Politics - the ultimate career

Ah the joy of politics. There is nothing like it. Only in politics can a person give a promise to millions of people, publicly, and then get a promotion when they fail miserably to follow thru. Only in politics can promises on the campaign trail be reversed 180 degrees once elected. Only in politics can a politician accept money that most would call influencing and still become one of the most powerful people in the free world.

It's called polispeak, at least by me. The act of saying and doing anything necessary to bolster a politicians power base and rise in the ranks while deluding the public. And there are plenty of politicians in office right now that are masters of this.

Barney Frank is one such politician. He adeptly changed his position on the mortgage crisis several times, matching the prevailing wind of public sentiment well enough to be untouched politically. How else could a politician say on tape that real problems don't exist and that he is on top of all the factors involved, then have all those problems explode in his face, and yet still maintain his elected position. Polispeak. Just blame everyone else and ignore what you have said before.

And another favorite is Senator Clinton. She has now become Secretary of State. Which is a joke. She has fought and won the ability to receive, via the William J. Clinton Foundation, tens of millions in donations from foreign Governments while she holds this post. She previously failed on promises to her Upstate New York constituents, promising to bring in 200,000 jobs and losing over 30,000 instead. She has reversed her position on illegal immigration so fast that only video of her conversation makes it possible to see how fast she polispoke (3 positions in 2 minutes at the same Primary debate, and in the same question). And she negotiated herself out of millions in debt (from her presidency run) and into a promotion while maintaining her bid for a future run at the Presidency and ignoring the racial comments she made in the campaign.

But let us not forget the polispeak of President Obama. He successful convinced the nation that he is not a far-left liberal, though his voting record is explicit in making that clear. He reversed his position on gay marriage. He avoided the weight of his political past, particularly his direct and close association with an admitted unrepentant terrorist, with a mere sentence. He has altered his positions somewhat on Iraq, the economy, and several other issues - even before getting sworn in. And his initial approval rating looks to be through the roof.

Politics is a unique field. And for those adept at polispeak it is the only place to be. It's even better than being a lawyer. Amazing.

Senator Hillary Clinton should not be Secretary of State

Perhaps one of the most telling things about why Senator Hillary Clinton should not be Secretary of State, or any other position in the Executive Office, has been raised by Senator Lugar during the confimation hearings the other day. It is simple and direct.

Senator Lugar clearly expressed the problem. Senator Clinton is directly tied to the Clinton Foundation. The Foundation is known for having recieved tens of millions of dollars in donations from overseas Governments and individuals that have lead to questionable (at the least) deals. It can be said that influence was bought via these donations. And as Secretary of State such a conflict of interest weakens and corrupts the Obama Administration.

So Senator lugar made a simple and easy request. He asked Senator Clinton to have the Clinton Foundation not receive foriegn donations while she holds the position in the Cabinet. This is not being focused on in the news media. Then again the media has been overwhelmingly propagandist for every Democrat that ran for President in 2008.

The response by Senator Clinton was terse and unconvincing. She says there is no conflict, which many disagree on. And past action/reactions from donations made to the Foundation show that. She wants to boast how this information about the Foundation was submitted to Congress, but does not mention that it took over 1 year for the Clintons to allow any information to be revealed, and it is still not fully disclosed even now. Which gives the impression that there is something to be hidden.

And her biggest point is that neither she nor Bill Clinton receive a salary from the Foundation. While true, they do have the power to direct where the funds in the Foundation is spent. Which to me is the same as a salary. Even better because it is a tax sheild (which they have used to protect at least $10 million).

She goes on to express why foreign governments gave donations, excluding every single Middle Eastern nation which gave more money than several of the nations she did mention combined. And if you listen carefully she states that she has worked to maintain the Foundation exactly as it is. Thus she is inflexible on a Foundation she claims to have no financial interest in, that can operate without the donations of foreign Governments, especially those nations questionable.

But the question not asked of her is why this Foundation cannot be treated like the brokerage accounts of many elected officials. A blind trust, or appointed trustees that would have sole control over the Foundation. Why can't Bill and Hillary Clinton forgo any control over the Foundation while she holds a position of influence in out Government??

Perhaps there is a portion of the "overhead" and "transparency" that is not quite as clear cut as she claims. And it seems that this is something that the Clintons will not give up. Even with the good and integrity of the nation on the line. Yet the Democrat-led Congress has no issue with this.

It's this simple. Would this same Congress have allowed a similarly qualified Republican with a similar foundation to be confirmed making the same statements? I believe not. Thus this is all polispeak to the detriment of the nation.

Secretary of State Clinton was a bad idea. It's a political backdoor deal that weakens the nation. She is a manipulative power hungry viper - in my opinion - who will damage the reputation and influence of the nation for no reason beyond her own ambitions.

Caroline Kennedy - a name with no place in politics

I've waited for a while now, just waiting for something from Caroline Kennedy to justify or remove her from consideration in replacing Senator Hillary Clinton. Mind you that I am not sorry to see Senator Clinton gone from office, as I am tired of her excuses on the broken promises that mark her time in New York. Though I am greatly saddened to see her working anywhere near the Executive Branch. But long-term readers know that, and this is about Kennedy.

Up til now there can be no question that Caroline Kennedy has zero qualifications for the Senate. She is a lawyer, like much of Congress. She is a Democrat, which at the moment gives her a boost. And she is the daughter of a revered dead President. Because if we are honest, that is the only reason any of us know her name.

Since she has never been politically active, which is a problem for me with anyone that would be Senator, we need to look at other aspects of this woman. She is part of the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, which I personally like but is not enough. She has worked for 2 years, 2002-4, and rose $65 million in private funds for schools in New York which is great. The job was only 3 days a week though and one must wonder how much money she could have raised if she worked a full 5 days, the schools in NY could have used the extra effort.

Still none of this is a qualification. Yes she helps people, and is a committed Democrat. But what can she do? And what does she plan to do to help the state in this very critical time? The New York Times and other news media had the same question and asked her just that on several issues. The answers reveal quite a bit.

Mrs. Schlossberg is shrewd, having given a total of $7300 to Clinton before she switched to Obama in September of that year and gave him $2300. At the same time she has not voted in numerous Primaries since 1988. So we can understand she is willing to let her money vote for her.

In addition we now know that she supports same-sex marriage, which 68% of the nation opposes - even in California and New York. Something that neither Clinton nor Obama support. Which makes me believe she is even more liberal than the former most liberal member of Congress - President Obama.

It also seems that she opposes any restriction on abortion. This is another far-left Democrat policy stance. It includes, and Kennedy defered to not answer about, partial birth abortions. Even those in favor of abortion have issues with that. But seemingly not Kennedy, though she prefers to avoid having to make polispeak about such a position.

And in a hat tip to the Pelosi led Congress, she supports the mandating of public vote at unions. Thus taking away the normal right of secret ballots, and forcing workers to deal with peer pressure and criticism for co-workers and management. How kind.

And of course she is in favor of the auto bailout. Something that all Democrats are pushing to advance, though none have answered a simple question. When the auto industry came back to Congress after using up $25 billion in bailout money in one month, they stated that they HAD to have $50 billion or they would fail. Congress is trying to provide $15-35 billion instead, with a "car czar" (otherwise known as more government interference resulting in another Barney Frank). Since this is not $50 billion, and thus means the auto industry will fail and/or come back for more money, why does she support the lesser amount? No Democrat has a good answer for that, though they have been very good at avoiding the question.

And we know that Kennedy is anti-gun, which places her at odds with most of the state - except New York City. And it is the City that NY politicians proffer to.

Speaking of which, surprisingly she backs her uncles plan to make illegal immigrants (otherwise known as undocumented workers - the missing document is a greencard and reason to be in the U.S.) citizens. Pay a fine and swear in. We might as well make citizenship available on eBay.

But in a question that hits the pockets of the people in the state Kennedy is mum about capping property taxes. Or on taxing the higher income brackets more (which still would not make up the shortfall that the new spending creates).

So all in all what can we surmise? Kennedy is a liberal the likes of which we have not had in this state as far back as I can remember. She is more liberal than Clinton, and Obama. And if you wonder why might that be a bad thing recall this. Senator Clinton PROMISED to bring 200,000 jobs to New York State if upstate New York voted her in. We have lost over 30,000 jobs as of 2007, long before the current crisis hit.

Do you believe a more liberal, pro-illegal immigrant, anti-second ammendment, spend and tax, lawyer with no experience in politics would be a good Senator? Without the last name, the answer can only be no. But what Gov. Patterson decides will happen. Sadly.

Obama - Biden: Where are the positives?

Well the political campaign ads for the Obama – Biden ticket are already coming out.



I notice that this ad finally notices that Darfur exists. Too bad Senator Obama did not have the balls to comment on it during the Primaries. Then again he had nothing to say about reparations either, just the same as Senator Joe Biden.

Of course the McCain campaign has already come up with a response.



I am glad that Senator Clinton is nowhere on the ticket. My thoughts on her are unchanged. She is too dangerous for America.

That said, she is right that Senator Obama has been scant in details on his plans. His definition of rich is ambiguous, his promise to lower taxes completely ignores small business owners. I disagree that Senator Obama’s friendship with Rezco is a definite problem. If it was some Chicago reporter would have found it by now.

But this Vice-President choice had me checking back to see what inconsistencies might be in the Obama campaign.

There is of course the fact that Biden disagrees with Obama on the experience needed for the Presidency, ‘old’ vs ‘new’ politics, healthcare, and of course Iraq. But that lead me to find the crazy polispeak of Senator Obama on Iraq.



Of course Senator Joe Biden disagrees with Senator Obama on Pakistan too. And has been to Iraq more.

Imagine the message this sends to the rest of the world when we know that the VP thinks the President uses “shorthand“ to discuss international policy, and the “wrong policy” at that.



If Democrats are happy with this match up, I can only imagine it’s because Senator Obama is the most liberal senator and Biden is in 3rd place. Other than that it will have to be political ads, because nothing else will work – without massive flip flops and polispeak to spin your head.

West Virginia and the Presidential election

So the primary race is now in West Virginia. And while it’s very early, indications are that Senator Clinton will win her 3rd state with a margin of over 20 points. That compares to Senator Obama in that he has won over a dozen states with that same margin. Thus a question comes to mind of why Senator Clinton winning with such a margin, especially when she has rarely been able to muster such a rally and of late has barely been able to accomplish a win at all.

One answer stands up among many others, and it’s an answer few have been willing to comment on though it has been a factor in this Democratic nomination process since Senator Obama announced he would run in 2007. Race. The other factor, to a far lesser degree is gender.

Let’s be honest. That is the motivating factor today, and in several of the states so far. Several commentators have mentioned that voters in West Virginia are noting that Senator Obama’s perceived religion is a factor. Perceived because they claim he is a Muslim. And Senator Clinton’s recent remarks, which can be boiled down to ‘elect the White woman not the Black man’, is also showing influence. So we see bias based on religion, gender, lies and racism hold sway with more than just a few voters in America.

And the pundits act as if they are shocked. Like the Clinton campaign never promoted images of Senator Obama as a drug dealer, or emails claiming he is a fanatical Muslim spy, or just directly insulting him because he is African American and running for the Presidency. Obviously they seem to have forgotten all the news events I have been writing about since 2006 here.

What does it take to look at the factual evidence and see what has been done for what it is? Or is the prospect of dealing with the reality of racial prejudice, even in the most liberal party, too unsavory for White Americans to deal with?

The fact is that both Senator Clinton and Obama are virtually the same on their political views. Their proposed platforms are near mirror images of each other. Differences are slightly more than cosmetic, more points of contention for pundits and news junkies like myself than actual preferences for most Americans. Thus the 2 things that are different have been emphasized and manipulated.

The Clinton campaign has not been shy in trying to use race and gender to their advantage. Calls seeking to minimize the damage to the Democratic Party have been unheeded since back in February. And in West Virginia, a state not known for its tolerance of religion or race, the lines cannot be crossed.

Remember, this is the same state where Megan Williams was kidnapped, raped, tortured and abused for over a week. It’s the same state that avoided national attention on this case. It’s a state that has virtually eliminated coverage of protests over the handling of the case – where the 6 White criminals still have not been charged with hate crimes though race has been seen as a big factor in this case.

Am I angry over this case? Hell yes! And I have made that clear in at least a dozen posts on multiple blogs. But when a Presidential candidate that has overtly used her race as a campaign tool is winning in a landslide in West Virginia, I can’t say I am shocked or even remotely surprised.

This leads me to another question. What factor will race play in the general election?

Senator John McCain seems to be above such petty actions as using race as a tool. I believe that as a soldier that has seen combat alongside soldiers of every race in America he is not so blind. I could be wrong. But I don’t feel he will use race. And Senator Obama has clearly tried to avoid this issue as much as possible, notwithstanding the attacks and comments of former-President Bill Clinton, Senator Clinton, and her campaign (and the media driven insanity over the five 10 second polispeak clips of Rev. Wright from over an unknown number of years).

But race is going to be as big a factor in this election as what America will do in Iraq. It may not be spoken directly, but it will be there. And I have no doubt that many of those less bold than some in West Virginia will bring it to the fore, even if the media tried to turn a blind eye to the racial storm they have helped to build.

So can America look at 2 men for the same position and not see their race but just their qualifications? If we take our cue form the business world, the answer is no. Just count on one hand the CEO’s of major corporations in the stock market. If we go by law enforcement the answer is no. Just listen to the changes in testimony of the Sean Bell case, or the actions of the police in Philadelphia. If we look at the media in general we get an adamant no. With barely 2% of the population shown in media being non-White, and the propensity of news organizations to demonize African Americans (see my comments on the full coverage of Wesley Snipes, or Bobbie Cutts, or OJ Simpson, or Sean Taylor, or the Jena 6, or Megan Williams, or the ‘Barbie’ bank robbers of Atlanta, or Sean Bell, and I can keep going on), the position is undeniably clear.

Given all that, this election will be a landmark for many reasons. The degree and manner in which race is used. The vocalizations of citizens over race. The perceptions promoted about race in various formats. The number of people that will vote based on color, and the number that will vote based on color to make a point of one extreme or another. And of course there is the question of the issues facing America.

Now I do notice and comment on how race affects me and the nation as I see it. Of course that comes to fore in covering the Presidential election. But I am not motivated by, nor condone or agree with the use of race as a factor on who should win. I believe that America needs the best person possible to lead this nation on a path that we will not be able to alter for at least a decade or more.

While I will not shy away from race being used in the race for the Presidency, I will not advance it as a reason. As I have noted at the beginning of covering this election, my goal is getting the best President elected. That is still my focus. With Senator Clinton all but out of the election my focus is now on the 2 remaining candidates. Both have been individuals that I favor. I will soon make my own decision on which I feel is best. I will make that decision known. But I will not let that color my coverage, as best as I am able.

Remember, we as citizens have an obligation to our nation. That obligation is to vote and pick the best person possible for our future. We only get one vote, so make it count. Because one it’s done we can’t go back.

Senator Hillary Clinton on The O’Reilly Factor discussing America

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

Here is the first part of their conversation



Now here are my thoughts:

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

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

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

But directly pertaining to the video are the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do you agree?

ABC Pennsylvania debate disservice to voters and America

So after the ABC Democratic Presidential debate we are left with less useful information on the candidates and their plans for the nation. Many have made comments about the fact that it took 63 minutes before the first question of substance occurred. I believe George Stephanopolis stated

‘Perhaps the most important question on the minds of voters is the economy…’

The most important question on our minds, yet asked 16th for the debate. Obviously ABC felt that style is more important in this Presidential election, and I would say most of the media agrees.

Since the first presentation by Fox News of the highly edited controversial comments of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, there has been little in the way of issues covered on the Democratic race. Discussion of hot topics about huge Liberal and Democrat issues like the war in Iraq, unions, illegal aliens, and the aforementioned economy were all essentially avoided. The Democratic race has devolved into a mud-slinging, name calling match of who is more likable or a pissing match over what minority is more in need of being the first to run for President.

Now I do agree that if it can be shown that the actions of Senator Obama have been, or are being, affected by Rev. Wright it is a problem. I agree that pittances of the comments by Rev. Wright are objectionable. I have no problem with Rev. Wright, now in retirement, moving into a $1 million home, that home being on a golf course, or that the location is predominantly White as some, notably Bill O’Reilly, seem to have issue with. Rev. Wright spent 30+ years building a successful and strong church. His retirement reflects that, and I don’t know why some feel that a Black man loses their credibility, or the weight of prejudice, because they become successful leave the cities and enjoy the fruit of their labor. But that is a subject for another post. Essentially there has been nothing that connects the voting or comments of Senator Obama to Rev. Wright so it is a non-issue for the election.

I also agree that Senator Clinton’s lies about her political influence and experience are important. Lying to the American public is more than a character issue; it is a vital indication of the potential actions of the Commander-and-Chief in 2009. Bosnia is not a misspoken comment, but a blatant lie made to buy votes – proven a fraud by 1st hand witnesses and video tape of the event. The actual negotiators of the Ireland peace process debunked any attempt to grab headlines due to her serving tea outside of the actual talks. This is a real issue because of the lengths used to obfuscate the truth and gain political advantage.

But these are not issues that demand 2 weeks of attention. How many U.S. Presidents never wore a lapel pin during wars, and yet served America with honor and pride? How many Presidents grew up with, and/or knew less than immaculately impeccable people? How many Presidents made more or less money, gave more or less to charity, were older or younger than competitors, or had religious figures and/or friends that made comments some portion of this nation objected to?

Now consider this. How many Presidents have raised taxes during difficult economic times, and how often has that plan worked? How many Presidents allowed America to run from a battle, and what has been the long-term effect on America from that decision? How many Presidents have failed to act on illegal drugs entering the nation, failing to fund education, allowed divisions based on race or religion; and what has been the popularity, effect on the nation, and response from the world?

Those are questions we need to hear answers to. Listening to politicians’ polispeak their way out of media generated snafus could be fun, if it were not for the fact that in avoiding real issues we endanger America. That doesn’t matter if you are Conservative, Liberal, Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. The lack of choice and facts limits the options for voters and therefore America.

If I want to be entertained, there are a boggling number of venues on the idiot box that will gladly sap away my brain cells as fat deposits melt me into a chair. Even if I want to get political parodic commentary and polispeak spin I need only reach for my remote, or type up youtube.



Pennsylvania voters have an obligation to the nation, one that but be paid in full on the 22nd. They must ignore the people not in the race. They must avoid the ratings oriented media. They need to look at the actual issues the nation faces and vote for whomever they believe has the best answer for America. Anything less, anything altered because of a personal bias based on race, gender, or regional preferences is un-American and a disservice to the nation.

The news media is a media outlet first. They want to get ratings, and every news organization on television regularly edits, modifies, and ignores newsworthy stories solely with the goal of ratings in mind. That can be easily proven by numerous stories I have covered that they have ignored or glossed over in the past 3 years. If you don’t believe it just look at the cover of TIME magazine.



I have spent over a year covering various aspects of the Democrats, Republicans, and issues in this Presidential election. I am not alone in that. But unlike the major news media, I am not doing this because I expect to get a greater share of the internet audience, it’s because I believe we all deserve a better America. And if anyone in Pennsylvania votes without that in their mind, they are wasting a right that untold numbers of Americans over centuries have died for.

Freedom is not free; making a vote based on the issues is the least one can do as payment.

$31,850 is the new definition of rich

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Florida and Michigan: More at risk than Democratic nomination

America is a nation of rules. Rules and the ways that we break them. If we look at baseball, particularly the MLB, we have steroids and the homeruns that fans love. If we look at football we have videotaping and the Super Bowl that is the number one event year after year. In the most important event that happens once every 4 years, not the World Cup – which is phenomenal – nor the Olympic Games, we now have a similar situation.

By that I mean we have Michigan and Florida. The event is the Presidential election. The leader of the free world and unarguably the strongest nation in the world is an event everyone should pay attention to. It’s an event that affects everyone. And it is the one event where the rules have consequences that are irrevocable.

Yet Michigan and Florida, and by extension the Democratic Party, feel that the rules established are not applicable to them. There is no advocate of throwing out the rules greater than Senator Hillary Clinton.

Long before there was a nomination race, before there was chaos in the Democratic Party, and before the Clinton campaign decided to throw everything and the kitchen sink at Senator Obama all the potential candidates agreed with the Democratic Party in penalizing Michigan and Florida.

Those 2 states were told not to move their Primary dates. They were told that to do so would cost them their delegates. Everyone understood the outcome if they violated this. And they did it anyway.

But today, they want to be in the game. They are demanding to have their delegates re-instated. They are devising plans to re-do their votes and alter the current nomination race. And in doing so they are laughing at the votes of every Democrat that has voted in a primary so far, in my opinion.

If these states are allowed to ignore their penalty, why can’t any other state? Why can’t all the Democrats get to re-vote, and why can’t all the candidates that were involved earlier allowed to jump back into the race? If one rule is to be ignored, then what rule is valid?

Where is the leadership that should stand up and say we are a nation of rules and laws. That none are above this, and that all are held equally to these rules. Because to do otherwise is to favor one candidate over another and to invalidate the votes of the public.

Sour grapes, and a desire to feel important is not a reason to alter the outcome of what has happened. Political ambition and a desire for power is not a reason to manipulate the public. And in doing so once, a presidence is set to do it always. Thus we move from a Democracy to another form of government, paving a path to hell with supposed good intentions and the so called best interest of the people at heart.

Some Democrats are claiming that keeping the penalty in place is disenfranchising the public. A year ago there was no worry about that. Before the Primaries there was no problem with ignoring portions of the party in those states. No cries of unfairness rang out. Because there are rules and penalties.

But political favor and gain motivate the call for changing the playing field now. Any politician that says otherwise is a liar. This is a game for control, and the public is being used as pawns.

No matter the outcome of any action that includes the delegates of Michigan and Flotrida, you the public and voters will be used and manipulated.

That does not mean that you should not vote. It does mean that members of the Democratic Party should hold their representatives accountable. That you should make them aware that their power comes from you. That your vote is their ultimate power and anything that dilutes your power destroys them.

Mark my words, if the changes being proposed for Florida and Michigan come to pass America will be damaged. Whether that is felt immediately in this election, or in a future election I do not know. But it will happen.

Senator Clinton may need this kind of stunt, and may use her power to alter the situation, but that just makes me sure that she is unfit for the Presidency. If she, as a leader of the Democratic Party, cannot abide by rules she was involved in creating and agreed to then what in the world makes anyone think she will be willing to abide by any other law, rule, or decision of the nation? And how can a person without regard for anything but what they want, be trusted with the power of the most powerful and influential nation in the world?

Florida and Michigan may not like the penalties, and Senator Clinton may prefer a change for her benefit, but America is a nation of rules and laws. That is something that must be remembered, because unlike a game for entertainment the Presidency is about our lives and there is no instant replay to correct a bad call.

Preparing for the Pennsylvania Primary

For those in Pennsylvania that will be voting soon, think on this. Hillary did not go to Arkansas, where the Clintons had a long history in politics to be elected to Senate – she went to NY State. She won in part because she promised Upstate New York the creation of 200,000 jobs – in fact the area has lost 30,000 during her tenure.

Then ask yourself, what law has Senator Clinton passed? What cause has she championed and made change for? Not what has she made a speech about, but a real change or law. [Yes Senator Obama has done nothing as well, but he just got into the Senate, Hillary is in her 2nd term.]

Then ask yourself one last thing. Character is a major part of any American President. It factors into everything they do, and how they are perceived at home and internationally. Part of a persons character is judged by the company around and supporting that individual.

Around Senator Clinton we find:

• Mayors that refuse to allow our soldiers returning from Iraq to enter their airport
  
• A husband that lied to the entire nation and committed adultery
  
• Support from an organization that insults our soldiers and their commitment to America
  
• A 15 year fugitive from the law that provided her campaign $1 million of stolen money that they didn’t want to return
  
• A Governor that violated his oath to the court and the people of his state, broke the law, embarrassed is family, created on his wife, and imperiled the smooth operations of his state
  
• A business man that made his money on the back of promoting stereotypes about Blacks, objectified women, and stooped to making racial attacks about her opponent.
  

If you don’t know their names they are (in order) – Mayor Gavin Newsom, former-President Bill Clinton, Moveon.org, Norman Hsu, Eliot Spitzer, and Bob Johnson.

Do you really want to elect that type of person?

If so then vote for her. But if not, go out and make your voice heard clear. Vote whatever you believe, but be involved. If not you may be sorry for what you will have forced on you.

Senator Hillary Clinton: Ireland and Sinbad tell the truth

In the past day events have unfolded to fuel the fire for those that question the supposed ‘experience’ of Senator Hillary Clinton. With these events, the probable loss in Mississippi, and the growing complaints of the public against the Clinton campaigns plans to assume the votes in Michigan and Florida, not to mention the potential of Super Delegates voting against the popular leader Senator Obama the Democratic Party is approaching chaos.

It started with the comments of David Trimble. He may not be a name many in the U.S. know, but in Ireland there is no question of who he is. He was a key figure in creating peace in Ireland, ending the terrorist attacks of the I.R.A.

Senator Hillary Clinton made a claim on national television that she “helped bring peace to Northern Ireland”. It was seen around the world, and those involved in the process were quick to correct the record.

"I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill (Clinton) going around," Trimble said, adding, "I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player," The Sunday Telegraph reported.

The 3 am call doesn’t seem as sure in the hands of Senator Clinton does it? Worse yet, she blatantly lied to the American public for your vote. She lied about what she did, and took credit for what her husband did. In writing that’s called plagarism.

If you think that was just an enthusiastic overstating of her actions accompanying the former-President Bill Clinton you may be thinking about her work in Bosnia. As was stated by Senator Clinton, it described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call.

That sounds impressive if you didn’t know that there were 2 other people with the Senator. And in the words of Sinbad, a comedian and one of those people with her in 1996,

“the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'”

In fact he goes on to mention a very logical thought about how dangerous any of the places then-First Lady Clinton went to were,

“What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'”

That tends to make sense. How pleased would the American people be if then-President Bill Clinton sent his wife into an active warzone and she died? How politically stupid would that be? At what point would the Secret Service be willing to allow her to be in that kind of danger?

So again it would seem that Senator Clinton has lied to the American public, and presented less reasons why we should believe that she has “35 years of experience” when she has never served more than 8 years (her current amount of time as NY Senator) in public office.

So I will ask this, do you want an inexperienced liar as the Democratic nominee and potentially President? Women, do you really want this woman to represent the best interests for you? African Americans, do you believe that she is looking out for our interests? Hispanic/Latinos, do you think she will live up to any of the claims she has made?

If you don’t believe me, just check the site and you will find the posts and links. Or search the net. These are all facts of what she has done, and my opinion. Remember, “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And Senator Clinton seems to be pretty far from innocent or clean to start.

If that doesn’t matter then get out there and vote for her. If it does, then definitely go out and make your vote count. Because the alternative appears to be a woman that will say anything to get a vote and become the most powerful person in America and I believe the world.

What makes a Clinton-Obama Presidential ticket attractive

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

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

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

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

What ever you do, just get out and vote.

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 results after March 4th Primaries

So Hillary Clinton won 3 states on March 4th. Senator Obama won the caucuses and 1 state. The net result? No real change, no answers, no nominee in the Democratic Party.

For all the hoopla that the Clinton campaign has made recently, they really have accomplished nothing. Except for furthering the divide among Democrats, and showing the nation the extent she is willing to go to. And if the Republican Party is paying attention they are amassing a huge list of questions and points to attack whoever is the nominee.

I’ve stated previously the multiple racial attacks, rumors, and outright lies in the Democratic race. Not one has come from the Republican Party. Almost all of them have come from the Clinton campaign. And as the nomination battle stretches on, things only look like they will get worse.

Plans are already being made to have the agreed upon rules thrown out where they relate to Michigan and Florida. A favorite tactic of Democratic candidates, lawyers and court battles, are being spoken about on the horizon. Whispers of re-doing Primaries in those 2 states are whirling about.

Of course this says nothing about the lesson that is teaching the young voters in this cycle. When a penalty is given for breaking rules, it really isn’t a penalty if candidates don’t like the rules outcome. It doesn’t matter what voters choose because the Democratic Party can use Super Delegates to potentially ignore their votes. And everything is considered fair game in getting elected, if race and religion is involved.

I am left pondering a thought. Do Democrats actually think they will win the Presidential election? The current candidates are trading barbs about experience. Neither has any really. Definitely not when compared to Senator McCain. Expect to see the 3am phone call commercial again, and expect that the question will be if America wants a renown war hero and dedicated elected official to pick up that phone, or a candidate that might have watched her husband answer that call before or a candidate that has never had to make such a serious decision before.

Democrats are making their party split along lines of race and gender. Race is a weapon in this election, used so far as a means to diminish and insult. Gender is an excuse to avoid answering questions, engender favor, and to claim bias when momentum is lost. So depending on which candidate is picked, a large portion of voters may lose interest in the election and not show up.

And scandals are being created or re-surfacing. The failure of the Clinton campaign to reveal their taxes implies that they are afraid to let Democratic voters see where their money has come from. The failure of the Clinton campaign to release records from President Bill Clinton’s administration hints of other negatives. And questions of an association from the past, which has been investigated and researched for years in Chicago without a single claim of wrong-doing, are surfacing now as if they were a lightning bolt of wrong. But don’t forget that the Clinton campaign has taken stolen money from a fugitive of the law that was strongly involved with the campaign.

Again what has been the net result of the wins by Senator Clinton on March 4th? Greater fuel for the Republican Party and Senator McCain. Greater exposure of the American public to the issue of race as a factor. Greater emphasis on the lack of experience of the Democratic Party. More division in the Democratic Party. And a lot more bickering on how and when to break rules.

The longer this goes, the more I have to believe this will not be good for anyone but Republicans.

Clinton campaign paints a blacker Obama

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote what you think, but be sure to vote!

Clinton vs. Obama - is there a real difference?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There were one or more vote differences on the following:

Appropriations:

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

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

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

Let me know what you think.

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?

Democratic Presidential candidates tactics and behavior

I love this line,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Clinton fights for Ohio, Texas Primary wins

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Senator Obama expands lead after Wisconsin vote, Clinton in trouble

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yet this has not prevented Senator Clinton from stating

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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