Sometimes I find it quite interesting the opinions some have in regards to politics. Even in the most neutral of facts some cannot let go of there own prejudices to evaluate what is before them. The most troubling aspect of that is the fact that these vocal individuals are actively trying to sway voters to their often misguided views.

Case in point, I decided to place a video detailing the electoral map based on where the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates currently stand. This is not a really debatable issue. It’s a snapshot of the then current political highs and lows in sentiment of various states. These are not final votes and will change given time. But it does establish clearly that neither candidate can today state they have a consensus of though in America to their views for our future.

[the Youtube video and comments can be seen at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mkYcMWKKn0Y]

One of the comments I received was the following,

“Don't believe a word you hear on Fox FRAUDCASTING!! Nothing but Right Wingnut Talking Points. Watch The Daily Show for the truth. Fox Fakes the "news"!!!BOYCOTT FOX FRAUDCASTING!!”

Now I realize that ultra-liberals hate FOX News. It’s irrational to have such a hate but they do. But how does presenting a fluid fact as a lie help anyone decide who to vote for? How does advocating a satirical psuedo-political pusedo-news comedy show prove that one candidate is better than another? One might be a better subject of jokes, but where does that help the nation and economy?

Another comment stated,

“…which leads me to believe that you like many other Republicans follow blindly with a "Mom and Dad are Republicans" mentality. Now I know everyone is entitled to their own opinion but with an election as important as this..It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see which candidate will benifit this country but John McCain will get votes and it will somehow again be a close election. By the way, Fox News is hardly "Fair and Balanced." …”

Now I am familiar with many in the Black community across the nation. I have never notice a group of people more likely to vote Democratic (or for any political party) simply because their parents did. I may be naïve, or I may not know enough about the politics of other groups in America. But I can say that in the last 20+ years of following politics I have seen more Democrats, and Black Democrats, vote the party line with less idea of why beyond the general impression that they should and the media assumes they will.

As for a rocket scientist knowing the outcome of the election, it seems that the rest of the nation needs such help. There are massive differences between the candidates and neither candidate has the best solution to all issues facing the nation. So if the election will “somehow again be a close election” I have to believe it’s not that crystal clear or obvious.

Those to the extremes of either party will claim how obvious this election is, but most refuse to give real facts and that means you need to do the homework lest you get talked into buying a bridge.

Labels: Democratic Presidential candidate, Fox News, Presidential election race 2008, YouTube

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

Enjoy, and may the force be with you.

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

There has been a resounding consensus that questions presented to candidates via YouTube are a good thing. The candidates get real questions that are faced by real people everyday. It’s a reminder that average Joe is the person these candidates have to answer to, not the special interest groups and large donors. The questions asked, though some were just ridiculous, did not hold back or cushion the candidates, and that is a great thing.

So far this format has only been presented to the Democratic Presidential hopefuls. It created a lot of interest in who is running and why. It’s lead to further discussion on who really is qualified, earnest, and beneficial enough to lead this nation. It provided perhaps the best example of what choices exist for the election.

There was some debate over whether the Republican Presidential candidates would appear for a debate based on this same format. Initially it appeared that it might not happen as only 2 candidates were confirmed to show. Many, including myself, thought it would be a massive blow against any Republican hopeful not to appear. But recent reports state that this debate format will be happening.

Check out YouTube to submit your question and look forward to the November debate. Remember that your vote counts, and if you don’t ask a question now you may not get a choice later. America deserves better than that.

Labels: democrat, election 2008, political debate, presidential candidate, Republican Party, YouTube

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continued in Part 2...


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

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