Senator Biden highlights Obama weakness - who is he campaigning for?

Senator Biden never made sense to me as a Vice Presidential pick for Senator Obama. He has made racist statements, and has made claims to equal the invisible bullets of Senator Clinton. He disagrees with the policies of Senator Obama on key issues, and he has declared (until selected for the VP) that Obama is not qualified and experienced enough to be President. Now he has made further statement s that are confusing at best.

Senator Biden stated

“Mark my words. It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.” he told a fundraising crowd in the Pacific Northwest on Sunday. “Remember I said it standing here if you don’t remember anything else I said. Watch, we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

“He’s gonna have to make some really tough - I don’t know what the decision’s gonna be, but I promise you it will occur. As a student of history and having served with seven presidents, I guarantee you it’s gonna happen.”

So in Biden’s own words the Democratic candidate for President, that he believes is unqualified and inexperienced, is going to face an international crisis just because he has been elected. That perhaps Iran, or some other nation that is opposed to the existence of America no matter who the leader is, will cause a situation that requires a serious and immediate response from the nation. And he implies that this event could involve nuclear weapons, as it did for President Kennedy in the Cuban Missle Crisis.

Now considering the mistakes and failure of Senator Obama’s response to the invasion of Russian troops into Georgia – an ally of the United States, and the universal acceptance of Obama supporters in the fact that Obama is inexperienced (something that even Colin Powell noted when endorsing Obama) you have to wonder what would happen.

Will Obama try to sit down and talk with a leader of a nation that hates America as say crude oil shipments are held hostage? Or perhaps North Korea will openly renew efforts to build a nuclear weapon. Or perhaps Russia will invade another nation, threatening our allies in Europe. And even Biden cannot imagine bama’s response or style.

If Biden is right, and Obama is to be tested as he believes, are you sure he can repond well? Even Biden is not sure.

What I really don’t understand is why Biden would suggest such a scenario so close to the election. Why would he shed light on the fact that Obama’s inexperience and recent mistakes. How does clarifying and promising the likelyhood of international crisis – something Obama tries to avoid speaking about and is often wrong about – help his campaign.

I see the benefit of this statement. But I endorse and support Senator McCain. I have no question that McCain could handle such a situation. But according to Biden such a scenario would never be placed before McCain because he is experienced and strong on international affairs. Only because of the inexperience of Obama, like Kennedy, would this be done.

So the question should be, do we want a President that will be challenged internationally at a time when we are still reeling from monetary instability, engaged in 2 warfronts, and headed by an Administration that is internally conflicted?

Associated Press announces history making news for 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.

Why an Obama + Clinton ticket won’t win

**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.

The Ohio Democratic Presidential debate

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?

Feds attack Rev. Al Sharpton and ignore Senator Hillary Clinton - 12.13.2007.1

So some may have noticed the news today on Reverend Al Sharpton. If you missed it, simply stated it was that the Feds have started an investigation on Rev. Sharpton. Now you may ask why? To check what he did with funds he received while running for President in 2004.

Yes, virtually 4 years after the fact, the Feds now believe there may have been something wrong going on. And they will not stop before they turn every stone, in an effort to find something out of place. I have little doubt that they will in fact find something too. With the amounts of money involved, and the nature of politics these days I’m sure some money was a bit fuzzy. But more on that in a second.

Rev. Sharpton is claiming that this is simply the Government penalizing him for highlighting the failures of the justice system, in particularly with his march last month for the benefit of the Jena 6. I am no great fan of the reverend but I will have to say that in this case, he is probably right. I mean if there was some question, does anyone think it would take this long to find? Considering the nature and background of Rev. Sharpton, does anyone doubt that officials checked every i and t for their dots and crosses throughout his failed campaign?

More importantly I have a bigger question to ask. Where is the Federal investigation into Senator Hilary Clinton?

Perhaps some have forgotten, or chosen to ignore, the fact that Senator Clinton took a million dollars from criminal-at-large Norman Hsu. Hello, $1,000,000 that was donated to Senator Clinton from a known fugitive. Any bells going off?

How about the fact that initially the Clinton campaign denied they took money, then found out they took $25,000 which they planned to keep. As there was more news they offered to give back, to the fugitive Hsu, $32,000 he donated. When the media found out it was in fact $1 million, and only then, suddenly the Clinton campaign “found” that they were right and offered to give the entire amount to charity.

I for one have yet to hear the name of the charity the money was given to. Which is important as it was found that Norman Hsu scammed tens of millions from investors, which he gave to Senator Clinton and several other Democrats. Those investors that got bilked want their money back. So does anyone know what happened to the money? Is everyone sure that it’s all accounted for?

Can you really be sure that a candidate that is known for micromanaging every aspect of her campaign, who has been photographed and filmed at functions with Hsu, whose campaign continuously attacks every other Democratic candidate – especially Senator Obama as he has gained in polls – and then apologizes when that attack is received badly by the public. Do you really believe that kind of candidate has no issues in their financing? Especially when that same candidate leads EVERYONE in money from lobbyists and institutions?

So I ask again WHERE IS HER INVESTIGATION? Or are we to believe that the Feds are only capable of recognizing well documented facts and violations of campaign finance laws 4 years in hindsight? If at all.

I truly believe that the only reason more is not being made of the Rev. Al Sharpton investigation is because there would HAVE TO BE a demand that the same investigation be made of Senator Clinton.

You won’t hear of this from Rev. Sharpton. He is a Democrat, and supports Clinton (last I heard). The other Democrats will probably stay quiet as well, lest they draw the ire of ultra-liberal party die-hards. Expect to hear that question LOUDLY from the Republican primary winner, unless they too have a few Hsu’s in the closet.

Either way, the timing and nature of this investigation just tells me one thing. The justice system is corrupt, and it has friends in other parts of the Government that will punish those that bring any light to that corruption. It’s hard not to think that, regardless of the dubious nature and background of Rev. Sharpton.

Now the only question left is whether those who champion election finance reform will stand up and defend Rev. Sharpton, or denounce Senator Clinton. Anything else implies, if not proves, racism and Government supported corruption.

The polispeak on experience

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.

Live coverage of the Heartland Presidential Forum - 12.1.2007.3

Since this is a live event I will be blogging sporaticly through out the event, taking notes inbetween. Some of the posts will be very short, and I apoligize if my typing is bad. I will try to be as careful as possible, and I will try to get any quotes as accurate as possible.

One of the first things that I want to note is that the link via TV One is pretty good. While it takes a bit to load up, it comes across on my laptop quite well. The image quality of the streaming video is impressive. As is the sound.

The Forum has gathered a reported 5,000 people, some traveling 12 hours on a bus to get there. The people at the forum come 32 states in total. That goes to show how important this debate, and more directly the election is.

Given this commitment I have to wonder why any of the frontrunners of the Republican party have declined to show up as has been reported. Given this is a very democratic themed debate, still it is the last one before the primaries start on January 4th.

The intros are taking a bit of time. Many people are all taking a moment to stand on their soapboxes, and that's a good thing. But I have to admit it does sound a bit like a revival meeting. I'm far more interested in the debate than the mayor and where they are from.

Correction it's not a debate, and the only Republican who did show was turned away by the lawyers. They were afraid it was biased, though there are several Democrats on hand. Shame. I really wanted to see how he would respond. Even moreso how the frotrunners would. It looks bad when they won't appear before 5000 Americans, but want to take on the highet office of the nation.

More soon.

When it comes to national healthcare, who is really winning?

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.**

Swift Kids political ads spew refuse as bad as Moveon.org ad

Ok, I just saw the Swift Kids ads that are appearing on television. I am insulted and offended. Not because they are attacking Democratic candidates, attack ads seem to be par for course in politics today, but because they are using kids and are themed in the most insulting manner.

I realize that this is a smear ad. I realize that its intention is to match the cute innocence of children with political messages. But it fails horribly. Take for example the Swiftkids ad against Senator Barack Obama.



This is insulting. First they start off with an insulting play of his name. “Black orama” is one that instantly caught my attention. And I feel it was an intentional statement aimed at the race of Sen. Obama. That somehow his race affects his ability to lead this nation. That borders on racist.

Then it’s the old, “his name is too hard to say” line. I’ve generally heard such a comment from people missing many teeth and with far less education than my 11 year old nephew. It’s an ignorant comment.

Then to suggest that a persons name has an effect on their abilities. Again it seems to be an insult based on the race of Senator Obama. Because his name is not a traditional W.A.S.P. styled name that somehow confers a lack of something that say President John Fitzgerald Kennedy or President Millard Fillmore had. If anyone is swayed by such a comment, I am ashamed that they have a right to vote.

And then one of the kickers. Senator Obama is not Black? Since when? I suppose under the seemingly drug induced logic of the makers of this ad; I would not be Black either. I’m sure the racists that have called me N-word throughout my life would beg to differ. And what makes Senator Barack Obama not African American? That his mother is White? I’m sure that if most African Americans looked back in their family trees they would find a mixing of the races. My family includes Irish blood as well as White slave owners. But I’ve never had anyone mention that to me. And lets not forget that many White Americans have blood that is equally mixed, as some of the descendants of Thomas Jefferson learned from DNA tests not long ago.

The fact is every aspect of this ad is insulting and racist. It makes no credible claim against Senator Obama. It plays on the most base of reasons to not vote for this candidate. It oozes fear and ignorance.

I don’t doubt that most will reject this garbage instantly. But just like the small minds that created this ad, there are some that will be swayed. It’s a testament to the need of more movement forward on race relations in this nation. It disgusts me, and I have issues with any television station that will run this.

Much the same can be said about all the Swift Kids ads. They are without taste, credibility, or talent. They are vacuous in the claims they make and benefit no one. None should ever see the light of day, or coverage on television. This is no different than the MoveOn.org ad against General Petraeus. It insults all Americans, and diminishes everyone.

I hope to never have to see an ad like this again. Hopefully this post will help ensure that our nation’s politics never have to be dragged through filth like this again. And I suggest that everyone who sees this post asks their Congressional Representative and Senator to denounce these ads, just as they should have with the MoveOn.org ad. And I will judge those that will not vote, or vote in favor of this ad, as harshly as I did those who voted for MoveOn.org, or failed to vote.