about the people that loved me when I supported Senator Obama over Senator Clinton in the Democratic Primaries. They also ignored my support of Fred Thompson and Senator McCain at the time. They ignored my strong Republican views. They only saw my race and that of Obama. Some where White, and some where not.

It’s those same people that have abandoned my blogs, or attacked them since. And I have to wonder how they came to see me as any less of a man, no matter my color.

When America comes to a point where race is more important than the man or the message, the nation is in trouble. Just as the nation was falling in the late 50’s and 60’s the same threat still exists. And when that same color-focused blinders are on and any deviation is attacked we return to the same dangers that existed a mere 40 years ago.

Maybe I’ve followed this election for too many years, been too involved in trying to cover the facts that too few have the time to see. Maybe I’m up to late every night and day for you my readers. Maybe I need a vacation as my skin is getting a bit thin.

So yes I’m venting. But as that may be, I’ll get some sleep and be back at it tomorrow like I have for years now. I hope to see you all then.

Labels: African American, Black Republican, James Brown, Michael Vass, Presidential election race 2008, puerto rican, race in America, Senator Obama

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

The following is the full interview between Bill O’Reilly and Senator Obama as first seen on the O’Reilly Factor. For commentary on each part of the interview please check out Black Entertainment USA

Part 1 Iraq



Part 2 The Economy



Part 3 Bill Ayers, Rev. Wright



Part 4 Alternative Energy and Domestic Drilling

Labels: alternative energy, American economy, Bill Ayers, Bill O'Reilly, domestic drilling, Iraq, O'Reilly Factor, Presidential election race 2008, Rev. Wright, Senator Obama

Now some may be wondering why I haven’t commented recently on the big news item that is racing across the media right now. The comment is the rage among pundits and political commentators.



I haven’t said anything about this because it is stupid. Senator Obama was not speaking about Gov. Sarah Palin. To do so would invite women voters to jump on the McCain - Palin ticket. To do so would be a strike against women’s rights and so many other factors.

When I first heard this comment I asked a woman I know what she thought of it. She was reminded of an old saying. She did not see any connection to Palin. And in the context of the full comment, not the polispeak edited version the media needs to drive up ratings, you can see that this opinion is the only real response.

This is not worth the time I have given it so far. It’s definitely not worth the time the pundits have dedicated to it.

What about why Gov. Palin believes drilling in ANWR is an obvious choice. How about what she believes would help our children gain an education. What about her position on the 2nd Amendment?

How about why Democrats are so busy attacking and discussing the VICE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE, as opposed to Senator McCain. Please explain to me why the VP needs so much attention when the President is the forerunner of policy. Senator Obama isn’t up against Gov. Palin, and lucky for him as he would be losing hands down right now.

In 2 weeks the Democrats have forgotten that the VP does not make the final decision. And Senator Biden has all but disappeared – though he is the one best positioned to take on his rival. But the fact is that Democrats fear Gov. Palin. It’s not a debatable question, it’s a fact that has filled the news and blogs.

So the question is not if Obama can be taken out of context by a media looking for the next ratings grab. The question is can Obama not be distracted and address the issues that America will be voting on.

That’s why I’ve been quiet the last couple of days.

Labels: anwr, election coverage, Gov. Sarah Palin, major news media, Polispeak, Senator Obama, Vice Presidential candidate

Music is integral to life. Whether you are young and rebellious, stressed from a hard day of work, or out with friends on Friday music is something that is ingrained as part of our lives. And in this current Presidential election cycle music has taken an unprecedented importance.

Senator Obama has had several songs and music videos made about his historic nomination as the Democratic Presidential candidate (even though Bill and Hillary Clinton might dispute that). The most recent came from an unexpected source, ensconced in wording that insulted everyone that heard it – including Senator Obama. Such is a song by rapper Nas (real name Nasir Jones).

But lest you believe that the only music in the nation or appropriate for a Presidential candidate is gansta rap or hip hop, John Rich would like to prove there is alternatives.

For those unfamiliar John Rich is part of the multi-platnium country music duo Big & Rich. He can also be seen on the popular Nashville Star television program. He’s sold over 5 million albums, and was part of People magazine’s music industry ‘power’ list. In other words he’s no slouch.

John Rich is also a conservative and Republican. And after observing all the hoopla surrounding the Obama videos and the insults made by Nas, he decided to even the playing field a bit.

“If I can make them understand about where John McCain has come from and the journey he's been on, there's no way they cannot respect him for that. The more you get to know John McCain, the more you respect the fact that he's both a patriot and an independent thinker, a rebel when it means staying true to what he believes in. Hopefully my song will help those people out there who are starting to pay attention to him to realise what kind of guy he is."

Labels: Big and Rich, John Rich, music video, nas, Nashville Star, Presidential election race 2008, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama

I had to stop packing for my move and work to present this:

AP tally: Obama clinches Democratic nomination

WASHINGTON (AP) — Barack Obama effectively clinched the Democratic presidential nomination Tuesday, based on an Associated Press tally of convention delegates, becoming the first black candidate ever to lead his party into a fall campaign for the White House.

Campaigning on an insistent call for change, Obama outlasted former first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton in a historic race that sparked record turnout in primary after primary, yet exposed deep racial divisions within the party.

The AP tally was based on public commitments from delegates as well as more than a dozen private commitments. It also included a minimum number of delegates Obama was guaranteed even if he lost the final two primaries in South Dakota and Montana later in the day.

The 46-year-old first term senator will face Sen. John McCain of Arizona in the fall campaign to become the 44th president.

Labels: Democratic candidates, Democratic Party, Presidential election race 2008, Presidential nominee, Senator Obama

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

Here is the first part of their conversation



Now here are my thoughts:

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

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

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

But directly pertaining to the video are the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you agree?

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What ever you do, just get out and vote.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote what you think, but be sure to vote!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Because I thought Al Gore would be President.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love this line,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For those that thought Senator Hillary Clinton was going to just give up in her bid to become the Democratic nominee, stop celebrating. In moves that are ranging from complete racial ignorance, to actual issues she is trying to reverse her position on, Clinton is holding on with claws firmly dug in. But this is not a surprise considering the extent of her total campaign.

Let me deal with the actual issue that Clinton believes is unfair. When former-President Bill Clinton was in office he pushed to create and pass NAFTA. That is fact. While he was fighting for this, the then First Lady Clinton, advocated the plan and supported it. That too is fact. Today, now Senator Clinton says

“I am fighting to change NAFTA," she insisted. "Neither of us were in the Senate when NAFTA passed. Neither voted one way or the other."

While that is true, one would believe that based on the actions of Senator Clinton at the time, were that she was in the Senate she would have voted for it. Plus, this is another item that targets the flimsy actual experience that Senator Clinton tends to co-opt from her former-President husband. She just doesn’t like it when people point at facts and say that her opinion flips along with poll numbers and her objective at the time, in my opinion.

Another example of the inability of Senator Clinton to take criticism appears when she has her healthcare plan criticized. The Clinton health plan does require everyone to be covered. To do so, if you are not covered you will be penalized. And the penalty planned by Clinton is to go after the paychecks of offenders. Note in the quote below that “more affordable” is not completely affordable. This is all fact.

“Her plan requires everyone to be covered, but it offers tax credits and other subsidies to make insurance more affordable.”

So if you cannot afford healthcare under the Clinton plan, and I mean when you get your paycheck, you will lose money from your check because of it. Now to be fair when you file taxes, once a year, you will get a tax credit and subsidies will exist. So I would imagine that the tax credit will cover the cost of healthcare for a year, hopefully since that is not clear. That still leaves you with a loss from the penalty you accrued up until you filed the taxes. If you received a rebate in the first place, as taxes will be going up and there has never been a tax increase in the 40 years I have been alive for that did not affect every American.

When Obama points to this negative impact of the Clinton healthcare plan, he is accused of being unfair. Oh, did the Clinton campaign leave out the fact that the ads Senator Obama used to criticize this plan have been out for over a week, BEFORE anything was ever said by them.

But never let it be said that fact has anything to do with the Clinton campaign. Or rather I would say the lack of a factual and known stand on the positions. Much like the new stance on NAFTA, or the inability of Senator Clinton to be able to answer a yes or no question about illegal aliens receiving driver’s licenses, many viewpoints of the Clinton campaign remain obscure at best.

Labels: healthcare, NAFTA, President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Senator Obama has swept even more states and continued his streak of victories with 58% - 41% crushing win in Wisconsin and an embarrassing 76% - 24% clobbering in Hawaii. While the final tally has yet to be finalized Washington State stands at 50 - 47 with 57% of the vote counted. This makes the number of states won by Senator Obama 24 to Hillary Clinton’s 11, and increases his popular vote margin and the delegate count.

As it becomes more apparent that Senator Clinton cannot gain the Democratic nomination, something that far less than a year ago pundits expected to be a given fact, the internet is beginning to rally to Senator Obama. Consistently the internet, along with the predominance of major newspapers and television/cable news, has been quite liberal and Democratic in their political preference. That preference has long held that Senator Clinton must be the choice of the nation. But with the continued inspirational performances of Senator Obama, the tide has changed.

I for one am amazed that it took so long to happen.

Without regard to personal political affiliation or beliefs, Senator Clinton never had a chance of winning a Presidential election. The reasons are tumultuous and towering. Beyond the baggage that is the Clinton Presidency legacy, there are the numerous scandals that Senator Clinton has had individually. Add to this her outright lies (like my favorite – that she has 35 years of experience which is only possible if you co-opt all the years of public service that her husband was elected to) and derisive attacks and you get the reason why Rasmussen predicts an 80%+ chance of Senator Obama winning the nomination. And all of this does not take into account the 47% dislike that the nation holds for Senator Clinton.

At this point only elderly (65 years of age and up) white voters stuck with Clinton in the Wisconsin Primary in any significant numbers. And I expect that even this group will erode from her shortly, because

“Hillary began positively, but the minute she felt the slightest challenge from Obama, she went negative and dirty and then went into denial about doing it and then claimed SHE was the victim of attacks. Worst of all, she used Bill as part of the strategy. Even a hard-core lefty like me is repulsed when hearing Bill Clinton attack people and then act slickly sweet and innocent and paint himself and his wife as the victim.”

Yet this has not prevented Senator Clinton from stating

“I’m not going to just talk about what’s wrong with NAFTA, I’m going to fix it,” she vowed. “My opponent has taken to attacking me on NAFTA. The fact is, neither of us were in the Senate at the time (it passed) and I’ve long been a critic of the shortcomings of NAFTA.”

[In fact neither were in the Senate at the time, but when President Bill Clinton was passing NAFTA then First Lady Hillary Clinton was a huge supporter of the bill and the President. And if we are to go and accept that her time as First Lady is part of her “35 years of experience” then NAFTA must be part of that as well.]

Nor has it prevented the win at all costs strategy that the Clinton campaign is known for.

“On Monday, an aide even suggested going after pledged Obama delegates at the Convention – in other words, directly thwarting the will of the voters.

After a disastrous PR flap, the Clinton camp denied that statement. But it’s fair to draw a basic conclusion: they are getting desperate, and are grasping for any method to win the nomination – whether it is ethical or not.”

This is on top of the fact that the Clinton campaign agreed, with all other Democratic candidates at the time, on the penalties placed against Florida and Michigan in September 2007. But today they are trying to engineer the removal of those penalties to bolster their own flailing hopes.

Given all this, with 2 debates to come and the March 4th Primaries in Ohio, Texas, Vermont and Rhode Island, I have to question why any continue to support Senator Hillary Clinton. Looking at all the comments and facts, without emotion or preference, I am at a loss. Perhaps one reason those 65 and older are voting for Senator Clinton is the fact that she is White and they are part of the generations that lived in a United States that supported segregation and Jim Crow laws. It’s an aspect that I have not heard discussed, for obvious reasons, but it has been a failed tool (race) used since the South Carolina Primary, so it’s worth asking.

For those that still are unsure of whom to vote for in Texas and Ohio (the major delegate states in the next set of Primaries) the question to ask may be one that Senator Clinton asked of Senator Obama

“What has he done? What is his experience?” – as presented in a Fox News clip of Senator Clinton making a speech on February 20, 2008

The same should be asked of Senator Clinton. And when that answer comes up with an equal nothing consider this. She has been in the Senate longer, supposedly with 35 years of experience and has nothing to show for it. Add that to her attempts to break rules she has agreed to, personal racial attacks, her flips on issues important to Democrats (like her vote and support for the war in Iraq), scandals and 47% national disapproval rating.

So I ask, why would a Democrat vote for her over Senator Obama? I’d like to know.

Labels: Democratic Party, Fox News, Hawaii, March 4th Primaries, NAFTA, news media, Ohio, President Bill Clinton, Rasmussen, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“

---

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

Get ready because Senator McCain only got it partially right.

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

---

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

Sounds vital and horrendous. But the facts are

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

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

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

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

---

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

Careful where you point that finger.

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

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

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

---

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

Are they really?

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

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

---

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

Backwards?

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

---

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

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

Perhaps a bit overzealous

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

---

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

Wasteful spending yes. Just Democrats or the correct amount?

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

---

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

True but the numbers aren’t what you think

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

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

---

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

Pretty accurate there

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

---

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

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

Not true, even looking at the past

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

---

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

Close but it’s not accurate

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

---

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

But as Bilbo would say

“Every worm has his weak spot”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So 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

When the attention of the nation turns to politics, there are few things that most would call inspirational that occur. Generally there are soundbites of this debate answer, or a bit of polispeak that is catchy from a speech. But one thing is certain, in this election cycle Senator Obama has definitely inspired many of every political affiliation in the nation.

Initially this was seen in the Obama Girl video, which was more cute than much else. But it caught on like wildfire. But now there is a video, by Will I Am that I feel is inspirational. It’s not about who you want to choose, sort of, but that our voices count especially when we vote.

I agree with the intent of the video, which I include below if you have not seen it yet. Vote, make your voice be heard. No matter who you choose, as a nation voicing our concerns and opinions we can not only have change, but get positive changes that are in everyone’s best interest.

Yes We Can.

Labels: Black Eyed Peas, election 2008, Polispeak, political video, Senator Obama, voter registration, Will I Am

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote!

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

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

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

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

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

Alan Keyes – Deserves even less comment than Ron Paul.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That whittles the field down to 4.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But who is left?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labels: President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, Senator Obama

Recently I was speaking about the endorsement of Senator Barack Obama by Senator Ted Kennedy.



I stated that

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

A friend of mine brought up the fact that Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is expected to endorse Senator John McCain. The question to me was how I could justify saying that the Kennedy family endorsement could apply to Senator Obama in California.

It’s a good question. And I love the fact that my friend pays attention to what I’m writing and brings up what they see as conflicts. I do have an answer and it’s the reason I made the statement in the first place.

While it is a fact that the Guvernator is a Republican, his wife Maria Shriver is a Kennedy. I have no doubt, though I have no fact to base it on, that prior and since the endorsement of Senator Obama there has been conversations among all the Kennedy clan. Included to some degree of that would be the Governor. While I would never have expected him to endorse Senator Obama, there are other things that he can do to help him.

Prior to his involvement in politics, the Governor was an actor of some acclaim. During his time in Hollywood he worked with and I imagine became friends with many that are liberal, Libertarian, and Democratic. Considering that much of Hollywood is dominated with vocal non-Republicans, his 20 year career would demand that he at least know those of such a political affiliation. It is those contacts, from his acting days if not his current position, that is the greatest benefit he can provide to Senator Obama. He could introduce him to many people that could provide him with endorsements and money that he might need to ensure a win over Hillary Clinton in California and possibly other states.

Another question is raised by this supposition that I again state is based solely on my own reasoning. That question is - Why would he do this?

Because as a de facto member of the Kennedy’s, and for all the support that was provided to him, he needs to do it. I say the help he received, and again I base this on my supposition. I believe that it was the influence, via subtly introductions and quiet introductions to like minded Republicans, which helped Governor Schwarzenegger to win California. As much stardom as he might have had, the fact is that he had no political experience or exposure. The polispeak of American politics generally prevents unknowns from attaining high political positions, unless they receive significant backing. Few politicians would risk their political capital on an unknown without a strong belief in an individual. That belief, I think, was gained in some cases by the introduction and nudge from the Kennedy family stating in effect ‘I think you should speak with Arnold. He’s got great ideas, in line with your Party.’

Is that what happened? I have no idea in fact, but I believe it did. And on that basis, which seems logical and probable, he owed the family. Providing Senator Obama with the same type of quiet introductions was his quid pro quo. Not illegal, nor damaging to the Republican Party. In fact I’m sure it happens far more often than the polispeak we hear would indicate.

Thus, Governor Schwarzenegger is free to endorse Senator John McCain publicly and still help the Kennedy family who helped him.

That is my reasoning, I think it is sound. Do you agree?

Labels: California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Hollywood, Libertarian, Maria Shriver, Polispeak, political endorsement, Republican Party, Senator John McCain, Senator Obama, Senator Ted Kennedy

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

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

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

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

What does the loss of John Edwards mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Republican Florida results are final, and Senator John McCain has won. This was not an overwhelming win. It was not a landslide by any means. But it does confirm several indications, and may well be a precursor to the events of Super Tuesday.

As I had expected, Rudy Giuliani is done. His support will be going to Senator McCain after his unsurprising 3rd place finish with just 15% of the vote. His emphasis on 9/11 and his targeting of New Yorkers has proven to fail to ignite the hearts of Republican primary voters. Personally, considering his at best mixed social issues policies during his time as New York City Mayor, I’m glad.

Mike Huckabee seems to be completely out of steam now. While he may stay on until after Super Tuesday on Feb 5th when the polls close, his chance of winning the nomination only exceeds that of Ron Paul. His lack of strength and highly religious stance may be a factor among the super religious, but for an America of multiple faiths he fails to gain ground. I’m surprised he is still in this race after his 4th place ‘win’ in Florida, but in a week I predict he will be out as well. I expect his supporters to go to Senator John McCain as well.

Senator John McCain, I expect, will have a battler on his hands and will ultimately gain the Republican nomination. His long record of service for the nation, his commitment to our troops in the face of a lack of popularity and a wave of those willing to turn and run are keys to his appeal. He is well respected, and as much as Republicans may be considering the economy at this moment – due to recent events – there are other issues that are primary in this election.

Thus I expect Mitt Romney to get close but ultimately lose. I do not expect him to get the Vice-Presidential nod, nor will Huckabee and Giuliani. There are too many reasons not to pick Mitt Romney, and sadly his religion is among them. That is not my opinion, but what I gather from the exit polls and comments across the net. There are some things in America we are not yet ready for, it would appear.

Ron Paul will get the attention he deserves in my mind, this sentence.

If I am correct, and senator McCain moves on to gain the Republican nomination the question that comes next is who will the Democrats pick? Then comes who will be his Vice-President?

In terms of the Democratic race, I expect a bitter fight. Slurs based on race are not done yet I expect, and with each win for Senator Obama I expect more. The Clinton campaign will fight tooth and nail for the win. They have already bent several pledges and rules, and provoked legal action when things have not gone their way. I expect more to come.

Who will ultimately win? It’s too hard to say. But if Senator Clinton does win, I expect a landslide victory. I will say that now, but I won’t go further at this time.

The Republican race is all but done. The Democrats are in trench warfare. The chances of an Obama-Clinton ticket (or vice versa) is non-existent. The Republican VP is anyone’s guess.

After a year of preparation, the real battle for the Presidency of 2008 is about to start. In the spirit of the Olympic Games, Let the games begin!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seriously though.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or how about when you hear

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

This is just a cluster of misleading information.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For days now I have heard discussion and arguments about Oprah Winfrey. Is it a good thing that she is backing a politician, does it matter that the politician is Black, does it violate regulations and restrictions in the media? They go on with, can Oprah affect politics like she can book sales, does this help or hurt Senator Obama and the Democratic party, how much effect will women and African Americans really have in this next election, and on and on.

But I have to wonder.

Ms. Winfrey is a noted entertainment figure, of that there is no doubt. And there is no question that her fans are legion. To question the impact of her ability to lend credibility to anything she advocates is to have blinders on to the recent past. Ms Winfrey is unique among virtually all her entertainment peers, past and present, in that she moves mountains.

There is no coincidence that because of Ms Winfrey, an 18,000 seat arena was sold-out in virtually no time, in Columbia, South Carolina. The fact is that she wields power. And at the match of that is Senator Obama.

In the beginning of the year, when the average citizen was ignoring the early start of the Presidential race, Senator Obama was called a ‘young Senator without a chance.’ That he would ‘make an interesting distraction until real candidates got involved.’ That was the opinion of the pundits across the major media outlets. How wrong they were.

Suffice to say that Senator Obama is a real candidate, with appeal to all Americans, and his own goals for the country. He is no cookie-cutter politician, nor is he flustered by the Clinton political machine that has ground many other opponents to dirt.

So given the high credentials of both these figures, the fact they have spoken and discussed issues in the past that are mutually aligned, and that they have a media presence individually that is impressive, why are there questions?

When Don Cheadle, George Clooney, and others have spoken about Darfur, the media did not blink. When Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie made efforts to help millions in Louisiana and Africa there was barely any attention. When Hanoi Jane Fonda, and Tim Robbins protested the war in Iraq, few centrists (where I think most of the nation is) cared.

But in this one instance we get something different. We get a real media powerhouse backing a real candidate. That is not to say that Barbara Streisand, Bon Jovi, or Sir Bono, among others, are (were) not powerful in a manner, but they are not powerhouses. Moreso they are not minorities. And I think that scares more than a few.

I think the huge media argument has been very simple and well disguised. Some fear that 2 Black figures at the top of their respective fields can make things change. No one questioned Oprah while she avoided politics. No one worried about how Senator Obama campaigned or who backed him. But the second both were linked there was frenzy.

Why?

Because they both are articulate individuals, and in a manner that does anything but evoke the stereotypes and back-handed compliments usually attached to that phrase. Because millions agree with their views and most of those are citizens that have not historically used the power of their vote. Women, African Americans, and the youth. None of these groups have been noted for actually voting in high numbers or in a block. And some are terrified if they do.

If these 3 groups come out in force and vote, the traditional political power lines will fail and things will change. It doesn’t matter if they vote for Senator Obama or not. The result will be a shift, and many in America are terrified by such a change. Its implications could end the control some have had for centuries.

This is the reason why some pundits try to belittle the “Oprah effect”, knowing that said effects reach and power is known and unmatched. It is the reason why some pundits state it will not help Senator Obama. It is why 18,000 rushed to hear these 2 people in the middle of the South, a point that has not been duplicated in the past or present and cannot be underestimated.

In everything I have heard I come back each time to one thought. Some are afraid of having 2 Black powerhouses, saying the same thing together, signaling the real end to the ‘White Old Boys Club’ in the most significant way. If my supposition is correct, then I herald that chance. I look forward to that change. I am not endorsing Senator Obama, but I am recognizing the impact.

I once wrote if celebrity endorsements affect how some vote. Perhaps I should have asked and discussed if a triumvirate of minorities coming out to vote in force can improve America. That is the real question behind Oprah and Senator Obama. That is the real fear. For some.

Labels: Angelina Jolie, Brad Pitt, Columbia, Don Cheadle, George Clooney, Oprah effect, Oprah Winfrey, Presidential race, Senator Obama, South Carolina

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

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

Imagine writing a resume and saying that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Concluded in Part 3...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...

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