Polispeak is never more beautiful and impacting than when it appears on the silver screen. Such are the thoughts of the Democratic Party and David Guggenheim. And to that end Guggenheim is in the process of filming Senator Obama, a film that will be presented at the National Democratic Party Convention and then hopefully (Dems think) out to the general public.

And why not. Look what Guggenheim did for the doom and gloom polispeak of Al Gore. Since the movie An Inconvenient Truth (which inconveniently contains misstatements and inaccuracies) Al Gore has swelled in popularity and political power. He has sparked the fuel for green everything and the masses accept him as never during his political career.

If Al Gore can be transformed into a media darling and political top cat, imagine what will happen to the already popular Senator Obama. You can almost see Democrats and Hollywood drooling.

One definite positive will of course be the fact that some 10% of voters with their heads up their arse will finally be lead to understand that their email stating Obama is a Muslim is false. Too bad no one has made a movie warning these same people about emails that promise to give them millions from an overseas lawyer representing a dead person with their same last name. If these are the voters that the Democrats think will win them the Oval Office, they are in trouble and have their eyes shut to it.

The thing that gets me is that there are some voters that will be swayed by a film, created by an Obama supporter (he has already donated cash to the cause) meant to be biased in favor of Obama. That’s not politics or a documentary, it’s a big infomercial. But of course how many millions are made off of infomercials each year??

Perhaps the worst aspect of this idea is what it will mean in the future. Direct marketing of Presidential candidates will vie time alongside votes for American Idol (if that show could only end). Billy Mays will be preempted to present the latest pitch by a presidential candidate, promising to fix the world while you sit in your ever so comfortable sofa, if you just make a vote. And as technology improves even fewer people will take the time to use that technology to check out facts, instead accepting the polispeak spouted on their latest Iphone streaming video or satellite television piped into their cars.

Look I have nothing against movies about Presidents, or even candidates. Generally the movies will give me a President I can respect, agree with, and is acting in the best interest and spirit of America. But the reality is that some writer dreamed up that candidate and the ones we vote for are severely more flawed. A movie hyping a candidate like the next hopeful summer box office hit only makes me wary.

Is Senator Obama a good candidate? Well there is no question that he is better than Senator Clinton – a liar and highly manipulative. He definitely sounds great giving a speech. And he is young, which America obsesses over to the tune of billions each year. But none of that makes him a potentially good President.
So rather than spending a stupid amount of money to hype Senator Obama as if he were Will Smith, why don’t Democrats spend one-tenth the money (and time) and just present a couple of fully defined plans they think will actually improve America? Or do they believe that Americans are too dumb to actually read?

Well I know you my readers can. So what do you prefer, a movie highlighting a bunch of fluff or a couple of pages of facts? Which would sway you more?

Labels: 2008 election, Al Gore, Democratic Party, democrats, Polispeak, Presidential candidates, Senator Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

Democratic Nomination - Path to where?

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

janet Felix

Janet,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Leading Democratic candidates Pros and Cons

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

Steve ONeill

Steve,

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

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

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


What Senator Ted Kennedy endorsing Senator Obama means

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

John,

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


The real power of Senator Obama and Oprah Winfrey

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

deb hart

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

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

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

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

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

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


Presidential Candidates Lies: Update

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

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

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

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

Noway

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

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

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

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

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


Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

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

Jim

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

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

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

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


Rev. Wright, Senator Obama, and the media

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

George O’Neal

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

John Austin TX


George,
Thank you. I do try.

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

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

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

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


Remember those before us

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

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

Eddie and Chocolate

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

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


Senator Obama to travel to Iraq and Afghanistan

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

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

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

Francis,

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

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

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

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


Senator Clinton Wins – Sorry I Misspoke

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having just heard the speech by Mitt Romney I want to share my early thoughts. I think that this was an impotant speech, and there will be no end of pundits discussion of what worked and failed in the speech. But from a comman man’s point of view, I have to say that it was a good speech.

I have no doubt in the conviction of the words spoken by Mitt Romney. They came across in a heart-felt manner. And I believe there was a hint of annoyance at times as well. I too share that annoyance, because in the 21st century, with 231 years of existence, America should not have a need for such a speech.

I have to wonder, as I did early in the speech, if Senator Barack Obama needs to make a speech about his race, or Senator Clinton needs to make one about being a woman. Sounds absurd on the onset, but where is the difference? In essence there is no difference unless an individual seeks to find a way to segregate and divide Presidential candidates on a basis that ignores character, intelligence, ability and experience.

Mitt Romney stated [I am writing this before the full speech is available so forgive me if I misquote]

“As President I will need the prayers of all the faiths of this nation.”

The fact is that any President needs this. We are a diverse naton, and no President has ever, nor ever will, represent everyone in the nation. Nor should they. We don’t need candidates that are willing to deny what they are, or give platitudes in an effort to gain cheap votes. And do not misunderstand, seeking votes on the basis of gender, race, religion or other categorizing factor is a vote that is sold cheaply and unwisely.

There is no question that in this nation there are many faiths, and peoples from across the planet. That is a strength of this nation. The basis that we all live and believe that our freedoms are the single most important fact of our lives. It is the driving force of why everyone in the world wants to live here or have their nation emulate facets of our own.

But the fact that this speech needed to be made worries me. It implies that there are some, a great many of them, that cannot accept the freedoms far too many have died and bled to maintain. It means that some would rather stick to prejudiced ideals and huddle in the dark rather than take steps forward to ensure the greatest good for the nation.

I am not making an endorsement, but I am highlighting a thought. Does it truly matter what the race, gender, religion or ancestry of an individual if they are the best choice to lead our nation in prosperity, peace (as much as possible), and freedom? Could anyone honestly say that they would give up any of those things to gain a superficial comfort in having a cookie-cutter incompetent lead them? If so that is perhaps one of the most un-American things I’ve ever heard.

The next President of the United States, and those to follow like those that preceeded them, is not a Man. They are not a religion, race or anything else. They are the embodiment of the nation, and when we pick them properly, the highest ideals that are the foundation of our land. It is this embodiment of the people, and service to them in seeking the greatest good, that is what the President is. To select a President for any other reason, to have a President that serves any other purpose, not only diminishes the nation but in fact harms our ability to continue.

Mitt Romney’s speech reminded me of these facts. He crystalized the fact that the election is not about Democrats vs. Republicans, or men vs. women, or White vs. Black. It’s not about whom a person gives faith to, or chooses not to. This election, like all elections in America, is about serving the will of the people and the betterment of our lives and world.

Perhaps that sentiment will pervade as pundits and major news organizations ponder over every letter and syllable. Perhaps the various candidates will reflect on this as they prepare for the next speech or debate. Perhaps the American citizens will take to heart this thought as they discuss this among friends, debate at primaries, and vote in the general election.

The faith of the citizens of this nation, in our nation and each other, is pre-emminent for each of us and all of us to continue to be free.

If we lose sight of that, we lose sight of America.

Labels: democrats, election 2008, Freedom of religion, Mitt Romney, presidential candidate, religious persecution, republicans

I found a very interesting Presidential candidate selector. There are more than just a few questions. Many I found though provoking and are questions I wish there was more discussion about. This list included one particular question I never see asked on breakdowns like this, Reparations. But it also includes immigration, social security, the candidate’s ages, marital status, national healthcare and other issues.

I won’t say that you should or should not vote for anyone that pops up for you. I won’t say that this list is who I would vote for. But I am presenting what my results were. I found the rankings to be interesting and a touch surprising.

Another nice thing is that this list includes those that have dropped out of the race, recent additions and a couple of top names that are not running but have drawn interest from the media and pundits.

Try it out for yourself. Oh one thing though, there is a huge ad that pops up before you get your results. But you can go past that ad to get to your results without a problem or searching for a way to get it off. I can’t blame the site for the ad; hey we all need to make money right?

You can try your hand at the selector here http://www.selectsmart.com/president/2008.html and you can see the side by side comparison of candidates here http://selectsmart.com/president/2008/comparethem.html.

My results:

2008 President Selector Rankings


1. Theoretical Ideal Candidate (100 %)
2. Duncan Hunter (68 %)
3. Chuck Hagel (not running) (65 %)
4. Alan Keyes (64 %)
5. Sam Brownback (64 %)
6. Tom Tancredo (63 %)
7. Newt Gingrich (says he will not run) (58 %)
8. Jim Gilmore (withdrawn) (58 %)
9. Mitt Romney (56 %)
10. John McCain (56 %)
11. Fred Thompson (51 %)
12. Ron Paul (48 %)
13. Tommy Thompson (withdrawn) (48 %)
14. Mike Huckabee (48 %)
15. Kent McManigal (campaign suspended) (40 %)
16. Rudolph Giuliani (38 %)
17. Al Gore (not announced) (37 %)
18. Wesley Clark (not running, endorsed Clinton) (30 %)
19. Bill Richardson (29 %)
20. Joseph Biden (26 %)
21. Hillary Clinton (25 %)
22. Christopher Dodd (24 %)
23. John Edwards (24 %)
24. Barack Obama (22 %)
25. Dennis Kucinich (22 %)
26. Michael Bloomberg (says he will not run) (22 %)
27. Mike Gravel (19 %)
28. Alan Augustson (campaign suspended) (11 %)
29. Elaine Brown (11 %)

Labels: democrats, election 2008, Presidential candidates, republicans