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

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

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

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

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

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

Does the Florida result mean anything?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

]

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

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

This is what I think, what do you think?

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